alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 172 (Thursday, September 6, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Page 51212]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 07-4345]


========================================================================
Notices
                                                Federal Register
________________________________________________________________________

This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER contains documents other than rules 
or proposed rules that are applicable to the public. Notices of hearings 
and investigations, committee meetings, agency decisions and rulings, 
delegations of authority, filing of petitions and applications and agency 
statements of organization and functions are examples of documents 
appearing in this section.

========================================================================


Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 172 / Thursday, September 6, 2007 / 
Notices

[[Page 51212]]



DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Forest Service


Notice of Southwest Idaho Resource Advisory Committee Meeting

AGENCY: Forest Service, USDA.

ACTION: Notice of meeting.

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

SUMMARY: Pursuant to the authorities in the Federal Advisory Committee 
Act (Pub. L. 92-463) and under the Secure Rural Schools and Community 
Self-Determination Act of 2000 (Pub. L. 106-393), the Boise and Payette 
National Forests' Southwest Idaho Resource Advisory Committee will 
conduct a business meeting, which is open to the public.

DATES: Wednesday, September 12, 2007, beginning at 10:30 a.m.

ADDRESSES: Idaho Counties Risk Management Program Building, 3100 South 
Vista Avenue, Boise, Idaho.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Doug Gochnour, Designated Federal Officer, 
at 208-392-6681 or e-mail <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#1074777f73787e7f65625076633e7675743e6563"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="fd999a929e959392888fbd9b8ed39b9899d3888e">[email protected]</span></a>.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Agenda topics will include review and 
approval of project proposals, and is an open public forum.

    Dated: August 29, 2007.
Richard A. Smith,
Forest Supervisor, Boise National Forest.
[FR Doc. 07-4345 Filed 9-5-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-11-M


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
SAT Report

PMN Number: P-15-0328

SAT Date: 3/16/2015 11:00:00 PM

Print Date: 7/7/2015

Related cases: : Yes

Health related cases: 

Ecotox related cases: Analogs: 

Concern levels:

Type of Concern: Health Eco Comments

Level of Concern: 1-2 1

 Persistence Bioaccum Toxicity Comments

3 11

Exposure Based Review:

Health:

Ecotox: No

Routes of exposure: Health: Inhalation 

Ecotox: No releases to water

Fate: ;

Keywords:

 Keywords: LUNG

Summary of Assessment:

 Fate:

Fate Summary: P-15-0328

FATE: 

S < 0.001 mg/L at 25 °C (E)

VP < 1.0E-6 torr at 25 °C (E)

BP > 400 °C (E)

H < 1.00E-8 (E)

POTW removal (%) = 90 via sorption

Time for complete ultimate aerobic biodeg > mo

Sorption to soils/sediments = v.strong

PBT Potential: P3B1

 Fate assessor: Ecotox assessor: Health assessor:
# Materials Not Included in **Airworthiness Directive (AD) Docket**

Docket Number: FAA - 2014 - 0428 Directorate Identifier: 2014NM067AD

B787 - 81205 - SB270020 - 00, ISSUE 001 --- 2/6/14 B787 - 81205 - SB27002 7 - 00, I SSUE 001 --- 9/ 26/14

Name/Description of Item(s) Not Included in FDMS Docket and Maintained in the Supplemental AD Docket 

### MA **Y BE VIEWED AT:** Feder al Aviation Administration

Transport Airplane Directorate Rules Docket 1601 Lind Ave. SW., Renton, WA 98057 425.227.1221 **DURING THE HOURS OF:** 9 a.m. and 3 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. Form Date: 0 3/05/2008
From: Fred Overton [mailto:foverton@finproinc.com] 

Sent: Tuesday, June 23, 2015 4:18 PM

To: EBSA, E-ORI - EBSA

Subject: Fiduciary Definition and Retirement Advice conflict of interestregulation. 1210-AB32

6-23-2015

To whom it may concern.

