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-0709 

Comment on FR Doc # 2010-2167 

Submitter Information 

Name: Dr. Stephen A. Ferrari 

Address: 

1075 Yorba Pl. #105 

Placentia, CA, 92870 

Email: arromir@msn.com 

Phone: 714-990-6536 

Organization: Alta Neuro-Imaging Neurofeedback 

General Comment 

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

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

the inequities in the 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 clearly enough define 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 acros 

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 requirments 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: May 04, 2010 

Received: May 03, 2010 

Status: DoNotPost 

Tracking No. 80ae5d70 

Comments Due: May 03, 2010

Submission Type: Web

Page 1 of 2

https://fdms.erulemaking.net/fdms-web-agency/component/submitterInfoCoverPage?Call=P... 5/4/2010
Page 2 of 2

https://fdms.erulemaking.net/fdms-web-agency/component/submitterInfoCoverPage?Call=P... 5/4/2010
EXHIBIT 99.2

                          OMEGA FINANCIAL CORPORATION.

                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                               18 U.S.C. ss. 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

      This certification is intended to accompany Omega Financial Corporation's
(the "Company") Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ending September
30, 2002 with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
"Report"), and is given solely for the purpose of satisfying the requirements of
18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act
of 2002. To the best of my knowledge, I, Daniel L. Warfel, hereby certify in my
capacity as the Chief Financial Officer of the Company, that:

      (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/ Daniel L. Warfel
                                                      -----------------------
                                                      Daniel L. Warfel
                                                      Chief Financial Officer

Date:  October 31, 2002
#### § 236.385 [Reserved]
```

[Journal of the House of Representatives, 1995]
[Tuesday, October 24, 1995 (133), Para 133.34 Senate Enrolled Bill Signed]
[Page 1587]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]

para.133.34  senate enrolled bill signed

  The SPEAKER announced his signature to an enrolled bill of the Senate 
of the following title:

       S. 1254. An Act to disapprove of amendments to the Federal 
     Sentencing Guidelines relating to lowering of crack sentences 
     and sentences for money laundering and transactions in 
     property derived from unlawful activity.
```
Editorial Note on Part 192
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 192 appear at 71 FR 33406, June 9, 2006.

§ 192.609 Change in class location: Required study. Whenever an increase in population density indicates a change in class location for a segment of an existing steel pipeline operating at hoop stress that is more than 40 percent of SMYS, or indicates that the hoop stress corresponding to the established maximum allowable operating pressure for a segment of existing pipeline is not commensurate with the present class location, the operator shall immediately make a study to determine: ( a ) The present class location for the segment involved.
( b ) The design, construction, and testing procedures followed in the original construction, and a comparison of these procedures with those required for the present class location by the applicable provisions of this part.
( c ) The physical condition of the segment to the extent it can be ascertained from available records;
( d ) The operating and maintenance history of the segment;
( e ) The maximum actual operating pressure and the corresponding operating hoop stress, taking pressure gradient into account, for the segment of pipeline involved; and
( f ) The actual area affected by the population density increase, and physical barriers or other factors which may limit further expansion of the more densely populated area.
-----Original Message----- 

From: aliciadesantiago@sbcglobal.net [mailto:aliciadesantiago@sbcglobal.net] 

Sent: Tuesday, April 27, 2010 8:31 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, 

Alexander DeSantiago 

1304 E Lafayette St 

Stockton, CA 95205
IN THE

TENTH COURT OF APPEALS

No. 10-13-00249-CV

MILTON L. GARDNER,

Appellant

v.

KIMBERLY REINDOLLAR,

Appellee

From the 77th District Court

Limestone County, Texas

Trial Court No. 30,200-A

ORDER

Appellee, Kimberly Reindollar, filed a motion to dismiss this appeal primarily 

due to the failure of appellant, Milton Gardner, to abide by the briefing rules of the 

Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure. See, e.g. TEX. R. APP. P. 38.1. Reindollar’s motion is 

denied.

Reindollar should file a brief in response to Gardner’s brief that evidences her 

best effort to address the merits of Gardner’s issues. This does not mean, however, that 

Reindollar is prevented from asserting as a ground for overruling an issue that the issue 
Gardner v. Reindollar Page 2

may be inadequately briefed. Nevertheless, even if Reindollar asserts an issue is 

inadequately briefed, she should still address the merits of the issue if at all possible.

