alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Health and Human Services

###### National Institutes of Health

                    Notice is hereby given of a change in the meeting of the National Advisory Dental and Craniofacial Research Council, September 12, 2023, 4:45 p.m. to September 13, 2023, 3:30 p.m., National Institutes of Health, Natcher Building, 45 Center Drive, Bethesda, MD 20892, which was published in the                     **Federal Register**                     on August 17, 2023, FR Document 2023-17712, 88 FR 56028.                

The National Advisory Dental and Craniofacial Research Council Open and Closed Sessions meeting room has changed from the Natcher Building, 45 Center Drive, Bethesda, MD 20892, and will now be held at the John Edward Porter Neuroscience Research Center Building, 35 Convent Drive Room 620/630, Bethesda, MD 20892. Meeting times remain the same. The meeting is partially closed to the public.

Dated: August 29, 2023.

Melanie J. Pantoja,

Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.

[FR Doc. 2023-19017 Filed 9-1-23; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
From: Kathleen Oldfather

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Preventative Care and Contraception

Date: Thursday, August 11, 2011 3:15:00 PM

To those concerned,

I join with the American Association of University Women (AAUW) in asking you

to accept the recommendations of the Institute of Medicine as pertain to

coverage of preventive care under the new health care law, and to reject any

exemptions for “religious employers.” These preventive services are a critical

element of the new law and would provide countless women better access to

necessary health care.

While AAUW believes that “religious refusal” exemptions unjustly deny women

access to contraceptive services, others, driven by an ideological distaste for all

contraceptive services, are pushing the government to make exemptions even

larger. Indeed, some groups are pushing for the exemption to apply to

religiously-run health providers, so hospitals with religious affiliations would be

exempt from the coverage requirement, even though they employ people of all

faiths and ideologies. If granted, this larger exemption would deny access to

thousands of women just because of where they work.

I urge you to ensure women have access to quality preventive care by accepting

IOM’s recommendations and rejecting the proposed religious refusal exemption

provisions.

Kathleen Oldfather, RN, RB
Exhibit 4.67


 


 


 





Confirmation Letter


 


To:500WAN HK Limited (“500WAN
HK”)


 


Whereas:


 


500WAN HK is the sole shareholder of E-Sun
Sky Computer (Shenzhen) Co., Ltd. (“E-Sun Sky Computer”) and holds 100% of the equity interest in E-Sun Sky Computer;


 


E-Sun Sky Computer accepted a Power
of Attorney respectively from Yu Bo (Chinese Identification No.: 420106196805034857) on Nov 18, 2015 and Yin Zhiwei(Chinese Identification
No.: 440301198308211914) on Nov 18, 2015 (collectively referred to as the “POA”). Pursuant to the POA,
Yu Bo and Yin Zhiwei respectively delegate and authorize E-Sun Sky Computer to exercise their voting powers and all other
shareholder rights in respect of Shenzhen Youlanguang Technology Co., Ltd on their behalf (the “Rights”).


 


Now therefore, with respect to the exercise
of the Rights, E-Sun Sky Computer hereby confirms as follows:


 


		1.	E-Sun Sky Computer hereby confirms that, in exercising the Rights under the POA,
it shall obtain the consent from 500WAN HK in the manner allowed by the PRC Laws.



 


		2.	E-Sun Sky Computer further confirms that it shall exercise the Rights in accordance
with the instructions from the third party designated by 500WAN HK within the scope allowed by the PRC Laws.



 


		3.	This confirmation letter shall become effective upon execution, and maintain effective unless the
POA is terminated in accordance with the provisions thereof.



 


		4.	The execution, effectiveness, construction, performance, amendment and termination of this confirmation
letter and the resolution of disputes hereunder shall be governed by PRC Laws.



 


		5.	This confirmation letter is written in both Chinese and English language; in case there is any
conflict between the Chinese version and the English version, the Chinese version shall prevail.



【Signature
Page Follows】


 


E-Sun Sky Computer (Shenzhen) Co., Ltd



By:/s/ Yu Bo


Name: Yu Bo


Title: Legal Representative


Date:2015.11.18
From: lyricessence@aol.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Date: Tuesday, August 16, 2011 5:16:25 PM

I join with the American Association of University Women (AAUW) in asking you to accept the

recommendations of the Institute of Medicine as pertain to coverage of preventive care under the

new health care law, and to reject any exemptions for “religious employers.” These preventive

services are a critical element of the new law and would provide countless women better access

to necessary health care.

