alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
§ 21.3 Application of this part. ( a ) This part applies to any program for which Federal financial assistance is authorized under a law administered by the Department, including the types of Federal financial assistance listed in appendix A to this part. It also applies to money paid, property transferred, or other Federal financial assistance extended after the effective date of this part pursuant to an application approved before that effective date. This part does not apply to: ( 1 ) Any Federal financial assistance by way of insurance or guaranty contracts;
( 2 ) Money paid, property transferred, or other assistance extended before the effective date of this part, except where such assistance was subject to the title VI regulations of any agency whose responsibilities are now exercised by this Department;
( 3 ) Any assistance to any individual who is the ultimate beneficiary; or
( 4 ) Any employment practice, under any such program, of any employer, employment agency, or labor organization, except to the extent described in § 21.5(c). The fact that a type of Federal financial assistance is not listed in appendix A to this part shall not mean, if title VI of the Act is otherwise applicable, that a program is not covered. Other types of Federal financial assistance under statutes now in force or hereinafter enacted may be added to appendix A to this part.
( b ) In any program receiving Federal financial assistance in the form, or for the acquisition, of real property or an interest in real property, to the extent that rights to space on, over, or under any such property are included as part of the program receiving that assistance, the nondiscrimination requirement of this part shall extend to any facility located wholly or in part in that space.
[35 FR 10080, June 18, 1970, as amended at 68 FR 51389, Aug. 26, 2003]
#### THE STATE OF NORTH DAKOTA EX REL. ALBERT H. SITTE, Resident and Landowner of the Village of Abercrombie, Richland County, North Dakota, Respondent, v. M. M. BORMAN, Ole Olson, James Holkestad, as the Board of Trustees within and for the Village of Abercrombie, Appellants.

(199 N. W. 38.)

Municipal corporations — determination oí questions concerning detachment of territory conclusive.

Under chapter 32, Laws 1921, the local governing bodies were clothed with exclusive power to determine all questions concerning the detachment and exclusion of territory from municipalities, and no provision was made for judicial review of their determinations on those questions, following Baker v. Lenhart, 50 N. D. 30, and State ex rel. Claver v. Broute, 50 N. D. 753.

Municipal Corporations, 28 Cyc. p. 207 n. 1.

Opinion filed May 3, 1924.

*39Appeal from tbe District Court of Richland County, Allen> J.

Reversed.

*G. PL. Korsvih*and *Lauder &*Lauder, for appellants.

*Purcell & Slattery*and *Wolfe & SchneUer,*for respondent.

Nuessle, J.

Tbe village of Abercrombie is a duly organized arid existing village, and bas been such for many years. Tbe relator, Albert H. Sitte, petitioned tbe defendants and appellants as tbe board of trustees of such village to disconnect and exclude certain real estate belonging to him from tbe village. Such petition was drawn and presented in accordance with tbe provisions of chapter 32, Sess. Laws 1921. There is no question as to the sufficiency of tbe petition. Tbe appellant board, after bearing, denied tbe petition. Thereupon this proceeding in mandamus was brought by tbe respondent to compel tbe appellants to grant tbe relief prayed for in tbe petition. Tbe appellants resisted, a trial was bad, and judgment entered awarding tbe respondent a peremptory writ of mandamus. From such judgment this appeal was taken.

This court bas heretofore construed tbe statute (Sess. Laws 1921, chap. 32) here involved. We have held that by that statute tbe local governing bodies were clothed with exclusive power to determine all questions concerning the detachment and exclusion of territory from municipalities, and that no provision was made for judicial review of their determinations on those questions. See Baker v. Lenhart, 50 N. D. 30, 195 N. W. 16; and State ex rel. Claver v. Broute, 50 N. D. 753, 197 N. W. 871. Those cases are decisive of this appeal.

Tbe judgment must be reversed.

Christianson, Johnson, and Birdzell, JJ., concur.

Bronson, Cb. J.

(dissenting). I dissent upon tbe grounds and for tbe reasons set forth in tbe dissenting opinions in Baker v. Lenhart, 50 N. D. 30, 195 N. W. 16, and State ex rel. Claver v. Broute, 50 N. D. 753, 197 N. W. 871.
Skip navigation and go straight to page content.