In addition to responding to the merits of any of Reindollar’s arguments in her 

brief, to the extent any argument is made in Reindollar’s brief that an issue is 

inadequately briefed, Gardner will have 30 days to respond by supplementing his brief, 

if he believes he should, to address Reindollar’s arguments. 

Reindollar’s brief remains due by January 30, 2014.

PER CURIAM

Before Chief Justice Gray,

Justice Davis, and

Justice Scoggins

Motion denied

Order issued and filed January 16, 2014
**PROMISSORY        NOTE**

| Principal$1,200,000.00 | Loan                  Date07-28-2006 | Maturity07-28-2011 | Loan                  No.6010040275500005 | Call                  / Coll25 | Account | Officer906 | Initials |
|------------------------|--------------------------------------|--------------------|-------------------------------------------|--------------------------------|---------|------------|----------|

----

**COMMERCIAL        SECURITY AGREEMENT**

| Principal$1,200,000.00 | Loan                  Date07-28-2006 | Maturity07-28-2011 | Loan                  No.6010040275500005 | Call                  / Coll25 | Account | Officer906 | Initials |
|------------------------|--------------------------------------|--------------------|-------------------------------------------|--------------------------------|---------|------------|----------|

----

**BUSINESS        LOAN AGREEMENT**

| Principal$1,200,000.00 | Loan                  Date07-28-2006 | Maturity07-28-2011 | Loan                  No.6010040275500005 | Call                  / Coll25 | Account | Officer906 | Initials |
|------------------------|--------------------------------------|--------------------|-------------------------------------------|--------------------------------|---------|------------|----------|
[MULTIPLIER] 1

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                          SIX MONTHS ENDED
                                                              JUNE 30,
                                                      -------------------------
                                                         1999           1998
                                                      ----------     ----------
<S>                                                   <C>            <C>

Basic Earnings Per Share:
------------------------
  Average shares outstanding                           8,287,965      8,278,504
                                                      ==========     ==========

Diluted Earnings Per Share:
--------------------------
  Average shares outstanding                           8,287,965      8,278,504
                                                      ----------     ----------
  Average options outstanding:
    With exercise price of $6.250                        144,000        144,000
    With exercise price of $6.670                          7,353          7,353
    With exercise price of $10.063                       131,250        131,500
    With exercise price of $12.063                        45,000         46,500
    With exercise price of $14.000                        10,000         10,000
                                                      ----------     ----------
  Proceeds from assumed exercise of options
    outstanding                                       $2,952,648      2,973,259
     Average market price per share during
       the period                                     $    16.44          12.69
                                                      ----------     ----------

  Assumed shares repurchased                             179,648        234,338
                                                      ----------     ----------

  Common stock equivalents of options outstanding        157,955        105,015
                                                      ----------     ----------

  Average shares outstanding                           8,445,920      8,383,519
                                                      ==========     ==========

Earnings Per Share:
-------------------
  Net Income                                          $3,515,255      3,404,992
                                                      ==========     ==========

  Basic Earnings Per Share                            $      .42            .41
                                                      ==========     ==========

  Diluted Earnings Per Share                          $      .42            .41
                                                      ==========     ==========

</TABLE>
#### § 179.201 Individual specification requirements applicable to non-pressure tank car tanks.
-----Original Message----- 

From: SUSANJEH@GMAIL.COM [mailto:SUSANJEH@GMAIL.COM] 

Sent: Monday, April 26, 2010 10:04 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, 

susan dimarco 

2701 O St NW 

washington, DC 20007
#### § 236.747 Forestall.

As applied to an automatic train stop or train control device, to prevent an automatic brake application by operation of an acknowledging device or by manual control of the speed of the train.
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS 

AUSTIN 

Hon. mYin Ii. mcwn, Jr. 

CJ3~!&nal. Distriat Attorney 

Fort Jorth, Toxae 

Dear Sir: 

Oplnlon No. O-1180 

city orriaers 

e prieoner turne berore the werustice Court, 

upon the above state& 

hi8 department. 

8 0r Criminal Proaedun,; 

8 shall be taxed fop a pulc 

t perfomed, or for a aerviee 

ly provided by law. 

