alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EBSA-2010-0050-DRAFT-1034.html[7/22/2015 6:56:09 AM]

PUBLIC SUBMISSION

As of: July 16, 2015

Received: July 08, 2015

Status: Pending_Post

Tracking No. 1jz-8jvc-l5ep

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-1034

Comment on FR Doc # 2015-14921

Submitter Information

Name: Melanie Holden

General Comment

Leave my 401k alone! I'm smart enough to plan for my own retirement, thank you!
Editorial Note on Part 386
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 386 appear at 65 FR 7755, Feb. 16, 2000, and 88 FR 80182, Nov. 17, 2023.

§ 386.38 Scope of discovery. ( a ) Unless otherwise limited by order of the Agency Decisionmaker or, in cases that have been called for a hearing, the administrative law judge, in accordance with these rules, the parties may obtain discovery regarding any matter, not privileged, which is relevant to the subject matter involved in the proceeding, including the existence, description, nature, custody, condition, and location of any books, documents, or other tangible things and the identity and location of persons having knowledge of any discoverable matter.
( b ) It is not ground for objection that information sought will not be admissible at the hearing if the information sought appears reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.
( c ) A party may obtain discovery of documents and tangible things otherwise discoverable under paragraph (a) of this section and prepared in anticipation of or for the hearing by or for another party's representative (including his or her attorney, consultant, surety, indemnitor, insurer, or agent) only upon a showing that the party seeking discovery has substantial need of the materials in the preparation of his or her case and that he or she is unable without undue hardship to obtain the substantial equivalent of the materials by other means. In ordering discovery of such materials when the required showing has been made, the Agency Decisionmaker or the administrative law judge shall protect against disclosure of the mental impressions, conclusions, opinions, or legal theories of an attorney or other representative of a party concerning the proceeding.
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

Moore Freight Services, Inc., Charles

“Chip” Strader, and XMEX Transports, 

L.L.C.,

 

 Appellants.

v.

Lorena Munoz, Ind. and on Behalf of the 

Est. of Lorenzo Munoz, and as N/F of CM, 

a Minor Child, Leslie Munoz, Virginia 

Munoz, Jessica Lopez, as N/F of AF and 

JL, Minor Children and heirs to the Est. of 

Roger Franceware, Dec., Rosa 

Franceware, Individually and as Next 

Friend of E.L.F., a Child.

 Appellees. 

 

 

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

No. 08-14-00254-CV

Appeal from the

168th District Court

of El Paso County, Texas 

(TC# 2010-4169 )

O R D E R

The Court GRANTS the Appellants’ Charles “Chip” Strader, and XMEX Transports, 

L.L.C., third motion for extension of time within which to file the brief until August 28, 2015. 

NO FURTHER MOTIONS FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE THE APPELLANT’S 

BRIEF WILL BE CONSIDERED BY THIS COURT.

It is further ORDERED that the Hon. Valerie R. Auger, the Appellant’s attorney, prepare 

the Appellant’s brief and forward the same to this Court on or before August 28, 2015.

IT IS SO ORDERED this 28th day of July, 2015. 

PER CURIAM

Berfore McClure, CJ., Rodriguez and Hughes, JJ.

(Hughes, J., not participating)
Exhibit 23

CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

We consent to
the incorporation by reference in Registration Statement Nos. 33-28486,
33-39862, 33-39864, 66-60930, 33-93662, 33-99566, 333-92063, 333-98323,
333-98325, 333-120561, and 333-161376 on Form S-8 of our report dated March 18,
2010, relating to the consolidated financial statements and financial statement
schedule of Communications Systems, Inc. and subsidiaries (which report
expresses an unqualified opinion) appearing in this Annual Report on Form 10 K
of Communications Systems, Inc. for the year ended December 31, 2009.

|                           | 
|-------------------------- | 
|/s/ Deloitte
 & Touche LLP | 
|                           | 
|March 18,
 2010           
|Minneapolis,
 Minnesota   

55

---
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> UT
<LEGEND>
(AMOUNTS IN 1,000'S, EXCEPT EARNINGS PER SHARE)
INCOME TAX EXPENSE INCLUDES $1,104,000 RELATED TO OTHER INCOME.
</LEGEND>
<CIK> 0000077278
<NAME> PENNSYLVANIA POWER COMPANY
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
<CURRENCY> US DOLLARS

