alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
1210-AB32-2-1220.html[7/24/2015 8:30:03 PM]

PUBLIC SUBMISSION

As of: July 16, 2015

Received: July 09, 2015

Status: Pending_Post

Tracking No. 1jz-8jvs-c5u3

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-1715

Comment on FR Doc # 2015-14921

Submitter Information

Name: Anonymous Anonymous

General Comment

Leave my 401k alone! I'm smart enough to plan my own retirement.
Editorial Note on Part 193
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 193 appear at 71 FR 33408, June 9, 2006.

§ 193.2515 Investigations of failures. ( a ) Each operator shall investigate the cause of each explosion, fire, or LNG spill or leak which results in: ( 1 ) Death or injury requiring hospitalization; or
( 2 ) Property damage exceeding $10,000.
( b ) As a result of the investigation, appropriate action must be taken to minimize recurrence of the incident.
( c ) If the Administrator or relevant state agency under the pipeline safety laws (49 U.S.C. 60101 *et seq.*) investigates an incident, the operator involved shall make available all relevant information and provide reasonable assistance in conducting the investigation. Unless necessary to restore or maintain service, or for safety, no component involved in the incident may be moved from its location or otherwise altered until the investigation is complete or the investigating agency otherwise provides. Where components must be moved for operational or safety reasons, they must not be removed from the plant site and must be maintained intact to the extent practicable until the investigation is complete or the investigating agency otherwise provides.
[Amdt. 193-2, 45 FR 70405, Oct. 23, 1980, as amended by Amdt. 193-10, 61 FR 18517, Apr. 26, 1996]
### T E X A S C O U R T O F A P P E A L S , T H I R D D I S T R I C T , A T A U S T I N
NO. 03-11-00702- CV Joseph K. Re nsin and E dison Worldw ide, LLC, App ellants
v. The State of Texas, App ellee
F ROM TH E DISTRI CT COURT O F TRAVIS CO UNTY, 419 TH JUDICI AL DISTRICT NO. D-1 -GV-1 0-0 0010 2, H ONO RAB LE STEP HEN Y ELENOSK Y , JUDGE P RESIDING

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N Appellants have filed an agree d motion to d ismiss their appeal, ex plaining that the parties have rea ched a settlement of their dispute. We g rant the motion and dismiss the appea l. See Tex. R. App. P . 42.1(a)
.

__________________________________________ David Puryear , J ustice Be fore Chief J ustice Jones, J ustices Pury ear and Pember

ton Dismissed on Ag ree d Motion Filed: De cembe r 14, 2012
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 98-41057 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus JOHNIE WISE, Defendant-Appellant.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. B-98-CR-415-1

- - - - - - - - - - September 25, 1998 Before JOLLY, SMITH, and WIENER, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Johnie Wise appeals from the district court’s order affirming the magistrate judge’s pretrial detention order. The district court’s decision rests upon the conclusion that Wise poses a danger to the safety of persons in the community. We have reviewed the record, including the surveillance tape of Wise’s meeting with a confidential informant, and the briefs of the parties, and find that the district court did not abuse its discretion in determining that the Government provided clear and convincing evidence that no condition or combination ofNo. 98-41057 -2- conditions will reasonably assure the safety of persons in the community if Wise is released on bond. See 18 U.S.C. § 3142(e), (f); United States v. Reuben , 974 F.2d 580, 586 (5th Cir. 1992). The district court’s pretrial detention order is supported by the proceedings below.
AFFIRMED.
Exhibit 21.1