I am a Certified Financial Planner Practitioner. I Own a small financial Planning business in 

Overland Park, kansas which employs 4 people. I have been a practicing financial planner in 

this community for over 30 years. I am very concerned about this new regulation and how it is 

going to effect my business and my current and potential clients. This new regulation seems to 

eliminate being compensated by commissions on any investment made in a retirement plan, 

which includes not only Employer Sponsored plans but also individual IRA's. The new ruling 

seems to want everyone to only be compensated by fees when working with retirement plan 

(IRA) assets. Historically, fee based compensation has been limited to clients with over 

$100,000 to invest. At that point the fee represents a small enough percentage of the assets to 

make sense. Although over the years I have done a great deal of Fee work, I have had occasion 

to work with hundreds of smaller accounts as I have helped the children of my clients get 

started with savings plan's, IRA's, etc. The average IRA Rollover in this country is approximatley 

$27,000, which is not nearly enough to effectively use a fee. Being paid a commision on mutual 

fund IRA sales has been the most effective way to work with these smaller investors and help 

them get started. If we are not allowed to earn commisions on IRA investments, we will simply 

not be able to afford to advise these potential clients.

Please re-consider this regulation and due away with the restriction which virtually eliminates 

commissions on IRA's. It will preserve a method of compensation my clients and I have used 

successfully since I became a Financial Planner in 1984. It will also continue to provide a way 

for the smaller investors to continue to access good financial advice. The way this regulation is 

written, I believe it will most certainly end up with the unintended consequence of limiting 

access to financial advice for smaller investors.

Thank You,

Fred Overton 

Fred Overton, CFP®

President

Phone (913) 661-1770

Securities offered through Registered Representatives of Cambridge Investment Research, Inc., a Broker/Dealer Member 

FINRA/SIPC. Advisory Services offered through Cambridge Investment Research Advisory, Inc., a Registered Representative 

Advisor. Financial Professionals, Inc. and Cambridge are not affiliated.
[Civ. No. 1090.

First Appellate District.

October 23, 1912.]

#### W. F. HANKE, Appellant, v. H. B. McLAUGHLIN, City Clerk of Sanger, Respondent.

Appeal—Absence op Judgment in Mandamus—Order Sustaining Demurrer to Petition—Want op Jurisdiction—Dismissal.-—An appeal does not lie from an order sustaining or overruling a demurrer to a petition for a writ of *mandamus.*The .action of the court upon the demurrer can only be reviewed upon the appeal from the final judgment entered in the proceedings, and where no final judgment appears in the record, the court has no jurisdiction of the appeal, and it must be dismissed.

APPEAL from a judgment and order of the Superior Court of Fresno County sustaining a demurrer to a petition for a writ of mandate. H. Z. Austin, Judge.

The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.

Everts & Ewing, for Appellant.

E. L. Howell, and Drew & Drew, for Respondent.

HALL, J.

This purports to be an appeal from a judgment and order “sustaining the demurrer of defendant to plaintiff's petition herein.” The petition was one for a writ of mandate against the defendant as city clerk of the city of Sanger.

The record before us discloses that the court sustained defendant’s demurrer to plaintiff’s petition, but it does not disclose that any judgment, either denying or dismissing the petition, was ever rendered or entered. The notice of appeal in the record purports to be an appeal “from that certain order and judgment . . . sustaining the demurrer of defendant to plaintiff’s petition herein.”

The only order in the record is as follows: “The demurrer to the petition for a writ of *mandamus,*which said demurrer is on file herein, is argued by respective counsel, and- submitted, and it is by the court ordered that the said 'demurrer be, and it is hereby sustained.” There is no final judgment in the record whatever.