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1997
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<BOOK-VALUE>                                  PER-BOOK
<TOTAL-NET-UTILITY-PLANT>                      742,796
<OTHER-PROPERTY-AND-INVEST>                     26,157
<TOTAL-CURRENT-ASSETS>                          95,799
<TOTAL-DEFERRED-CHARGES>                       169,705
<OTHER-ASSETS>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,034,457
<COMMON>                                       188,700
<CAPITAL-SURPLUS-PAID-IN>                        (400)
<RETAINED-EARNINGS>                            103,677
<TOTAL-COMMON-STOCKHOLDERS-EQ>                 291,977
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                           15,000
<PREFERRED>                                     50,905
<LONG-TERM-DEBT-NET>                           289,305
<SHORT-TERM-NOTES>                                   0
<LONG-TERM-NOTES-PAYABLE>                            0
<COMMERCIAL-PAPER-OBLIGATIONS>                       0
<LONG-TERM-DEBT-CURRENT-PORT>                      850
<PREFERRED-STOCK-CURRENT>                            0
<CAPITAL-LEASE-OBLIGATIONS>                          0
<LEASES-CURRENT>                                 7,551
<OTHER-ITEMS-CAPITAL-AND-LIAB>                 378,869
<TOT-CAPITALIZATION-AND-LIAB>                1,034,457
<GROSS-OPERATING-REVENUE>                      323,381
<INCOME-TAX-EXPENSE>                            26,659
<OTHER-OPERATING-EXPENSES>                     247,090
<TOTAL-OPERATING-EXPENSES>                     272,645
<OPERATING-INCOME-LOSS>                         50,736
<OTHER-INCOME-NET>                               2,760
<INCOME-BEFORE-INTEREST-EXPEN>                  53,496
<TOTAL-INTEREST-EXPENSE>                        22,024
<NET-INCOME>                                    31,472
<PREFERRED-STOCK-DIVIDENDS>                      4,626
<EARNINGS-AVAILABLE-FOR-COMM>                   26,846
<COMMON-STOCK-DIVIDENDS>                        21,386
<TOTAL-INTEREST-ON-BONDS>                       20,458
<CASH-FLOW-OPERATIONS>                          88,751
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0


</TABLE>
**Exhibit 24.8**

**POWER OF ATTORNEY**

**KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS** that I, **Paul Joskow** do hereby appoint John W. Roweand William A. Von Hoene, Jr., or either of them, attorney for me and in my name and on my behalf to sign the annual Securities and Exchange Commission report on Form 10-K for 2008 of Exelon Corporation, together with any amendments thereto, to befiled with the Securities and Exchange Commission, and generally to do and perform all things necessary to be done in the premises as fully and effectually in all respects as I could do if personally present. 

**Paul Joskow**

**DATE: February 2, 2009**
§ 38.39 Destination and route signs. ( a ) Where destination or route information is displayed on the exterior of a vehicle, each vehicle shall have illuminated signs on the front and boarding side of the vehicle.
( b ) Characters on signs required by paragraph (a) of this section shall have a width-to-height ratio between 3:5 and 1:1 and a stroke width-to-height ratio between 1:5 and 1:10, with a minimum character height (using an upper case “X”) of 1 inch for signs on the boarding side and a minimum character height of 2 inches for front “headsigns”, with “wide” spacing (generally, the space between letters shall be 1 ⁄ 16 the height of upper case letters), and shall contrast with the background, either dark-on-light or light-on-dark.
PUBLIC SUBMISSION

As of: 5/27/15 8:30 AM

Received: May 20, 2015

Status: Pending_Post

Tracking No. 1jz-8iy5-fotx

Comments Due: July 06, 2015

Submission Type: API

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-0289

Comment on FR Doc # 2015-08831

Submitter Information

Name: Luke Dean

Address: 

800 W. University Parkway

MS 280

Orem, UT, 84058-6703

Email: luke.dean@ttu.edu

Phone: 8018638236

Organization: Utah Valley University

General Comment

Thank you for your consideration of implementing a fiduciary standard on individuals 

providing advice in the financial services industry.

If you create a true fiduciary standard and have true professionals providing the advice, then I'm 

100% on board.

