alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
From: audreyrmcdonald@gmail.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 7:12:00 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,

Audrey McDonald

Evansville, IN 47712
From: PlaAsng4me@aol.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 6:13:31 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,

Kathy Shepardson

Olmsted Falls, OH 44138
From: bkirkup@yahoo.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 5:58:01 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,

Karen Kirkup

Playa Del Rey, CA 90293
### Regulatory Evaluation

Docket No. FAA

- 2011

- 0731 Directorate Identifier: 2010

-NE

- 39

- AD If you make changes to the values in the table below, you must ensure the totals update accordingly. If they do not, click (or Tab) into an d then out of the changed cell

. Estimated Costs:
Action (e.g., Inspection, replacement) Costs per Product (e.g., aircraft, engine,

propeller, appliance) Work

- h ours (include access, testing, and close

- up) Labor

cost ( @ $8 5 /h our) Part s Cost Total Costs ( labor + parts) Number of

U.S. Registered Products Total Cost

for U

. S

. Fleet

HPC shaft r 

### eplacement 180.0 $15,300. 00 $210,211 $225,511.00 

### 0 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0 .00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 

### The known number of products in compliance: Total Costs of compliance for U.S. fleet: $ 0 

### Costs covered under warranty ( if known ) $ 

### Special considerations for Economic Analysis (Use this field to explain anything in the Estimated Costs table that was assumed or might not be obvious. This field can also be used to explain warranty costs) 

### :

Executive Order 12866: Could the AD be considered a “significant regulatory action”? YES * NO
* Explanation:

### DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures:

Is the AD significant? YES * NO
* Explanation: Regulatory Flexibility Act: Will the AD have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities? E xplain for either a Yes or No answer. YES NO Explanation: Intrastate Aviation in Alaska: This AD could affect intrastate aviation in Alaska. Is it appropriate to include specific requirements for aircraft operated in Alaska where aviation might be the only mode of transportation? YES * NO


### * Explanation 

### :
EXHIBIT 32.2

Certification of CFO Pursuant to

18 U.S.C. Section 1350,

as Adopted Pursuant to

Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Ambac Financial Group, Inc. (the Company) for the period ended March 31, 2010,
as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), David Trick, as Chief Financial Officer of the Company, hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of
the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of his knowledge:

(1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of
Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

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



|       |  |                                                                
|------ |  | ---------------------------------------------------------------
|       |  | /s/ David Trick                                                
|Name:  |  | David Trick                                                    
|Title: |  | Senior Managing Director, Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer
|Date:  |  | May 17, 2010
**EXHIBIT
      32.2**





**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 the Quarterly Report of Bayfield Low Income Housing Limited
      Partnership (the “Partnership”) on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2005
      as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
      “Report”), I, Paul Maddock, Chief Financial Officer of the General Partner of
      the Partnership, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted
      pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best
      of
      my knowledge:





(1)
            The
                Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d)
                of
                the Securities Exchange Act of 1934;
                and





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





A
      signed
      original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided
      to
      the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities
      and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.





*/s/* Paul
      Maddock


Paul
      Maddock


Principal
      Financial Officer
September 15,2014

Dennis J. McLerran, Regional Administrator U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 10 1200 Sixth Avenue Mail Code: RA-140 Seattle, WA 98101 RE: Withdraw SIP revisions for PM2.5 inter-pollutant offsets Dear Dennis: 

### Environmental Quality H_ca._dqturters 811 SW Sixth Avenue Portland, OR 97204-1390 (503) 229-5696 FAX (503) 229-6124 TTY: 711

As the Governor's designee for the Clean Air Act State Implementation Plan, the Oregon Department ofEnvironmental Quality requests withdrawal ofthe SIP revisions for OAR 340-225- 0090(2)(a)(C). The revision concerns PM2.5 inter-pollutant offsets. DEQ submitted the revisionto EPA onMay 5, 2011 and thenresubmittedthe revision onDecember 20, 2012. EPA is unable to approve the revisions without supplemental information. Itis possible DEQ mayresubmitthe revisions afterresolving outstanding issues. Thank you for your assistance with these revisions to Oregon's SIP. Ifyouneed additional information or have questions, please contactAndrea Oartenbaum, SIP Coordinator at (503) 229-5946. Sincerely,
\ \ Jori,Hammond, Deputy Director CC David Collier, DEQ AQ Planning Paul Koprowski, EPA Oregon Operations office Justin Spenillo, EPA, Region 10 Andrea Oartenbaum, DEQ SIP Coordinator Robbye Lanier, Lane Regional Air Protection Agency
From: mark@usjulians.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 3:48:43 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,

