alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
1210-AB32-2-1267.html[7/24/2015 9:58:08 PM]

PUBLIC SUBMISSION

As of: July 16, 2015

Received: July 09, 2015

Status: Pending_Post

Tracking No. 1jz-8jvu-qzbw

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-1762

Comment on FR Doc # 2015-14921

Submitter Information

Name: Traci Jeffers

General Comment

The federal government is not responsible for how I survive when I retire. The money that I have put back for

 myself should be spent at my own discretion. This is another over reach by the federal government, as has

 become common. My neighbors don't manage my money. My friends don't manage my money. The government

 shouldn't either.
#### § 821.25 Burden of proof.

In proceedings under 49 U.S.C. 44703, the burden of proof shall be upon the petitioner.
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 176 (Wednesday, September 12, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Page 52157]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 07-4483]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health


National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism; 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)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as 
amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose 
confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable 
material, and personal information concerning individuals associated 
with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a 
clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

    Name of Committee: National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and 
Alcoholism Special Emphasis Panel, AA3 Study Section Conflict 
Review.
    Date: November 7, 2007.
    Time: 1:30 p.m. to 5 p.m.
    Agenda: to review and evaluate grant applications.
    Place: National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism, 5635 
Fishers Lane, 3039, Rockville, MD 20852. (Telephone Conference 
Call).
    Contact Person: Abraham P.; Bautista, PhD, Chief, Extramural 
Project Branch Review, National Institute on Alcohol Abuse & 
Alcoholism, National Institutes of Health, 5635 Fishers Lane, Rm 
3039, Rockville, MD 20852, 301-443-9737, <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#bddfdcc8c9d4cec9dcfdd0dcd4d193d3d4d593dad2cb"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="503231252439232431103d31393c7e3e39387e373f26">[email protected]</span></a>.

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.271, 
Alcohol Research Career Development Awards for Scientists and 
Clinicians; 93.272, Alcohol National Research Service Awards for 
Research Training; 93.273, Alcohol Research Programs; 93.891, 
Alcohol Research Center Grants, National Institutes of Health, HHS).

    Dated: September 5, 2007.
Jennifer Spaeth,
Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
[FR Doc. 07-4483 Filed 9-11-07; 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>
-----Original Message-----

To: EBSA, E-ORI - EBSA

Subject: Close the Investment Advice Loophole [RIN 1210-AB32]

I support the U.S. Department of Labor proposed rule to close the “Retirement Advice Loophole” once 

and for all. Let's make sure that anyone giving retirement investment advice puts the customer's 

interests first, period.

A good rule will ensure that all financial professionals who offer retirement investment advice must 

make recommendations designed to serve the best interests of consumers by keeping costs low, 

recommending sound investments, and protecting retirement nest eggs from unnecessary risks.

Americans who've worked hard to save for retirement deserve peace of mind about their financial 

security.
August 20, 2015 

Representative Buddy Carter 

432 Cannon House Office Building 

Washington DC 20515 

Dear Represcntati \\.'. CartcT 

s 

Although I am not vour constituent your work as a member of the Education and the 

Workforc0 Committee affects me. I have read your opinion dated August 18 entitled 

"Don't Leave Working Americans in the Dark on Retirement Savings" and find it lo be 

nothing more than a propaganda piece in support of the cornmissioned-based investment 

managers' lobby. I suspect they \Vrote it for you. It is nothing more than a red herring 

attempting to divert attention from the actual issue. 

I'm just a middle class senior citizen with no real horse in this race, but I am quite 

distressed by your total disregard for the fundantental purpose of the Fiduciary Standard 

Rule. Its purpose to insure that commission based sales people selling financial 

instruments to their clients disclose to their clients the costs and fees, and more 

importantly the fact that th1:: sales person has a conflict of interest when pushing one 

product over another simply because they will earn a higher commission. 

