alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
§ 234.3 Application and responsibility for compliance. ( a ) With the exception of § 234.11, this part applies to all railroads except the following: ( 1 ) Operations of a plant railroad as defined in § 234.5;
( 2 ) Rapid transit operations in an urban area that are not connected to the general railroad system of transportation; or
( 3 ) Tourist, scenic, historic, or excursion operations conducted only on track used exclusively for that purpose (*i.e.,* there is no freight, intercity passenger, or commuter passenger railroad operation on the track) and only on track inside an installation that is insular; *i.e.,* the operations are limited to a separate enclave in such a way that there is no reasonable expectation that the safety of the public—except a business guest, a licensee of the railroad or an affiliated entity, or a trespasser—would be affected by the operation. An operation will not be considered insular if one or more of the following exists on its line: ( i ) A public highway-rail crossing that is in use;
( ii ) An at-grade rail crossing that is in use;
( iii ) A bridge over a public road or waters used for commercial navigation; or
( iv ) A common corridor with a railroad, *i.e.,* its operations are within 30 feet of those of any railroad.
( b ) Although the duties imposed by this part are generally stated in terms of the duty of a railroad, each person, including a contractor or subcontractor for a railroad, who performs any task covered by this part, shall perform that task in accordance with this part.
[77 FR 35190, June 12, 2012]
#### John W. Miller, *Appellant, v.*E. Ellery Anderson and others, Respondents.—

Order denying motion to set aside dismissal of complaint reversed, without costs. Order denying motion for leave to renew the preceding motion affirmed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements, and order entered as directed in opinion. Opinion by

Daniels, J.
-----Original Message----- 

From: j.j.saecker@honeywell.com [mailto:j.j.saecker@honeywell.com] 

Sent: Monday, April 26, 2010 10:05 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. 

Sincerely, 

John Saecker 

6304 Barrie Rd 

Edina, MN 55435
From: dennis.rooyakkers@nm.com [mailto:dennis.rooyakkers@nm.com] 

Sent: Thursday, July 16, 2015 1:07 PM

To: Webmaster DOL

Cc: dennis.rooyakkers@nm.com

Subject: fiduciary rule

To whom it may concern, I have been a Northwestern Mutual agent for 37 years. My client retention 

rate is 97%. My clients are very satisfied with the advice I provide to them. I regularly advise them about 

their retirement accounts. This advice is based on their objectives, risk tolerance, financial situation, tax 

situation and liquidity needs. I tell them how I get paid: fee based or commission based. We discuss the 

advantages and disadvantages to them and weigh the cost of each. They decide how we proceed. 

Yesterday, I spoke with a young lady who was retired 10 years. She wanted more stability in her 

portfolio. She and I developed a plan that met her immediate liquidity needs, met her potential liquidity 

needs in the near future and coordinated her 401k distribution to dovetail with her future Social 

Security payments. I helped her develop a plan she could feel confident in going forward. I could not 

have helped her with the restrictions you are proposing. Please rescind that order. Sincerely, Dennis

Northwestern Mutual, its subsidiaries and affiliates may review and retain incoming and 

outgoing electronic mail for this e-mail address for quality assurance and regulatory compliance 

purposes. Please be advised that communications with {SECURE MESSAGE} in the subject 

line have been sent using a secure messaging system. Communications that do not have this tag 

may not be secure and could be observed by a third party.

If you prefer not to receive any e-mail communication from Northwestern Mutual or our 

Financial Representatives, please click the following link:"E-Mail Opt-out from Northwestern 

Mutual"

In the event that you cannot click on the above link, the Northwestern Mutual E-Mail Opt-out 

form can be found at the following URL: https://service.nmfn.com/cbpeopt/EmailOptOut.do.