*205An appeal does not lie from an order either sustaining or overruling a demurrer. The action of the court upon the demurrer can only he reviewed upon an appeal from the final judgment entered in the action or special proceeding. *(Moraga*v. *Emeric,*4 Cal. 308; *Moulton*v. *Ellmaker,*30 Cal. 529; *Agard*v. *Valencia,*39 Cal. 292; *Hibberd*v. *Smith,*39 Cal. 145; *Fortain*v. *Smith,*114 Cal. 494, [46 Pac. 381]; *Wood, Curtis & Co.*v. *Missouri etc. Ry. Co.,*152 Cal. 344, [92 Pac. 868]; *Litch*v. *Kerns,*8 Cal. App. 747, [97 Pac. 897]; Code Civ. Proc., secs. 939, 963.) (See, also, *Kimple*v. *Conway,*69 Cal. 71, [10 Pac. 189]; *Foley*v. *Foley,*120 Cal. 33, [65 Am. St. Rep. 147, 52 Pac. 122]; *Stebbins*v. *Larson,*4 Cal. App. 482, [88 Pac. 505].)

As this court has no jurisdiction of the appeal, we must dismiss the appeal. *(Pedlar*v. *Stroud,*116 Cal. 461, [48 Pac. 371]; *Bienenfeld*v. *Fresno Milling Co.,*82 Cal. 425, [22 Pac. 1113].)

The appeal is dismissed:

Lennon, P. J., and Kerrigan, J., concurred.
§ 211.57 Petitions for reconsideration. ( a ) Any person may petition the Administrator for reconsideration of final action taken in proceedings subject to subpart C or E of this part.
( b ) The petition must specify with particularity the grounds for modification or revocation of the action in question.
( c ) The Administrator does not consider repetitious petitions.
( d ) Unless the Administrator specifically provides otherwise, and gives notice to interested parties or publishes notice in the Federal Register, the filing of a petition under this section does not stay the effectiveness of the action sought to be reconsidered.
**Exhibit 32.2****CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, W. Douglas Parker, the Chief ExecutiveOfficer of America West Airlines, Inc. (the “Company”) and Derek J. Kerr, the Chief FinancialOfficer of the Company, hereby certify that, to the best of their knowledge:1. The Company’s Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2005, to whichthis Certification is attached as Exhibit 32.2 (the “Periodic Report”), fully complies withthe requirements of section 13(a) or section 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and 2. The information contained in the Periodic Report fairly presents, in all material respects,the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned have set their hands hereto as of the 9th day of November 2005.     /s/ W. Douglas Parker        W. Douglas Parker
PUBLIC SUBMISSION

As of: 6/24/15 9:39 PM

Received: June 22, 2015

Status: Pending_Post

Tracking No. 1jz-8jkf-od64

Comments Due: July 06, 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-2010-0050-0204

Definition of the Term Fiduciary; Conflict of Interest Rule-Retirement Investment Advice

Document: EBSA-2010-0050-DRAFT-0324

Comment on FR Doc # 2015-08831

Submitter Information

Name: Bruce Woodard

General Comment

Please be advised that I am writing to object to the new Conflict of Interest Rule that broadens 

the definition of the term Fiduciary to include me as a financial planner making 

recommendations to my clients for their retirement planning. I have been serving my clients for 

over 30 years in the financial planning industry. I have held the title of CFP and required to take 

continuing education including ethics every year and have built my business on the basis of 

trust. Improperly classifying me as a fiduciary based on planning recommendations would 

adversely impact my business and would add no value to my clients.

Page 1 of 1

https://www.fdms.gov/fdms/getcontent?objectId=0900006481b4d87d&format=xml&show... 6/24/2015
```

[Congressional Bills 104th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2257 Introduced in House (IH)]

  1st Session
                                H. R. 2257

     To clear certain impediments to the licensing of a vessel for 
 employment in the coastwise trade and fisheries of the United States.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             August 4, 1995

Mr. Gilchrest introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
             Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
     To clear certain impediments to the licensing of a vessel for 
 employment in the coastwise trade and fisheries of the United States.
    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled, That, notwithstanding 
sections 12105, 12106, 12107, and 12108 of title 46, United States 
Code, and section 27 of the Merchant Marine Act, 1920 (46 App. U.S.C. 
883), as applicable on the date of this Act, the Secretary of the 
Department in which the Coast Guard is operating may issue a 
certificate of documentation for the vessel Charlotte K (Maryland 
certification number MN 1397AM).
                                 <all>
```
EX-4.16.1



