alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
§ 215.109 Defective plain bearing box: Journal lubrication system. A railroad may not place or continue in service a car, if the car has a plain bearing box with a lubricating pad that— ( a ) Has a tear extending half the length or width of the pad, or more;
( b ) Shows evidence of having been scorched, burned, or glazed;
( c ) Contains decaying or deteriorated fabric that impairs proper lubrication of the pad;
( d ) Has— ( 1 ) An exposed center core (except by design); or
( 2 ) Metal parts contacting the journal; or
( e ) Is— ( 1 ) Missing; or
( 2 ) Not in contact with the journal.
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

REGION IX

75 Hawthorne Street

San Francisco, CA 94105

December 4, 2002

MEMORANDUM

Re: Screening Analysis for 5% De Minimis Determinations for Coating Rules

From: Andrew Steckel, Rulemaking Office Chief

To: Rulemaking Office

Issue EPA's 1988 Bluebook 

(http://www.epa.gov/oar/oaqps/ozonetech/voc_bluebook.pdf) 

allows SIP rules to exceed Clean Air Act §182 RACT limits if total emissions allowed 

under each SIP rule are less than 5% above that allowed by presumptive RACT. 

However, the Bluebook provides only limited guidance on how to demonstrate compliance with 

this 5% limit. Region 9's “Five Percent Analysis Guidance” (August 4, 1995), suggests states 

survey all applicable sources to accurately determine baseline and excess emissions. This memo 

describes an alternative screening test that may be appropriate for coating rules with extremely 

small excess emissions, such as those with specialty coating limits that apply to only a few 

small sources.

Screening Analysis Summary This screening test uses existing inventory information instead 

of exhaustive source-specific surveys and analysis to estimate baseline emissions. Because the 

inventory information is less reliable than source-specific analysis, a more conservative threshold 

(1% instead of 5%) is appropriate to assure de minimis excess emissions.

Screening Analysis

 Determine the total baseline emissions subject to the rule from the latest triennial 

emissions inventory prepared pursuant to §172(c)(3), §182(a)(1) and §182(a)(3)(A). The 

triennial inventory information may need to be adjusted for growth and to quantify 

emissions accurately from the specific activities affected by the rule. 

 Quantify the excess emissions by multiplying coating use by the difference between the 

RACT VOC content limits and the rule VOC content limits. Permit or survey 

information may be needed to determine coating use. For example, if a local rule limits 

vacuum metalizing coatings to 800 grams/liter VOC and EPA’s CTG provides no 

specialty coating exemption from a 340 gram/liter general limit, a 5% demonstration must

quantify coating use from all sources that may use vacuum metalizing coatings. 

 If total excess emissions are less than 1% of the rule’s baseline emissions, then additional 

analysis may not be needed. Otherwise, a thorough survey of actual coating use by all 

sources to determine both baseline and excess emissions may be appropriate.
§ 212.211 Apprentice signal and train control inspector. ( a ) The apprentice signal and train control inspector must be enrolled in a program of training prescribed by the Associate Administrator leading to qualification as a signal and train control inspector. The apprentice inspector may not participate in the investigative and surveillance activities, except as an assistant to a qualified State or FRA inspector while accompanying that qualified inspector.
( b ) Prior to being enrolled in the program the apprentice inspector shall demonstrate: ( 1 ) Working knowledge of basic electricity and the ability to use electrical test equipment in direct current and alternating current circuits; and
( 2 ) A basic knowledge of signal and train control inspection and maintenance methods and procedures.
Amended Employment Agreement



 AMENDMENT NO.2 
 TO EMPLOYEMENT AGREEMENT BETWEEN 
 CHECKERS DRIVE-IN RESTAURANTS, INC., A DELAWARE 

CORPORATION AND ADAM NOYES 
 THE HEREIN AGREEMENT
hereby modifies that certain Employment Agreement by and between Checkers Drive-In Restaurants, Inc. (“Checkers”), and Adam Noyes (the “Executive”) dated September 19, 2003, as follows: 
  

	 	1)	Effective September 15, 2005 the Annual Salary under Paragraph 3.1 of the Employee Agreement is increased to TWO HUNDRED TWENTY FIVE THOUSAND DOLLARS ($225,000.00) annually.


  

	 	2)	The first renewal option under the Employment Agreement is acknowledged to have been validly exercised by Checkers. 

  

	 	3)	Except for the specific modifications hereto, the parties hereto mutually affirm all the other terms of the Employment Agreement dated September 19, 2003, remain in full force and
effect. 

