alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
From; Edward Romanowsky [mallto:Edward@Visionary401k.com] 

Sent: Thursday, July 23, 2015 10:26 AM 

To: Talk to DOL 

Cc: Edward Romanowsky 

Subject: Relevant Industry feedback from the front lines on the "Fiduciary measure" and a potential fix. 

Dear Secretary of Labor Thomas Perez, 

On Tuesday July 21. '.W 15 ynu asked fur industr-y feedback in regards to the r1 Fiduciary" measure. My partner 

nnd myscl f started our tirm in 201 J and \VC have been follmving the "Fiduciary" conversation very closely as 

we arc a "Fee Only" Registered lnveslmcnl Advisory Ci rm that has a focus on retirement plans. Our goal Lo win 

business is lo offer a high performance. low cost rund lineup with an exceptional service model that is tbe 

quintessence of the "Fiduciary model". 

The current debate on the subject is going the woy large Wall Street firms \Vant it to gu. I hclieve there is a 

simple fix to the matkr. lt does involve lnoking al the current debate in a different lil2ht. i\s of ri!.!ht 110\v the ~ ~ 

debate is focused on the end result. the fund lineup that is offered. The conversation nc1.:ds to look at the other 

end of the process. the way in which a company chooses 1101 only the 1ina11cial firm but the Third Party 

Administrator (TPA - the plan's accountant) as \Veil as the custodian of the assets. 

The Fix: 

1) The 3 groups (Financial Aclvisor. TPA. Custodian) should nave no artiliation with each other. they need to be 

under separate roofs. 

2) There neccls to be I ooc;,-;1 fee ;:111cl cust transparency nf all costs and who receives the funds. 

3) The cLlmpany should be required to shop the plan out every 2-3 years and receive at least 2 other cornpclitivc 

bids. 

4) The key employees of the company should all have to sign off on a form acknuwlcc!ging that they arc a 

liducim:y and are ultimately responsible Cor all decisions made unless they choose to use a 3(21) or 3(38). 

1 
These 4 basic steps will fix the current system naturally. I can elaborate in depth on each item and the effects it 

'Nill have on each party and the results that wil1 occm, as I have front line and first hand knowledge of the 

current system and it's flaws. 

Sincerely, 

Edward I:'.:. Romanowsky 

Founding Pa1tner 

Visionary 401(k) Solutions 

www. Visionnrv40l l<.com 

Facebook 

Linked!n 

Avon, CT Office~ Main Office 

302 West Main Street, Ste. 206. 

Avon, CT 0600! 

Office: 860.341.4500 

Fax: 860.952.3400 

The information contained in this email message is being transmitted to and is intended for the use of only the individual(s) to whom it is 

addressed. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby advised that any dissemination, distribution or 

copying of this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, please immediately delete. 

2
Concerned Local Citizens find weapons, explosives
 By None  , Multi-National Division-Central
  FOB KALSU, Iraq (Dec. 23, 2007) — Concerned Local Citizens found an improvised explosive device formed from rigged land mines and ammunition near Patrol Base Murray in Arab Jabour Dec. 23. A 155 mm artillery round, an 82 mm mortar and two land mines were found rigged with detonation cord near the base. The CLCs turned over the IED, along with other weapons cache items found at the same site, to Soldiers from Company D, 1st Battalion, 30th Infantry Regiment, 2nd Brigade Combat Team, 3rd Infantry Division. The weapons caches consisted of 23 shape charges, three rocket propelled grenades, two 57 mm projectiles, four 73 mm propellant charges, 20 pounds of TNT, eight projectile fuses, one RPG warhead, six boxes of DSHKA high-caliber machine gun rounds, one fragmentation grenade, six 4.5-pound blocks of TNT, five pounds of unknown bulk explosive, two pounds of PE4, and 14 120 mm mortar propellant charges. The explosives were destroyed in a controlled detonation. FOR QUERIES, CONTACT THE MULTI-NATIONAL DIVISION - CENTER PUBLIC AFFAIRS OFFICE AT: MND-CENTER_PAO@IRAQ.CENTCOM.MIL OR BY PHONE AT DSN318-822-7482 OR COMMERCIAL 912-767-4114.
1210-AB32-2-1394.html[7/26/2015 3:48:38 PM]