As of December 31, 2010, the Company had the following active subsidiaries:



| |  |                                                                   |  |                       
| |  | ----------------------------------------------------------------- |  | ----------------------
| |  | Wholly-owned subsidiaries of Comprehensive Care Corporation:      |  | State of Incorporation
| |  |                                                                  
| |  | Comprehensive Behavioral Care, Inc.                               |  | Nevada                
| |  | Core Corporate Consulting Group, Inc.                             |  | Delaware              
| |  | Comprehensive Care Benefits, Inc.                                 |  | Nevada                
| |  |                                                                  
| |  | Wholly-owned subsidiaries of Comprehensive Behavioral Care, Inc.: |  |                       
| |  |                                                                  
| |  | Comprehensive Care Integration, Inc.                              |  | Delaware              
| |  | Comprehensive Behavioral Care of Connecticut, Inc.                |  | Florida               
| |  | Healthcare Management Services, Inc.                              |  | Michigan              
| |  | CompCare of Pennsylvania, Inc.                                    |  | Nevada                
| |  | CompCare de Puerto Rico, Inc.                                     |  | Puerto Rico           
| |  | CompCare IPA, Inc.                                                |  | New York              
| |  |                                                                  
| |  | Affiliates sponsored by Comprehensive Behavioral Care, Inc.:      |  |                       
| |  |                                                                  
| |  | Comprehensive Provider Networks of Texas, Inc.                    |  | Texas
AAM-11-224-E 

April 14, 2011 

 Exemption No. 10245 

 Regulatory Docket No. FAA-2011-0266 

Mr. Alex Bullock 

Windy City Flyers/Windy City Charter 

1098 South Milwaukee Avenue, Suite 301 

Wheeling, IL 60090 

Dear Mr. Bullock: 

This letter is to inform you that we have granted your request for exemption. It transmits our 

decision, explains its basis, and gives you the conditions and limitations of the exemption, 

including the date it ends. 

The Basis for Our Decision 

By letter received March 11, 2011, you petitioned the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) 

on behalf of Windy City Charter and Windy City Flyers (Windy City) for an exemption from 

part 120 of Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) to the extent necessary to allow 

Windy City, which is operating under separate parts of 14 CFR, to cover its safety-sensitive 

employees under one drug testing program. 

The FAA has determined that good cause exists for not publishing a summary of the petition 

in the Federal Register because the requested exemption would not set a precedent, and any 

delay in acting on this petition would be detrimental to Windy City. 

The FAA has issued a grant of exemption in circumstances similar in all material respects to 

those presented in your petition. In Grant of Exemption No. 9703 (copy enclosed), the FAA 

found that Solid Edge’s § 91.147 air tour operations were closely connected to its part 135 

operations. The FAA also found that combining the petitioner’s two testing programs into one 

would be in the public interest and would maintain an equivalent level of safety to that 

provided by the current regulations. Thus, the FAA concluded it was unnecessary to burden 

the petitioner by requiring it to conduct two separate testing programs. 

Having reviewed your reasons for requesting an exemption, I find that— 
2 

 they are similar in all material respects to relief previously requested in the enclosed Grant 

of Exemption No. 9703; 

 the reasons stated by the FAA for granting the enclosed Grant of Exemption No. 9703 

also apply to the situation you present; and 

 a grant of exemption is in the public interest. 

Our Decision 

Under the authority contained in 49 U.S.C. 40113 and 44701, which the FAA Administrator 

has delegated to me, I hereby grant Windy City Charter and Windy City Flyers an exemption 

from part 120 to the extent necessary to allow Windy City, which is operating under separate 

parts of the regulations, to cover its safety-sensitive employees under one testing program, 

subject to the conditions and limitations described below. 

Conditions and Limitations 

1. Employees of Windy City are subject to the drug and alcohol regulations at all 

times while conducting operations under part 135 or part 91. 

2. The drug and alcohol testing program must be implemented under the auspices of 

the Windy City part 135 operation, not under part 91. 

This exemption terminates on April 30, 2013 unless sooner superseded or rescinded. 

Sincerely, 

/s/ 

James R. Fraser, M.D. 

Deputy Federal Air Surgeon 

Enclosure
H. Res. 163

In the House of Representatives, U.S.,

June 13, 2001.

