phrase “In general.” as indicating that the enumerated examples within the regulation constitute a non-exhaustive list. “Titles and section headings cannot limit the plain meaning of statutory text where that text is clear.” 1A Sutherland Statutory Construction § 18:7 n. 11 (7th ed.) (emphasis added) (citing M.A. ex rel. E.S. v. State-Operated School Dist. of City of Newark, 344 F.3d 335 (3d Cir. 2003)). Moreover, the title can not be used “to create ambiguity where none existed.” Id. Following these principles, the Fourth Circuit has stated, “ ‘the title of a statute cannot limit the plain meaning of the text. For interpretive purposes, [the title] is of use only when it sheds light on some ambiguous word or phrase.’ ” United States v. Buculei, 262 F.3d 322, 331 (4th Cir.2001) (<HOLDING>) (quoting Pennsylvania Dep’t of Corrections v.
holding that the state statute returns the matter of subrogation to state law  ujnless the statute is excluded from the reach of the saving clause by virtue of the deemer clause holding that the statute is mandatory holding that the title of the statute did not limit the reach of the statute recognizing wide reach of jurisdiction under title 11 holding that the statute qualifies as an exemption 3 statute