alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
-----Original Message----- 

From: aspanhel@earthlink.net [mailto:aspanhel@earthlink.net] 

Sent: Sunday, April 25, 2010 8:33 PM 

To: EBSA, E-OHPSCA - EBSA 

Subject: Comment in support of RIN 1210-AB30 

April 25, 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, 

Annette Spanhel 

108 Chuparrosa Ln 

Cedar Creek, TX 78612
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                                            <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                 9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          AUG-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               MAY-31-1998
<CASH>                                         274,139
<SECURITIES>                                    82,752
<RECEIVABLES>                                   69,070
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                    197,205
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               626,364
<PP&E>                                          54,609
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 691,198
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          116,030
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        10,035
<OTHER-SE>                                   2,809,594
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   691,198
<SALES>                                        365,314
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                          103,020
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  226,016
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                152,429
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   152,429
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .00
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .00
        


</TABLE>
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          OCT-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               APR-30-1999
<CASH>                                           4,464
<SECURITIES>                                     8,611
<RECEIVABLES>                                    3,601
<ALLOWANCES>                                      (29)
<INVENTORY>                                      2,106
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                19,082
<PP&E>                                           5,836
<DEPRECIATION>                                 (3,218)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  27,480
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            1,024
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        26,419
<OTHER-SE>                                        (46)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    27,480
<SALES>                                          3,247
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 3,247
<CGS>                                            1,414
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    2,577
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                   (9)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               (178)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  (557)
<INCOME-TAX>                                     (151)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              (406)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     (406)
<EPS-BASIC>                                    (.08)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.08)


</TABLE>
#### William C. Jones, Appellant, *v.*Frank Seaman et al., Respondents.

*Jones*v. *Seaman,*133 App. Div. 127, affirmed.

(Argued December 1, 1910;

decided December 16, 1910.)

Appeal from a judgment of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the second judicial department, entered June 15, 1909, affirming a judgment in favor of plaintiff entered upon a verdict directed by the court in an action of replevin.

*Henry J. McCormick*for appellant.

*Waldo G. Morse*for respondents.

Judgment affirmed, with costs; no opinion.

Concur: Cullen, Ch. J., Gray, Haight, Vann, Willard Bartlett, Hiscock and Collin, JJ.
### NO. 07-07 -006 8-CR IN THE CO UR T OF APPEA LS FO R THE S EVEN TH D ISTRI CT O F TEXAS

AT AM AR ILLO PAN EL D APR IL 16 , 200 7

_________

_________

_________

___ KAT IE LORRAI NE COSPER, AP PEL LANT

V. THE S TATE OF TEXAS, APPEL LEE

_________

_________

_________

______ FRO M T HE 27 DIS T RI CT COU RT OF B EL L COU NT Y; TH 

### NO . 595 92; H ON ORABLE JOE C AR RO LL, J UD GE

_________

_________

_________

____ Before QUINN, C.J., and CAMPBELL and PIRT LE, JJ. ME MO RA ND UM OPI NI ON Pendi ng befo r e t he Courti s a ppe ll ant ’s m ot io n t o di sm is s her app eal . Appe ll antan d h er a t t o r n e yb o t h h a ve s i g n e d t h e d o cu men tstating tha ta p p e l l a n tw i t h d r a w s h e r a p p e a l . T e x. R. App. P. 42 . 2( a) . No de ci si on of t hi s Cou rtha vi ng bee n d el iv er ed t o d at e, w e grantt he m ot io n. Accordi ngl y , t he app eal i s d is m is sed . N o m oti on for r ehe ar in g w il l be ent ert ai ned an d o ur m and at e w il l is sue fort hw it h. Jam es T. C am pbell Jus t ic e Do no tpu bl is h
-----Original Message----- 

From: jamdluddite@earthlink.net [mailto:jamdluddite@earthlink.net] 

Sent: Monday, April 26, 2010 11:53 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, 

Jane Armbruster 

5315 Fleming Ave. 

Oakland, CA 94619
Docket: EBSA-2009-0010 

The Paul Wellstone and Pete Domenici Mental Health Parity and Addiction Equity Act of 2008 

