alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Page 1 nf 2 

PUBLIC SUBMISSION 

Docket: 1RS:?OOV-O00X 

Request for Infonnat ion for Paul We1 lstone and Pete Domenici Mental Health Parity and 

Addiction Equity Act ui'2008 

Comment Qn: lRS.~2~O~-~,1()U~-~JttlC1 1 

Request for Information Regarding the Paul Wcllstonc and Pctc Uomenici Mental Health Parity 

and -4ddiction Equity Act of 2008 

nocumcnt: !.RS,2009:4008-0059 

C'clm~nent on FR Doc # E9-09629 

Submitter Information 

Name: Joan Cynthia Andcrson 

Address: 

Napewille, IL, 

Submitter's Rcprcscn tntivc: Durbin & B urris 

Organization: RIJAH Center, N.F.P. 

Government Agency Type: St-ate 

General Comment 

I work with a clinical psychologist who provides EEG biofcdback trcatlrlent to 

individuals with Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder and Mood Disorders. EEG 

biofeedback is an empirically validated and widely recognized effective nun 

mcdicatjon treatment for AIIHD, as well as other conditions. There are over 50 

studies evaluating the effcctivcncss of EEG biofeedback in the treatment of ADHU, 

Substance Use disorders and Autism. . A rcccnt rcvicw of this literature 

cnncludd "EEG biofeedback meets the American Academy of Child and 

Adolescent Psychiatry criteria for" Clinical Guidelines "Fir treatment US ADHD." 

This means that EEG biofeedback meets the same criteria as to medication liir 

trcating ADHD, and that EEC; hiofeedhack "should always be considered as an 

intervention for this disordcr by the clinician7'. 

This service has been denied by Geurgia Medicaid, Aetna, Unitcd Bchaviorat 

Health, Blue Cross, Cjgns, and Arnerigroup. 

This is limitation of an effective and validated trealrnenl for a mcntal hcal th 

problem. The reasons given by the insurance wmpanies for this dcn~nl fcll into 

two categories: 1 ) our company does not covcr biotccdback fur Merltal ti ealth 

problems or 2) there is not yet suf'ficient evidennce for thc cfficacy of EEG 

biofeedback. As such, they are using cvidcncc-basd criteria that are far niore 

restriutib t. for mental health scrviccs than the cntel-ra which are used for 

medicsl/surgical services. There are many roulinc rncdical and surgical 
Page 2 of 2 

procedures which have far fewer controlled studies about their efficacy than does 

EEG biofeedback. These medical and surgical procedures are gcncrally not 

limited beaust: of concerns ahout how many controll4 studies have been 

performed about thml. 

We belicvc that the parity regulations, based on legal reviews of the parity 

statue should roquil-e that employers and plans pay for the same range and 

scope of services lbr Behavioral Treatments as they do for Med Surg benefits and 

that a plan cmot be morc rcshictive in their managed care criteria and reviews fur 

MH and SA disorders when wmparccl tn Med Surg. Today plans are being more 

restrictive in how they review evidenced based Mental I iedlth and Substance 

Abwt: Treatments when compared to Mcd Surg treatments. This violates both the 

intent and letter of the parjty statute and we hope that the regulations will clarify 

that this can't continue.
Editorial Note on Part 376
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 376 appear at 66 FR 49871, Oct. 1, 2001.

§ 376.1 Applicability. The regulations in this part apply to the following actions by motor carriers registered with the Secretary to transport property under 49 U.S.C. subtitle IV, part B: ( a ) The leasing of equipment with which to perform transportation regulated by the Secretary.
( b ) The leasing of equipment to motor private carrier or shippers.
( c ) The interchange of equipment between for-hire motor carriers in the performance of transportation regulated by the Secretary.
[44 FR 4681, Jan. 23, 1979. Redesignated at 61 FR 54707, Oct. 21, 1996, as amended at 62 FR 15423, Apr. 1, 1997; 81 FR 68346, Oct. 4, 2016]
#### Louis Farber, Administrator, etc., v. Staten Island Railway Company. Elizabeth Higgins v. The Same. Amasa Higgins v. The Same. Isabella Homan v. The Same. George M. Hogan v. The Same.

