alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
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-0614 

Comment on FR Doc # 2010-2167 

Submitter Information 

Name: Mickey W Trimble 

Address: 

3316 Fannin Ave 

Midland, TX, 79707 

Email: mwtrimble@gmail.com 

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, 

PUBLIC SUBMISSION

As of: April 29, 2010 

Received: April 29, 2010 

Status: Pending_Post 

Tracking No. 80ae3dae 

Comments Due: May 03, 2010

Submission Type: Web

Page 1 of 2

https://fdms.erulemaking.net/fdms-web-agency/component/submitterInfoCoverPage?Call=... 4/29/2010
Page 2 of 2

https://fdms.erulemaking.net/fdms-web-agency/component/submitterInfoCoverPage?Call=... 4/29/2010
-----Original Message----- 

From: fjkminek@yahoo.com [mailto:fjkminek@yahoo.com] 

Sent: Sunday, April 25, 2010 6:57 AM 

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, 

Frank Kminek 

5209 sw 11th ct. 

Cape Coral, FL 33914
#### Rogers v. F. T. Justice & Co.

(Decided September 30, 1919.)

Appeal from Fayette Circuit Court.

Appeal and Error — Second Appeal. — Wien there is a second appeal in the one case, the first thing to he determined by the Court of Appeals on such appeal is, whether the judgment rendered by the circuit court following the reversal of the judgment on the first appeal, substantially conforms to the law as announced by the opinion of the appellate court on the first appeal. And where, as in this case, such conformity is shown, to exist, and that no questions of law or fact were or properly could have been raised in the case in the circuit court, after the reversal of the judgment on the first appeial, that were not involved, in the first appeal, the judgment of the circuit court from which the second appeal is prosecuted will on such appeal, be affirmed by the Court of Appeals.

WALLACE & HARRIS for appellant.

FORMAN & FORMAN for appellee.

Opinion of the Court by

Judge Settle

Affirming.

This is the second appeal in this ca.se. The opinion on the first appeal, styled F. J. Justice *&*Co. v. Jackson D. Rogers, &c., is reported in 183 Ky. 466, and is here referred to for a statement of the issues of law and fací involved on both appeals. It is now contended by the appellant that only one of the several grounds of his resistance to the recovery by appellee of damages for■ thq alleged breach of the contract set up in the pleadings was passed on by this court on the former appeal, and that the others should have been passed on by the circuit court following the reversal of its first judgment and return of the case to that court.

It is sufficent to say that the opinion of this court on the former appeal shows that the question decided was the important one to be decided and its decision conclusive of the case; therefore the opinion declared a decision of the other questions unnecessary. The conclusiveness of that opinion is also demonstrated by the fact that this court, following its decision of the first appeal, overruled the petition for a rehearing in the case filed by appellants which presented and strongly urged the same grounds of *221resistance to the recovery of damages sought by appellee that are now urged by appellant for the reversal of the judgment on the present appeal. It is patent therefore that the circuit court was concluded by the decision arrived at by this court on the first appeal, and that its judgment awarding appellee the damages claimed against 'the appellant, Jackson D. Rogers, now appealed from, conforms to the former opinion of this court; hence it is affirmed.
§ 271.225 RRP implementation plan. ( a ) An RRP plan shall describe how the railroad will implement its RRP. A railroad may implement its RRP in stages, so long as the railroad fully implements the entire RRP within 36 months of FRA's approval of the plan.
( b ) At a minimum, a railroad's implementation plan shall: ( 1 ) Cover the entire implementation period;
( 2 ) Contain a timeline describing when certain implementation milestones will be achieved. Implementation milestones shall be specific and measurable;
( 3 ) Describe the roles and responsibilities of each position or job function that has significant responsibility for implementing the railroad's RRP or any changes to the railroad's RRP (including any such positions or job functions held by a person that enters into a contractual relationship with the railroad to either perform significant safety-related services on the railroad's behalf or to utilize significant safety-related services provided by the railroad for railroad operations purposes); and
( 4 ) Describe how significant changes to the RRP may be made.
**Exhibit
        4**
 
 **CERTIFICATION
        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 Utah Medical Products, Inc. (the
        “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ending June 30, 2005, as filed with the
        Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Greg A.
        LeClaire, 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, to the best of my knowledge and belief:
 
 (1)
              the
                  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 Report fairly presents, in all material
                  respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the
                  Company.
   