While AAUW believes that “religious refusal” exemptions unjustly deny women access to

contraceptive services, others, driven by an ideological distaste for all contraceptive services, are

pushing the government to make exemptions even larger. Indeed, some groups are pushing for

the exemption to apply to religiously-run health providers, so hospitals with religious

affiliations would be exempt from the coverage requirement, even though they employ people of

all faiths and ideologies. If granted, this larger exemption would deny access to thousands of

women just because of where they work.

I urge you to ensure women have access to quality preventive care by accepting IOM’s

recommendations and rejecting the proposed religious refusal exemption provisions.

J B Waters
Here's how you know
 **Official websites use .mil** .mil
 **Secure .mil websites use HTTPS** lock () https://


Skip to main content (Press Enter).
 Toggle navigation
            
            U.S. Central Command
                CENTCOM
        Search
                    Search CENTCOM:
                        Search
                Search CENTCOM:
                    Search
    Home

    ABOUT US
    
        COMMAND PRIORITIES

    LEADERSHIP

    COMPONENT COMMANDS

    HISTORY

    POSTURE STATEMENT

    CENTCOM AOR
    
        CENTCOM COALITION

    OPERATIONS AND EXERCISES
    
        USMTM

    CIVILIAN CASUALTY REPORT

    CONTACT
    
        OPERATIONAL CONTRACT SUPPORT

    COMMUNITY RELATIONS

    THEATRE MEDICAL CLEARANCE

    INNOVATION VENDOR PORTAL

    MILITARY MEMBER INNOVATION PORTAL

    MEDIA
    
        SOCIAL MEDIA

    NEWS ARTICLES

    PRESS RELEASES

    STATEMENTS

    IMAGERY

    VIDEOS

    TRANSCRIPTS

    VISITORS AND PERSONNEL
    
        FAMILY CENTER

    FAMILY READINESS

    CENTCOM WEBMAIL

    SOCIAL MEDIA SECURITY

    ACCOUNTABILITY

    EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS

    USCENTCOM UNCLASSIFIED REGULATIONS

    FOIA LIBRARY

    INNOVATION OASIS

    WELCOME GUIDE  Search
 Search
 All Images All ImagesCommunity RelationsOtherPreviousCommanders
 Upload Date Upload DatePhoto DateTitle
  Share
  
 Small () Medium () Full Size (0.27 MB)
 
 Iraq
 Photo Gallery
 About UsCommand PrioritiesLeadershipComponent
   CommandsHistoryPosture Statement
   Area of
   ResponsibilityCENTCOM Coalition
   Operations And
   ExercisesOperation Inherent
   ResolveResolute Support
   MediaSocial MediaNews ArticlesPress ReleasesVideo And Imagery
   Visitors And
   PersonnelFamily ReadinessCENTCOM WebmailSocial MediaSecurityAccountabilityEmergency
   Preparedness
   ContactCommunity Relations
                    Stay Connected
                
                Privacy & Security  Inspector General  FOIA  Privacy Act
            

Hosted by Defense Media Activity - WEB.mil
From: Helen Elkiss

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Cc: VoterEd@aauw.org; Sally Bailey; Carol Napper

Subject: HHS and religious exemption

Date: Thursday, August 11, 2011 9:04:34 AM

August 11, 2011

Dear HHS:

What can you be thinking? In this day and age when abortion is such a

controversy, why would you limit access to contraception to women who

want to avoid an unwanted pregnancy? Denying a woman contraception

because her employer decides to dictate his/her religious beliefs onto

employees is totally against what this country stands for. With

unemployment so high a woman cannot just switch jobs and work for a

more enlightened employer. And, the same holds for men who work for

religious institutions, whose wives would be subjected to this convoluted

requirement. Additionally, an extra mouth to feed when there is not

enough money to support the children one already has would be a heavy

burden placed on many families.

At a time when conservatives want less government interference in the

lives of Americans, it seems highly hypocritical for them to advocate such

a rule be adopted by HHS. HHS must be true to its mandate of providing

"services" to the people of the USA. Do so by allowing women access to

contraception no matter who they work for. Do NOT create second class

citizens by passing this exemption to preventive care under the new health

care law.

I join with the American Association of University Women (AAUW) in

asking you to accept the recommendations of the Institute of Medicine as

pertain to coverage of preventive care under the new health care law, and

to reject any exemptions for “religious employers.” These preventive

services are a critical element of the new law and would provide countless

women better access to necessary health care.

While AAUW believes that “religious refusal” exemptions unjustly deny

women access to contraceptive services, others, driven by an ideological

distaste for all contraceptive services, are pushing the government to make

exemptions even larger. Indeed, some groups are pushing for the
exemption to apply to religiously-run health providers, so hospitals with

religious affiliations would be exempt from the coverage requirement,

even though they employ people of all faiths and ideologies. If granted,

this larger exemption would deny access to thousands of women just

because of where they work.