Resolved, That at any time after the adoption of this resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule

XVIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the

Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of

the bill (H.R. 1157) to authorize the Secretary of Commerce

to provide financial assistance to the States of Alaska, Washington, Oregon, California, and Idaho for salmon habitat restoration projects in coastal waters and upland drainages, and

for other purposes. The first reading of the bill shall be dispensed with. Points of order against consideration of the bill

for failure to comply with clause 4(a) of rule XIII are waived.

General debate shall be confined to the bill and shall not exceed one hour equally divided and controlled by the chairman

and ranking minority member of the Committee on Resources. After general debate the bill shall be considered for

amendment under the five-minute rule. It shall be in order

to consider as an original bill for the purpose of amendment

under the five-minute rule the amendment in the nature of
2

•HRES 163 EH

a substitute printed in the Congressional Record and numbered 1 pursuant to clause 8 of rule XVIII. Each section of

that amendment in the nature of a substitute shall be considered as read. During consideration of the bill for amendment,

the Chairman of the Committee of the Whole may accord priority in recognition on the basis of whether the Member offering an amendment has caused it to be printed in the portion

of the Congressional Record designated for that purpose in

clause 8 of rule XVIII. Amendments so printed shall be considered as read. At the conclusion of consideration of the bill

for amendment the Committee shall rise and report the bill

to the House with such amendments as may have been adopted. Any Member may demand a separate vote in the House

on any amendment adopted in the Committee of the Whole

to the bill or to the amendment in the nature of a substitute

made in order as original text. The previous question shall be

considered as ordered on the bill and amendments thereto to

final passage without intervening motion except one motion

to recommit with or without instructions.

SEC. 2. House Resolution 156 is laid on the table.

Attest:

Clerk.
<Page>

                                                                         [LOGO]
                     CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS

We hereby consent to the use in this Post-Effective Amendment No. 10 to the
registration statement on Form N-4 (No. 333-79701) (the "Registration
Statement") of our report dated February 20, 2004 relating to the financial
statements of Fortis Benefits Insurance Company, which appears in such
Registration Statement. We also consent to the reference to us under the
heading "Independent Accountants" in such Registration Statement.

PRICEWATERHOUSECOOPERS LLP
Minneapolis, Minnesota
April 5, 2004
###### Editorial Note on Part 576

#### Editorial Note:

For an interpretation document regarding part 576, see 40 FR 3296, Jan. 21, 1975.

#### § 576.8 Malfunctions covered.

For purposes of this part, “malfunctions that may be related to motor vehicle safety” shall include, with respect to a motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment, any failure or malfunction beyond normal deterioration in use, or any failure of performance, or any flaw or unintended deviation from design specifications, that could in any reasonably foreseeable manner be a causative factor in, or aggravate, an accident or an injury to a person.
#### § 593.3 Applicability.

This part applies to a motor vehicle that was not originally manufactured and certified by its original manufacturer to conform with all applicable Federal motor vehicle safety standards and that is offered for importation into the United States.
§ 605.20 Modification of prior agreements. ( a ) Any grantee which, prior to the adoption of this part, entered into an agreement required by section 164(b) of the Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1973 (49 U.S.C. 1602(a)(b)), or section 3(g) of the Federal Mass Transit Act of 1964, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1602(g)), who engages or wishes to engage in school bus operations in competition with private school bus operators, shall seek modification of that agreement in accordance with paragraphs (b) through (d) of this section.
( b ) The grantee shall develop a statement setting forth in detail the reasons it feels it should be allowed to engage in school bus operations under § 605.11 of this part. A copy of the statement should be provided private school bus operators who provide service in the grantee's urban area.
( c ) The grantee shall allow 30 days for persons receiving notice under this section to respond with written comments concerning its proposed or existing school bus operations.
( d ) After receiving written comments, the grantee shall send his proposal with written comments thereon to the Administrator for his review under § 605.17.
#### Elizabeth F. Floyd and another, Respondents, v. Caroline A. Strong and others, Appellants.