 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Amendment as of the 13th day of October, 2005. 
 Checkers Drive-In Restaurants, Inc., a
Delaware Corporation 
  

	
	 /s/ Peter O’ Hara

	Peter O’ Hara, Chairman of the Board of Directors

 EXECUTIVE 
  

	
	 /s/ Adam Noyes

	Adam Noyes
§ 224.107 Implementation schedule. ( a ) *Railroad freight cars.* All railroad freight cars subject to this part must be equipped with retroreflective sheeting conforming to this part by November 28, 2015. If a car already has reflective material applied that does not meet the standards of this part, it is not necessary to remove the material unless its placement interferes with the placement of the sheeting required by this part. ( 1 ) *New cars.* Retroreflective sheeting conforming to this part must be applied to all cars constructed after January 26, 2006, before the cars are placed in service.
( 2 ) *Existing cars without retroreflective sheeting.* ( i ) If, as of October 28, 2005, a car subject to this part is not equipped on each side with at least one square foot of retroreflective sheeting as specified in paragraph (a)(3) of this section, retroreflective sheeting conforming to this part must be applied to the car at the earliest of the following two occasions occurring after November 28, 2005 or in accordance with paragraph (a)(2)(ii) of this section: ( A ) When the car is repainted or rebuilt; or
( B ) Within nine months (270 calendar days) after the car first undergoes a single car air brake test as prescribed by 49 CFR 232.305.
( ii ) A freight rolling stock owner may elect not to follow the schedule in paragraph (a)(2)(i) of this section if, not later than January 26, 2006 the freight rolling stock owner submits to FRA a completed Reflectorization Implementation Compliance Report certifying that the cars in the owner's fleet subject to this part will be equipped with retroreflective sheeting as required by this part in accordance with the schedule specified in Table 3 of this section. *See* Appendix B of this part for Reflectorization Implementation Compliance Report form.
-----Original Message----- 

From: aevandyke@att.net [mailto:aevandyke@att.net] 

Sent: Monday, April 26, 2010 11:14 AM 

To: EBSA, E-OHPSCA - EBSA 

Subject: Comment in support of RIN 1210-AB30 

April 26, 2010 

I am writing to support the interim final rule under the Paul Wellstone 

and Pete Domenici Mental Health Parity and Addiction Equity Act of 2008 

(RIN 1210-AB30). 

I support the strong rule that would forbid insurance companies from 

charging higher copayments, deductibles, and other out-of-pocket 

expenses for mental health treatment than they would for other physical 

health care. Thank you for ensuring that mental health care and 

physical health care coverage are included in a single deductible. 

Please end discrimination against the mentally ill. 

Sincerely, 

Ann Van Dyke 

49 Cave Hill Road 

Leverett, MA 01054
<PAGE>   1
                                                                    Exhibit (23)


                       CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS



We consent to the incorporation by reference of our report dated November 15,
1996, with respect to the financial statements and schedule of CleveTrust
Realty Investors included in this Annual Report (Form 10-K) for the year ended
September 30, 1996 in the following:

      Registration Statement Number 33-12663 on Form S-8 dated March 23,
      1987;

      Registration Statement Number 33-12662 on Form S-3 dated March 23, 1987;

      Amendment Number 1 to Registration Statement Number 33-12662 on Form
      S-3 dated December 1, 1987; and

      Post-Effective Amendment Number 1 to Registration Statement Number
      2-97843 on Form S-8 dated March 23, 1987.




                                                Ernst & Young LLP

December 9, 1996
Cleveland, Ohio
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

Mary Elisa Wise,

 Appellant,

v.

The State of Texas,

 State.

'

'

'

'

'

'

No. 08-16-00202-CR

Appeal from the

264th District Court

of Bell County, Texas 

(TC# 69640)

O R D E R

Appellant has filed a pro se notice of appeal. The trial court’s certification states that 

Appellant waived the right to appeal. See TEX.R.APP.P. 25.2(d). A court of appeals should 

review the appellate record to determine whether the certification is accurate. See Dears v. 

State, 154 S.W.3d 610 (Tex.Crim.App. 2005). The Bell County District Clerk has provided the 

Court with several documents, including the judgment adjudicating guilt, but none of the 

documents show that Appellant affirmatively waived her right to appeal. We have determined 

that it will be necessary to review the clerk’s record and the reporter’s record of the adjudication 

hearing to confirm whether Appellant waived her right to appeal. It is therefore ordered that the 

District Clerk prepare a clerk’s record containing the documents set forth in TEX.R.APP.P.

34.5(a). Any documents showing Appellant waived her right to appeal should also be included 

1
in the clerk’s record. The court reporter is ordered to prepare the reporter’s record of the 

adjudication hearing conducted in the above-styled and numbered cause. The Record shall be 

filed with this Court on or before October 26, 2016.

