alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
§ 378.4 Documentation of claims. ( a ) Claims for overcharge, duplicate payment, or overcollection shall be accompanied by sufficient information to allow the carriers to conduct an investigation and pay or decline the claim within the time limitations set forth in § 378.8. Claims shall include the name of the claimant, its file number, if any, and the amount of the refund sought to be recovered, if known.
( b ) Claims for overcharge shall be accompanied by the freight bill. Additional information may include, but is not limited to, the following: ( 1 ) The rate, classification, or commodity description or weight claimed to have been applicable.
( 2 ) Complete tariff authority for the rate, classification, or commodity description claimed.
( 3 ) Freight bill payment information.
( 4 ) Other documents or data which is believed by claimant to substantiate the basis for its claim.
( c ) Claims for duplicate payment and overcollection shall be accompanied by the freight bill(s) for which charges were paid and by freight bill payment information.
( d ) Regardless of the provisions of paragraphs (a), (b), and (c) of this section, the failure to provide sufficient information and documentation to allow a carrier to conduct an investigation and pay or decline the claim within the allowable time limitation shall not constitute grounds for disallowance of the claim. Rather, the carrier shall comply with § 378.5(c) to obtain the additional information required.
( e ) A carrier shall accept copies instead of the original documents required to be submitted in this section where the carrier is furnished with an agreement entered into by the claimant which indemnifies the carrier for subsequent duplicate claims which might be filed and supported by the original documents.
[43 FR 41040, Sept. 14, 1978, as amended at 44 FR 4679, Jan. 23, 1979; 47 FR 12804, Mar. 25, 1982; 62 FR 15424, Apr. 1, 1997; 83 FR 16225, Apr. 16, 2018]
EBSA-2010-0050-DRAFT-0912.html[7/21/2015 6:00:05 PM]