 /s/ Greg A. LeClaire
 Greg
        A.
        LeClaire
 November
        8, 2005
 
 
 *A
        signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other
        document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature
        that
        appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement
        has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and
        furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.*
EXHIBIT 32CERTIFICATION 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 2002June 27, 2008In connection with the filing of the annual report on Form 10K of Church Loans & Investments Trust, a Texas real estate investment trust, (the Trust), for the annual period ended March 31, 2008, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), each of the undersigned officers of the Trust certifies that, to the best of the officers knowledge:(1)The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and(2)The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Trust as of the dates and for the periods expressed in the Report./s/ M. Kelly ArcherM. Kelly Archer
President and CEO
(Principal Executive Officer)/s/ Robert E. FowlerRobert E. Fowler
Senior Vice-President and CFO
(Principal Financial Officer)  A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 has been provided to Church Loans & Investments Trust and will be retained by Church Loans & Investments Trust and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission, or its staff, upon request.
January 12, 2016

Dear Mr. Reid:

This letter is to inform you th at the following information is missing from your petition (Docket

No. FAA

− 2015

− 5173). This information is necessary for the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) to process your petition.

 Describe the aircraft make(s), model(s) , and type(s)(i.e., fi xed-wing, rotorcraft, lighter-than-air), and power source for the pr oposed UAS operation. The description(s)
should include the maximum we ight (including payload). This information can be located in the aircraft manual(s).

Please submit the additional information (non-proprietary) to your docket at www.regulations.gov. Once your information has b een submitted, please also send a copy of the requested information (and any proprietary in formation), as well as your comment tracking number from regulations.gov via e-mail to 333exe mptions@faa.gov. If you want us to process your request any further, we must receive the in formation described above by 1/26/16. If we do not receive the information, we will close the docket without notifying you further.

If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at (202) 267–2999.

Sincerely,
/S/ Program Analyst
U.S. Office of Special Counsel

1730 M Street, N.W., Suite 218

Washington, D.C. 20036-4505

OFFICE OF SPECIAL COUNSEL ISSUES HATCH ACT REPORT 

CONCERNING POLITICAL ACTIVITY IN THE WHITE HOUSE 

OFFICE OF POLITICAL AFFAIRS AND FEDERAL AGENCIES IN 2006

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

CONTACT: Darshan A. Sheth, (202) 254-3617; dsheth@osc.gov

WASHINGTON, D.C./January 24, 2011 – On January 21, 2011, the U.S. Office of Special Counsel (OSC) 

issued a Hatch Act Report titled Investigation of Political Activities by White House and Federal Agency 

Officials During the 2006 Midterm Elections. The report describes OSC’s findings following an 

investigation that revealed that White House Office of Political Affairs (OPA) employees, as well as 

high-level agency political appointees, violated the Hatch Act through a number of practices that were 

prevalent during the months leading up to the 2006 midterm elections. 

The matters investigated include: 1) the transformation of OPA from an advisory office to the 

President into a campaign organization that worked directly with the Republican National Committee 

to achieve electoral success for Republican candidates; and 2) the improper use of U.S. Treasury funds 

to support Republican campaign activity.

The full text of OSC’s report can be viewed at http://www.osc.gov/documents/hatchact/STF Report 

Final.pdf.

****

OSC is an independent investigative and prosecutorial agency with jurisdiction to enforce the Hatch Act. OSC is 

authorized to provide advisory opinions on the Hatch Act and enforces the provisions of the Act by investigating 

allegations of violations and filing petitions for disciplinary action before the Merit Systems Protection Board. For more 

information, visit our website at www.osc.gov or call 1-800-85-HATCH.
# EUR-Lex - 52004AP0077 - EN

Important legal notice

*|*

# 52004AP0077

**European Parliament legislative resolution on the proposal for a Council decision on the conclusion of an Additional Protocol to the Economic Partnership, Political Coordination and Cooperation Agreement between the European Community and its Member States, of the one part, and the United Mexican States, of the other part, to take account of the accession of the Czech Republic, the Republic of Estonia, the Republic of Cyprus, the Republic of Hungary, the Republic of Latvia, the Republic of Lithuania, the Republic of Malta, the Republic of Poland, the Republic of Slovenia, and the Slovak Republic to the European Union (COM(2004)0270 — C6-0019/2004 — 2004/0085(AVC)) **

*
Official Journal 226 E , 15/09/2005 P. 0038 - 0038 *

P6_TA(2004)0077

Additional Protocol to the EC-Mexico Economic Partnership, Political Coordination and Cooperation Agreement ***

