alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Gardiner’s Bay Company, Appellant, *v.*Atlantic Fertilizer and Oil Company, Respondent.

Reported below, 139 App. Div. 913.

(Argued November 14, 1910;

decided November 22, 1910.)

Motion to dismiss an appeal from a judgment of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the second judicial department, entered June 27, 1910, affirming a judgment in favor of defendant entered upon a dismissal of the complaint by the court on trial at Special Term in an action to restrain the commission of an alleged nuisance.

The motion was made upon the ground that the exceptions were frivolous.

*Nathan D. Stern*for motion.

*Percy L. Housel*opposed.

Motion denied, with ten dollars costs.
Editorial Note on Part 192
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 192 appear at 71 FR 33406, June 9, 2006.

§ 192.513 Test requirements for plastic pipelines. ( a ) Each segment of a plastic pipeline must be tested in accordance with this section.
( b ) The test procedure must insure discovery of all potentially hazardous leaks in the segment being tested.
( c ) The test pressure must be at least 150% of the maximum operating pressure or 50 psi (345 kPa) gauge, whichever is greater. However, the maximum test pressure may not be more than 2.5 times the pressure determined under § 192.121 at a temperature not less than the pipe temperature during the test.
( d ) During the test, the temperature of thermoplastic material may not be more than 100 °F (38 °C), or the temperature at which the material's long-term hydrostatic strength has been determined under the listed specification, whichever is greater.
[35 FR 13257, Aug. 19, 1970, as amended by Amdt. 192-77, 61 FR 27793, June 3, 1996; 61 FR 45905, Aug. 30, 1996; Amdt. 192-85, 63 FR 37504, July 13, 1998; Amdt. 192-124, 83 FR 58719, Nov. 20, 2018]
-----Original Message----- 

From: jennifer.rials@usa.net [mailto:jennifer.rials@usa.net] 

Sent: Monday, April 26, 2010 11:16 AM 

To: EBSA, E-OHPSCA - EBSA 

Subject: Comment in support of RIN 1210-AB30 

April 26, 2010 

I am writing to support the interim final rule under the Paul Wellstone 

and Pete Domenici Mental Health Parity and Addiction Equity Act of 2008 

(RIN 1210-AB30). 

I support the strong rule that would forbid insurance companies from 

charging higher copayments, deductibles, and other out-of-pocket 

expenses for mental health treatment than they would for other physical 

health care. Thank you for ensuring that mental health care and 

physical health care coverage are included in a single deductible. 

Sincerely, 

Jennifer Rials 

653 Raintree Circle 

Coppell, TX 75019
§ 227.117 Hearing protector attenuation. ( a ) A railroad shall evaluate hearing protector attenuation for the specific noise environments in which the protector will be used. The railroad shall use one of the evaluation methods described in appendix B of this part; “Methods for Estimating the Adequacy of Hearing Protector Attenuation.”
( b ) Hearing protectors shall attenuate employee exposure to an 8-hour TWA of 90 decibels or lower, as required by § 227.115.
( c ) For employees who have experienced a standard threshold shift, hearing protectors must attenuate employee exposure to an 8-hour time-weighted average of 85 decibels or lower.
( d ) The adequacy of hearing protector attenuation shall be re-evaluated whenever employee noise exposures increase to the extent that the hearing protectors provided may no longer provide adequate attenuation. A railroad shall provide more effective hearing protectors where necessary.
-----Original Message----- 

From: neurotherapy@mindspring.com [mailto:neurotherapy@mindspring.com] 

Sent: Thursday, May 28, 2009 9:30 PM 

To: EBSA, E-OHPSCA - EBSA 

Subject: Mental Health Parity 

I am a Clinical Nurse Specialist who provides neurofeedback treatment 

to individuals with Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder and Mood 

Disorders. Neurofeedback 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 neurofeedback in the treatment of ADHD, substance use 

disorders and Autism. A recent review of this literatur 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 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 neurofeedback. As such, they 

are using evidence-based 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 neurofeedback. 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 review of the 

parity statute should require that employers and plans pay for the same 

range and scope of services for behavioral treatments as they do for 

medical surgical benefits and that a plan cannot be more restrictive in 

their managed care criteria and review for mental health and substance 

abuse disorders when compared to medical surgery. Today plans are 

being more restrictive in how they review evidence-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 we hope that the regulations will clarify that this can't 

continue. 