# National Aeronautics and Space Administration

## Goddard Space Flight Center

- Home
- Science    - Astronomer's Toolbox
  - Cosmic Objects
  - Big Questions
  - Featured Science
- Observatories    - Learning Centers
  - Satellite Showcase
  - How Scientists Get Data
  - Detection Technology
  - History of High Energy Observatories
- Special Exhibits    - Coloring Pages
  - Scientist Profiles
  - You Be the Astrophysicist
  - Cosmic Distance Scale
- Educators    - Lesson Plans
  - Materials
  - Programs
- Ask An Astrophysicist
- Resources    - Other Resources
  - Dictionary
- Search

Welcome to Imagine the Universe! This site is intended for students age 14 and up, and for anyone interested in learning about our universe. If you're looking for grade school level astronomy information, please see the StarChild web site. Enjoy your cosmic journey!

## Latest Features

### We've Expanded Our Coloring Pages

Imagine the Universe has expanded our collection of coloring pages. Besides the ones showing scenes from NASA's Black Hole Safety video, we now have coloring pages based on stained glass-inspired depictions of Fermi and its science, as well as a set with scenes from the NASA's Tips for Near-light-speed Travel video.

### Afterschool Universe is Now Hosted on Imagine the Universe

Afterschool Universe is an out-of-school-time curriculum for middle schoolers to learn about the universe and the ways that scientists study it.

### Cosmic Times is Now Hosted on Imagine the Universe

Cosmic Times is a series of curriculum support materials that trace the history of our understanding of the universe during the past 100 years, from Einstein's formulation of gravity to the discovery of dark energy.

### Stars exploding? Who would do such a thing?

Join detective Eagle Quark as he investigates the mystery of the exploding stars through the Space Forensics interactive game.

### Featured Scientist: Dr. Marc Kuchner

Marc Kuchner was born in Montreal, Canada, while his Dad as doing his residency at McGill University. However, he grew up in Long Island, New York, where his family moved when he was just 4 years old.

- Home
- Science    - Astronomer's Toolbox
  - Cosmic Objects
  - Big Questions
  - Featured Science
- Observatories    - Learning Centers
  - Satellite Showcase
  - How Scientists Get Data
  - Detection Technology
  - History of High Energy Observatories
- Special Exhibits    - Coloring Pages
  - Scientist Profiles
  - You Be the Astrophysicist
  - Cosmic Distance Scale
- Educators    - Lesson Plans
  - Materials
  - Programs
- Ask An Astrophysicist
- Resources    - Other Resources
  - Dictionary
- Search

HEASARCAstrophysics Science Division (ASD)NASAGSFC

          - The Imagine Team  Project Leader: Dr. Barbara Mattson  Curator: J.D. Myers  NASA Official: Dr. Andy Ptak      - Privacy Policy & Important Notices
- Contact NASA
- Contact Us
- Page Last Updated: Mon, Aug 02, 2021
#### § 217.5 Penalty.

Any person (an entity of any type covered under 1 U.S.C. 1, including but not limited to the following: a railroad; a manager, supervisor, official, or other employee or agent of a railroad; any owner, manufacturer, lessor, or lessee of railroad equipment, track, or facilities; any independent contractor providing goods or services to a railroad; and any employee of such owner, manufacturer, lessor, lessee, or independent contractor) who violates any requirement of this part or causes the violation of any such requirement is subject to a civil penalty of at least $1,086 and not more than $35,516 per violation, except that: Penalties may be assessed against individuals only for willful violations, and, where a grossly negligent violation or a pattern of repeated violations has created an imminent hazard of death or injury to persons, or has caused death or injury, a penalty not to exceed $142,063 per violation may be assessed. Each day a violation continues shall constitute a separate offense. See FRA's website at *www.fra.dot.gov* for a statement of agency civil penalty policy.

[53 FR 28599, July 28, 1988]

###### Editorial Note

#### Editorial Note:

For Federal Register citations affecting § 217.5, see the List of CFR Sections Affected, which appears in the Finding Aids section of the printed volume and at *www.govinfo.gov.*
```

[Journal of the House of Representatives, 1995]
[Tuesday, October 17, 1995 (129), Para 129.33 Adjournment]
[Page 1533]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]

para.129.33  adjournment

  On motion of Mr. FOX, at 9 o'clock and 22 minutes p.m., the House 
adjourned.
```
Served: October 20 , 2010

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY

WASHINGTON, DC

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

### SHUTTLE AMERICA CORPORATION

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



### NOTICE OF REGISTRATION OF TRADE NAME

On October 6 , 2010

, Shuttle America Corporation (“ Shuttle ”)

, a U.S

. certificated air carrier, 1

request ed that the Department regist e r the trade name “Continental Expr ess” for use in certain air

transportation operations

.