This wonderful country was founded on the separation of church and state.

A few religious fanatics cannot hold the women of the USA hostage.

Otherwise, what is the point of fighting the Taliban overseas when our

own government allows religious fanatics to subjugate the women of

America?

I urge you to ensure women have access to quality preventive care by

accepting IOM’s recommendations and rejecting the proposed religious

refusal exemption provisions.
From: andrew.harrod@live.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 12:16:06 PM

To Whom It May Concern:

I am writing today to ask in the strongest way possible that you rescind the unjust and coercive

mandate that all "contraceptives" and sterilization procedures be covered by private health insurance

with no co-pay to patients. If you do not reverse course I ask you to expand conscience protections for

any organizations that provide individual and group insurance and have moral or religious objections. I

strongly oppose the government forcing free insurance coverage on Americans especially for drugs and

devices that I oppose because some of these can cause an abortion (such as ella and Plan B).

I also ask you to reconsider your definition of religious employer and offer an authentic conscience

protection for any organization and business that has moral or religious objection to providing such

insurance to their employees. This legal mandate clearly violates the spirit of conscience laws which

prohibit government discrimination against those who object to various health services on moral or

religious grounds. The definition of "religious employer" in the regulation is so narrow as to only include

churches, but will still mean that a host of businesses and organizations that have conscience objections

will be required to choose between either violating their conscience or not being able to offer employees

health insurance.

Please protect the conscience rights of insurers, providers and people like me who object to being

forced by the federal government to offer or subsidize contraceptives and sterilization services, especially

when some of these drugs can take the life of early unborn children. No Americans should be forced by

the federal government to essentially subsidize services they object to. I again urge you in the strongest

way possible to reverse course and remove contraceptives and sterilizations from the list of mandatory

preventive services.

Sincerely,

Andrew Harrod

Arlington, VA 22203
Page 1 of 1

aah afd ;
KAGAL PRocessing pivision EC 120341 -10 SEP 0 2 201
IN & REGULATIONS
BRANCH [As of: September 02, 2011

Received: August 26, 2011
PUBLIC SUBMISSION __fPourea:Sevemter02,2011
osted: September 02,
[Tracking No. 80f01694
‘Comments Due: September 30, 2011
Submission Type: Web

Docket: IRS-2010-0017
Requirement for Group Health Plans and Health Insurance Issuers to Provide Coverage of

Preventive Services under the PatientProtection and Affordable Care Act

Comment On: IRS-2010-0017-0038
Group Health Plans and Health Insurance Issuers Relating to Coverage of Preventive Services

under Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act: Amendment

Document: [RS-2010-0017-0172
Comment on FR Doc # 2011-19684

33
Grlaaun Submitter Information

Submitter's Representative: NARAL Pro-Choice America

General Comment

1 strongly support the new policy requiring health-insurance plans to cover birth control without a
copay, CMS-9992-IFC2. Thank you for this important improvement to women's health care.

1 also want you to know that J am concerned that certain religious employers may be allowed to
opt out of the requirements, All women should have access to contraceptive coverage, regardless

of where they work.

This policy finally should make near-universal access to birth control
a reality for all women who use it.

Improving women's access to birth control is positive in so many ways.
A woman who can plan when to have a family is able to participate in
society more fully. Allowing women to space their pregnancies
contributes to healthy childbearing. And ultimately, fewer unintended
pregnancies can reduce the need for abortion.

Thank you for following science-based recommendations and making
women's health a priority.

http://fdms,erulemaking.net/fdms-web-agency/component/contentstreamer?objectId=09000.,. 9/2/2011
```

[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 226 (Wednesday, November 23, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Page 72391]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-30251]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

Office of the Secretary

[Docket ID DOD-2011-OS-0055]

Defense Logistics Agency Revised Regulation 1000.22, 
Environmental Considerations in Defense Logistics Agency Actions

AGENCY: Defense Logistics Agency, Department of Defense.

ACTION: Revised Defense Logistics Agency Regulation (DLAR) 1000.22.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: On May 18, 2011, the Defense Logistics Agency (DLA) published 
a Notice of Availability (NOA) in the Federal Register (76 FR 28757) 
announcing the revised Defense Logistics Agency Regulation (DLAR) 
1000.22 implementing the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, 42 
U.S.C. 4321 et seq. (NEPA) and Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) 
Regulations (40 CFR parts 1500-1508). The revised DLA regulation was 
available for a 30-day public comment period. DLA has incorporated the 
comment received from the Navy, and after a conformity review by the 
CEQ, DLA is adopting the revised regulation.

ADDRESSES: The final regulation is available for review on the 
following DLA Web site--http://www.dla.mil/dlaps/.

    Dated: November 18, 2011.
Aaron Siegel,
Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense.
[FR Doc. 2011-30251 Filed 11-22-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 5001-06-P
```
<PAGE>



                                  Exhibit 99.2

                                   Vicom, Inc.