Yours truly, 

Carolyn Earnest, CNS 

1012 Marquez Place, Suite 203A 

Santa Fe, NM 87505 

neurotherapy@mindspring.com
NASA LogoNTRSNTRS - NASA Technical Reports ServerSearchmore_vertCollectionsAboutNewsHelpLogin Back to ResultsA study of the surface energy balance on slopes in a tallgrass prairieFour slopes (north, south, east, and west) were selected on the Konza Prairie Research Natural Area to study the effect of topography on surface energy balance and other micrometeorological variables. Energy fluxes, air temperature, and vapor pressure were measured on the sloped throughout the 1988 growing season. Net radiation was the highest on the south-facing slope and lowest on the north-facing slope, and the difference was more than 150 W/sq m (20 to 30 percent) at solar noon. For daily averages, the difference was 25 W/sq m (15 percent) early in the season and increased to 60 W/sq m (30 to 50 percent) in September. The east-facing and west-facing slopes had the same daily average net radiation, but the time of day when maximum net radiation occurred was one hour earlier for the east-facing slope and one hour later for the west-facing slope relative to solar noon. Soil heat fluxes were similar for all the slopes. The absolute values of sensible heat flux (h) was consistently lower on the north-facing slope compared with other slopes. Typical difference in the values of H between the north-facing and the south-facing slopes was 15 to 30 W/sq m. The south-facing slope had the greatest day to day fluctuation in latent heat flux as a result of interaction of net radiation, soil moisture, and green leaf area. The north-facing slope had higher air temperatures during the day and higher vapor pressures both during the day and at night when the wind was from the south.Document ID19910007160Acquisition SourceLegacy CDMSDocument TypeContractor Report (CR)AuthorsNie, D.*(Kansas State Univ. Manhattan., United States)*Demetriades-Shah, T.*(Georgia Univ. Griffin., United States)*Kanemasu, E. T.*(Georgia Univ. Griffin., United States)*Date AcquiredSeptember 6, 2013Publication DateJanuary 1, 1990Subject CategoryGeophysicsReport/Patent NumberNAS 1.26:187698NASA-CR-187698Accession Number91N16473Funding Number(s)CONTRACT_GRANT: NAG5-389Distribution LimitsPublicCopyrightWork of the US Gov. Public Use Permitted.Available DownloadsNameType19910007160.pdfSTIcloud_downloadcontent_copyvisibilityRelated RecordsThere are no records associated with this record.visibility_offNo Preview Available
 No Fear Act | Freedom of Information Act | Office of the Inspector General | Agency Financial ReportsNASA Web Privacy Policy and Important Notices | NASA Guidelines for Quality of InformationDisclaimers, Copyright, Terms of Use | Accessibility | NASA OCIO | USA.gov | NASA.govContact Us | Site MapSTI LogoNASA Official: JoAnne R. Calhoun Site Curator: STI Compliance and Distribution Services Last Modified: September 12, 2024
§ 216.1 Application. ( a ) This part applies, according to its terms, to each railroad that uses or operates— ( 1 ) A railroad freight car subject to part 215 of this chapter;
( 2 ) A locomotive subject to 49 U.S.C. chapter 207 (49 U.S.C. 20701-03); or
( 3 ) Railroad passenger equipment subject to part 238 of this chapter.
( b ) This part applies, according to its terms, to each railroad owning track subject to part 213 of this chapter.
[41 FR 18657, May 6, 1976, as amended at 64 FR 25659, May 12, 1999]
§ 213.321 Vegetation. Vegetation on railroad property which is on or immediately adjacent to roadbed shall be controlled so that it does not— ( a ) Become a fire hazard to track-carrying structures;
( b ) Obstruct visibility of railroad signs and signals: ( 1 ) Along the right of way, and
( 2 ) At highway-rail crossings;
( c ) Interfere with railroad employees performing normal trackside duties;
( d ) Prevent proper functioning of signal and communication lines; or
( e ) Prevent railroad employees from visually inspecting moving equipment from their normal duty stations.
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 32.1

                    CERTIFICATIONS OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
                     AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

         In connection with the Quarterly Report of Somanetics Corporation (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended February 29, 2004 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Periodic
Report"), we, Bruce J. Barrett, President and Chief Executive Officer of the
Company, and William M. Iacona, Vice President, Finance, Controller, Treasurer
and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, that:

         1.       the Periodic Report fully complies with the requirements of
                  Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934;
                  and

         2.       the information contained in the Periodic Report fairly
                  presents, in all material respects, the financial condition
                  and results of operations of the Company.