Comment On: EBSA-2009-0010-0409 

Interim Final Rules Under the Paul Wellstone and Pete Domenici Mental Health Parity and Addiction 

Equity Act of 2008 

Document: EBSA-2009-0010-DRAFT-0685 

Comment on FR Doc # 2010-2167 

Submitter Information 

Name: Michael Lucido 

Address: 

Bellaire, MI, 

Organization: NCCMH 

General Comment 

I am very supportive of most of the provisions of the interim final rules under the Paul Wellstone and 

Pete Domenici Mental Health Parity and Addiction Equity Act of 2008. These rules address many of the 

inequities in health insurance coverage of mental health care when compared to medical/surgical care 

that I have observed in the course of my mental health practice. 

However, in my opinion, two areas have not been sufficiently clarified. I am quite concerned that unless 

these points are more clearly specified in the final regulations, loopholes will remain that will permit 

widespread violation of the legislative intent of the Paul Wellstone and Pete Domenici Mental Health 

Parity and Addiction Equity Act of 2008: 

1. In my opinion, the interim final rules do not define clearly enough the rules regulating the 

comprehensive scope of services parity between mental health/substance abuse services and 

medical/surgical services. Given the language of the Act and the positions already taken by the 

Departments in the interim final regulations, I request that the Final Rules clarify that benefits for 

MH/SUD must be comparable in scope to the benefits provided in medical/surgical care both across and 

within each classification. Unless parity in scope of services is required in the final regulations, the 

intent of the Act will not be achieved. 

2. I strongly support the application of parity requirements to both QTLs and NQTLs as being consistent 

with the Act and allowing for broad application of the parity requirement with regard to treatment 

limitations. However, in order to implement the intent of the Act, the regulations must specify more 

clearly that any NQTLs that are applied by plans must be comparable for MH/SUD and medical surgical 

benefits, and that any NQTLs for MH/SUD must be no more restrictive than NQTLs that are predominant 

across the broad range of medical/surgical benefits. 

Thank you, 

Michael Lucido 

PUBLIC SUBMISSION 

As of: May 03, 2010 

Received: May 03, 2010 

Status: Pending_Post 

Tracking No. 80ae594a 

Comments Due: May 03, 2010

Submission Type: Web

Page 1 of 2

https://fdms.erulemaking.net/fdms-web-agency/component/submitterInfoCoverPage?Call=P... 5/3/2010
Page 2 of 2

https://fdms.erulemaking.net/fdms-web-agency/component/submitterInfoCoverPage?Call=P... 5/3/2010
#### § 221.11 State regulation.

Notwithstanding the provisions of this part, a State may continue in force any law, rule, regulation, order, or standard that was in effect on July 8, 1976, relating to lighted marking devices on the rear car of freight trains except to the extent that such law, rule, regulation, order, or standard would cause such cars to be in violation of this part.
Editorial Note on Part 192
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 192 appear at 71 FR 33406, June 9, 2006.

§ 192.229 Limitations on welders and welding operators. ( a ) No welder or welding operator whose qualification is based on nondestructive testing may weld compressor station pipe and components.
( b ) A welder or welding operator may not weld with a particular welding process unless, within the preceding 6 calendar months, the welder or welding operator was engaged in welding with that process. Alternatively, welders or welding operators may demonstrate they have engaged in a specific welding process if they have performed a weld with that process that was tested and found acceptable under section 6, 9, 12, or Appendix A of API Std 1104 (incorporated by reference, *see* § 192.7) within the preceding 71 ⁄ 2 months.
( c ) A welder or welding operator qualified under § 192.227(a)— ( 1 ) May not weld on pipe to be operated at a pressure that produces a hoop stress of 20 percent or more of SMYS unless within the preceding 6 calendar months the welder or welding operator has had one weld tested and found acceptable under either section 6, section 9, section 12 or Appendix A of API Std 1104 (incorporated by reference, *see* § 192.7). Alternatively, welders or welding operators may maintain an ongoing qualification status by performing welds tested and found acceptable under the above acceptance criteria at least twice each calendar year, but at intervals not exceeding 71 ⁄ 2 months. A welder or welding operator qualified under an earlier edition of a standard listed in § 192.7 of this part may weld, but may not re-qualify under that earlier edition; and,
( 2 ) May not weld on pipe to be operated at a pressure that produces a hoop stress of less than 20 percent of SMYS unless the welder or welding operator is tested in accordance with paragraph (c)(1) of this section or re-qualifies under paragraph (d)(1) or (d)(2) of this section.
( d ) A welder or welding operator qualified under § 192.227(b) may not weld unless— ( 1 ) Within the preceding 15 calendar months, but at least once each calendar year, the welder or welding operator has re-qualified under § 192.227(b); or
( 2 ) Within the preceding 71 ⁄ 2 calendar months, but at least twice each calendar year, the welder or welding operator has had— ( i ) A production weld cut out, tested, and found acceptable in accordance with the qualifying test; or
( ii ) For a welder who works only on service lines 2 inches (51 millimeters) or smaller in diameter, the welder has had two sample welds tested and found acceptable in accordance with the test in section III of Appendix C of this part.
[Amdt. 192-120, 80 FR 12778, Mar. 11, 2015, as amended at 86 FR 2240, Jan. 11, 2021]
Aaron Bosanko