 Exhibit 4.16.1 
  

			
		  	 




 Level 7, 151 Macquarie Street

Sydney
 NSW 2000

Australia


 Ms Deanne Miller 
 General
Counsel & Company Secretary 
 Prima BioMed Limited 

Dear Deanne 
 Variation to Executive Employment Agreement
dated 13 October 2012 (“Agreement”) 
 Further to our recent discussions, Prima BioMed Limited (“Prima”) agrees to vary
your Agreement as set out in the attached Schedule. 
 This variation is effective from Friday 1 February 2013, with your increased Remuneration (from
going from 3 days to 5 days per week) backdated to this date. Your new Remuneration will start being paid to you from the next payroll run, with any back pay backdated to 1 February 2013 paid on this day as well. 

All other terms and conditions of your Agreement remain the same. 

Please indicate your acceptance of this variation by signing (in duplicate) this letter and returning one executed copy to me. 

Prima looks forward to your ongoing assistance. 
 Yours
faithfully, 
 /s/ Matthew Lehman 
 Matthew Lehman 

Chief Executive Officer 
 Prima BioMed Ltd 

I accept the variation to the Agreement 
  

	
	
	
	/s/ Deanne Miller
	Deanne Miller

  







 Schedule 

Agreed amendments to Agreement: 
  

			
	 Clause
	 	 Agreed Amendment

		
	4(e)	 	 Delete existing clause. Insert a new clause as follows:
  

“The Executive’s normal hours of work will be from 9.00 am to 5.30 pm Monday to Friday together with such reasonable additional hours outside these
hours, including at weekends or during holidays, as are reasonably necessary for the proper performance of the Executive’s duties. The Executive will not be entitled to additional remuneration for work performed outside the Executive’s
normal working hours.”

		
	5(a)	 	Delete the words “(pro rata for part-time hours)”.
-----Original Message----- 

From: josephmoorephd@earthlink.net 

[mailto:josephmoorephd@earthlink.net] 

Sent: Sunday, April 25, 2010 10:43 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. 

Sincerely, 

Joseph Moore 

315 West 70th Street Apt 5H 

New York, NY 10023
#### § 236.328 Plunger of facing-point lock.

Plunger of lever operated facing-point lock shall have at least 8-inch stroke. When lock lever is in unlocked position the end of the plunger shall clear the lock rod not more than one inch.
```

[Journal of the House of Representatives, 1995]
[Tuesday, September 12, 1995 (113), Para 113.34 Reports of Committees on Public Bills and Resolutions]
[Page 1329]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]

para.113.34  reports of committees on public bills and resolutions

  Under clause 2 of rule XIII, reports of committees were delivered to 
the Clerk for printing and reference to the proper calendar, as follows:

       Mr. GOSS: Committee on Rules. House Resolution 218. 
     Resolution providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 
     1162) to establish a deficit reduction trust fund and provide 
     for the downward adjustment of discretionary spending limits 
     in appropriation bills (Rept. No. 104-243). Referred to the 
     House Calendar.
       Mr. McINNIS: Committee on Rules. House Resolution 219. 
     Resolution providing for the consideration of the bill (H.R. 
     1670) to revise and streamline the acquisition laws of the 
     Federal Government, to reorganize the mechanisms for 
     resolving Federal procurement disputes, and for other 
     purposes (Rept. No. 104-244). Referred to the House Calendar.
```
[Crim. No. 400.

First Appellate District.

October 2, 1912.]