0pini0~ mio; 305s or thi8 dep43h44t 

ble 18 not entitled to a fee 0r TWO 

reading a warrant or arrest to a 

e matorist ire in the cnsltody and under 

ay Patrolmax& and that a oonstable is 

ree r0r surmemain g witnesses unlese ha 

act*aally sumoned sucrh wltnessea. We are enolaaing, 

herewith, a 00~7 or oanferenee opinion No. 9068 0r this 

ilepartrmlt. 

This department &as repeatedly ruled that 401~ 

stables, and other pea&e eiiloars, are only entitle& to 
aoileot rsas for %ervloee a0tuaU.y perform& Eiee spinio~e Nom O-106 mid G-768 of this despartzlsnt. Alao see 

opl~lan written by Eon. Leon 0. kasee, Assietuit At&- 

ney G%mral dated @amh 5, 19%, addreeeed to Hon. Wltm Grear Al, County Attorney, Gi&mt, Texm$ also 444 

0pllaioR 0r thla d4partr;ent Wx~ttM by &xi. iroe sharp, 

Aaslstant Attorney General, dated Jun4 14, 1934, addresea& to HOR. LO. Osborn, County Attorney, Cmton, T%x%a. 

IOU nre, thererore, t%sp%Otitily advised that 

it,ia the 0phion 0r this dbpartnant th4t your qua4ttiaa 

shi.aU be anstmwd in the n4gtMve. 

Tru3tlIq that this anawBr8 your inquiry, a. are 

V%rftruly rour4 

AppROlQJl JUL 31, 1939
§ 242.109 Determinations required for certification and recertification. ( a ) After the pertinent date specified in § 242.105(d) or (e), each railroad, prior to initially certifying or recertifying any person as a conductor, shall, in accordance with its FRA-approved program, determine in writing that: ( 1 ) The individual meets the eligibility requirements of §§ 242.111, 242.113, 242.115, and 242.403; and
( 2 ) The individual meets the vision and hearing acuity standards of § 242.117 (“Vision and hearing acuity”);
( 3 ) The individual has the necessary knowledge, as demonstrated by successfully completing a test that meets the requirements of § 242.121 (“Knowledge testing”); and
( 4 ) Where a person has not previously been certified, that the person has completed a training program that meets the requirements of § 242.119 (“Training”).
( b ) When evaluating a person's prior safety conduct, a railroad shall not consider information concerning prior conduct that: ( 1 ) Occurred prior to the effective date of this rule; or
( 2 ) Occurred at a time other than that specifically provided for in §§ 242.111, 242.115 or 242.403.
( c ) In order to make the determination required under paragraph (a) of this section, a railroad shall have on file documents pertinent to those determinations.
( d ) A railroad's program shall provide a candidate for certification or recertification a reasonable opportunity to review and comment in writing on any record which contains information concerning the person's prior safety conduct, including information pertinent to determinations required under § 242.115, if the railroad believes the record contains information that could be sufficient to render the person ineligible for certification under this subpart.
( e ) The opportunity for comment shall be afforded to the person prior to the railroad's rendering its eligibility decision based on that information. Any responsive comment furnished shall be retained by the railroad in accordance with § 242.203.
( f ) The program shall include a method for a person to advise the railroad that he or she has never been a railroad employee or obtained a license to drive a motor vehicle. Nothing in this section shall be construed as imposing a duty or requirement that a person have prior railroad employment experience or obtain a motor vehicle driver's license in order to become a certified conductor.
( g ) Nothing in this section, § 242.111 or § 242.113 shall be construed to prevent persons subject to this part from entering into an agreement that results in a railroad's obtaining the information needed for compliance with this subpart in a different manner than that prescribed in § 242.111 or § 242.113.
-----Original Message----- 

From: aasterling@gmail.com [mailto:aasterling@gmail.com] 

Sent: Monday, April 26, 2010 9:23 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, 

Cheli Winkler-Groschen 

408 E. Michigan Ave. #11 

Urbana, IL 61801
Gerald C. Mann 

Hon. T. M. Trlmble Opinion Bo. O-4033 

First Assistant State Re: Whether independent school 

Superintendent of Public district may make deductions 

Instruction from salaries of teachers for 

Austin, Texas hospitalization plan. 