If you create a "fiduciary lite" standard and make exceptions for salesmen to extract rents from 

consumers that aren't adequately educated to protect themselves from unscrupulous salesmen 

posing as "advisors"... then I am 100% against you.

Authors note: I put salesmen because women seem to be less willing in general to extract rents, 

and more prone to actually be a professional that helps their clients towards their goals. There 

are good men and women in this profession. But I see a lot more variance amongst the men than 

the women in this profession, and if their companies don't incentivize them to do the right thing 

-- then the government needs to exercise some economic paternalism and force them to do the 

Page 1 of 2

https://www.fdms.gov/fdms/getcontent?objectId=0900006481aea60e&format=xml&show... 5/27/2015
right thing, or find a new profession.

I train the future professionals in the financial planning industry, and I want you to know that 

the students are very excited to get into this profession and help people accomplish their goals, 

dreams, etc. Real professionals have standards that force them to put clients first. Think of 

medicine, law, and accounting. I want to see financial planning become a true profession.

In sum:

FIDUCIARY standard ==> Hallelujah! For professionals and clients alike.

FIDUCIARY lite ==> Let's move to England, Australia, or New Zealand.

Don't get into the advice business if your advice isn't going to be in the clients best interest 

under a fiduciary standard. 

Luke Dean, PhD

Financial Planning Program Director

Associate Professor of Financial Planning

Woodbury School of Business

Utah Valley University

Page 2 of 2

https://www.fdms.gov/fdms/getcontent?objectId=0900006481aea60e&format=xml&show... 5/27/2015
#### In the Matter of the Assignment of Girard N. Whitney to Bayard L. Peck, Appellant, for the Benefit of Creditors. Dudley S. Harde et al., Respondents.

*Matter of*Whitney, — App. Div. —, appeal dismissed.

(Argued May 31, 1911;

decided June 6, 1911.)

Appeal from an order of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the first judicial department, entered April 21, 1911, which affirmed an order of Special Term adjudging that the respondents are entitled to prove their claim against the assigned estate.

*Daniel Burke*and *Harold G. Aron*for appellant.

*Charles F. Brown*for respondents.

Appeal dismissed, with costs; no opinion.

Concur: Cullen, Ch. J., Gray, Haight, Werner, Willard Bartlett, Chase and Collin, JJ.
From: Cindy Perlin [mailto:cperlin@nycap.rr.com] 

Sent: Tuesday, May 26, 2009 10:47 PM 

To: EBSA, E-OHPSCA - EBSA 

Subject: Comments on Mental Health Parity Regulations

Comments Regarding Regulatory Guidance USCG-2007-27022 

page 19157, II B specific areas 1 and 4 

I am a Licensed Clinical Social Worker and certified biofeedback practitioner practicing 

in upstate NY who provides neurofeedback treatment to individuals with Attention 

Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder, Autistic Spectrum Disorders and Mood Disorders. 

Neurofeedback 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 neurofeedback in the treatment of ADHD, substance use 

disorders and Autism. A recent review of this literature concluded "Neurofeedback meets 

the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry criteria for Clinical 

Guidelines for treatment of ADHD." This means that neurofeedback meets the same 

criteria as medication for treating ADHD, of which 60% of prescriptions are in fact 

prescribed "off label," and that neurofeedback "should always be considered as an 

intervention for this disorder by the clinician." 

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

Blue Cross, Cigna, and Amerigroup. 

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

reasons given by the insurance companies for this denial is usually that there is not yet 

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

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

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

neurofeedback yet are routinely reimbursed by health insurers . I believe that the parity 

regulations should require that employers and plans cannot be more restrictive in their 

managed care criteria and reviews for mental health and substance abuse disorders than 

for medical and surgical treatments. Today plans are being more restrictive in how they 

review evidenced-based mental health and Substance Abuse Treatments when compared 

to medical surgical treatments. This violates both the intent and letter of the parity statute 

and I hope that the regulations will clarify that this can't continue. 

 

Thank you for considering my comments on this issue. 

 

Sincerely, 

 

Cindy Perlin, LCSW
#### Hundley *et al.,*Appellants, v. Filbert.