European Parliament legislative resolution on the proposal for a Council decision on the conclusion of an Additional Protocol to the Economic Partnership, Political Coordination and Cooperation Agreement between the European Community and its Member States, of the one part, and the United Mexican States, of the other part, to take account of the accession of the Czech Republic, the Republic of Estonia, the Republic of Cyprus, the Republic of Hungary, the Republic of Latvia, the Republic of Lithuania, the Republic of Malta, the Republic of Poland, the Republic of Slovenia, and the Slovak Republic to the European Union (COM(2004)0270 — C6-0019/2004 — 2004/0085(AVC))

(Assent procedure)

The European Parliament,

- having regard to the proposal for a Council decision (COM(2004)0270) [1],

- having regard to the request for assent submitted by the Council pursuant to Article 300(3), second subparagraph, in conjunction with Articles 57(2), 71, 80(2), 133(1), 133(5), 181 and 300(2), first subparagraph, first and second sentence of the EC Treaty (C6-0019/2004),

- having regard to Rules 75, 83(7) and 43(1) of its Rules of Procedure,

- having regard to the recommendation of the Committee on International Trade (A6-0060/2004),

1. Gives its assent to the conclusion of the protocol to the agreement;

2. Instructs its President to forward its position to the Council, the Commission and the governments and parliaments of the Member States and the United Mexican States.

[1] Not yet published in OJ.

--------------------------------------------------
Order entered October 29, 2020

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-20-00264-CV

MARK ROSE, Appellant

V.

ECONOMY & DEVELOPMENT GENERAL TRADING 

COMPANY US, LLC, Appellee

On Appeal from the 101st Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. DC-19-20196

ORDER

In response to this Court’s order dated September 21, 2020, the court 

reporter filed a letter stating that no record was taken of the hearing held on 

February 13, 2020. Accordingly, the appellate record is now complete. 

Appellant shall file his brief on the merits on or before November 30, 2020.

/s/ ROBERT D. BURNS, III

CHIEF JUSTICE
§ 238.443 Headlights. ( a ) Each power car shall be equipped with at least two headlights. Each headlight shall produce no less than 200,000 candela. One headlight shall be arranged to illuminate a person standing between the rails 800 feet ahead of the power car under clear weather conditions. The other headlight shall be arranged to illuminate a person standing between the rails 1,500 feet ahead of the power car under clear weather conditions.
( b ) A power car with a headlight not in compliance with the requirements of paragraph (a) of this section shall be moved in accordance with the following: ( 1 ) If one of the headlights is defective, the defect shall be considered a non-running gear defect subject to the provisions contained in § 238.17 of this part.
( 2 ) If both headlights are defective, the power car shall be inspected and tagged in accordance with the requirements contained in § 238.17(c) relating to non-running gear defects. The power car may continue to be used in passenger service only to the nearest forward location where the repairs necessary to bring the power car into compliance can be made or to the power car's next calendar day mechanical inspection, whichever occurs first.
[67 FR 19993, Apr. 23, 2002]
Page 1 of I 

PUBLlC SUBMISSION As of: May 28,2009 

Tracking No. 809acafl 

Docket: IRS-2009-0008 

Rcqucst for Information for Paul Wellstone and Pete Domenici Mental Health Parity and 

Addiction Equity Act of 2008 

Comment On: IRS-2009-C)OUX:O)C)1 

Request for Information Regarding thc Paul IVcllstone and Pete Domenici Mental Health Parity 

and Addiction Equity Act of 2008 

Document: IRS-20?9.-O~~&IOl.7 

C'omment on FR Doc # E9-09629 

Submitter Information 

Namc: Kathy Abbott 

Address: 

Chicago, 1L, 

Organhation: Kathy Abhott, Psy. I)., P.C. 

General Comment 

N wtot'ccd back and other neurnlogically related treatmmts do a lot [o irr~provc 

thousands of peoplcs lives every year. The number of people doing neurofeedback 

is growing by laps and bounds. Since 1 began doing neurnfeedback 6 years ago, 

I believe there are four times as many people, doing ncurofeedback in the Chicago 

area. Most of these people are psycholgoists and neuropsychologists. These are 

highly educated people who would not being adding neuro feedback to thcir 

practice if there wcrc no evidence for its effectivenas or if they had not found guod 

results with their clients. The pcople doing the work need liability insurance for 

these appplications like any other kind of' therapy they do such as 

psycho therapy. 