PUBLIC SUBMISSION

As of: July 16, 2015

Received: July 08, 2015

Status: Pending_Post

Tracking No. 1jz-8jvb-4wya

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-0912

Comment on FR Doc # 2015-14921

Submitter Information

Name: Anonymous Anonymous

General Comment

I am smart enough to control my own 401K plan - big government - stay out of our personal business.
§ 238.753 Sanders. ( a ) A Tier III trainset shall be equipped with operative sanders, if required by the railroad and as approved by FRA.
( b ) Sanders required under this section shall comply with § 229.131(a), (b), and (d) of this chapter, except that instead of the requirements of §§ 229.9 and 229.23 of this chapter: ( 1 ) The requirements of § 238.17 shall apply to the tagging and movement of a Tier III trainset with defective sanders; and
( 2 ) The requirements of the railroad's ITM program shall apply to the next periodic inspection of such a trainset.
( c ) In addition to the requirements in paragraph (b) of this section, the railroad's ITM program shall specify the inspection, testing, and maintenance requirements for Tier III trainsets equipped with sanders.
§ 380.721 Removal from training provider registry: factors considered. FMCSA may remove a provider from the TPR when a provider fails to meet or maintain any of the qualifications established by this subpart or the requirements of other State and Federal regulations applicable to the provider. If FMCSA removes a provider from the TPR, any training conducted after the removal date will be considered invalid. ( a ) The factors FMCSA may consider for removing a provider from the TPR include, but are not limited to, the following: ( 1 ) The provider fails to comply with the requirements for continued listing on the TPR, as described in § 380.719.
( 2 ) The provider denies FMCSA or its authorized representatives the opportunity to conduct an audit or investigation of its training operations.
( 3 ) The audit or investigation conducted by FMCSA or its authorized representatives identifies material deficiencies, pertaining to the training provider's program, operations, or eligibility.
( 4 ) The provider falsely claims to be licensed, certified, registered, or authorized to provide training in accordance with the applicable laws and regulations in any State where in-person training is provided.
( 5 ) The State-administered CDL skills examination passage rate for applicants for the Class A CDL, Class B CDL, passenger endorsement, and/or school bus endorsement who complete the provider's training and the CDL knowledge test passage rate for applicants for the hazardous materials endorsement who complete the provider's training.
( b ) In instances of fraud or other criminal behavior by a training provider in which driver-trainees have knowingly participated, FMCSA reserves the right, on a case-by-case basis, to retroactively invalidate training conducted under this subpart .
```

[Congressional Bills 107th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 843 Introduced in House (IH)]

107th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 843

To amend title 38, United States Code, to allow the sworn affidavit of 
  a veteran who served in combat during the Korean War or an earlier 
conflict to be accepted as proof of service-connection of a disease or 
  injury alleged to have been incurred or aggravated by such service.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             March 1, 2001

 Mr. Reynolds introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                     Committee on Veterans' Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To amend title 38, United States Code, to allow the sworn affidavit of 
  a veteran who served in combat during the Korean War or an earlier 
conflict to be accepted as proof of service-connection of a disease or 
  injury alleged to have been incurred or aggravated by such service.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SWORN AFFIDAVIT OF KOREAN CONFLICT AND EARLIER COMBAT 
              VETERANS TO BE ACCEPTED AS PROOF OF SERVICE-CONNECTION OF 
              DISEASE OR INJURY ALLEGED TO HAVE BEEN INCURRED OR 
              AGGRAVATED DURING COMBAT.

    (a) In General.--Section 1154(b) of title 38, United States Code, 
is amended--
            (1) by inserting ``(1)'' after ``(b)'';
            (2) by inserting ``after July 27, 1953,'' after ``in active 
        service'';
            (3) by designating the third sentence as paragraph (3) and 
        in that paragraph inserting ``under paragraph (1) or (2)'' 
        after ``in each case''; and
            (4) by inserting after paragraph (1), as designated by 
        paragraph (1) of this subsection, the following new paragraph:
    ``(2) In the case of any veteran who engaged in combat with the 
enemy in active service on or before July 27, 1953, with a military, 
naval, or air organization of the United States during a period of war, 
campaign, or expedition, if there is no clear and convincing evidence 
to the contrary the Secretary shall accept as sufficient proof of 
service-connection of any disease or injury alleged to have been 
incurred in or aggravated by such service the sworn affidavit of the 
veteran attesting to the service-connection of such disease or injury, 
notwithstanding the fact that there is no official record of such 
incurrence or aggravation in such service.''.
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by subsection (a) shall 
apply with respect to affidavits submitted after the date of the 
enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
From: David Rodeback [mailto:DRodeback@dmba.com] 

Sent: Friday, April 30, 2010 6:50 PM 

To: EBSA, E-OHPSCA - EBSA; David Call 

Subject: Interim parity regulations

April 30, 2010 

Amy Turner 

Benefits Security Administration, 

Department of Labor 

Cc: Interim Final Rules (Mental Health Parity) 

RIN 1210-AB30 

Dear Amy Turner, 

We believe that there are unintended consequences from the application of the 

mathematical formula for determining “substantially all” medical surgical cost’s in our 

commercial plans. We were surprised that commercial medical/surgical plans with 80% 

cost sharing methods could be held to a standard that declares that they fail to prove that 

they have substantial cost sharing. And that this failure would require that no cost sharing 