                Certification Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350
                             As Adopted Pursuant to
                  Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

     In connection with this Annual Report Form 10-K, Vicom, Inc. (the
"Company") for the period ended December 31, 2002, I, Steven M. Bell, Chief
Financial Officer of the Company, hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section
1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
that:

1.   This Periodic Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a)
     or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d));
     and

2.   The information contained in the Periodic Report fairly presents, in all
     material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
     Company.


Date: March 31, 2003                    By: /s/ Steven M. Bell
                                           ------------------------------------
                                           Chief Financial Officer

<PAGE>
08-10-10 

Office ofConsumer Infonnation and Insurance Oversight 

Department ofHealth and Human Services 


Attention: OCIT0-9991-IFC 


P.O. Box 8Dl6 


Baltimore, MD 21244-1850 


Re: Interim Final Rule for Group Health Plans and Health Insurance Coverage Relating to 

Status as a Grandfathered Health Plan Under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act 

Below are my comments regarding the Interim Final Rule for ,Group Health Plans and Health 

Insurance Coverage Relating to Status as a Grandfathered Health P!an Under the Patienc 

ProtectioIi and Affordable Care Acf(PPACA). . ­

I believe that every effort should be made to increase the number ofindividuals covered by 

PPACA, especially as ofJanuary 1,2014 when most ofthe reform components (Insurance 

Exchanges, Subsidies, Tax Credits, etc.) come into play. 

The average consumer has a broad definition of"benefits." Consumers view their health plan 

beyond the covered benefits, cost sharing, and the contribution levels associated with the plan. 

It is my opinion that the Rule may still result in some confusion to the marketplace in its 

application. For example, if an employer raised the copayment level beyond the maximum in one_, 

area (i.e. outpatient services) but retained the copayment level for primary care doctor visits, 

does that mean a loss ofgrandfather status? Clarity will be critical both for the employer and the 

employee. 

Even by the most optimistic estimates, a substantial portion ofthe employee population will . 

remain outside the PPACA as ofJanuary 2014 based on the current rules. While I understand the 

difficulty involved in making change, creating another large sub-population ofexcluded 

individuals will only add to costs, increase confusion, and mitigate the potential impact ofthe 

legislation. 

._ ........
_- --The Rule'needs to'be"Clearl'easonable , ,. -andwith'no ambiunities-involved-in ~~ detenn

~~~~ ;nl1'iO' wb.etl1er~ --­

a group health plan is "in or out." The decisions the federal government makes today will 

determine the outcomes for tomorrow. We may need to make some difficult decisions to create 

a sustainable health care system that will support a growing economy in the future. That means 

getting as many citizens across the country participating at the beginning to make it work and 

delivering on its promises to retain their support. 

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this regulation. • • ,~<," 

..,. , ",Nt 

j~. .' ,",,- .. '

I~~~;,::; "."'~~'"i ," ".; ;~ "r;,o,' " ," , 

... "'l '
From: swdudley2@hotmail.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 11:54:41 AM

To Whom It May Concern:

I am writing today to ask in the strongest way possible that you rescind the unjust and coercive

mandate that all "contraceptives" and sterilization procedures be covered by private health insurance

with no co-pay to patients. If you do not reverse course I ask you to expand conscience protections for

any organizations that provide individual and group insurance and have moral or religious objections. I

strongly oppose the government forcing free insurance coverage on Americans especially for drugs and

devices that I oppose because some of these can cause an abortion (such as ella and Plan B).

I also ask you to reconsider your definition of religious employer and offer an authentic conscience

protection for any organization and business that has moral or religious objection to providing such

insurance to their employees. This legal mandate clearly violates the spirit of conscience laws which

prohibit government discrimination against those who object to various health services on moral or

religious grounds. The definition of "religious employer" in the regulation is so narrow as to only include

churches, but will still mean that a host of businesses and organizations that have conscience objections

will be required to choose between either violating their conscience or not being able to offer employees

health insurance.

Please protect the conscience rights of insurers, providers and people like me who object to being

forced by the federal government to offer or subsidize contraceptives and sterilization services, especially

when some of these drugs can take the life of early unborn children. No Americans should be forced by

the federal government to essentially subsidize services they object to. I again urge you in the strongest

way possible to reverse course and remove contraceptives and sterilizations from the list of mandatory

preventive services.

Sincerely,

Neil Dudley

San Diego, CA 92127