These sales people, in the guise of providing sound financial advice to their clients, often 

senior citi7.cns unschooled in financial management, sell whatever annuity they are 

pushing this month to garner the biggest fee. This is why so many consumer 

organizations. the i\Al<.P to name one, support this rule. Yet you do not. 

You ask rhetorically:'- Annme whu lhinks tlze m'crci.e,e tnidd/e cluss saver is going lo 

shell our S250 an hour or 11wref(;r sotneone lo give rhem retirement advice is oul o/'the1r 

minds. "So I assume that you instead recommend that our saver seek their financial 

advice from an "expert" who is compensated by the commissions and foes taken directly 

from the investor's savings (and often hidden from vicvv) based upon products 

"recommended" not because they are in the saver's best interests but instead in the best 

interests of the so-called advisor. 
.. 

Instead of supporting the DO L's efforts: and you can do so w'hile addressing issues 

within the ruk you seem tn think the remedy for these ck:ceptive and deceitful sales 

tactics used by hucksters masquerading as financial ''experts" is simply ''Caveat Emptor" 

Sorry, that's not good enough, and ['m disappointed that you, as a member of the House 

of Representatives and a member of this Committee, \vould turn a blind eye to these real 

abuses. Abuses perpetrated on your own constituents every day. 

CC: Rep. John Kline 

CC: Rep. Robert C Scoll 

CC: Rep. Christopher H. Smith 

CC: Secretary Thomas r·: Pere/
# May 28: Military airstrikes continue against ISIS terrorists in Syria and Iraq

/ Published May 28, 2017
May 28, 201720180527-01**SOUTHWEST ASIA —**
Mr. Donald S. Welsh

Regional Administrator JUN 112008 R E C

EPA RegiOn III (3APOO) EPA. REGION iii

1650 Arch Street OFFIEOFREGJONAL ADMINISTRATOR JUN 1 3 2fl08 Philadelphia, PA 19103-2029

Dear Mr. Welsh: Bivision Director (3AP11)

This letter is in reference to two State Implementation Plan (SIP) revisions submitted to

the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Region ifi by the Pennsylvania Department ofthe Environment (DEP) under separate covers dated December 7, 2007. Those SIP revisions

addressed the requirements ofClean Air Act (CAA) Sections 11 0(a)(2)(A)-(M) and Section

11 0(a)(2)(D)(i) that are relevant to the eight-hour ozone and the 1997 fine particulate matter

(PM2.5)National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). The purpose ofthis letter is to:

(1) Clarify a statement in the December 7th Section 11 0(a)(2)(D)(i)(ll) SIP revision; and

(2) Certify Pennsylvania’s compliance with the portions of CAA sections 1 10(a)(2)(C)

and (J) related to Pennsylvania’s Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD)

regulations for PM2.5

The December 7th SIP revision for Section 11 0(a)(2)(D)(i) included the following

statement: “The Commonwealth confirms that it is meeting the requirement for the use ofPM10

as a surrogate for PM2.5in the PSD and Nonattainment New Source Review (NNSR) programs.”

This letter clarifies that the Department ofEnvironmental Protection (DEP) and PhiladelphiaCounty’s local air quality agency are “meeting the requirement for the use ofPM10 as a surrogate

for PM2.5in the PSD and NNSR programs” by complying with EPA’s April 5, 2005,

Steven D. Page memorandum entitled Implementation ofNew Source Review Requirements in

PM2.5Nonattainment Areas, and the October 23, 1997, John Seitz memorandum entitled Interim

Implementation ofNew Source Review Requirementsfor PM2.5 DEP and Philadelphia’s local air

quality agency will continue to implement these programs in this fashion until and unless EPA

issues regulations pertaining specifically to PM2.5

Based upon the above clarification, this letter certifies Pennsylvania’s compliance with

the PSD portion ofthe Sections 1 10(a)(2)(C) and(J) for PM2.5 The Commonwealth certifies thatDEP and Philadelphia County’s local air quality agency are meeting the requirement for the use

ofPM10 as a surrogate for PM2,5in the PSD and NNSR programs by complying with EPA’s

April 5, 2005, Steven D. Page memorandum entitled Implementation ofNew Source Review

An Equal Opportunity Employer www.dep.state.pa.us Printed on Recycled Paper
If you have any questions regarding this submittal, or require additional information,

please contact Joyce E. Epps, Director ofthe Bureau of Air Quality, by e-mail at

jeepps@state.pa.us or by telephone at 717-787-9702.