Odyssey Development 227 W. 1 st

St, Ste 650 Duluth, MN 218-728-8060 aaronb@odysseydev.com
11/12/15
Petition for Section 333 Exemption
I hereby formally request FAA authorization for Odyssey Development (hereafter “PETITIONER”) to operate a UAS for civil (non-governmental) purposes other than for recreation or hobby.
PETITIONER requests to be exempted from 14 CFR §§ 61.23(a) and (c), 61.101(e)(4) and (5), 61.113(a), 61.315(a), 91.7(a), 91.119(c), 91.121, 91.151(a)(1), 91.405(a), 91.407(a)(1), 91.409(a) (1) and (2), and 91.417(a) and (b), to the extent necessary to allow PETITIONER to operate a UAS to perform aerial data collection, including but not limited to aerial imaging.
PETITIONER requests this exemption for its use of UAS both within the United States.
PETITIONER requests this permission to pursue its use of UAS models including DJI Phantom 2, DJI Phantom 3, DJI Inspire, 3D Robotics IRIS+, 3D Robotics Solo, 3D Robotics X8+, and 3D Robotics X8- M, or other similar commercially-available and widely-available UAS models.

PETITIONER will conduct its use of UAS in a manner which will minimize risk to the NAS, other persons, and property. The following procedures will be followed: (1) UAS will be given a pre-flight inspection before each flight to examine air-worthiness, (2) UAS will not be materially altered from commercial specifications except for battery, prop, and battery alterations, (3) UAS will not be flown over people, (4) UAS will always be flown within line of sight to operator(s) pursuant to Section 333(b)(1), (5) UAS will never reach altitudes over exceeding those allowed, (6) UAS will never reach speeds exceeding 50 mph, (7) operator will perform a pre-flight visual inspection of the NAS to determine nearby dangers such as low-flying manned or unmanned aerial vehicles, power lines, and buildings, (8) UAS will be checked for flight stability, proper connection to remote control, and proper performance at a very low altitude before reaching the NAS, and (9) non-participating spectators will be asked to stay a safe distance away from the flight path of the UAS and its landing location.
This petition will benefit the public interest. PETITIONER will provide imagery which is not otherwise possible to be captured without the use of a UAV, which will assist companies to which the images may be sold, will enhance the public understanding of nature photographed by the UAS, and PETITIONER will be able to provide UAS safety information to those with whom he or she comes in contact.Please grant the requested exemption under Section 333.

Aaron Bosanko Odyssey Development
I

104TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 2303

To amend title XIX of the Social Security Act to require as a condition

of receiving payments under such title for the costs of administering

its medicaid plan that each State include on the enrollment card provided

to beneficiaries under the plan a photograph of the beneficiary, and

for other purposes.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

SEPTEMBER 12, 1995

Mrs. LOWEY introduced the following bill; which was referred to the

Committee on Commerce

A BILL

To amend title XIX of the Social Security Act to require

as a condition of receiving payments under such title

for the costs of administering its medicaid plan that

each State include on the enrollment card provided to

beneficiaries under the plan a photograph of the beneficiary, and for other purposes.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Medicaid Fraud Pre5 vention Act of 1995’’.
2