Judgment affirmed, with costs. Opinion by

Dykman, J.
**Avis juridique important**

*|*

# 42000X1212

**Conclusions of the Council and the Representatives of the Governments of the Member States, meeting within the Council of 4 December 2000 on combating doping***Official Journal C 356 , 12/12/2000 P. 0001 - 0001*

Conclusions of the Council and the Representatives of the Governments of the Member States, meeting within the Council

of 4 December 2000

on combating doping

(2000/C 356/01)

THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION AND THE REPRESENTATIVES OF THE GOVERNMENTS OF THE MEMBER STATES, IN AGREEMENT WITH THE COMMISSION,

(1) EMPHASISE the importance of measures to combat doping in sport, as acknowledged by the European Union, in the conclusions of the European Council in Vienna on 11 and 12 December 1998. The European Council's conclusions underlined "its concern at the extent and seriousness of doping in sport, which undermines the sporting ethic and endangers public health. It emphasises the need for mobilisation at European level and invites the Member States to examine jointly with the Commission and international sports bodies possible measures to intensify the fight against this danger ...".

(2) NOTE the recent developments in this area and the creation of the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA), and WADA's intention to become an international body based on public international law, and consider that arrangements should be made for the Member States' and the European Union's roles in that body in order to ensure that they are suitably represented on its Foundation Board.

(3) AGREE that the European Community and its Member States will be represented by the President-in-Office of the Council and a member of the Commission. Within a reasonable period of time before each meeting, coordination will take place under the responsibility of the Presidency. The Commission member will be able to speak on matters within the Community's sphere of competence in accordance with the Treaty and the case-law of the Court of Justice (given that there is no direct Community competence in the area of sport). The content of the statements made by the Commission member will be approved in accordance with the principles referred to above and following the customary procedures. Where appropriate, the Commission member may speak on matters which are not within the Community's sphere of competence, along the lines approved by a consensus of the Member States and in addition to the Presidency.

(4) NOTE that any Community expenditure on activities of WADA involving measures within the Community's sphere of competence will be decided in accordance with the Interinstitutional Agreement on budgetary discipline. In particular, any significant Community expenditure will require the adoption, following a proposal from the Commission, of a measure with an appropriate legal basis.

(5) CONSIDER that the Member States should encourage cooperation between the competent authorities at national level on efforts to combat doping in sport.
Editorial Note on Part 40
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 40 appear at 73 FR 33329, June 12, 2008.

§ 40.387 What matters does the Director decide concerning a proposed PIE? ( a ) Following the service agent's response (see § 40.379(b)) or, if no response is received, after 30 days have passed from the date on which the service agent received the NOPE, the Director may take one of the following steps: ( 1 ) In response to a request from the service agent (see § 40.379(b)(1)) or on his or her own motion, the Director may dismiss a PIE proceeding if he or she determines that it does not concern serious noncompliance with this part or DOT agency regulations, consistent with the Department's policy as stated in § 40.365. ( i ) If the Director dismisses a proposed PIE under this paragraph (a), the action is closed with respect to the noncompliance alleged in the NOPE.
( ii ) The Department may initiate a new PIE proceeding against you on the basis of different or subsequent conduct that is in noncompliance with this part or other DOT drug and alcohol testing rules.
( 2 ) If the Director determines that the initiating official's submission does not have complete information needed for a decision, the Director may remand the matter to the initiating official. The initiating official may resubmit the matter to the Director when the needed information is complete. If the basis for the proposed PIE has changed, the initiating official must send an amended NOPE to the service agent.
( b ) The Director makes determinations concerning the following matters in any PIE proceeding that he or she decides on the merits: ( 1 ) Any material facts that are in dispute;
( 2 ) Whether the facts support issuing a PIE;
( 3 ) The scope of any PIE that is issued; and
( 4 ) The duration of any PIE that is issued.
###### Editorial Note on Part 173

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 173 appear at 70 FR 56098, Sept. 23, 2005.