Kathy Abbott, Psy. D.
#### PUBLIX ASBURY CORP., INC., A CORPORATION, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT, v. CITY OF ASBURY PARK, N. J., A MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT.

Superior Court of New Jersey Appellate Division

Argued February 25, 1952

Decided February 29, 1952.

Before Judges McGeehan, Jayne and Wm. J. Brennan, Jr.

*193
      *Mr. Harry Green*argued the cause for appellant.

*Mr. Abraham, Franleel*argued the cause for respondent.

Per Curiam.

The judgment of the Chancery Division is affirmed for the reasons stated in the opinion of Judge Leonard, which is reported at 18 *N. J. Super.*286.
Record of Discussion 

Docket No. FAA- Directorate Identifier: -AD 

With whom outside the FAA has this AD action been discussed (i.e., Design Approval Holder, 

manufacturer, ATA, NBAA, RAA, AOPA,;ALPA, GAMA, etc)? 

ORGANIZATION PERSON CONTACTED DATE TOPICS DISCUSSED 

Boeing Doug May 08/15/2013 Concur. 

Other/Additional Information:
-----Original Message----- 

From: NADEN6@hotmail.com [mailto:NADEN6@hotmail.com] 

Sent: Tuesday, April 27, 2010 3:47 PM 

To: EBSA, E-OHPSCA - EBSA 

Subject: Comment in support of RIN 1210-AB30 

April 27, 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, 

Nicole De Nardis 

1701 N. Chestnut Ave #107 

Marshfield, WI 54449
#### In the Matter of the Attorney General *v.*The Continental Life Insurance Company.—

Order affirmed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements.
PUBLIC SUBMISSION

As of: 6/24/15 9:52 PM

Received: June 24, 2015

Status: Pending_Post

Tracking No. 1jz-8jlx-lnpl

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-0334

Comment on FR Doc # 2015-14921

Submitter Information

Name: Michael Reid, CLU, ChFC, CLTC

Address: 

4617 N. Prospect Road

Suite 26

Peoria Heights, IL, 61616

Email: mreid@ft.newyorklife.com

Phone: 309-682-9383

General Comment

Their seems to be too much focus on low fees and expenses in this proposed rule. The lowest 

fees and expenses are often not

the best performing investment. What is most appropriate for the investor must take into 

consideration many factors. The time horizon,

horizon, risk tolerance, what the investor wants the investment to do for them, what other 

investments they have and how they are 

invested. Just because a commission is involved does not mean that the investment is not in the 

best interest of the investor!

The vast majority of financial advisors are honest and have their clients best interests at heart. 

Let us go after the one's who don't!

Page 1 of 1

https://www.fdms.gov/fdms/getcontent?objectId=0900006481b53e04&format=xml&show... 6/24/2015
§ 246.125 Certification determinations made by other railroads. ( a ) A railroad or parent company that is considering certification of a person as a signal employee (“certifying railroad or parent company”) may rely on certain determinations made by another railroad or parent company concerning that person's certification.
( b ) A certifying railroad or parent company that relies on the certification determinations made by another railroad shall be responsible for making the following determinations: ( 1 ) The person's signal employee certification is still valid under §§ 246.201 and 246.307;
( 2 ) The person has been qualified on the signal system equipment and signal-related technology deployed on the railroad territory on which the person is expected to work in accordance with § 246.119; and
( 3 ) The person has demonstrated the necessary knowledge concerning the certifying railroad or parent company's signal standards, test procedures, and instructions for the installation, operation, testing, maintenance, troubleshooting, and repair of the certifying railroad or parent company's signal system equipment and signal-related technology in accordance with § 246.121.
PUBLIC SUBMISSION 

Docket: IRS-2009-0OC)8 

Request for lnfonnation for Paul Wellstone and Pete Domczici Mcntnl Health Parity md 

Addiction Equity Act of 2008 

Comment On: IRS-100?~~~~8-C)001 

Rqucst for Information Regarding the Paul Wcllstoi>e and Pete Domenici Mental Health I'arity 

and Addictiou Equity Act of 2008 

Document: iRS,21)~!~-(1008-0047 

Comment on FR Doc # E9-09629 

Submitter Information 

General Comment 

I would likc to see Neurofeedback to be a wi-crccl by health insumnce for 

ADDlADHD and DcpressioiliAnxiety .