alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
From: Donna Troisi [mailto:dmt_lcsw@yahoo.com] 

Sent: Tuesday, May 26, 2009 10:39 AM 

To: EBSA, E-OHPSCA - EBSA 

Subject: Comments Regarding Regulatory Guidance USCG-2007-27022 page 19157, II B specific 

areas 1 and 4

Comments Regarding Regulatory Guidance USCG-2007-27022

page 19157, II B specific areas 1 and 4 

I am a board certified, licensed clinical social work, who provides neurofeedback training 

to individuals diagnosed with Autism, Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder, and 

Anxiety / Mood Disorders. 

Neurofeedback is an empirically validated and widely recognized effective nonmedication treatment for ADHD, as well as other conditions. There are more than 50 

studies evaluating the effectiveness of neurofeedback in the treatment of ADHD, 

substance use disorders and Autism. A recent review of this literature 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 evidencebased 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 reviews 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 reviews for mental health and 

substance abuse disorders when compared to medical surgery. Today plans are being 

more restrictive in how they review evidenced-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. 

Thank you, 

Donna Troisi, LCSW-C 

Donna Troisi, LCSW-C

240-281-8319 

http://livingoptimally.com/register/bp/Beyond_Protocol.htm
Release dates | Full version (300 KB PDF)Actions by the Board | Actions 
  under delegated authority
  Applications and reports:Boston
 |
New York
 |
Philadelphia
 |
Cleveland
 |
Richmond
 |
Atlanta
Chicago
 |
St. Louis
 |
Minneapolis
 |
Kansas City
 |
Dallas
 |
San Francisco

# District: 8
Federal Reserve Bank of: St. Louis

## Filings received during the week ending March 23, 2013

|Filer                        | Filing Type        | Filing Proposal                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  | End of Comment Period                          
|---------------------------- | ------------------ | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | -----------------------------------------------
|MIDLAND STATES BANCORP, INC. | * 3A5* 18C* Branch | Midland States Bancorp, Inc., Effingham, Illinois, to acquire through merger, Grant Park Bancshares, Inc., Grant Park, Illinois, and thereby indirectly acquire The First National Bank of Grant Park, Grant Park, Illinois.  Also Midland States Bank, Effingham, Illinois, to merge with The First National Bank of Grant Park, Grant Park, Illinois, and to retain the acquired facilities as branch offices. | Newspaper:04/13/2013Federal Register:04/18/2013
|Newspaper:                   | 04/13/2013        
|Federal Register:            | 04/18/2013        

## Availability of CRA Public Evaluations

|Institution / Location                     | RSSDID | Exam Date  | CRAPublic Date | CRARating | Exam Method
|------------------------------------------ | ------ | ---------- | -------------- | --------- | -----------
|COMMUNITY FIRST BK, MOUNT VERNON, ILLINOIS | 273840 | 12/03/2012 | 03/08/2013     | O         | Small Bank 
|SOUTHERN BANCORP BK, ARKADELPHIA, ARKANSAS | 852544 | 11/26/2012 | 03/11/2013     | S         | Int Sm Bank

## CRA Examinations scheduled for     Quarter of

|Institution | Location
|----------- | --------
|NONE       

* Subject to the provisions of the Community Reinvestment Act

Release dates | Full version (300 KB PDF)Actions by the Board | Actions 
  under delegated authority
  Applications and reports:Boston
 |
New York
 |
Philadelphia
 |
Cleveland
 |
Richmond
 |
Atlanta
Chicago
 |
St. Louis
 |
Minneapolis
 |
Kansas City
 |
Dallas
 |
San Francisco

---

Home Banking information and regulation  Accessibility Contact 
  us
```

[Journal of the House of Representatives, 1995]
[Tuesday, October 17, 1995 (129), Para 129.29 Permission to File Report]
[Page 1533]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]

para.129.29  permission to file report

  On motion of Mr. MILLER of Florida, by unanimous consent, the 
Committee on Budget was granted permission until midnight tonight to 
file a privileged report (Rept. No. 104-280) to accompany the 
reconciliation bill.
```
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, *v.*The New York Central and Hudson River Railroad Company, Appellant.