PUBLIC SUBMISSION

As of: July 16, 2015

Received: July 09, 2015

Status: Pending_Post

Tracking No. 1jz-8jw2-s7kh

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-1890

Comment on FR Doc # 2015-14921

Submitter Information

Name: Linda Kranak

General Comment

It is sad enough that much has changed concerning our gov't laws and gov't spending and now they want to

 control our personal finances and health care too as well as everything else. I certainly oppose their interference

 with our personal retirement as well. Especially since our gov't can't live within their own budget.
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Health and Human Services

###### National Institutes of Health

Pursuant to section 1009 of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, 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 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 Aging Special Emphasis Panel; Infrastructure Advancement for Interdisciplinary Elderly Studies                    

*Date:*                         November 2, 2023.                    

*Time:*                         10:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.                    

*Agenda:*                         To review and evaluate grant applications.                    

*Place:*                         National Institute on Aging, Gateway Building, 7201 Wisconsin Avenue, Bethesda, MD 20892 (Virtual Meeting).                    

*Contact Person:*                         Bita Nakhai, Ph.D.,  Scientific Review Officer, Center for Scientific Review, National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room: 2C212, Bethesda, MD 28092, 301-402-7701,                         *nakhaib@nia.nih.gov.*

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.866, Aging Research, National Institutes of Health, HHS)

Dated: August 21, 2023. 

Miguelina Perez, 

Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.

[FR Doc. 2023-18377 Filed 8-24-23; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING

MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

OF FLORIDA

SECOND DISTRICT

TOMAS S. BURGESS, )

)

Appellant, )

)

v. ) Case No. 2D18-403

)

STATE OF FLORIDA, )

)

Appellee. )

___________________________________)

Opinion filed June 20, 2018.

Appeal pursuant to Fla. R. App. P.

9.141(b)(2) from the Circuit Court 

for Hillsborough County; Laura E. 

Ward, Judge.

Tomas S. Burgess, pro se.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. See State v. Richardson, 915 So. 2d 86 (Fla. 2005); McCall v. 

State, 862 So. 2d 807 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003); Gadsen v. State, 805 So. 2d 910 (Fla. 2d 

DCA 2001); Clark v. State, 54 So. 3d 1033 (Fla. 4th DCA 2011); Westberry v. State, 

906 So. 2d 1141 (Fla. 3d DCA 2005); Weford v. State, 784 So. 2d 1222 (Fla. 3d DCA 

2001).

KHOUZAM, MORRIS, and ATKINSON, JJ., Concur.
§ 674.35 Investigations. ( a ) An SSOA must investigate or require an investigation of any accident and is ultimately responsible for the sufficiency and thoroughness of all investigations, whether conducted by the SSOA or RTA. If an SSOA requires an RTA to investigate an accident, the SSOA must conduct an independent review of the RTA's findings of causation. In any instance in which an RTA is conducting its own internal investigation of the accident or incident, the SSOA and the RTA must coordinate their investigations in accordance with the SSO program standard and any agreements in effect.
( b ) Within a reasonable time, an SSOA must issue a written report on its investigation of an accident or review of an RTA's accident investigation in accordance with the reporting requirements established by the SSOA. The report must describe the investigation activities; identify the factors that caused or contributed to the accident; and set forth a corrective action plan, as necessary or appropriate. The SSOA must formally adopt the report of an accident and transmit that report to the RTA for review and concurrence. If the RTA does not concur with an SSOA's report, the SSOA may allow the RTA to submit a written dissent from the report, which may be included in the report, at the discretion of the SSOA.
( c ) All personnel and contractors that conduct investigations on behalf of an SSOA must be trained to perform their functions in accordance with the Public Transportation Safety Certification Training Program.
( d ) The Administrator may conduct an independent investigation of any accident or an independent review of an SSOA's or an RTA's findings of causation of an accident.
From: Marvin Price [mailto:mp@marvinprice.com] 