could be applied to Mental Health services. 

The mathematical formula contained in the regulations does not take into account 

categories of benefits that have both co-insurance and co-payment provisions. This lack 

of insight has resulted in a prohibition of cost sharing to mental health services, 

essentially making mental health services free to participants while medical benefits have 

a participant cost. 

This can be demonstrated by an example from our plans; 

 Outpatient in-network medical surgical total costs equal $184 per member per 

month. 

 15% of these costs have a co-payment associated with them. 

 65% of these costs have a co-insurance associated with them. 

 As a result, neither copayments nor coinsurance meet the 2/3 rule for the “substantially 

all.” requirement. 

In conclusion, the definition of total medical/surgical costs as applied separately to 

different cost sharing methods creates an inaccurate description of cost sharing imposed 

on the medical/surgical services. It would be our contention that this process creates an 

inequity that exceeds the intention of the Act and violates the paradigm of parity between 

medical/surgical and mental health services. In that this scenario will impact more 
insurers than just Deseret Healthcare it would be recommend that further consideration 

be given concerning the directions of how to apply the “substantially all” rule to plans 

with more than one cost sharing method per category. 

Sincerely, 

David E Rodeback PhD, LCSW 

Deseret Mutual Benefits Administrators 

Mental Health Department, davidro@dmba.com
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 9
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
<CURRENCY> US
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1997
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                         124,518
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                           1,795
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                12,375
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                    531,148
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                               0
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                                 0
<LOANS>                                      1,331,921
<ALLOWANCE>                                     20,623
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               2,149,094
<DEPOSITS>                                   1,739,021
<SHORT-TERM>                                   148,555
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                             16,550
<LONG-TERM>                                     30,567
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        13,414
<OTHER-SE>                                     200,987
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>               2,149,094
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                 70,279
<INTEREST-INVEST>                               18,315
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                   611
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                                89,205
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                              33,668
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              38,525
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                           50,680
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                    2,350
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                 411
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                 45,254
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 22,376
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                      14,614
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    14,614
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     1.33
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.33
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    4.76
<LOANS-NON>                                     19,835
<LOANS-PAST>                                     2,959
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                     0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                      0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                13,647
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                    3,727
<RECOVERIES>                                       865
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                               20,623
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                            20,623
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                              0
        

</TABLE>
Editorial Note on Part 325
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 325 appear at 66 FR 49869, Oct. 1, 2001.

§ 325.35 Ambient conditions; highway operations. ( a ) ( 1 ) *Sound.* The ambient A-weighted sound level at the microphone location point shall be measured, in the absence of motor vehicle noise emanating from within the clear zone, with fast meter response using a sound level measurement system that conforms to the rules of § 325.23.
( 2 ) The measured ambient level must be 10 dB(A) or more below that level specified in § 325.7, Table 1, which corresponds to the maximum permissible sound level reading which is applicable at the test site at the time of testing.
( b ) *Wind.* The wind velocity at the test shall be measured at the beginning of each series of noise measurements and at intervals of 5-15 minutes thereafter until it has been established that the wind velocity is essentially constant. Once this fact has been established, wind velocity measurements may be made at intervals of once every hour. Noise measurements may only be made if the measured wind velocity is 12 mph (19.3 kph) or less. Gust wind measurements of up to 20 mph (33.2 kph) are allowed.
( c ) *Precipitation.* Measurements are prohibited under any condition of precipitation, however, measurements may be made with snow on the ground. The ground surface within the measurement area must be free of standing water.
[40 FR 42437, Sept. 12, 1975, as amended at 41 FR 10227, Mar. 10, 1976; 41 FR 28267, July 9, 1976]
```