*People*v. N. *Y. C. & H. R. R. R. Co.,*138 App. Div. 601, affirmed.

(Argued June 13, 1910;

decided June 17, 1910.)

Appeal from a judgment of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the third judicial department, entered May 6, 1910, in favor of plaintiff upon the submission of a controversy, under section 1279 of the Code of Civil Procedure, as to whether certain equipment trust certificates and dividend warrants came within the provision of the Public Service Commissions Law prohibiting railroad corporations from issuing *540“ stocks, bonds, notes or other evidence of indebtedness payable at periods of more than twelve months after the date thereof” without permission from the proper commission.

*Albert II. Ila/rris*and *Thomas Emery*for apj>ellant.

*ledyard P. Bale*for respondent.

Judgment affirmed, with costs, on opinion of Smith, P. J., below.

Concur: Cullen, Ch. J., Gray, Haight, Vann, Willard Bartlett, Hiscook and Chase, JJ.
```

[Congressional Bills 104th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2366 Enrolled Bill (ENR)]

        H.R.2366

                       One Hundred Fourth Congress

                                 of the

                        United States of America

                          AT THE SECOND SESSION

         Begun and held at the City of Washington on Wednesday,
   the third day of January, one thousand nine hundred and ninety-six

                                 An Act

 
     To repeal an unnecessary medical device reporting requirement.

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

SECTION 1. REPEAL.

    Section 1862 of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395y) is 
amended by striking subsection (h).

                               Speaker of the House of Representatives.

                            Vice President of the United States and    
                                               President of the Senate.
```
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA SUPREME COURT CAUSE NO. DA 22
- 0026

) STATE OF MONTANA )

Plaintiff/Appellee, ) ORDER EXTENDING TIME vs. ) FOR REPLY BRIEF **)** ) THOMAS WOJTOWICZ )

Defendant

/Appellant. ) In response to Defendant/Appellant’s unopposed request for a third time extension and good cause therefrom; IT IS ORDERED THAT Defendant/Appellant has until July 20, 2023, to file the Opening Brief. ELECTRONICALLY SIGNED AND DATED BELOW,

_______________________________________ Supreme Court Justice

Electronically signed by: Mike McGrath Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

June 20 2023

06/20/2023

Case Number: DA 23-0026
Docket No: FAA-2015-8468 Dir iD: 2014-NM-208-AD

Contacts. With whom outside the FAA has this proposal been discussed? 

Organization Person Contacted Date Response 

National Business Aircraft Association Eli Cotti 10/16/14

Regional Airline Association 10/16/14

Aircraft Owners & Pilots Association Robert Hackman 10/16/14

Airlines for America Robert Ireland 10/16/14
CLERK OF THE SUPREME COURT 

ELIZABETH A. BRO 

BY: 

No. 85563 

FILE 

DEC 1 3 2022 

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA 

ORDER DISMISSING APPEAL 

Cause appearing, appellant's motion for a voluntary dismissal 

of this appeal is granted to the following extent. This appeal is dismissed. 

NRAP 42(b). 

It is so ORDERED. 

cc: Chief Judge, The Eighth Judicial District Court 

Hon. Kathy A. Hardcastle, Senior Judge 

Blatnik Law, LLC 

Briana Price 

Eighth District Court Clerk 

JONATHAN FURLOW, 

Appellant, 

VS. 

BRIANA PRICE, 

Respondent. 

SUPREME COURT 

OF 

NEVADA 

CLERWS ORDER 

CO) 1,747 coagp 22-36)101QC
###### Editorial Note on Part 193

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 193 appear at 71 FR 33408, June 9, 2006.

#### § 193.2401 Scope.

After March 31, 2000, each new, replaced, relocated or significantly altered vaporization equipment, liquefaction equipment, and control systems must be designed, fabricated, and installed in accordance with requirements of this part and of NFPA-59A-2001. In the event of a conflict between this part and NFPA 59A (incorporated by reference, *see* § 193.2013), this part prevails.