Sent: Tuesday, April 06, 2010 2:41 PM 

To: EBSA, E-ORI - EBSA 

Subject: $01(k) investment advisor rules

Since you are seeking comment on investment advisor rules for 401 (k) plan participants I am 

submitting the following comments. I have been involved in the establishment, sales and 

enrollment of 401(k) plans for over 20 years. It appears that the people trying to make rules 

concerning investment advice to plan participants really don't know what they are doing and have 

no experience with enrolling, servicing or advising 401 (k) plan participants. They are more 

concerned if an advisor is going to make any money from their efforts in working with plan 

participants. If you have a basic understanding of how the investment options in a plan work then 

you can devise a plan which will work for all concerned. The typical self directed 401 (k) plan 

offers multiple investment options of all asset classes and some fixed or guaranteed accounts 

from different providers. Typically most major money managers are represented, American 

Funds,Fidelity, Vanguard, TRowe Price, etc. The compensation paid to the selling broker is a 

function of the assets in the plan, typically from 5 to 15 basis points, so it makes no difference 

which funds the advisor recommends the compensation is always the same. This is true of 

most plans sold and in existence today,so the idea that a selling broker can't provide investment 

direction to a plan participant or assist the participant in creating an investment strategy is 

`nonsense. The best solution is to allow the plan provider to provide investment advice to plan 

participants who request it. Most companies providing product to fund the plans have qualified 

investment advisors available upon request to assist plan participants. The real issue seems to 

be that the people trying to make the rules are completely clueless and have no knowledge of the 

subject they are trying to regulate. M. Price
**Avis juridique important**

*|*

# 52002XC1213(09)

**Commission communication pursuant to Article 4(1)(a) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2408/92 — Modification by the United Kingdom of a public service obligation in respect of a scheduled air service between Benbecula and Barra (Text with EEA relevance)***Official Journal C 310 , 13/12/2002 P. 0021 - 0021*

Commission communication pursuant to Article 4(1)(a) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2408/92

Modification by the United Kingdom of a public service obligation in respect of a scheduled air service between Benbecula and Barra

(2002/C 310/10)

(Text with EEA relevance)

1. The United Kingdom has decided to modify the public service obligation in respect of the scheduled air service between Benbecula and Barra as set out in the notice published in the Official Journal of the European Communities C 53/06, 4.3.1995, as modified in OJ C 143/04, 8.5.1998, and as further modified in OJ C 154/04, 29.5.2001, pursuant to Article 4(1)(a) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2408/92 of 23 July 1992 on access for Community air carriers to intra-Community air routes.

2. The modified public service obligation for Benbecula and Barra is as follows:

- Minimum frequencies:

One return trip per day except Saturday and Sunday between Benbecula and Barra.

- Capacity:

The capacity offered should be not less than eight seats daily each way.

- Aircraft types:

The aircraft used should be suitable for landing on Barra airstrip which comprises Traigh Mhor Beach.

- Fares:

- the price of a single ticket must not exceed GBP 29 (excluding air passenger duty),

- the maximum fare on the route may be increased once every year in line with the United Kingdom's retail price index (all items) or any successor index to this,

- no other changes may be made to the fare levels without the prior written consent of Comhairle nan Eilean Siar (the Council in the Western Isles of Scotland),

- the new maximum fare on each route must be notified to the Civil Aviation Authority and shall not come into effect until it has been published by the European Commission in the Official Journal of the European Communities.
H. Res. 373

In the House of Representatives, U.S.,

March 20, 2002.

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. 3924) to authorize telecommuting for Federal

contractors. The first reading of the bill shall be dispensed

with. 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

Government Reform. After general debate the bill shall be

considered for amendment under the five-minute rule. The

bill 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 conclu-
2

•HRES 373 EH

sion 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. 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.

Attest:

Clerk.
Sent: Monday, September 07, 2015 8:46 PM

To: EBSA, E-ORI - EBSA

Subject: RIN 1210-AB32

Dear Sir or Madam:

It is my understanding that this regulation would disallow the use of options in retirement 

accounts such as IRAs.

I am writing today to express my opposition to this part of the proposed regulations.

For over ten years I have strategically used options in my Traditional and Roth IRA accounts to 

both generate cash by selling covered calls on stocks I own and protect my portfolio by 

purchasing puts on stocks I own.