[Journal of the House of Representatives, 1995]
[Tuesday, November 7, 1995 (141), Para 141.36 After Recess--11:00 P.M.]
[Page 1879]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]

para.141.36  after recess--11:00 p.m.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore, Mr. DREIER, called the House to order.
```
-----Original Message----- 

From: gloriahb@comcast.net [mailto:gloriahb@comcast.net] 

Sent: Monday, April 26, 2010 12:10 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, 

Gloria Brown 

4235 Lime Kiln Rd. 

Placerville, CA 95667
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 183 (Friday, September 21, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Page 54049]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 07-4675]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health


National Institute of Child Health and Human Development; Notice 
of Closed Meeting

    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 contract proposals and the discussions could 
disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as 
patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals 
associated with the contract proposals, the disclosure of which would 
constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

    Name of Committee: National Institute of Child Health and Human 
Development Special Emphasis Panel, Newborn Screening: Translational 
Research Network Coordinating Review.
    Date: October 10, 2007.
    Time: 11:55 a.m. to 2:00 p.m.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate contract proposals.
    Place: National Institutes of Health, 6100 Executive Boulevard, 
5B01, Rockville, MD 20852. (Telephone Conference Call)
    Contact Person: Hameed Khan, PhD, Scientific Review 
Administrator, Division of Scientific Review, National Institute of 
Child Health and Human Development, NIH, 6100 Executive Blvd., Room 
5B01, Bethesda, MD 20892, (301) 435-6902, <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#5a31323b34321a373b333674343332743d352c"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="670c0f06090f270a060e0b49090e0f49000811">[email protected]</span></a>.
    This notice is being published less than 15 days prior to the 
meeting due to the timing limitations imposed by the review and 
funding cycle.

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.864, 
Population Research; 93.865, Research for Mothers and Children; 
93.929, Center for Medical Rehabilitation Research; 93.209, 
Contraception and Infertity Loan Repayment Program, National 
Institutes of Health, HHS)

    Dated: September 14, 2007.
Jennifer Spaeth,
Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
[FR Doc. 07-4675 Filed 9-20-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-M


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
**Exhibit 32.1**

 

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C.SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THESARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

 

 

The undersigned, Joseph A. Sasenick, Chairman and Chief ExecutiveOfficer of Alcide Corporation, and John P. Richards, President and ChiefFinancial Officer of Alcide Corporation, each hereby certifies, pursuant to 18U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

 

(1)                                  the quarterly report on Form 10-Q of AlcideCorporation for the period ended November 30, 2003 (the “Report”) fullycomplies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)); and

 

(2)                                  the information contained in the Reportfairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and resultsof operations of Alcide Corporation.

 
| Dated:  January 13, 2004 |
|------------------------------------|
|                               |
|                               | /s/ Joseph A. Sasenick |   |
|                               | Joseph A. Sasenick |
|                               | Chairman and Chief Executive  Officer, |
|                               | Alcide Corporation |
|                               |   |
|                               |   |
|                               | /s/ John P. Richards |   |
|                               | John P. Richards |
|                               | President and Chief Financial  Officer, |
|                               | Alcide Corporation |
|                                    |  |  |  |

 

1

----
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

JUDGMENT RENDERED AUGUST 14, 2014

NO. 03-13-00583-CR

Samuel Edward Baker, Appellant

v.

The State of Texas, Appellee

APPEAL FROM 426TH DISTRICT COURT OF BELL COUNTY

BEFORE CHIEF JUSTICE JONES, JUSTICES PEMBERTON AND FIELD

AFFIRMED -- OPINION BY JUSTICE PEMBERTON

This is an appeal from the judgment of conviction rendered by the district court. Having 

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

in the district court’s judgment of conviction. Therefore, the Court affirms the district court’s

judgment of conviction. Because appellant is indigent and unable to pay costs, no adjudication 

of costs is made.
EBSA-2010-0050-DRAFT-1238.html[7/22/2015 8:59:41 PM]

PUBLIC SUBMISSION

As of: July 16, 2015

Received: July 08, 2015

Status: Pending_Post

Tracking No. 1jz-8jve-yuev

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-1238

Comment on FR Doc # 2015-14921

Submitter Information

Name: Brian Lupinski

Address:

204 Wall Street

West Winfield, NY, 13491

Email: cfdfireman30@yahoo.com

Phone: 3154041534

General Comment

I have been planning my retirement through my employer and other investment strategies. I don't need the

 government meddling in my business
```

[Congressional Bills 107th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 161 Engrossed in House (EH)]

                 In the House of Representatives, U.S.,

                                                         June 14, 2001.
    Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it shall be in order 
without intervention of any point of order to consider in the House the bill 
(H.R. 1088) to amend the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 to reduce fees 
collected by the Securities and Exchange Commission, and for other purposes. The 
bill shall be considered as read for amendment. In lieu of the amendment 
recommended by the Committee on Financial Services now printed in the bill, the 
amendment in the nature of a substitute printed in the Congressional Record and 
numbered 1 pursuant to clause 8 of rule XVIII shall be considered as adopted. 
The previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill, as amended, 
and on any further amendment thereto to final passage without intervening motion 
except: (1) one hour of debate on the bill, as amended, equally divided and 
controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on 
Financial Services; (2) the further amendment printed in the Congressional 
Record and numbered 2 pursuant to clause 8 of rule XVIII, if offered by 
Representative LaFalce of New York or his designee, which shall be in order 
without intervention of any point of order, shall be considered as read, and 
shall be separately debatable for one hour equally divided and controlled by the 
proponent and an opponent; and (3) one motion to recommit with or without 
instructions.
            Attest:

                                                                          Clerk.
```