Dated:  March 30, 2004              /s/ Bruce J. Barrett
                                    --------------------------------------------
                                    Bruce J. Barrett, President and Chief
                                    Executive Officer

Dated:  March 30, 2004              /s/ William M. Iacona
                                    --------------------------------------------
                                    William M. Iacona, Vice President, Finance,
                                    Controller, Treasurer and Chief Financial
                                    Officer
```

[Journal of the House of Representatives, 1995]
[Thursday, September 14, 1995 (115), Para 115.7 Defense Department Appropriations, FY 1996]
[Page 1343]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]

para.115.7  defense department appropriations, fy 1996

  On motion of Mr. YOUNG of Florida, by unanimous consent, the bill 
(H.R. 2126) making appropriations for the Department of Defense for the 
fiscal year ending September 30, 1996, and for other purposes; together 
with the amendment of the Senate thereto, was taken from the Speaker's 
table.
  When on motion of Mr. YOUNG of Florida, it was,
  Resolved, That the House disagree to the amendment of the Senate and 
agree to the conference asked by the Senate on the disagreeing votes of 
the two Houses thereon.
```
```

[Congressional Bills 104th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2262 Reported in Senate (RS)]

                                                       Calendar No. 424
104th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 2262

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                           December 19, 1995

  Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on Governmental 
                                Affairs

                              May 23, 1996

               Reported by Mr. Stevens, without amendment

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
  To designate the United States Post Office building located at 218 
   North Alston Street in Foley, Alabama, as the ``Holk Post Office 
                              Building''.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. DESIGNATION.

    The United States Post Office building located at 218 North Alston 
Street in Foley, Alabama, shall be known and designated as the ``Holk 
Post Office Building''.

SEC. 2. REFERENCES.

    Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, paper, or other 
record of the United States to the United States Post Office building 
referred to in section 1 shall be deemed to be a reference to the 
``Holk Post Office Building''.
                                     

                                                       Calendar No. 424

104th CONGRESS

  2d Session

                               H. R. 2262

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

  To designate the United States Post Office building located at 218 
   North Alston Street in Foley, Alabama, as the ``Holk Post Office 
                              Building''.

_______________________________________________________________________

                              May 23, 1996

                       Reported without amendment
```
PUBLIC LAW 112–221—DEC. 28, 2012 126 STAT. 1601 

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY—H.R. 3870: 

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, Vol. 158 (2012): 

July 23, considered and passed House. 

Dec. 19, considered and passed Senate. 

Æ 

Public Law 112–221 

112th Congress 

An Act 

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 6083 Highway 

36 West in Rose Bud, Arkansas, as the ‘‘Nicky ‘Nick’ Daniel Bacon Post Office’’. 

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 

the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

SECTION 1. NICKY ‘‘NICK’’ DANIEL BACON POST OFFICE. 

(a) DESIGNATION.—The facility of the United States Postal 

Service located at 6083 Highway 36 West in Rose Bud, Arkansas, 

shall be known and designated as the ‘‘Nicky ‘Nick’ Daniel Bacon 

Post Office’’. 

(b) REFERENCES.—Any reference in a law, map, regulation, 

document, paper, or other record of the United States to the facility 

referred to in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a reference 

to the ‘‘Nicky ‘Nick’ Daniel Bacon Post Office’’. 

Approved December 28, 2012. 

Dec. 28, 2012 

[H.R. 3870] 


kgrant on DSKHRRP4G1PROD with PUBLAWS
From: Daniel Hoffman [mailto:daniel@hoffmanemail.com] 

Sent: Friday, May 22, 2009 7:26 PM 

To: EBSA, E-OHPSCA - EBSA 

Subject: Mental Health Parity

I am writing about the request for comments regarding the mental 

health parity and in particular the use of Quantitative‐EEG and EEG 

Neurofeedback (biofeedback). 

I am well credentialed having published over 40 papers in peer 

reviewed journals, am a consulting editor for 4 national peer reviewed 

journals, am a national and international lecturer and help national 

positions in professional societies. 

The exclusion of using these modalities in the diagnosis and treatment 

of many behavioral disorders, including but not limited to Attention 

Deficit Disorder, Addictions, Head Injury and Autism provide successful 

interventions that either have very little to offer traditionally or suffer 

from a high degree of treatment resistance.  Neuro‐imaging is clearly 

evolving into sub‐typing of disorders, yet anyone with an attentional 

problem is considered to suffer from ADD or ADHD.  In fact, all the 

literature demonstrates that one third of these cases do not respond to 

stimulant medication and are now being seen as a different disorder in 

which amphetamines, for example, may make these patients worse.  To 

exclude the tool that can differentiate these cases as well as treat those 

in which medications are inappropriate, if not contraindicated,

endangers the health of many. 

The research in these modalities is equal to or superior to many usual 

and customary treatments in which huge amount of resources are being 

spent with little or no success in the wrong population. 

Many of these tests, for example, are being denied because the code is 

not in the behavioral science carve‐out’s computer, so a denial is issued 

when the same test ordered under the medical side of the insurance 

carrier would be paid for without question. 

While it would be easy to write an entire essay on this subject, suffice it 

to say that I want to bring to your attention the inequality and often 

harmful manner in which current treatments are being reimbursed
while safer and more specific modalities are denied.  I implore you to 

make the Parity bill truly inclusive of fair practices for the mental and 

nervous disorders category. 