Northwestern Mutual

720 East Wisconsin Avenue

Milwaukee, Wisconsin 53202-4797.
§ 232.613 End-of-train devices. ( a ) An ECP-EOT device shall, at a minimum, serve as the final node on the ECP brake circuit, provide a cable terminal circuit, and monitor, confirm, and report train, brake pipe, and train line cable continuity, cable voltage, brake pipe pressure, and the status of the ECP-EOT device battery charge. The ECP-EOT device shall transmit a status message (EOT Beacon) at least once per second, contain a means of communicating with the HEU, and be equipped with a brake pipe pressure transducer and a battery that charges from the train line cable.
( b ) A railroad shall not move or use a freight train equipped with an ECP brake system unless that train is equipped with a functioning ECP-EOT device designed and operated in accordance with this subpart. The ECP-EOT device must be properly connected to the network and to the train line cable at the rear of the train.
( c ) A locomotive equipped with ECP brakes can be used in lieu of an ECP-EOT device, provided it is capable of performing all of the functions of a functioning ECP-EOT device.
( d ) *Exception.* A freight train operating in ECP brake mode is excepted from the end-of-train device requirements contained in subpart E of this part, provided that it is equipped with an ECP-EOT device complying with this section.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from Century
Properties Fund XVIII 1996 Third Quarter 10-QSB and is qualified in its entirety
by reference to such 10-QSB filing.
</LEGEND>
<CIK> 0000704271
<NAME> CENTURY PROPERTIES FUND XVIII
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1996
<CASH>                                           1,164
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0<F1>
<PP&E>                                          26,641
<DEPRECIATION>                                   8,917
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  19,744
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0<F1>
<BONDS>                                         18,768
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                         466
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    19,744
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 3,548
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 3,375
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               1,049
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    173
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                173
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       173
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     2.08<F2>
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
<FN>
<F1>Registrant has an unclassified balance sheet.
<F2>Multiplier is 1.
</FN>
        

</TABLE>
§ 271.203 Policy, purpose and scope, and goals. ( a ) *Policy statement.* An RRP plan shall contain a policy statement endorsing the railroad's RRP. This statement shall be signed by the chief official at the railroad (*e.g.,* chief executive officer).
( b ) *Purpose and scope.* An RRP plan shall contain a statement describing the purpose and scope of the railroad's RRP. This purpose and scope statement shall describe: ( 1 ) The railroad's safety philosophy and safety culture;
( 2 ) How the railroad promotes improvements to its safety culture; and
( 3 ) The roles and responsibilities of railroad personnel (including management) within the railroad's RRP.
( c ) *Goals.* An RRP plan shall contain a statement that defines the specific goals of the RRP and describes clear strategies for reaching those goals. These goals shall be long-term, meaningful, measurable, and focused on the mitigation of risks arising from identified safety hazards.
SCWC-13-0005864

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI#I

 

DISCOVER BANK, a Delaware Corporation, 

Respondent/Plaintiff-Appellee,

vs.

BRADFORD W. ADAMS and EI RAYNA K. ADAMS, 

Petitioners/Defendants-Appellants.

 

CERTIORARI TO THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS

(CAAP-13-0005864; CIV. NO. 1RC09-1-009133)

ORDER REJECTING APPLICATION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI

(By: Recktenwald, C.J., Nakayama, McKenna, and Pollack, JJ., and

Circuit Judge Ochiai, assigned by reason of vacancy)

The application for writ of certiorari, filed on March

25, 2014, is hereby rejected.

DATED: Honolulu, Hawai#i, April 14, 2014.