•HR 2303 IH

1 SEC. 2. INCLUSION OF PHOTOGRAPHIC IDENTIFICATION

2 ON MEDICAID ENROLLMENT CARDS AS CON3 DITION OF RECEIPT OF PAYMENTS FOR PLAN

4 ADMINISTRATION.

5 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 1903(i) of the Social Se6 curity Act (42 U.S.C. 1396b(i)) is amended—

7 (1) in paragraph (14), by striking ‘‘or’’ at the

8 end;

9 (2) in paragraph (15), by striking the period at

10 the end and inserting ‘‘; or’’; and

11 (3) by inserting after paragraph (15) the fol12 lowing new paragraph:

13 ‘‘(16) with respect to any amount expended

14 during a quarter for the administration of the State

15 plan, unless in the administration of the plan the

16 State includes on the enrollment card provided to

17 each enrolled individual a photograph of the individ18 ual and information on the individual’s gender,

19 height, and eye color, except to the extent that the

20 State demonstrates that the inclusion of a photo21 graph or such information on a card is not cost-ef22 fective with respect to a class of individuals enrolled

23 in the State plan because minimal fraud exists in

24 connection with the State plan which results from

25 the incorrect identification of such individuals.’’.
3

•HR 2303 IH

1 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by

2 subsection (a) shall apply to quarters beginning on or

3 after the expiration of the 2-year period which begins on

4 the date of the enactment of this Act.

Æ
#### § 232.602 Applicability.

This subpart applies to all railroads that operate a freight car or freight train governed by this part and equipped with an ECP brake system. Unless specifically excepted or modified in this section, all of the other requirements contained in this part are applicable to a freight car or freight train equipped with an ECP brake system.
§ 212.221 Operating practices inspector. ( a ) The operating practices inspector is required, at a minimum, to be able to conduct independent inspections for the purpose of determining compliance with all sections of the Federal operating practice regulations (49 CFR parts 217, 218, 219, 220, 221, 225 and 228) and the Hours of Service Act (45 U.S.C. 61-64b), to make reports of those inspections, and to recommend the institution of enforcement actions when appropriate to promote compliance.
( b ) The operating practices inspector is required at a minimum to have at least four years of recent experience in developing or administering railroad operating rules. Successful completion of the apprentice training program may be substituted for this four year experience requirement.
( c ) The operating practices inspector shall demonstrate the following specific qualifications: ( 1 ) A comprehensive knowledge of railroad operating practices, railroad operating rules, duties of railroad employees, and general railroad nomenclature;
( 2 ) The ability to understand and detect deviations from: ( i ) Railroad operating rules accepted in the industry; and
( ii ) Federal operating practice regulations;
( 3 ) Knowledge of operating practices and rules sufficient to understand the safety significance of deviations; and
( 4 ) Specialized knowledge of the requirements of the Federal operating practices regulations listed in paragraph (a) of this section, including the remedial action required to bring railroad operations into compliance with the regulations.
[47 FR 41051, Sept. 16, 1982, as amended at 50 FR 31578, Aug. 2, 1985]
#### The People of the State of New York ex rel. Abraham Abraham et al., Doing Business under the Firm Name of Abraham & Straus, Respondents, *v.*Frank E. Perley et al., Constituting the State Board of Tax Commissioners, Appellants.

*People ex rel. Abraham*v. Perley, 143 App. Div. 915, affirmed.

(Argued June 5, 1911;

decided June 16, 1911.)

Appeal from an order of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the second judicial department, entered February 20, 1911, which affirmed an order of Special Term vacating an assessment against the relators upon a vault or substructure maintained under a street in the borough of Brooklyn.

*Thomas Carmody, Attorney-General (Henry Selden Bacon*of counsel) for appellants.

*Edward M. Grout, Paul Grout*and *Frank R. Greene*for respondents.

Order affirmed, with costs; no opinion.

Concur: Cullen, Ch. J., Gray, Haight, Vann, Werner, Hiscock and Collin, JJ.
#### Benjamin B. Robeson, Appellant, v. William H. Sage, Respondent.

Judgment affirmed, with coe'ts.

Boardman, J., not sitting.