#### § 173.301a Additional general requirements for shipment of specification cylinders.

(a) *General.* The requirements in this section are in addition to the requirements in § 173.301 and apply to the shipment of gases in specification cylinders.

(b) *Authorized cylinders not marked with a service pressure.* For authorized cylinders not marked with a service pressure, the service pressure is designated as follows:

| Specification marking | Service Pressure psig |
| --- | --- |
| 3 | 1800 |
| 3E | 1800 |
| 8 | 250 |

(c) *Cylinder pressure at 21 °C (70 °F).* The pressure in a cylinder at 21 °C (70 °F) may not exceed the service pressure for which the cylinder is marked or designated, except as provided in § 173.302a(b). For certain liquefied gases, the pressure at 21 °C (70 °F) must be lower than the marked service pressure to avoid having a pressure at a temperature of 55 °C (131 °F) that is greater than permitted.

(d) *Cylinder pressure at 55 °C (131 °F).* The pressure in a cylinder at 55 °C (131 °F) may not exceed 5⁄4 times the service pressure, except:

(1) For a cylinder filled with acetylene, liquefied nitrous oxide, or carbon dioxide.

(2) For a cylinder filled in accordance with § 173.302a(b), the pressure in the cylinder at 55 °C (131 °F) may not exceed 5⁄4 times the filling pressure.

(3) The pressure at 55 °C (131 °F) of Hazard Zone A and Hazard Zone B materials may not exceed the service pressure of the cylinder. Sufficient outage must be provided so that the cylinder will not be liquid full at 55 °C (131 °F).

(e) *Grandfather clause.* A cylinder in domestic use prior to the date on which the specification for the cylinder was first made effective may be used if the cylinder has been properly tested and otherwise conforms to the requirements applicable to the gas with which it is charged.

[67 FR 51645, Aug. 8, 2002, as amended at 67 FR 61289, Sept. 30, 2002; 68 FR 24661, May 8, 2003; 76 FR 56317, Sept. 13, 2011]
###### Editorial Note on Part 572

#### Editorial Notes:

1. For compliance provisions relating to a vehicle's conformance with the performance requirements of Standard No. 208 (§ 571.208) relating to the part 572 test dummy, see the “Effective Date Note” at subpart E of this part.

2. Nomenclature changes to part 572 appear at 69 FR 18803, Apr. 9, 2004.

#### § 572.167 Test conditions and instrumentation.

The test conditions and instrumentation are as specified in 49 CFR 572.127 (Subpart N).
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 179 (Monday, September 17, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Page 52951]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 07-4454]


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

SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION

[Disaster Declaration <greek-i>11004 and <greek-i>11005]


Minnesota Disaster Number MN-00011

AGENCY: Small Business Administration.

ACTION: Amendment 2.

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

SUMMARY: This is an amendment of the Presidential declaration of a 
major disaster for the State of Minnesota (FEMA-1717-DR), dated 08/23/
2007.
    Incident: Severe Storms and Flooding.
    Incident Period: 08/18/2007 and continuing through 08/31/2007.
    Effective Date: 08/31/2007.
    Physical Loan Application Deadline Date: 10/22/2007.
    EIDL Loan Application Deadline Date: 05/23/2008.

ADDRESSES: Submit completed loan applications to: U.S. Small Business 
Administration, Processing and Disbursement Center, 14925 Kingsport 
Road, Fort Worth, TX 76155.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: A. Escobar, Office of Disaster 
Assistance, U.S. Small Business Administration, 409 3rd Street, SW., 
Suite 6050, Washington, DC 20416.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The notice of the President's major disaster 
declaration for the State of Minnesota, dated 08/23/2007 is hereby 
amended to establish the incident period for this disaster as beginning 
08/18/2007 and continuing through 08/31/2007.
    All other information in the original declaration remains 
unchanged.

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers 59002 and 59008)

Herbert L. Mitchell,
Associate Administrator for Disaster Assistance.
[FR Doc. 07-4454 Filed 9-14-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8025-01-M