Orders affirmed, without costs.
**MEMORANDUM**

**DATE:** 07 /25 /2014 **FROM:** Laura Farris/EPA Region 8 **TO:** Clean Power Plan for Existing Power Plants; Docket Id: OAR – 2013
- 0602 **SUBJECT:** Jefferson County Community Solar Garden Grand Opening Event **SUMMARY :**  Tim Rehder from EPA Region 8 spoke about the proposed rule for Existing Power Plants u nder Section 111(d) of the Clean Air Act on July 24 , 2014 , at the Jefferson County Community Garden Grand Opening Ceremony . The meeting was hosted by the Clean Energy Collective. **ATTENDEES: EPA**  Tim Rehder **External Stakeholders** Todd Davidson, Clean Energy Collective Members of the Public
#### The Board of County Commissioners of Mesa County et al. v. Brown Brothers.

Counties — Garnishment.

Counties are not subject to garnishment.

*Appeal from the District Court of Mesa County.*

Mr. Charles F. Caswell and Mr. Henry W. Boss, for appellants.

Messrs. Sullivan & Wheeler, for appellees.

*44Thomson, J.,

delivered the opinion of the court.

This is an appeal by the board of commissioners of Mesa county from a judgment rendered against it as garnishee. The appellees recovered a judgment against Quinn and Core, upon which execution was issued. Their execution being unsatisfied, they caused a summons in garnishment to be issued and served upon, the appellants. The interrogatories attached to the summons were answered by Edwin Shaw, who stated that-he had in his possession, as clerk of the appellant, a warrant drawn on the county treasurer’s commission and fee fund, payable to W. J. Quinn or bearer, for $630.57, the value of which he did not know. He afterwards filed a supplemental answer. There was no appearance in the' case' by the appellant. Judgment was given against the appellant' as garnishee for the amount of appellees’ claim, and the board appealed.

There are several reasons apparent upon the face of the record why this judgment should be .reversed, but there is one which effectually and finally disposes of the entire controversy, and that is that in this state, as the law now stands, counties are not subject to garnishment. *Stermer v. Board of Commissioners of La Plata*County, 5 Colo. App. 379.

The judgment will be reversed and remanded, with directions to the court below to dismiss the garnishment proceeding., , ■ . -

*Reversed.*
IB

Union Calendar No. 135

104TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 2288

[Report No. 104–250]

To amend part D of title IV of the Social Security Act to extend for

2 years the deadline by which States are required to have in effect

an automated data processing and information retrieval system for use

in the administration of State plans for child and spousal support.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

SEPTEMBER 8, 1995

Mr. SHAW (for himself, Mr. FORD, Mr. CAMP, Mr. MCCRERY, Mrs. KENNELLY, Mr. COLLINS of Georgia, Mr. ENGLISH of Pennsylvania, Mr.

LEVIN, Mr. NUSSLE, Ms. DUNN of Washington, Mr. RANGEL, Mr. ENSIGN, and Mr. STARK) introduced the following bill; which was referred

to the Committee on Ways and Means

SEPTEMBER 19, 1995

Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union

and ordered to be printed

A BILL

To amend part D of title IV of the Social Security Act

to extend for 2 years the deadline by which States are

required to have in effect an automated data processing

and information retrieval system for use in the administration of State plans for child and spousal support.
2

•HR 2288 RH

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

3 SECTION 1. 2-YEAR EXTENSION OF AUTOMATION DEAD4 LINE.

5 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 454(24) of the Social Se6 curity Act (42 U.S.C. 654(24)) is amended by striking

7 ‘‘1995’’ and inserting ‘‘1997’’.

8 (b) TECHNICAL AMENDMENTS RELATED TO THE RE9 PEAL OF FEDERAL FUNDING.—Section 452 of such Act

10 (42 U.S.C. 652) is amended in each of subsections

11 (d)(1)(B), (d)(2)(A), (d)(2)(B), and (e), by striking

12 ‘‘455(a)(1)(B)’’ and inserting ‘‘454(16)’’.

Union Calendar No. 135

104TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 2288

[Report No. 104–250]

A BILL

To amend part D of title IV of the Social Security

plans for child and spousal support.system for use in the administration of Statemated data processing and information retrievalStates are required to have in effect an autoAct to extend for 2 years the deadline by which

SEPTEMBER 19, 1995

Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the

State of the Union and ordered to be printed
Exhibit 99.4



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 Allegiant Bancorp, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ending June 30, 2003 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Jeffrey S. Schatz, Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

(1)  The 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 results of operations of the Company.



|August 14, 2003 | ALLEGIANT BANCORP, INC.
By:/s/ Jeffrey S. Schatz
             Jeffrey S. Schatz, Executive Vice
                 President and Chief Financial Officer
|--------------- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: slowe@neo.rr.com [mailto:slowe@neo.rr.com] 

Sent: Monday, April 26, 2010 4:52 PM 

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, 

Scott Lowe 

2886 Norwood St 

Cuyahoga Falls, OH 44221
I

104TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 2288

To amend part D of title IV of the Social Security Act to extend for

2 years the deadline by which States are required to have in effect

an automated data processing and information retrieval system for use

in the administration of State plans for child and spousal support.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

SEPTEMBER 8, 1995

Mr. SHAW (for himself, Mr. FORD, Mr. CAMP, Mr. MCCRERY, Mrs. KENNELLY, Mr. COLLINS of Georgia, Mr. ENGLISH of Pennsylvania, Mr.