[Amdt. 193-17, 65 FR 10960, Mar. 1, 2000, as amended by Amdt. 193-18, 69 FR 11337, Mar. 10, 2004; Amdt. 193-25, 80 FR 182, Jan. 5, 2015]
No. 01-15-00296-CV IN THE FIRST COURT OF APPEALS HOUSTON, TEXAS

JESUS GARCIA Appellant

v. DONNA GARCIA Appellee

APPEAL FROM THE 257TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS
APPELLANT'S MOTION TO EXTEND TIME

TO FILE BRIEF

Antonio Benavides Texas Bar No. 24031733 855 Uvalde Rd., Suite C Houston, Texas 77015 (713) 455-5551 (713) 455-5558 (facsimile) Attorney for Appellant

1 ACCEPTED 01-15-00296-CV FIRST COURT OF APPEALS

HOUSTON, TEXAS 8/6/2015 4:28:10 PM CHRISTOPHER PRINE

CLERKAPPELLANT'S MOTION TO EXTEND TIME TO FILE BRRIEF Appellant, Costella Nicole Willis, asks the Court to extend the time to file her brief in accordance with Tex. R. App. P. 10.5(b). 1. Appellant's brief is currently due on August 10, 2015. 2. There is no specific deadline to file this motion to extend in accordance with Tex. R. App. P. 38.6(d). The Court has the authority to extend the time to file the brief. 3. Appellant requests that her time to file the brief be set for October 10, 2015, as Appellant's counsel, a sole practitioner, has just completed a jury trial and has already begun preparing for three more jury trials for the month of August, and simply needs more time to adequately prepare a brief in this case. 4. No previous extension has been sought or granted to extend time to file Appellant's brief. 5. Appellee, who is Pro Se, has not filed any documents in this case. 6. The parties have not agreed to this motion. For these reasons, Appellant asks the Court to grant an extension of time to file her brief until at least October 10, 2015. The Law Offices of Antonio Benavides, P.C. 855 Uvalde Rd., Suite C 2Houston, Texas 77015 Tel: (713) 455-5551 Fax: (713) 455-5558 By: /s/ ogn.tonio .13enavideA Antonio Benavides State Bar No. 24031733 855 Uvalde R., Suite C Houston, Texas 77015 (713) 455-5551 (713) 455-5558 (facsimile) Attorney for Appellant Certificate of Conference Pursuant to Tex. Rules of Appellate Procedure 10.1(a)(5), I certify that counsel for Appellant, Antonio Benavides, has made a reasonable attempt to confer with all other parties about the merits of the motion and whether those parties oppose the motion. Is! entoltio fiettavIcici Antonio Benavides Certificate of Service Pursuant to Tex. Rules of Appellate Procedure 9.5(e), 25.1(e), and Local Rule 4, the foregoing has been served on August 7, 2015 on Donna Garcia, Pro Se Appellee by Certified Mail, Return Receipt Requested. Donna Garcia 4026 Trout St., Houston, Texas 77093 Is! eintonio e penavicleA Antonio Benavides

3
Docket: EBSA-2009-0010 

Request for Information Regarding the Paul Wellstone and Pete Domenici Mental Health Parity and Addiction 

Equity Act of 2008 

Comment On: EBSA-2009-0010-0001 

Request for Information Regarding the Paul Wellstone and Pete Domenici Mental Health Parity and Addiction 

Equity Act of 2008 

Document: EBSA-2009-0010-DRAFT-0087 

Comment on FR Doc # E9-9629 

Submitter Information 

Name: Sebern Fisher 

Address: 

34 Elizabeth St 

Northampton, MA, 01060 

Email: sebern.fisher@verizon.net 

Phone: 413-586-4230 

Organization: Private practice 

General Comment 

Please see attached submission on the use of EEG biofeedback for mental health 

and substance abuse. 