IT IS SO ORDERED this 26th day of September, 2016.

PER CURIAM

Before McClure, C.J., Rodriguez and Hughes, JJ.

2
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-0622 

Comment on FR Doc # 2010-2167 

Submitter Information 

Name: Diane A Barbera 

Address: 

55 St Charles Place 

Runnemede, NJ, 08078 

Email: dacb59@comcast.net 

Phone: 856-939-3713 

General Comment 

1111 Constitution Avenue, NW 

Washington, DC 20224 

Attention: REG-120692-09 

Re: Interim Final Rules under the Paul Wellstone and Pete Domenici Mental Health Parity and 

Addiction Equity Act of 2008; Final Rule 

To Whom It May Concern: 

I appreciate the opportunity to comment on the Interim Final Rules under the Paul Wellstone and 

Pete Domenici Mental Health Parity and Addiction Equity Act of 2008 (MHPAEA), published in the 

February 2, 2010 Federal Register. 

The following comments on specific provisions in the regulations will help strengthen consumer 

protections and ensure that the implementing regulations reflect Congress’ intent to prohibit 

discriminatory limits on mental health and substance use conditions by employer-sponsored and 

other group health plans. 

Non Quantitative Treatment Limitations 

In enacting the MHPAEA, Congress made clear that the goal of this new law was to remedy the 

long history of employers and insurers not providing comparable coverage for mental health and 

substance use conditions relative to the medical and surgical benefits they provide. 

PUBLIC SUBMISSION

As of: April 30, 2010 

Received: April 29, 2010 

Status: Pending_Post 

Tracking No. 80ae3e32 

Comments Due: May 03, 2010

Submission Type: Web

Page 1 of 2

https://fdms.erulemaking.net/fdms-web-agency/component/submitterInfoCoverPage?Call=... 4/30/2010
Higher co-payments, deductibles, and other cost-sharing requirements, as well as restrictions on 

the number of outpatient visits and inpatient days covered are only the most obvious examples of 

discriminatory treatment of mental health and substance use care. The provisions in the interim 

final rules describing non quantitative treatment limits respond to the evidence indicating mental 

health and substance use benefits have historically been much more strictly managed than 

medical and surgical benefits in ways that, were they to continue, would circumvent 

congressional intent and objectives explicitly delineated in the new law. 

As the interim final rules explain, the examples of the types of treatment limitations and financial 

requirements included in the statutory provisions are illustrative and should not be interpreted as 

the only treatment limitations and financial require 

Page 2 of 2

https://fdms.erulemaking.net/fdms-web-agency/component/submitterInfoCoverPage?Call=... 4/30/2010
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

JUDGMENT RENDERED FEBRUARY 7, 2014

NO. 03-13-00598-CV

Z. L., Appellant

v.

Texas Department of Family and Protective Services, Appellee

APPEAL FROM 98TH DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY

BEFORE CHIEF JUSTICE JONES, JUSTICES PEMBERTON AND FIELD

AFFIRMED -- OPINION BY JUSTICE FIELD

This is an appeal from the decree signed by the trial court on August 2, 2013. Having reviewed 

the record and the parties’ arguments, the Court holds that there was no reversible error in the 

trial court’s decree. Therefore, the Court affirms the trial court’s decree. Because appellant is 

indigent and unable to pay costs, no adjudication of costs is made.
-----Original Message----- 

From: mtjar@verizon.net [mailto:mtjar@verizon.net] 

Sent: Sunday, April 25, 2010 8:20 AM 

To: EBSA, E-OHPSCA - EBSA 

Subject: Comment in support of RIN 1210-AB30 

April 25, 2010 

I am writing to support the interim final rule under the Paul Wellstone 

and Pete Domenici Mental Health Parity and Addiction Equity Act of 2008 

(RIN 1210-AB30). 

I support the strong rule that would forbid insurance companies from 

charging higher copayments, deductibles, and other out-of-pocket 

expenses for mental health treatment than they would for other physical 

health care. Thank you for ensuring that mental health care and 

physical health care coverage are included in a single deductible. 

 An illness that effects mental function is no different that any 

other illness. The illnesses that are labeled "mental illnesses" have a 

genetic and physiological ground just like other illnesses. Somehow 

insurance companies were allowed to disallow and thus underinsure this 

type of illness and do not want to give up their financial advantage 

even when medicine/science tells us that "mental illness" is just an 

illness that effects the brain and in turn the way people function. 