Bradford W. Adams and Ei Rayna

K. Adams, petitioners pro se

/s/ Mark E. Recktenwald

/s/ Paula A. Nakayama

/s/ Sabrina S. McKenna

/s/ Richard W. Pollack

/s/ Dean E. Ochiai

Electronically Filed

Supreme Court

SCWC-13-0005864

14-APR-2014

10:59 AM
```

[Journal of the House of Representatives, 1995]
[Wednesday, September 20, 1995 (118), Para 118.23 Message from the Senate]
[Page 1425]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]

para.118.23  message from the senate

  A message from the Senate by Mr. Lundregan, one of its clerks, 
announced that the Senate had passed with amendments in which the 
concurrence of the House is requested, a bill of the House of the 
following title:

       H.R. 1976. An Act making appropriations for Agriculture, 
     Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related 
     Agencies programs for the fiscal year ending September 30, 
     1996, and for other purposes.

  The message also announced that the Senate insists upon its amendments 
to the bill (H.R. 1976) ``An Act making appropriations for Agriculture, 
Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies 
programs for the fiscal year ending September 30, 1996, and for other 
purposes'', requests a conference with the House on the disagreeing 
votes of the two Houses thereon, and appoints Mr. Cochran, Mr. Specter, 
Mr. Bond, Mr. Gorton, Mr. McConnell, Mr. Burns, Mr. Hatfield, Mr. 
Bumpers, Mr. Harkin, Mr. Kerrey, Mr. Johnston, Mr. Kohl, and Mr. Byrd, 
be the conferees on the part of the Senate.
  The message also announced that Mr. Stevens, Mr. Nickles, Mr. 
Thompson, Mr. Grassley, Mr. Glenn, Mr. Levin, and Mr. Reid, be appointed 
as conferees on the part of the Senate on the bill (S. 219) ``An Act to 
ensure economy and efficiency of Federal Government operations by 
establishing a moratorium on regulatory rulemaking actions, and for 
other purposes'', in lieu of Mr. Nickles, Mr. Stevens, Mr. Thompson, Mr. 
Grassley, Mr. Glenn, Mr. Levin, and Mr. Reid.
  The message also announced that Mr. Stevens, Mr. Roth, Mr. Thompson, 
Mr. Cochran, Mr. McCain, Mr. Glenn, Mr. Levin, Mr. Pryor, Mr. Sarbanes, 
Mr. Domenici, Mr. Grassley, Mr. Nickles, Mr. Gramm, Mr. Coats, Mr. Exon, 
Mr. Hollings, Mr. Johnston, and Mr. Dodd, be appointed as conferees on 
the part of the Senate on the bill (S. 4) ``An Act to grant the power to 
the President to reduce budget authority'' in lieu of Mr. Roth, Mr. 
Stevens, Mr. Thompson, Mr. Cochran, Mr. McCain, Mr. Glenn, Mr. Levin, 
Mr. Pryor, Mr. Sarbanes, Mr. Domenici, Mr. Grassley, Mr. Nickles, Mr. 
Gramm, Mr. Coats, Mr. Exon, Mr. Hollings, Mr. Johnston, and Mr. Dodd.
  The message also announced that pursuant to Public Law 99-498, the 
Chair, on behalf of the President pro tempore, appoints Dr. Robert N. 
Kelly, of Kansas, to the Advisory Committee on Student Financial 
Assistance for a 3-year term effective October 1, 1995.
```
NASA LogoNTRSNTRS - NASA Technical Reports ServerSearchmore_vertCollectionsAboutNewsHelpLogin Back to ResultsUniversity of Maryland walking robot: A design project for undergraduate studentsThe design and construction required that the walking robot machine be capable of completing a number of tasks including walking in a straight line, turning to change direction, and maneuvering over an obstable such as a set of stairs. The machine consists of two sets of four telescoping legs that alternately support the entire structure. A gear-box and crank-arm assembly is connected to the leg sets to provide the power required for the translational motion of the machine. By retracting all eight legs, the robot comes to rest on a central Bigfoot support. Turning is accomplished by rotating the machine about this support. The machine can be controlled by using either a user operated remote tether or the on-board computer for the execution of control commands. Absolute encoders are attached to all motors (leg, main drive, and Bigfoot) to provide the control computer with information regarding the status of the motors (up-down motion, forward or reverse rotation). Long and short range infrared sensors provide the computer with feedback information regarding the machine's relative position to a series of stripes and reflectors. These infrared sensors simulate how the robot might sense and gain information about the environment of Mars.Document ID19900017015Acquisition SourceLegacy CDMSDocument TypeContractor Report (CR)AuthorsOlsen, Bob*(Maryland Univ. College Park, MD, United States)*Bielec, Jim*(Maryland Univ. College Park, MD, United States)*Hartsig, Dave*(Maryland Univ. College Park, MD, United States)*Oliva, Mani*(Maryland Univ. College Park, MD, United States)*Grotheer, Phil*(Maryland Univ. College Park, MD, United States)*Hekmat, Morad*(Maryland Univ. College Park, MD, United States)*Russell, David*(Maryland Univ. College Park, MD, United States)*Tavakoli, Hossein*(Maryland Univ. College Park, MD, United States)*Young, Gary*(Maryland Univ. College Park, MD, United States)*Nave, Tom*(Maryland Univ. College Park, MD, United States)*Date AcquiredSeptember 6, 2013Publication DateJanuary 1, 1990Subject CategoryMechanical EngineeringReport/Patent NumberNASA-CR-186839NAS 1.26:186839Accession Number90N26331Funding Number(s)CONTRACT_GRANT: NGT-21-002-800Distribution LimitsPublicCopyrightWork of the US Gov. Public Use Permitted.Available DownloadsNameType19900017015.pdfSTIcloud_downloadcontent_copyvisibilityRelated RecordsThere are no records associated with this record.visibility_offNo Preview Available
 No Fear Act | Freedom of Information Act | Office of the Inspector General | Agency Financial ReportsNASA Web Privacy Policy and Important Notices | NASA Guidelines for Quality of InformationDisclaimers, Copyright, Terms of Use | Accessibility | NASA OCIO | USA.gov | NASA.govContact Us | Site MapSTI LogoNASA Official: JoAnne R. Calhoun Site Curator: STI Compliance and Distribution Services Last Modified: September 12, 2024
From: Jolene Ross [mailto:jolenefr@gmail.com] 