thank you, 

Sebern Fisher, M.A., BCIA 

PUBLIC SUBMISSION 

As of: May 22, 2009 

Received: May 22, 2009 

Status: Pending_Post 

Tracking No. 809ac95f 

Comments Due: May 28, 2009

Submission Type: Web
-----Original Message----- 

From: lucile@lnewton.net [mailto:lucile@lnewton.net] 

Sent: Tuesday, April 27, 2010 1:10 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, 

Lucile Newton 

3865 Saxon Dr. S. 

Salem, OR 97302
```

[Congressional Bills 104th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2213 Introduced in House (IH)]

104th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2213

To amend section 223 of the Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 223) 
to assure that the prohibitions of that section also apply to faxes and 
           electronic mail transmitted over telephone lines.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             August 4, 1995

  Mr. Engel introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                         Committee on Commerce

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To amend section 223 of the Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 223) 
to assure that the prohibitions of that section also apply to faxes and 
           electronic mail transmitted over telephone lines.
    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled, That section 223 of the 
Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 223) is amended by adding at the 
end the following:
    ``(d) Definition.--As used in this section, the term `telephone 
call' includes a fax or electronic mail message.''
                                 <all>
```
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 145 (Monday, July 30, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Page 41565]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 07-3717]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY

[Meeting No. 07-04]


Sunshine Act Meeting

    Time and Date: 9 a.m. (EDT), August 1, 2007, TVA West Tower 
Auditorium, 400 West Summit Hill Drive, Knoxville, Tennessee 37902.
    Status: Open.

Agenda

Old Business

    Approval of minutes of May 31, 2007, Board Meeting.

New Business

1. President's Report.
2. Report of the Finance, Strategy, and Rates Committee.
    A. Annual budget.
    B. Customer Items.
    i. Time-of-use power supply arrangements with a directly-served 
customer.
    ii. Real time energy arrangements.
    iii. Implementation of 5-Minute Response program.
    iv. Interconnection agreements with the cities of Princeton and 
Paducah, Kentucky.
    v. Limited interruptible power/Limited firm power.
    C. PURPA determinations.
    D. Financial trading program modifications.
3. Report of the Operations, Environment, and Safety Committee.
    A. Watts Bar Nuclear Plant Unit 2 construction and startup.
    B. Authorization to purchase a combined cycle generating facility.
    C. Amended Board Practice on Fuel, Power Purchases or Sales, and 
Related Contract Approvals.
4. Report of the Human Resources Committee.

For further information: Please call TVA Media Relations at (865) 632-
6000, Knoxville, Tennessee. Information is also available at TVA's 
Washington Office (202) 898-2999. People who plan to attend the meeting 
and have special needs should call (865) 632-6000. Anyone who wishes to 
comment on any of the agenda in writing may send their comments to: TVA 
Board of Directors, Board Agenda Comments, 400 West Summit Hill Drive, 
Knoxville, Tennessee 37902.

    Dated: July 25, 2007.
Maureen H. Dunn,
General Counsel and Secretary.
[FR Doc. 07-3717 Filed 7-26-07; 12:44 pm]
BILLING CODE 8120-08-P
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 129 (Friday, July 6, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Page 37054]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 07-3269]