LEVIN, Mr. NUSSLE, Ms. DUNN of Washington, Mr. RANGEL, Mr. ENSIGN, and Mr. STARK) introduced the following bill; which was referred

to the Committee on Ways and Means

A BILL

To amend part D of title IV of the Social Security Act

to extend for 2 years the deadline by which States are

required to have in effect an automated data processing

and information retrieval system for use in the administration of State plans for child and spousal support.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
2

•HR 2288 IH

1 SECTION 1. 2-YEAR EXTENSION OF AUTOMATION DEAD2 LINE.

3 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 454(24) of the Social Se4 curity Act (42 U.S.C. 654(24)) is amended by striking

5 ‘‘1995’’ and inserting ‘‘1997’’.

6 (b) TECHNICAL AMENDMENTS RELATED TO THE RE7 PEAL OF FEDERAL FUNDING.—Section 452 of such Act

8 (42 U.S.C. 652) is amended in each of subsections

9 (d)(1)(B), (d)(2)(A), (d)(2)(B), and (e), by striking

10 ‘‘455(a)(1)(B)’’ and inserting ‘‘454(16)’’.

Æ
EBSA-2010-0050-DRAFT-0950.html[7/21/2015 6:42:17 PM]

PUBLIC SUBMISSION

As of: July 16, 2015

Received: July 08, 2015

Status: Pending_Post

Tracking No. 1jz-8jvb-lyy7

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-0950

Comment on FR Doc # 2015-14921

Submitter Information

Name: Janet Wills

General Comment

I am able to manage my retirement savings and DO NOT think the federal government should be involving itself

 in individual retirement savings
#### § 350.415 What types of activities and projects are eligible for reimbursement under the High Priority Program?

Activities that fulfill the objectives in § 350.403 are eligible for reimbursement under the High Priority Program.
I

107TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 827

To authorize the Director of the Federal Emergency Management Agency

to make grants to fire departments for the acquisition of thermal imaging

cameras.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

MARCH 1, 2001

Mr. GRUCCI (for himself and Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania) introduced the

following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Transportation

and Infrastructure

A BILL

To authorize the Director of the Federal Emergency Management Agency to make grants to fire departments for

the acquisition of thermal imaging cameras.

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 ‘‘Access to Thermal Im5 aging Cameras Act’’.

6 SEC. 2. GRANT PROGRAM.

7 (a) AUTHORITY.—In accordance with this section,

8 the Director of the Federal Emergency Management

9 Agency (in this Act referred to as the ‘‘Director’’) may
2

•HR 827 IH

1 make grants on a competitive basis to fire departments

2 for the purpose of acquiring thermal imaging cameras.

3 (b) NON-FEDERAL SHARE.—The non-Federal share

4 of the cost of acquiring equipment under subsection (a)

5 shall be 33 percent.

6 (c) LIMITATION ON ADMINISTRATIVE COSTS.—Of the

7 amounts made available to carry out this section, the Di8 rector may use not more than 10 percent for the adminis9 trative costs of carrying out this section.

10 (d) REPORT TO CONGRESS.—Not later than 180 days

11 after making the first grant under subsection (a), the Di12 rector shall transmit to Congress a report on the results

13 of the grant program.

14 SEC. 3. APPROPRIATIONS.

15 (a) AUTHORIZATION.—For the purposes of carrying

16 out section 2, there is authorized to be appropriated to

17 the Director $100,000,000 for fiscal year 2002.

18 (b) SENSE OF CONGRESS.—It is the sense of Con19 gress that any funds appropriated to carry out section 2

20 should be offset with corresponding reductions in funds

21 appropriated to carry out other Federal programs.