This is purely a "profit" issue for the insurance companies and has 

nothing to do with fairness as related to medical data that shows 

"mental illness" to be an illness of the brain just as heart disease is 

an illness of the heart. Stop this discriminatory and profit-driven 

practice of insurance companies in regards to "mental illness" 

Judith Tanner 

Sincerely, 

Judith Tanner 

1608 Feldbrook Road 

Towson, MD 21286
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 the Interior

###### National Park Service 

# AGENCY:

National Park Service, Department of the Interior. 

# ACTION:

 Notice and request for comments.

# SUMMARY:

                        Under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 and 5 CFR Part 1320, Reporting and Recordkeeping Requirements, the National Park Service (NPS) invites public comments on a proposed new collection of information (OMB# 1024-xxxx). The 30-Day                         **Federal Register**                         Notice for this collection of information was published on August 10, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 154, Pages 45066-45067), was published in error and should be recognized as an incorrect version. The correct publication of the 30-Day                         **Federal Register**                         Notice for this collection of information will be published on August 28, 2007, and should be recognized as the correct version. If you have any questions or concerns regarding this matter, please contact Mr. Leonard E. Stowe, NPS, Information Collection Clearance Officer, 1849 C St., NW. (2605), Washington, DC 20240; or via fax at 202/371-1427; or via e-mail at                         *leonard_stowe@nps.gov.*

Dated: August 22, 2007.

Leonard E. Stowe, 

NPS, Information Collection Clearance Officer.

[FR Doc. 07-4272 Filed 8-30-07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4312-53-M
COURT OF APPEALS

SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH

NO. 02-14-00084-CV

William D. Layton

v.

City of Fort Worth, City of Fort Worth 

Employees' Retirement Fund, and 

Board of City of Forth Worth 

Employees' Retirement Fund

§

§

§

§

§

From the 141st District Court

of Tarrant County (141-265436-13)

December 11, 2014

Opinion by Justice Meier

JUDGMENT

This court has considered the record on appeal in this case and holds that 

there was no error in the trial court’s judgment. It is ordered that the judgment of 

the trial court is affirmed.

It is further ordered that Appellant William D. Layton shall pay all costs of 

this appeal, for which let execution issue.

SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS 

By /s/ Bill Meier 

 Justice Bill Meier
Exhibit 34.3


Report of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm





To the Board of Directors and Shareholder of The Toledo Edison Company:





We have examined management’s assertion, included in the accompanying “Report on assessment of Compliance with Servicing Criteria for Asset-Backed Securities”, that The Toledo Edison Company (the “Company”) complied with the servicing criteria set forth in Item 1122(d) of the Securities and Exchange Commission’s Regulation AB for the asset-backed securities transactions for which the Company acted as servicer involving phase-in recovery property (the “Platform”), as of December 31, 2015 and for the year then ended , excluding criteria 1122(d)(1)(i-v), 1122(d)(2)(i-vii), 1122(d)(3)(ii-iv), and 1122(d)(4)(i-v, viii-xiii, xv), which the Company has determined are not applicable to the servicing activities performed by it with respect to the Platform or the servicing activities are applicable to the Platform but are excluded from the scope of management's assertion and are not reported on herein.  Management is responsible for the Company's compliance with the servicing criteria. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on management's assertion based on our examination.





Our examination was conducted in accordance with attestation standards of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States) and, accordingly, included examining, on a test basis, evidence about the Company’s compliance with the applicable servicing criteria and performing such other procedures as we considered necessary in the circumstances. Our examination included testing of selected asset-backed transactions and securities that comprise the Platform, testing of selected servicing activities related to the Platform, and determining whether the Company processed those selected transactions and performed those selected activities in compliance with the applicable servicing criteria. Our procedures were limited to the selected transactions and servicing activities performed by the Company during the period covered by this report. Our procedures were not designed to detect noncompliance arising from errors that may have occurred prior to or subsequent to our tests that may have affected the balances or amounts calculated or reported by the Company during the period covered by this report. We believe that our examination provides a reasonable basis for our opinion. Our examination does not provide a legal determination on the Company’s compliance with the servicing criteria.





In our opinion, management’s assertion that the Company complied with the aforementioned applicable servicing criteria as of and for the year ended December 31, 2015 for the Platform is fairly stated, in all material respects.











/s/ PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP





PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP





March 29, 2016
Exhibit 32



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 Henry County Bancshares, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ending September 30, 2003, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the
date hereof (the Report), I, David H. Gill, Chief Executive Officer of the Company and I, Thomas L. Redding, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 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/ David H. GillDavid H. Gill, President and C.E.O. (Principal Executive Officer)/s/ Thomas L. ReddingThomas L. Redding, C.F.O. (Principal Financial and Accounting Officer)




Date: November 5, 2003