Part 215 (14 CFR Part 215) of the Department’s regulations provides that any air carrier wishing

to use an alternative trade name must first register that name with the Department. The rule

further states that the Department may register such name after the air carrier gives notification

to similarly named air carriers of the proposed use of the name. In this case, Shuttle currently

operates under the trade name “United Express,” and in light of the recent merger of United Air

Lines Inc. (“United” ) and Continental Airlines, Inc. (“Continental ” ) , Shuttle requires flexibility

to operate as a Continental Express air carrier as well. Shuttle further states it has notified

Continental of the proposed use of the Continental Express trade name.

We note that Shuttle also state s that Continental will make all required discl osures of the ident ity

of the operating air carrier and trade name in accordance with the provisions of Part 257 of the

Department’s regulations (14 CFR Part 257)

. In addi tion, Shuttle states that the aircraft to be

used to operate service on behalf of Continental will clearly indicate that Shuttle is the operating

carrier.

Since Shuttle has complied with the requirements of Part 215, we acknowledge the registration

of the trade name “Continental Express ” for immediate use in its operations.

Dated at Washington, D.C. , October 20 , 2010

.

TODD M. HOMAN

Director

Office of Aviation Analysis

An electronic version of this document is available on the World Wide Web at:

http:// www.regulations.gov

1 Shuttle’s i nterstate certificate was last reissued by Order 2009

- 3

- 16

, on March 23, 2009

.Attachment A

SE RVICE LIST FOR SHUTTLE AMERICA CORPORATION

MR PATRICK R RIZZI

COUNSEL FOR SHUTTLE AMERICA

HOGAN LOVELLS US LLP

555 THIRTEENTH STREET

WASHINGTON DC 20004 MR BERNARD STANKUS RTS

- 42

OFFICE OF AIRLINE INFORMATION

DOT/RSPA/BTS E

- 36

1200 NEW JERSEY AVE SE

WASHINGTON DC 20590

MR BRUCE RABINOVITZ

WILMER HALE

1875 PENNSYLVANIA AVENUE NW

WASHINGTON DC 20006 MR WILLIAM J WEBER

CERTIFICATION MANAGE R

FAA AFS

- 900

45005 AVIATION DRIVE SUITE 131

DULLES VA 20166

MR R BRUCE KEINER

CROWELL AND MORING LLP

1001 PENNSYLVANIA AVENUE NW

WASHINGTON DC 20 004 MR PETER LYNCH

ASST CHIEF COUNSEL FOR E NFORCEMENT

FAA / AGC

- 300

800 INDEPENDENCE AVE SW

WASHINGTON DC 20591

MR CLAY MORITZ

OFFICE OF AIRLINE INFORMATION

DOT/RSPA/BTS E

- 36

1200 NEW JERSEY AVE SE

WASHINGTON DC 20590
###### Editorial Note on Part 173

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 173 appear at 70 FR 56098, Sept. 23, 2005.

#### § 173.311 Metal Hydride Storage Systems.

The following packing instruction is applicable to transportable UN Metal hydride storage systems (UN3468) with pressure receptacles not exceeding 150 liters (40 gallons) in water capacity, and having a maximum developed pressure not exceeding 25 MPa. UN Metal hydride storage systems must be designed, constructed, initially inspected, and tested in accordance with ISO 16111:2018 (IBR, see § 171.7 of this subchapter), consistent with § 178.71(m) of this subchapter. Until December 31, 2026, UN Metal hydride storage systems may instead conform to ISO 16111:2008(E) (IBR, see § 171.7 of this subchapter). Steel pressure receptacles or composite pressure receptacles with steel liners must be marked in accordance with § 173.301b(f), which specifies that a steel UN pressure receptacle displaying an “H” mark must be used for hydrogen-bearing gases or other gases that may cause hydrogen embrittlement. Requalification intervals must be no more than every five years, as specified in § 180.207 of this subchapter, in accordance with the requalification procedures prescribed in ISO 16111:2018 or ISO 16111:2008.