Daniel A. Hoffman, M.D. 

-- 

Daniel A. Hoffman, M.D. 

Neuropsychiatrist 

President & Chief Medical Officer CNS Response 

Medical Director, Neuro-Therapy Clinic
#### § 236.779 Plate, top.

A metal plate secured to a locking bracket to prevent the cross locking from being forced out of the bracket.
§ 236.309 Loss of shunt protection; where required. ( a ) A loss of shunt of 5 seconds or less shall not permit an established route to be changed at an automatic interlocking.
( b ) A loss of shunt of 5 seconds or less shall not permit the release of the route locking circuit of each power-operated switch hereafter installed.
[49 FR 3385, Jan. 26, 1984]
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

REGION IX

75 Hawthorne Street San Francisco, CA 94105

December 4, 2002

MEMORANDUM

Re: Screening Analysis for 5% De Minimis Determinations for Coating Rules

From: Andrew Steckel, Rulemaking Office Chi ef

To: Rulemaking Office

Issue EPA's 1988 Bluebook ( http://www.epa.gov/oar/oaqps/ozonetech/voc_bluebook.pdf ) allows SIP rules to exceed Clean Air Act §182 RACT limits if total emissions allowed

under each SIP rule are less than 5% above that allowe d by presumptive RACT. However, the Bluebook provides only limited guidance on how to demonstrate compliance with this 5% limit. Region 9's “ Five Percent Analysis Guidance ” (August 4, 1995), suggests states survey all applicable sources to accurately det ermine baseline and excess emissions. This memo describes an alternative screening test that may be appropriate for coating rules with extremely small excess emissions, such as those with specialty coating limits that apply to only a few

small sources.

S creening Analysis Summary This screening test uses existing inventory information instead

of exhaustive source

- specific surveys and analysis to estimate baseline emissions. Because the inventory information is less reliable than source

- specific analysis, a more conservative threshold (1% instead of 5%) is appropriate to assure de minimis excess emissions.

Screening Analysis

 Determine the total baseline emissions subject to the rule from the latest triennial emissions inventory prepared pursuant to §1 72 (c)(3), § 182(a)(1) and § 182(a)(3)(A). The triennial inventory information may need to be adjusted for growth and to quantify emissions accurately from the specific activities affected by the rule.

 Quantify the excess emissions by multiplying coating us e by the difference between the RACT VOC content limits and the rule VOC content limits. Permit or survey information may be needed to determine coating use. For example, if a local rule limits vacuum metalizing coatings to 800 grams/liter VOC and EPA’s CTG provides no specialty coating exemption from a 340 gram/liter general limit, a 5% demonstration must quantify coating use from all sources that may use vacuum metalizing coatings.

 If total excess emissions are less than 1% of the rule’s baseline emi ssions, then additional analysis may not be needed. Otherwise, a thorough survey of actual coating use by all sources to determine both baseline and excess emissions may be appropriate.
# EUR-Lex - 52004AP0095 - EN

Important legal notice

*|*

# 52004AP0095

**European Parliament legislative resolution on the Council common position for adopting a decision of the European Parliament and of the Council on a single Community framework for the transparency of qualifications and competences (Europass) (12242/1/2004 — C6-0158/2004 — 2003/0307(COD)) **

*
Official Journal 226 E , 15/09/2005 P. 0068 - 0069 *

P6_TA(2004)0095

Framework for the transparency of qualifications and competences (Europass) ***II

European Parliament legislative resolution on the Council common position for adopting a decision of the European Parliament and of the Council on a single Community framework for the transparency of qualifications and competences (Europass) (12242/1/2004 — C6-0158/2004 — 2003/0307(COD))

(Codecision procedure: second reading)

The European Parliament,

- having regard to the Council common position (12242/1/2004 — C6-0158/2004),

- having regard to its position at first reading [1] on the Commission proposal to Parliament and the Council (COM(2003)0796) [2],

- having regard to Article 251(2) of the EC Treaty,

- having regard to Rule 67 of its Rules of Procedure,

- having regard to the recommendation for second reading of the Committee on Culture and Education (A6-0056/2004),

1. Approves the common position;

2. Notes that the act is adopted in accordance with the common position;

3. Instructs its President to sign the act with the President of the Council pursuant to Article 254(1) of the EC Treaty;

4. Instructs its Secretary-General to sign the act, once it has been verified that all the procedures have been duly completed, and, in agreement with the Secretary-General of the Council, to have it published in the Official Journal of the European Union;

5. Instructs its President to forward its position to the Council and Commission.

[1] Texts Adopted, 22.4.2004, P5_TA(2004)0362.

[2] Not yet published in OJ.

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