Sincerely,
IV

House Calendar No. 113

107TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. RES. 318

[Report No. 107–343]

Waiving a requirement of clause 6(a) of rule XIII with respect to

consideration of certain resolutions reported from the Committee on Rules.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

DECEMBER 19 (legislative day, DECEMBER 18), 2001

Mr. DIAZ-BALART, from the Committee on Rules, reported the following resolution; which was referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be

printed

RESOLUTION

Waiving a requirement of clause 6(a) of rule XIII with

respect to consideration of certain resolutions reported

from the Committee on Rules.

1 Resolved, That the requirement of clause 6(a) of rule

2 XIII for a two-thirds vote to consider a report from the

3 Committee on Rules on the same day it is presented to

4 the House is waived with respect to any resolution re5 ported on the legislative day of Wednesday, December 19,

6 2001, providing for consideration or disposition of a con7 ference report to accompany the bill (H.R. 2506) making
2

HRES 318 RH

1 appropriations for foreign operations, export financing,

2 and related programs for the fiscal year ending September

3 30, 2002, and for other purposes.

House Calendar No. 113

107TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. RES. 318

[Report No. 107–343]

RESOLUTION

Waiving a requirement of clause 6(a) of rule XIII

with respect to consideration of certain resolutions reported from the Committee on Rules.

DECEMBER 19 (legislative day, DECEMBER 18), 2001

Referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be

printed
#### Paul Davidson, an infant, by Louis Davidson, his next friend, and Louis Davidson, Individually, v. Karl George Kalm-bacher, Carl Flickinger Kalmbacher and Nora M. Kalmbacher.

*375Carey, J., sitting.

*David S. Keil*(of Keil and Keil) for plaintiffs.

*Thomas Herlihy, Jr.,*and *Morris Cohen*for defendants.

Superior Court for New Castle County,

No. 1059,

Civil Action, 1948.

*376Carey, J.:

 If the averments of the fifth defense are true, they present a valid defense of imputed contributory negligence. 7-8 Huddy Automobile Law, 9th Ed., 353. See also *Campbell*v. Walker, 2 *Boyce*41, 49, 78 *A.*605; *Igle*v. *People’s Railway Co., 5 Boyce*376, 93 *A. 666.*It cannot be held, therefore, that they are “redundant, immaterial, impertinent or frivolous”. If the averments are so “ambiguous, uncertain and indefinite” that plaintiffs cannot reasonably be required to fram'e a responsive pleading (and this seems doubtful), the proper motion is not one to strike under Rule 12 (f) but for a more definite statement under Rule 12 (e). The motion to strike must be denied.

What the plaintiffs admittedly seek to accomplish by the motion for summary judgment as to the fifth defense is to eliminate from the trial of the case the question of joint enterprise or joint control. Without that, Gibstein’s negligence, if any, is not imputed to Davidson. See authorities cited supra; also *Island Express Inc.*v. *Frederick,*5 *W. W. Harr.*569, 171 *A.*181. However, even if the issue of joint enterprise be eliminated from the case at this stage, plaintiffs would not be entitled to a judgment for all or part of their claim. They would still have to prove all the necessary elements of a negligence action to the satisfaction of a jury in order to obtain any judgment.