Sent: Thursday, May 28, 2009 11:19 AM 

To: EBSA, E-OHPSCA - EBSA 

Subject: Regulatory Guidance USCG-2007-27022 page 19157, II B specific areas 1 and 4

Comments regarding Regulatory Guidance USCG-2007-27022 

page 19157, II B specific areas 1 and 4 

 

I am writing requesting the inclusion of Biofeedback services, EEG Biofeedback in 

particular, as a covered service by Health insurance companies under Mental and 

Behavioral Health. 

 

EEG biofeedback is an empirically validated and widely recognized effective nonmedication treatment for ADHD, as well as other conditions. There are over 50 studies 

evaluating the effectiveness of EEG biofeedback in the treatment of ADHD, 

Substance Use disorders and Autism. . A recent review of this literature concluded “EEG 

biofeedback meets the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry criteria 

for” Clinical Guidelines “for treatment of ADHD.” This means that EEG biofeedback 

meets the same criteria as medication for treating ADHD, and that EEG biofeedback 

“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, among others. The majority of insurance companies 

nationally consider Biofeedback and EEG Biofeedback to be “Non-covered services”. 

This represents the 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 EEG biofeedback. As such, they 

are using evidence-based 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 EEG biofeedback. 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 statue, should 

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

Behavioral Treatments as they do for Med Surg 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 Med/Surg. Today plans are being more restrictive in 

how they review evidenced based Mental Health and Substance Abuse Treatments when 

compared to Med/Surg treatments. 

 

Sincerely. 

 

Jolene Ross, Ph.D. 