Dear Sir: 

We have received your letter of recent date asking 

the opinion of this department upon the above captioned 

question. We also have the letter of September 19, 1941, 

from Mr. E. W. Jackson, Superintendent of the Beaumont Independent School District, to Dr. L. A. Woods, State Superintendent, and the letter of October 8, 1941 from Mr. T. N. 

Whitehurst, East Texas Manager of the Pan- Am erican Life Insurance Company, to Mr. Jackson. We quote the following from 

Mr. Jackson’s letter to Dr. Woods: 

“The plan proposed would provide for no 

financial obligations on the part of our Board 

of Education unless it be for a slight amount 

of clerical work necessary In making the monthly deductions from the salaries of teachers 

participating in the hospitalization plan.@’ 

We know of no reason why teachers of independent 

sczhool districts should not be allowed to avail themselves 

of the benefits of a hospitalization plan. This would be 

purely a private undertaking, and there is nothing in the 

statutes or in their employment which would prohibit such 

an undertaking on their part. 

You wish to know whether the clerical work of making monthly deductions from the salaries of the teachers may 

be, done by the district. 

The proposed plan imposes no financial obligation 

on the part of the district. The teachers would enter the 

plan on a purely voluntary basis, and we see no reason why 

the teachers may not authorize the district to make deductions 

from their salaries for oayment of the premium. As we have 

mentioned above, partici,patlon in the plan is purely voluntaryj 
Hon. T. M. Trimble, Page 2 

therefore, the teachers could withdraw both their membership 

in the plan and their authorization to the district to make 

the d,edutitions at any time. 

It is, therefore, the opinion of this department 

under the facts submitted to this department that the teachers of an Independent school district may enter the described 

hospitalization plan, and the district may make the monthly 

deductions from the salaries of the teachers participating in 

the plan for payment of the premium. This view is especially 

strengthened by Article 2883a, Vernon's Annotated Civil Statutes, which provides for the assignment of salaries of school 

teachers under conditions therein stated. 

We want to emphasize that we express no opinion except as to the particular facts disclosed herein, and this 

opinion is limited accordingly. 

Yours very truly 

ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS 

By/s/ George W. Sparks 

George W. Sparks, .Assistant 

APPROVED OCT 23, 1941 

/s/ Grover Sellers 

FIRST ASSISTANT 

ATTORNEY GENERAL 

APPROVED: OPINION COMMITTEE 

BY: BWB, Chairman 

GWS:LM:wb
§ 230.70 Safe condition. ( a ) *Pre-departure inspection.* At the beginning of each day the locomotive is used, the steam locomotive operator shall ensure that: ( 1 ) The brakes on the steam locomotive and tender are in safe and suitable condition for service;
( 2 ) The air compressor or compressors are in condition to provide an ample supply of air for the locomotive service intended;
( 3 ) The devices for regulating all pressures are properly performing their functions;
( 4 ) The brake valves work properly in all positions; and
( 5 ) The water has been drained from the air-brake system.
( b ) *Brake pipe valve required.* Each steam locomotive shall have a brake pipe valve attached to the front of the tender, the rear of the back cab wall, or adjacent to the exit of a vestibuled cab. The words “Emergency Brake Valve” shall be clearly displayed near the valve.
#### § 236.815 Stop.

As applied to mechanical locking, a device secured to a locking bar to limit its movement.
```

[Journal of the House of Representatives, 1995]
[Tuesday, October 10, 1995 (125), Para 125.13 VA Nurses and Assistants]
[Page 1497]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]

para.125.13  va nurses and assistants

  Mr. STUMP moved to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 1384) to 
amend title 38, United States Code, to exempt certain full-time health-
care professionals of the Department of Veterans Affairs from 
restrictions on remuneration outside professional activities; as 
amended.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore, Mr. EVERETT, recognized Mr. STUMP and Mr. 
MONTGOMERY, each for 20 minutes.
  After debate,
  The question being put, viva voce,
  Will the House suspend the rules and pass said bill, as amended?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore, Mr. EVERETT, announced that two-thirds of the 
Members present had voted in the affirmative.
  So, two-thirds of the Members present having voted in favor thereof, 
the rules were suspended and said bill, as amended, was passed.
  A motion to reconsider the vote whereby the rules were suspended and 
said bill, as amended, was passed was, by unanimous consent, laid on the 
table.
  Ordered, That the Clerk request the concurrence of the Senate in said 
bill.
```