 In some circumstances, the Court may under Rule 56 (d) enter an order which would eliminate the necessity of proving uncontroverted facts. “The procedure authorized in that *377section is, however, designed as ancillary to a motion for summary judgment. Primarily, its purpose seems to be to salvage some results from the judicial effort involved in the denial of a motion for summary judgment. Rule 56 (d) [Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 28 U. S. C. A.] does not authorize the initiation of motions the sole object of which is to adjudicate issues of fact which are not dispositive of any claim or part thereof”. *Yale Transport Corp.*v. *Yellow Truck & Coach Mfg. Co., (D. C.)*3 *F. R. D.*440, 441. The true intent of Rule 56 is to enable a party to obtain judgment upon all or part of a claim, not to eliminate uncontroverted facts. The rules governing requests for admissions and pre-trial conferences are designed for the latter purpose.

The motion for summary judgment must be denied. Plaintiffs may, of course, still proceed as indicated. An order to this effect will be entered.
# U.S. military aircraft crashes in western Iraq

/ Published March 15, 2018

March 15, 2018

Release Number 20180315-28

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

U.S. military aircraft crashes in western Iraq

TAMPA, Fla. – A U.S. military aircraft has crashed in western Iraq with U.S. service members aboard.

Rescue teams are responding to the scene of the downed aircraft at this time.

Further details will be released when available.

An investigation will be initiated to determine the cause of the incident.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
     This schedule  contains summary  financial  information  extracted from the
Alfacell  Corporation Balance Sheet as of October 31, 2000 and the Statements of
Operations  for the three months ended  October 31, 2000 and is qualified in its
entirety by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                            JUL-31-2001
<PERIOD-END>                                 OCT-31-2000
<CASH>                                           146,716
<SECURITIES>                                           0
<RECEIVABLES>                                          0
<ALLOWANCES>                                           0
<INVENTORY>                                            0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 736,439
<PP&E>                                         1,148,978
<DEPRECIATION>                                 1,025,838
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   919,446
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            524,700
<BONDS>                                                0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                  0
<PREFERRED>                                            0
<COMMON>                                          18,816
<OTHER-SE>                                       346,850
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     919,446
<SALES>                                                0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                   3,754
<CGS>                                                  0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    513,746
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                       0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                       0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 1,901
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 (511,893)
<INCOME-TAX>                                     451,395
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              (60,498)
<DISCONTINUED>                                         0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                        0
<CHANGES>                                              0
<NET-INCOME>                                     (60,498)
<EPS-BASIC>                                         0.00
<EPS-DILUTED>                                       0.00



</TABLE>
# Kingdom of Saudi Arabia and U.S. military begin planning for Exercise EAGLE RESOLVE

/ Published Aug. 2, 2022

Aug. 2, 2022

Release Number 20220802-01

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

**TAMPA, Fla. -** U.S. Central Command, along with The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, initiated the Concept Development Conference for the planning of Exercise EAGLE RESOLVE 23 - a scenario-driven command post exercise (CPX) linked with field training exercises (FTX) scheduled for May-June 2023 in Saudi Arabia.

The annual exercise, in its 16th iteration, is designed to develop and employ a Combined Joint Task Force capable of responding to the complexity of the current and emerging regional threats in the United States Central Command area of responsibility. 

"The overarching objective is to protect populations and infrastructures," said Air Force Maj. Gen. Steven J. deMilliano, Director of Exercises and Training Directorate, United States Central Command. "This exercise is designed to enhance regional, civil, and military interoperability along with process development, honing the skills necessary to implement crisis management and defend the skies from inbound threats." 

The exercise, which first occurred in 1999, consists of scenarios such as air defense concepts, counter unmanned aircraft systems, border security operations, inter-ministerial coordination and procedures to address consequence management objectives. The concept development conference establishes groundwork that the planning teams will continue to build upon as they move forward toward the exercise's execution.