Estoppel: DELIVERY BOND EOR GOODS TAKEN IN EXECUTION. The Obligors in a delivery bond, which recites a levy of execution, are es-topped in an action on the bond from pleading that there was no levy.

*Appeal from Gentry Circuit Court.*— Hon. S. A. Richardson, Judge.

Reversed.

*G. W. Lewis*and *Pike Pike*for appellants.

*B. F. Lucas*for respondents.

Henry, J.

Hundley, Judd & Smith, had an execution issued on a judgment in their favor against Charles and George Filbert, and placed in the hands of the sheriff of Gentry county, and on the 22nd day of March, 1877, the defendants in this proceeding executed and delivered to said Hundley, Judd & Smith a delivery bond, reciting a levy of said execution on goods, wares, etc., of the value of $1,200, the property of said Filberts, and obligating themselves that said Filberts should deliver all of said property to the sheriff’, at Albany, in the county of Gentry, on the 10th day of August, 1877. On the 29th day of October, 1877, the return day of said execution, the plaintiffs filed a motion in the circuit court of said county for judgment against the defendants on said bond, the goods therein mentioned not having been delivered in compliance with the condition of the bond, and the'execution having been returned unsatisfied. There was judgment for defendants on the motion, from which plaintiffs have appealed.

The defense relied upon by the sureties in the bond was, that the sheriff had not made a levy on the goods by an actual seizure. It is not necessary to determine whether, on the facts, there was, or was not, such a levy as is contemplated by the statute, since defendants are estopped *35from denying that there was such a levy. *Jewett v. Torrey,*11 Mass. 219; *Lyman v. Lyman,*11 Mass. 317; Price *v. Kennedy,*16 La. Ann. 78; *Inman v. Strattan,*4 Bush 447; *McMillan v. Dana,*18 Cal. 347; *Roebuck v. Thornton,*19 Ga. 151; *Mead v. Figh,*4 Ala. 279; Drake on Attachment, § 339. The judgment is reversed and the cause remanded.

All concur.
#### § 27.1 Purpose.

The purpose of this part is to carry out the intent of section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (29 U.S.C. 794) as amended, to the end that no otherwise qualified individual with a disability in the United States shall, solely by reason of his or her disability, be excluded from the participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance.
EBSA-2010-0050-DRAFT-0964.html[7/21/2015 6:59:00 PM]

PUBLIC SUBMISSION

As of: July 16, 2015

Received: July 08, 2015

Status: Pending_Post

Tracking No. 1jz-8jvc-6h4g

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-0964

Comment on FR Doc # 2015-14921

Submitter Information

Name: Anonymous Anonymous

General Comment

I'm smart enough to plan my own retirement! The government needs to stay out of its citizens' retirement.
1210-AB32-2-1197.html[7/24/2015 7:32:37 PM]

PUBLIC SUBMISSION

As of: July 16, 2015

Received: July 09, 2015

Status: Pending_Post

Tracking No. 1jz-8jvs-20ob

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-1691

Comment on FR Doc # 2015-14921

Submitter Information

Name: Matt Anonymous

General Comment

I do not want the Department of Labor or any governmental agency regulating any further my own management

 of my 401K or any retirement funds. I have worked hard my entire adult life to build what I have and it is not in

 the purview of the Federal Government to increase the amount of regulation on my account(s). 

You may say that people like me aren't smart enough to properly plan for our retirement but I would suggest that

 the Fedeeral Government get it's own financial house in order before telling me how to plan for my life.
May 22, 2009

Comments regarding Regulatory Guidance USCG-2007-27022 

page 19157, II B specific areas 1 and 4 

 

I am a licensed clinical professional counselor (LCPC) who provides EEG biofeedback 

treatment to individuals with Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder and Mood Disorders. 

EEG biofeedback is an empirically validated and widely recognized effective non medication 

treatment for ADHD, as well as other conditions. There are over 50 studies evaluating the 

effectiveness of 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 to 

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. 

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

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

company does not cover biofeedback for Mental Health problems or 2) there is not yet 

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

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

procedures which have far fewer controlled studies about their efficacy than does 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 MH and SA 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. This violates both the intent and letter of the parity statue and we hope that 

the regulations will clarify that this can't continue. 

Elizabeth Millett 

207-767-0117 

Emillet2@maine.rr.com