Æ
EBSA-2010-0050-DRAFT-0924.html[7/21/2015 6:24:51 PM]

PUBLIC SUBMISSION

As of: July 16, 2015

Received: July 08, 2015

Status: Pending_Post

Tracking No. 1jz-8jvb-zeq8

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-0924

Comment on FR Doc # 2015-14921

Submitter Information

Name: Anonymous Anonymous

General Comment

I took responsibility for myself and I worked hard and made a lot of sacrifices to prepare for my retirement. The

 federal government has no right to control my retirement in any way and they should just be thankful I'm not

 being a burden expecting government hand-outs.
|   | 1. | The      Company's Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ending April 4,      2009, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date      hereof (the "Quarterly 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 Quarterly Report fairly presents, in all      material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of      the Company. |
|--------|----|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| /s/ Mason N. Carter          |
|------------------------------|
| Mason      N. Carter         |
| Chief      Executive Officer |
| May      19, 2009            |

----
From the Desk of Cathy Gadecki
37 Barnside Drive
Bedford, NH 03110

June 2015

Office of Regulations and Interpretations
Employee Benefits Security Administration
US Department of Labor

200 Constitution Avenue, NW Room N-5655
Washington, DC 20210

Dear Sir or Madam:

PLEASE DO NOT APPROVE the proposal for the “Conflict of Interest
Rule—Investment Advice.”

I believe the proposal imposes unnecessary and excessive burdens on advisors and
will probably result in unintended consequences. The president said everyone
could keep their insurance and doctor under the Affordable Care Act. But then
thousands of people lost their insurance and doctors. That is going to happen with
this proposal. Smaller investors will probably lose their current adviser, and
smaller investors who are newly retiring will have major difficulty finding an
investment advisor to work with them.

These advisors are already regulated by federal and state agencies.

We have too much federal overreach already. I do not like the idea that our
president is trying to rush this through with no congressional say on this topic.

Sincerely,

Cathy Gadecki

CC: President Obama
EBSA-2010-0050-DRAFT-0518.html[7/20/2015 7:58:51 PM]

PUBLIC SUBMISSION

As of: July 16, 2015

Received: July 08, 2015

Status: Pending_Post

Tracking No. 1jz-8jva-wp4g

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-0518

Comment on FR Doc # 2015-14921

Submitter Information

Name: Wilson Six

General Comment

Im smart enough to plan for my own retirement!,and have done just fine.
-----Original Message----- 

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

Sent: Monday, April 26, 2010 12:51 PM 

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, 

Clare Kenendy 

106 Halwey 

Templeton, CA 93465
NASA LogoNTRSNTRS - NASA Technical Reports ServerSearchmore_vertCollectionsAboutNewsHelpLogin Back to ResultsDebris/Ice/TPS Assessment and Photographic Analysis for Shuttle Mission STS-37A Debris/Ice/TPS assessment and photographic analysis was conducted for Space Shuttle Mission STS-37. Debris inspections of the flight elements and launch pad were performed before and after launch. Ice/frost conditions on the External Tank were assessed by the use of computer programs, nomographs, and infrared scanner data during cryogenic loading of the vehicle followed by on-pad visual inspection. High speed photography of launch was analyzed to identify ice/debris sources and evaluate potential vehicle damage and/or inflight anomalies. The debris/ice/TPS conditions and photographic analysis of Mission STS-37 are documented, along with their overall effect on the Space Shuttle Program.Document ID19910014905Acquisition SourceLegacy CDMSDocument TypeTechnical Memorandum (TM)AuthorsKatnik, Gregory N.*(NASA John F. Kennedy Space Center Cocoa Beach, FL, United States)*Higginbotham, Scott A.*(NASA John F. Kennedy Space Center Cocoa Beach, FL, United States)*Davis, J. Bradley*(NASA John F. Kennedy Space Center Cocoa Beach, FL, United States)*Date AcquiredSeptember 6, 2013Publication DateApril 1, 1991Subject CategorySpace TransportationReport/Patent NumberNASA-TM-103818NAS 1.15:103818Accession Number91N24218Distribution LimitsPublicCopyrightWork of the US Gov. Public Use Permitted.Available DownloadsNameType19910014905.pdfSTIcloud_downloadcontent_copyvisibilityRelated RecordsThere are no records associated with this record.visibility_offNo Preview Available
 No Fear Act | Freedom of Information Act | Office of the Inspector General | Agency Financial ReportsNASA Web Privacy Policy and Important Notices | NASA Guidelines for Quality of InformationDisclaimers, Copyright, Terms of Use | Accessibility | NASA OCIO | USA.gov | NASA.govContact Us | Site MapSTI LogoNASA Official: JoAnne R. Calhoun Site Curator: STI Compliance and Distribution Services Last Modified: September 12, 2024