Licensed Psychologist
```

[Journal of the House of Representatives, 1995]
[Tuesday, October 17, 1995 (129), Para 129.15 Biotechnological Patents and Digital Sound Recordings]
[Page 1530]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]

para.129.15  biotechnological patents and digital sound recordings

  By unanimous consent, H.R. 587 and H.R. 1506, similar House bills, 
were laid on the table.
```
-----Original Message----- 

From: cfjr@netzero.net [mailto:cfjr@netzero.net] 

Sent: Friday, April 30, 2010 4:48 AM 

To: EBSA, E-OHPSCA - EBSA 

Subject: Comment in support of RIN 1210-AB30 

April 30, 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. 

Sincerely, 

Claudio Freixas Jr 

2121 Albee St 

Eureka, CA 95501
JOHN L.HILL Attorney General

9uPmn-mcoun 0w!4np P.O. Box 12549 Aumhl.7x. 79711 512479.2901 

# The Attorney General ofTexas November 

# 9, 1977

Honorable RobertA. Sone Attorney at Law County Courthouse Opinion No. HRe: Whether a 1088

county Leakey, Texas 70073 may combine justice precincts so there are only two justicepreDear Mr. Sone: cincts in the county. You have requested our opinion as to whether a county may combine its justiceprecincts so that there are only two justice precincts in the county. You state that, at present, Real County has only two justicesof the peace for its four precincts. Article 5, section 18 of the Texas Constitutionprovides, in pertinent part:

Each organized county in the State now or hereafter existing, shall be divided from time to time, for the convenience of the people, into precincts,not less than four and not more than eight . . . . In each such precinct there shallbe electedone Justice of the Peace and one Constable. . . . (Emphasisadded). The constitutionalrequirement regarding the minimum number of precincts Is clear, and, as we Observed inAttorney GeneralOpinion H-32 (1973),with respect to another portion of article 5, section 18:

This provision leaves no room for interpretation and itmust be obeyed. There must be one commissioner from each of four precincts, elected by the voters of each precinct. Id. at 1. See Williamsv. Castleman, 247 S.W. 263, 267 (Tex. 1922)~ StatGx rel. Dowlenv. Rigsby. 43 S.W. 271, 273 (Tex. Civ. Ape.), writ ref'd, 43 S.W. 1101 (Tex. 1897). Thus,

p. 4467Honorable RobertA. Sone - Page 2 (H-1088)

in our opinion,a countymust maintain a minimumof four justice precincts. Furthermore,article 5, section 18 also requires that a justice of thepeace "shallbe elected" in eachprecinct. In the event of a vacancy in the office, article 5, section 28 directs that it "shallbe filled by the CommissionersCourt until the next succeedingGeneral Election." SUMMARY A countymay not combine its justiceprecincts so that there are only two justice precincts in the county. Xery truly yours,

Attorney General APPROVED:

DALL, First Assistant

C. ROBERT HEATH, Chairman Opinion Committee jst of Texas

p. 4468
PUBLIC SUBMISSION

As of: 7/18/15 9:01 PM

Received: July 18, 2015

Status: Pending_Post

Tracking No. 1jz-8k1p-bsib

Comments Due: July 21, 2015

Submission Type: Web

Docket: EBSA-2010-0050

Definition of the Term ‘‘Fiduciary’’; Conflict of Interest Rule—Retirement Investment Advice; 

Notice of proposed rulemaking and withdrawal of previous proposed rule.

Comment On: EBSA-2010-0050-0205

Definition of Fiduciary; Conflict of Interest Rule-Retirement Investment Advice and Related 

Proposed Prohibited Transaction Exemptions; Hearing and Comment Period Extension

Document: EBSA-2010-0050-DRAFT-2524

Comment on FR Doc # 2015-14921

Submitter Information

Name: David Boyd

General Comment

It is very important that consumers be able to have choice in how they pay for professional 

advice. Forcing all people into a fee based program will result in higher costs and reduced 

options. For instance, in my practice, several clients have removed assets Fromm fee based 

programs this year to re-allocate to cash and CDs. This is accomplished far more efficiently 

outside of a fee based program.