[89 FR 25487, Apr. 10, 2024]
Page 1 of 3

Disposition Comments

Docket No: FAA-2013-0340 These comments are in

Directorate ID: 2010-SW-081-AD response to an SNPRM

Originating Office Tracking No.: 

Next Step: FRAN SNPRM

 No Comments/Only Supportive Comments Received – If this box is checked, no signatures are 

required.

No Has the referenced service information been revised since the NPRM was issued? If yes, 

list latest revision and attach a copy. Note that changes beyond the scope of the previously 

published NPRM will require a new notice. Contact the Directorate focal point for guidance.

Instructions: Summarize all comments by issue (not by commenter) and provide your recommended resolution of 

each issue. All comments relating to the same issue should be discussed together. Do not list all of the issues 

from one commenter together. If changes to the AD are required based on the comments received, explain why and 

describe in detail what change(s) you recommend. Reference FAA-IR-M-8040.1C Chapter 9.

ISSUE 1: Select one of the following: 

If other, explain: 

Commenter(s): 

What change to the AD action is requested? 

Why is the change requested or how is it justified? 

Do we agree? 

If YES, we agree because Make the following changes to the AD: 

If PARTIALLY AGREE, we agree with because We disagree with because 

Make the following changes to the AD: 

If NO, we don’t agree because 

ISSUE 2: Select one of the following: 

If other, explain: 

Commenter(s): 

What change to the AD action is requested? 

Why is the change requested or how is it justified? 

Do we agree? 

If YES, we agree because Make the following changes to the AD: 

If PARTIALLY AGREE, we agree with because We disagree with because 

Make the following changes to the AD:
Page 2 of 3

If NO, we don’t agree because 

For additional issues, double-click here
Page 3 of 3

Signature Section

Signature indicates concurrence with this action.

Originating Office Tracking No.: 

ASE Printed Name: Date

Branch Manager Date
Docket: EBSA-2009-0010 

The Paul Wellstone and Pete Domenici Mental Health Parity and Addiction Equity Act of 2008 

Comment On: EBSA-2009-0010-0409 

Interim Final Rules Under the Paul Wellstone and Pete Domenici Mental Health Parity and 

Addiction Equity Act of 2008 

Document: EBSA-2009-0010-DRAFT-0590 

Comment on FR Doc # 2010-2167 

Submitter Information 

Name: Michael F Smith 

Address: 

4000 Mitchellville Road 

Suite 222 

Bowie, MD, 20716 

Phone: 301-805-6080 

Organization: McChesney & Dale, P.C. 

General Comment 

On behalf of the Trustees of the Electrical Welfare Trust Fund, we are submitting the attached 

Comment in response to the issuance of the Interim Final Rules Under the Paul Wellstone and Pete 

Domenici Mental Health Parity and Addiction Equity Act of 2008, 75 Fed. Reg. 5410–5451 

(February 2, 2010). 

Thank you for your consideration of our Comment. 

Sincerely, 

McChesney & Dale, P.C. 

By: Michael F. Smith 

Attachments 

PUBLIC SUBMISSION 

As of: April 28, 2010 

Received: April 28, 2010 

Status: Pending_Post 

Tracking No. 80ae2e5a 

Comments Due: May 03, 2010

Submission Type: Web

EBSA-2009-0010-DRAFT-0590.1: Comment on FR Doc # 2010-2167

Page 1 of 1

https://fdms.erulemaking.net/fdms-web-agency/Download?operation=CoverPage&ObjectI... 4/28/2010
From: Debbie Vyskocil [mailto:vyskocil@att.net] 

Sent: Thursday, May 28, 2009 5:57 PM 

To: EBSA, E-OHPSCA - EBSA 

Subject: Comments Regarding Regulatory Guidance USCG-2007-27022

I am a neurofeedback providor training individuals with Attention Deficit Hyperactivity 

Disorder and Mood Disorders. Neurofeedback is an empirically validated and widely 

recognized effective non-medication treatment for ADHD, as well as other conditions. 