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

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE


Notice of Lodging Proposed Consent Decree

    In accordance with Departmental Policy, 28 CFR 50.7, notice is 
hereby given that a proposed Consent Decree in United States, et al. v. 
Costello, et al., No. 06-cv-329 (D. Md.), was lodged with the United 
States District Court for the District of Maryland on June 26, 2007.
    This proposed Consent Decree concerns a complaint filed by the 
United States and the State of Maryland against William Costello, 
Janice Costello, Scott C. Mielke, and The Permit Coordinators, Inc., 
pursuant to Section 301(a) of the Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. 1311(a); 
Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act, 33 U.S.C. 403; and Section 
16-202(a) of the Environment Article of the Annotated Code of Maryland 
(collectively, ``the statutes''), to obtain injunctive relief from and 
to impose civil penalties against the Defendants for violating the 
statutes by discharging pollutants without a permit into waters of the 
United States and the State of Maryland. The proposed Consent Decree 
resolves these allegations by requiring Defendants William and Janice 
Costello to restore the impacted areas, to pay a civil penalty, and to 
make a payment to the State of Maryland's Wetland Compensation fund. It 
also requires Defendant The Permit Coordinators, Inc. to pay civil 
penalties and to make a payment to the State of Maryland's Wetland 
Compensation Fund. In the event that Defendant The Permit Coordinators, 
Inc. fails to make the required payments, both Defendant Scott C. 
Mielke and Defendant The Permit Coordinators, Inc. would be jointly and 
severally liable for the unpaid amounts.
    The Department of Justice will accept written comments relating to 
this proposed Consent Decree for thirty (30) days from the date of 
publication of this Notice. Please address comments to Michael Schon, 
Trial Attorney, Environmental Defense Section, P.O. Box 23986, 
Washington, DC 20026, and refer to United States, et al. v. Costello, 
et al., DJ <greek-i>90-5-1-1-17683.
    The proposed Consent Decree may be examined at the Clerk's Office, 
United States District Court for the District of Maryland. In addition, 
the proposed Consent Decree may be viewed at http://www.usdoj.gov/enrd/Consent_Decrees.html.

Russell Young,
Assistant Chief, Environmental Defense Section, Environment & Natural 
Resources Division.
[FR Doc. 07-3269 Filed 7-5-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410-15-M
Release dates | Full version (300 KB PDF)Actions by the Board | Actions 
  under delegated authority
  Applications and reports:Boston
 |
New York
 |
Philadelphia
 |
Cleveland
 |
Richmond
 |
Atlanta
Chicago
 |
St. Louis
 |
Minneapolis
 |
Kansas City
 |
Dallas
 |
San Francisco

# District: 4
Federal Reserve Bank of: Cleveland

## Filings received during the week ending March 17, 2012

|Filer | Filing Type | Filing Proposal | End of Comment Period
|----- | ----------- | --------------- | ---------------------
|NONE 

## Availability of CRA Public Evaluations

|Institution / Location            | RSSDID  | Exam Date  | CRAPublic Date | CRARating | Exam Method
|--------------------------------- | ------- | ---------- | -------------- | --------- | -----------
|OHIO HERITAGE BK, COSHOCTON, OHIO | 2347044 | 09/06/2011 | 02/28/2012     | S         | Small Bank 

## CRA Examinations scheduled for     Quarter of

|Institution | Location
|----------- | --------
|NONE       

* Subject to the provisions of the Community Reinvestment Act

Release dates | Full version (300 KB PDF)Actions by the Board | Actions 
  under delegated authority
  Applications and reports:Boston
 |
New York
 |
Philadelphia
 |
Cleveland
 |
Richmond
 |
Atlanta
Chicago
 |
St. Louis
 |
Minneapolis
 |
Kansas City
 |
Dallas
 |
San Francisco

---

Home Banking information and regulation  Accessibility Contact 
  us
§ 219.25 Previous employer drug and alcohol checks. ( a ) As required by § 219.701(a) and (b), a railroad must conduct drug or alcohol testing under this part in compliance with part 40 of this title (except for post-accident toxicological testing under subpart C of this part). A railroad must therefore comply with § 40.25 of this title by checking the alcohol and drug testing record of any direct regulated employee (a regulated employee who is not employed by a contractor to the railroad) it intends to use for regulated service before the employee performs such service for the first time. A railroad is not required to check the alcohol and drug testing record of contractor employees performing regulated service on its behalf (the alcohol and drug testing record of those contractor employees must be checked by their direct employers).
( b ) When determining whether a person may become or remain certified as a locomotive engineer or a conductor, a railroad must comply with the requirements in § 240.119(e) (for engineers) or § 242.115(e) (for conductors) of this chapter regarding the consideration of Federal alcohol and drug violations that occurred within a period of 60 consecutive months before the review of the person's records.
[81 FR 37928, June 10, 2016, as amended at 85 FR 81307, Dec. 15, 2020]