A recent example of this was in early August when a stock I owned ran up and value and become 

a large percentage of my portfolio. I was still optimistic on the stock's future, but concerned that 

it had become such a large percentage of my portfolio, so I purchased puts which allowed for 

further upside if the stock continued to go up, but also gave me downside protection if the stock 

declined. The puts ended up protecting me during the recent volatile down-draft in the market 

and my account balance went down by 1/3 less than it would have if I didn't own the puts.

Please allow me to continue to use options to help build my financial future.

Thank you,
§ 536.10 Treatment of dual-fuel and alternative fuel vehicles—consistency with 49 CFR part 538. ( a ) Statutory alternative fuel and dual-fuel vehicle fuel economy calculations are treated as a change in the underlying fuel economy of the vehicle for purposes of this part, not as a credit that may be transferred or traded. Improvements in alternative fuel or dual fuel vehicle fuel economy as calculated pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 32905 and limited by 49 U.S.C. 32906 are therefore attributable only to the particular compliance category and model year to which the alternative or dual-fuel vehicle belongs.
( b ) If a manufacturer's calculated fuel economy for a particular compliance category, including any statutorily-required calculations for alternative fuel and dual fuel vehicles, is higher or lower than the applicable fuel economy standard, manufacturers will earn credits or must apply credits or pay civil penalties equal to the difference between the calculated fuel economy level in that compliance category and the applicable standard. Credits earned are the same as any other credits, and may be held, transferred, or traded by the manufacturer subject to the limitations of the statute and this part.
( c ) For model years up to and including MY 2019, if a manufacturer builds enough dual fuel vehicles (except plug-in hybrid electric vehicles) to improve the calculated fuel economy in a particular compliance category by more than the limits set forth in 49 U.S.C. 32906(a), the improvement in fuel economy for compliance purposes is restricted to the statutory limit. Manufacturers may not earn credits nor reduce the application of credits or fines for calculated improvements in fuel economy based on dual fuel vehicles beyond the statutory limit.
( d ) For model years 2020 and beyond, a manufacturer must calculate the fuel economy of dual fueled vehicles in accordance with 40 CFR 600.510-12(c).
#### § 6.1 Purpose of these rules.

The Equal Access to Justice Act, 5 U.S.C. 504 (called “the Act” in this part), provides for the award of attorney fees and other expenses to eligible individuals and entities who are parties to certain administrative proceedings (called “adversary adjudications”) before government agencies, such as the Department of Transportation or any of its operating administrations. The rules in this part describe the parties eligible for awards and the proceedings that are covered. They also explain how to apply for awards, and the procedures and standards that this agency will use to make them. The use of the term “Department”, in this rule, will be understood to mean the Department of Transportation or any of its operating administrations, unless otherwise specified. The term “agency counsel” will be understood to mean counsel for the Department of Transportation or any of its operating administrations.

[48 FR 1070, Jan. 10, 1983, as amended at 62 FR 19233, Apr. 21, 1997]
§ 512.19 What can I do if I disagree with the determination? ( a ) A submitter of information whose request for confidential treatment is denied in whole or in part, may petition for reconsideration of that decision. Petitions for reconsideration shall be addressed to and received by the Chief Counsel prior to the date on which the information would otherwise be made available to the public. The determination by the Chief Counsel upon such petition for reconsideration shall be administratively final.
( b ) If a person is unable to submit a petition for reconsideration within twenty (20) working days of receiving notice that a claim for confidential treatment was denied, that person may submit a request for an extension of time. The Chief Counsel must receive any request for an extension of time before the date on which the information would be made available to the public, and the request must be accompanied by an explanation describing the reason for the request and the length of time requested. The Chief Counsel will determine whether to grant or deny the extension and the length of the extension.
( c ) If a petition for reconsideration is granted, the petitioner will be notified in writing of the determination and of any appropriate limitations.
( d ) If a petition for reconsideration is denied in whole or in part, or if a request for an extension is denied, the petitioner will be notified in writing of the denial, and the reasons for the denial, and will be informed that the information will be made available to the public not less than twenty (20) working days after the petitioner has received notice of the denial. The information may be released publicly on an earlier date, if the Administrator determines in writing that the public interest requires that the information be made available to the public on such date.