There are over 50 studies evaluating the effectiveness of neurofeedback in the treatment 

of ADHD, substance use disorders and Autism. A recent review of this literature 

concluded "Neurofeedback meets the American Academy of Child and Adolescent 

Psychiatry criteria for Clinical Guidelines for treatment of ADHD." This means that 

neurofeedback meets the same criteria as medication for treating ADHD, of which 60% 

of prescriptions are in fact prescribed "off label," and that neurofeedback "should always 

be considered as an intervention for this disorder by the clinician." 

 

This service has been denied by Georgia Medicaid, Aetna, United Behavioral Health, 

Blue Cross, Cigna, and Amerigroup. 

 

This is limitation of an effective and validated treatment for a mental health problem. The 

reasons given by the insurance companies for this denial fell into two categories: 1) our 

company does not cover biofeedback for mental health problems or 2) there is not yet 

sufficient evidence for the efficacy of neurofeedback. As such, they are using evidencebased criteria that are far more restrictive for mental health services than the criteria 

which are used for medical/surgical services. There are many routine medical and 

surgical procedures which have far fewer controlled studies about their efficacy than does 

neurofeedback. These medical and surgical procedures are generally not limited because 

of concerns about how many controlled studies have been performed about them. 

 We believe that the parity regulations, based on legal reviews of the parity statute should 

require that employers and plans pay for the same range and scope of services for 

behavioral treatments as they do for medical surgical benefits and that a plan cannot be 

more restrictive in their managed care criteria and reviews for mental health and 

substance abuse disorders when compared to medical surgery. Today plans are being 

more restrictive in how they review evidenced-based mental health and Substance Abuse 

Treatments when compared to medical surgical treatments. This violates both the intent 

and letter of the parity statute and we hope that the regulations will clarify that this can't 

continue. 

 

Debbie Vyskocil BCIA-EEG 

Curative Via 

Summit, IL
[Civ. No. 2930.

Fourth Dist.

July 9, 1941.]

#### THOMAS KINLEY QUIRK, Respondent, v. DAVIS STANDARD BREAD COMPANY (a Corporation) et al., Appellants.

No appearance for Appellants.

Forgy, Reinhaus & Forgy for Respondent.

*810BARNARD, P. J.

This is a motion to dismiss the appeal under the provisions of rule V, section 1 of the Rules for the Supreme Court and District Courts of Appeal.

The clerk’s and reporter’s transcripts were filed in this court on March 25, 1941. No briefs have been filed and no appearance was made on behalf of the appellants in response to the notice of motion to dismiss the appeal. When the motion was heard counsel for the respondent stated that counsel for the appellants had informed him that no opposition would be made to the granting of the motion.

The appeal is dismissed.

Marks, J., and Mundo, J., *pro tem.,*concurred.
THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS

13-14-00018-CR

John David Russell

v.

The State of Texas

On appeal from the

25th District Court of Gonzales County, Texas

Trial Cause No. 134-09-B

JUDGMENT

THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS, having considered this cause on 

appeal, concludes that the judgment of the trial court should be AFFIRMED. The Court 

orders the judgment of the trial court AFFIRMED.

We further order this decision certified below for observance.

July 30, 2015.
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

      ( print page 49288)    
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2), notice is hereby given of the following meeting.

The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

*Name of Committee:*                         National Institute of General Medical Sciences Special Emphasis Panel, MBRS Support of Competitive Research.                    

*Date:*                         September 17, 2007.                    

*Time:*                         8 a.m. to 5 p.m.                    

*Agenda;*                         To review and evaluate grant applications.                    

*Place:*                         Hyatt Regency Bethesda, One Bethesda Metro Center, 7400 Wisconsin Avenue, Bethesda, MD 20814.                    

*Contact Person:*                         John J Laffan, PhD, Scientific Review Administrator, Office of Scientific Review, National Institute of General Medical Sciences, National Institutes of Health, Natcher Building, Room 3AN18J, Bethesda, MD 20892, 301-594-2773.                     

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.375, Minority Biomedical Research Support; 93.821, Cell Biology and Biophysics Research; 93.859, Pharmacology, Physiology, and Biological Chemistry Research; 93.862, Genetics and Developmental Biology Research; 93.88, Minority Access to Research Careers; 93.96, Special Minority Initiatives, National Institutes of Health, HHS)

Dated: August 21, 2007.

Jennifer Spaeth,

Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.

[FR Doc. 07-4219  Filed 8-27-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4140-01-M