-30-
§ 655.43 Reasonable suspicion testing. ( a ) An employer shall conduct a drug and/or alcohol test when the employer has reasonable suspicion to believe that the covered employee has used a prohibited drug and/or engaged in alcohol misuse.
( b ) An employer's determination that reasonable suspicion exists shall be based on specific, contemporaneous, articulable observations concerning the appearance, behavior, speech, or body odors of the covered employee. A supervisor(s), or other company official(s) who is trained in detecting the signs and symptoms of drug use and alcohol misuse must make the required observations.
( c ) Alcohol testing is authorized under this section only if the observations required by paragraph (b) of this section are made during, just preceding, or just after the period of the workday that the covered employee is required to be in compliance with this part. An employer may direct a covered employee to undergo reasonable suspicion testing for alcohol only while the employee is performing safety-sensitive functions; just before the employee is to perform safety-sensitive functions; or just after the employee has ceased performing such functions.
( d ) If an alcohol test required by this section is not administered within two hours following the determination under paragraph (b) of this section, the employer shall prepare and maintain on file a record stating the reasons the alcohol test was not promptly administered. If an alcohol test required by this section is not administered within eight hours following the determination under paragraph (b) of this section, the employer shall cease attempts to administer an alcohol test and shall state in the record the reasons for not administering the test.
# C&E sends heavy equipment to support Iraq, counter ISIL

/ Published Feb. 22, 2017
PHILADELPHIA, 

                Army Staff Sgt. Jenna Vaughn, 1st Theater Sustainment Command’s Iraq Train and Equip Funding noncommissioned officer, inspects bulldozers received for ITEF July 12, 2016 in Southwest Asia. Armored bulldozers such as these were provided through DLA Troop Support’s Heavy Equipment Procurement Program and will allow Iraqi combat engineers to more effectively clear convoy routes of roadside bombs and other threats in the ongoing fight against the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant.            

                Inspection of Bulldozers for ITEF            

SHARE IMAGE:

Download Image

Image Details

Photo By: Army Sgt. 1st Class Naurys Marte

VIRIN: 160712-A-IS260-008

Construction and Equipment supply chain’sHEPP currently
From: Chris Tobe [mailto:ctobe@stablevalueconsultants.com] 

Sent: Wednesday, December 22, 2010 4:35 PM 

To: EBSA, E-ORI - EBSA 

Cc: Della, Gloria - OPA 

Subject: Definition of Fiduciary Proposed Rule

Anyone who makes any profits from working with an ERISA plan is a fiduciary. The 

fact that certain vendors especially insurance companies and commission salesmen are 

trying to avoid being labeled a fiduciary should be an obvious admission of guilt of trying 

to harm plan participants. 

Many so-called consultants are not independent as defined by the proposed rules. Any 

consultant affiliated with a brokerage firm or insurance company should be disqualified. 

Also any Consultant who holds either a Series 6 or 7 brokerage license or a state 

insurance license has the ability to get compensation through a back door which should 

be a prohibited arrangement. 

Insurance company products in 401(k)’s have tried to avoid any fiduciary duty. With 

general account and separate account stable value products Insurance companies take 

plan assets and put them on the balance sheet of an affiliate. Most in bundled 401k 

structures have unlimited control of the assets and can shift risk onto the backs of ERISA 

plans. The ERISA plan takes on some significant level of credit risk of the company and 

a significant amount of liquidity risk and gets nothing in return. The insurance 

companies typically can control the risk, return and fees. 

NAGDCA the trade group for Public DC plans in July 2010 put out a new brochure’ 

that makes these observations on General Account stable value. Due to the fact that 

the plan sponsor does not own the underlying investments, the portfolio holdings, 

performance, risk, and management fees are generally not disclosed. This limits the 

ability of plan sponsors to compare returns with other SVFs. It also makes it nearly 

impossible for plan sponsors to know the fees (which can be increased without 

disclosure) paid by participants in these funds – a critical component of a fiduciary’s 

responsibility. [i]

If you do not make the specific insurance holding company (that puts ERISA assets on a 

balance sheet) a fiduciary, you are in effect giving the insurance company an implicit 

government guarantee, creating an entity “too big to fail” 

Christopher B. Tobe, CFA, CAIA

Stable Value Consultants

11801 E. Arbor Dr.
Louisville, KY 40223

(502)648‐1303

 

[i] http://www.nagdca.org/documents/StableValueFunds.pdf