#### THE PEOPLE, Respondent, v. EDWARD WILSON, Appellant.

Criminal Law—Bobbery—Appeal prom Judgment and Order Denying New Trial—Bevibw upon Appeal—Absence op Briep or Transcript—Affirmance.-—Where an appeal is taken both from a judgment of conviction of robbery and from an order denying a new trial, and no brief or argument is submitted for the appellant, and the case has been ordered to be submitted for decision, where it appears that no reporter’s transcript has been filed, and' that the time for such filing under section 1247. of the Penal Code, or any extension thereof which could be granted under section 1247d of the same code, has long since elapsed, the appeal from the order denying the motion for a new trial cannot be considered and where no error appears upon the judgment-roll, the judgment and order must be affirmed.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of the City and County of San Francisco, and from an order denying a new trial. William P. Lawlor, Judge.

The facts are stated in the opinion of the court.

Edward O ’Dea, and John F. Brady, for Appellant.

U. S. Webb, Attorney-General, for Respondent.

KERRIGAN, J.

The defendant was convicted of the crime of robbery, and sentenced to imprisonment in the state prison for a term of twelve years. The appeal is from the judgment and an order denying a motion for a new trial.

The cause was on our last calendar for argument, and, when called, counsel for defendant failed to argue it, but obtained time within which to file a brief. No brief having been filed, and the time allowed therefor having expired, the court this day ordered the matter to be submitted for decision.

On examination of the record we find that no reporter’s transcript has been filed, and the time for such filing, under section 1247 of the Penal Code, or any extension thereof which could he granted under section 1247d of said code, has *41long since elapsed. The appeal from the order denying the motion for a new trial cannot, therefore, be considered.

So far as the appeal from the judgment is concerned we have examined the judgment-roll, and find nothing therein which lends any support to the defendant in such appeal.

The judgment and order are accordingly affirmed.

Hall, J., and Lennon, P. J., concurred.
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-0717 

Comment on FR Doc # 2010-2167 

Submitter Information 

Name: Dr. Christine Adams 

Address: 

2211 Norfolk 

Suite 140 

Houston, TX, 77098 

Email: dr.ckadams@gmail.com 

Phone: 713-850-0553 

Organization: self-employed psychologist 

General Comment 

I have had all major private for-profit health plans tell me that they can restrict the number of 

outpatient mental health sessions if they decide they are not medically necessary. Their definition 

of medical necessity included the requirement that depressed patients be on anti-depressant 

medication or talk therapy is not considered medically necessity – even if patients do not want to 

take medicine for their condition. I have been told that patients can’t have twice a week sessions 

unless they are suicidal or homicidal. I have been told that if patients don’t show “signs of 

improvement” then outpatient therapy is not medically necessary because “they aren’t benefiting”. 

These companies also are putting in time-intensive “medical necessity reviews” where a 

bureaucrat on the other end who has no knowledge of the patient is the arbiter of whether or not 

treatment nor is that bureaucrat a practitioner who has the same level of experience as I do after 25 

+ years of doing psychological counseling. I was also told that not all Axis I diagnoses qualify for 

mental health parity which is the opposite of what I have been told. 

Many plans are still charging “specialist” rates for outpatient psychotherapy when they are 

suppose to be only charging primary care co-pay rates. I have a friend in small business who was 

PUBLIC SUBMISSION 

As of: May 04, 2010 

Received: May 03, 2010 

Status: Pending_Post 

Tracking No. 80ae5cd5 

Comments Due: May 03, 2010

Submission Type: Web

Page 1 of 2

file://C:\Documents and Settings\baum.beth.EBSADOL\Local Settings\Temp\Temporary Di... 5/4/2010
told her company did not qualify for mental health parity. I thought that the small business owner 

was the party who decided whether or not to have mental health parity – not that a health plan 

could deny them mental health parity because the business had fewer than 50 employees (most of 

businesses are under 50 employees. 

Also, you need to make sure there are no loopholes from “free standing” mental health companies 

like ValueOptions or OptumHealth where they are not a part of the medical/surgical health plan 

where these free standing companies can charge higher co-pays/deductibles or have different 

limits/lifetime maximums than the med/surg plans have.

Page 2 of 2

file://C:\Documents and Settings\baum.beth.EBSADOL\Local Settings\Temp\Temporary Di... 5/4/2010