Mark Julian

Columbia, MO 65201
Ju ly 1 8, 2014 confidential deliberative draft

New Hampshire’s List of Questions for 7/22 call with EPA on 111(d) 1. The “Alternative Renewable Energy A pproach ” based upon technical and economic potential supported by the National Renewable Energy Laboratory study as described in EPA’s Technical Support Document posted on EPA’s website seems to be more reasonable. Can EPA quickly recalculate the individual state goals using that approach and make the results available for review before the close of the comment period ? 2. EPA included updated RGGI in the ba se case, awarding no credit for reducing from 91 million ton 2014 cap to 78.2 million 2020 cap, in addition to no credit for 40+% reduction from 2005 to 2012 . Why isn’t credit being given to the RGGI States for 14% reduction that is anticipated to be achi eved from 2014 to 2020? 3. EPA’s building block #2 for NH assume s that all coal -fired generation is re - dispatched to gas, resulting in projected NH 2020 - 2030 annual emissions of 3,644,062 tons, providing an incentive for increased operation of existing lower- emitting (878 lb/MWh) Natural Gas Combined Cycle (NGCC) plants. Building blocks #3 & #4 add MWh to the denominator of the lb/MWh rate - based goal. They achieve no further mass reductions. Would EPA agree that NH’s mass - based goal should be at least 3,644,062 tons? If not, why not? If the 4- block goal of 486 lbs/MWh is used to convert from rate - based to mass - based, may NH include the total MWh (NGCC, RE, 6% nuclear, and EE) that EPA used to set the goal in the calculation? Alternatively, may the 2 - block goal be used for the conversion and the NGCC + 6% nuclear + existing 2012 non - hydro generation be used in the calculation? If not, would n’t this result in the perverse incentive of decreased operation of NGCC in NH? 4. Taking all of the above into conside ration, if the States were to ask, how quickly can EPA provide RGGI States with EPA’s presumptive translation of the rate - based goal to the mass - based goal, for all 49 States ?
COMPUTATION OF EARNINGS PER SHARE
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>


                                                           Six Months Ended March 31
                                                              1998              1997
<S>                                                           <C>               <C>

Weighted average shares outstanding
         Common stock                                       4,555,540            3,170,540
         Common stock equivalents                             431,911              258,947
                                                       ---------------      ---------------


Weighted average common shares and
     equivalents                                            4,987,451            3,429,487
                                                       ===============      ===============


Net income                                               $    120,628        $  1,050,315
                                                       ===============      ===============

Net income per share:
         Basic                                         $        0.03        $        0.33
         Diluted                                       $        0.02        $        0.31


</TABLE>
<PAGE>


                                                                    EXHIBIT 99.1

                            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 the Annual Report of Integrated Circuit Systems, Inc.
(the "Company") on Form 10-K for the period ending June 29, 2002 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
Hock E. Tan, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002, that:

     (1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

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


/s/ Hock E. Tan
----------------------------
Hock E. Tan
Chief Executive Officer
November 11, 2003
From: dcgunn@gmail.com

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 4:34:12 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,

Dale Gunn

Hudson, MA 01749
EXHIBIT 31.1





Certification of CEO and CFO Pursuant to


Securities Exchange Act Rules 13a-14 and 15d-14


as Adopted Pursuant to Section 302 of the


Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002





I, Charles Adelman, certify that:





1.   I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-K of Adelman Enterprises, Inc.;





2.   Based on my knowledge, this quarterly report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact  necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this quarterly report;





3.   Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this quarterly report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the Company as of, and for, the periods presented in this quarterly report;





4.   I am responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the Company and have:





a)   designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under my supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the Company, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to me by others within those entities,  particularly during the period in which this quarterly report is being prepared;





b)   evaluated the effectiveness of the Company's disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and





c)   disclosed in this report any change in the Company’s internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the Company’s most recent fiscal quarter that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the Company’s internal control over financial reporting; and





5.   I have disclosed, based on my most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the Company’s auditors and the audit committee of Company’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):





a)   all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal  controls over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the Company’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and





b)   any fraud, whether or not material,  that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the Company’s internal controls over financial reporting.





April 20, 2011
By:
/s/ Charles AdelmanCharles AdelmanPresident and Chief Executive Officer
OAR Box 1828 

Prepped by Ollie Stewart 

Document Number: 

203) ll-K-(I)-16 

Docket Number: 

A-83-27 

Printed 11/12/200811:12:55 AM Sheet 203 of 325 

P.1 
P.2 

A\=e 

II-K-(J0-16 

COAL UTILIZATION MODEL OF THE INDUSTRIAL SECTOR. VOL. 

I AND II. PRIMARY MODEL DOCUMENTATION. 

EEA, Inc. 

October 23, 1978. 

THIS INFORMATION CAN BE FOUND IN DOCKET A-79-02, ITEM 

II-K-(I)-16