alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<PAGE>   1

                                                                     EXHIBIT 21
                       SUBSIDIARIES OF
                AMERICAN CLASSIC VOYAGES CO.
                   AS OF DECEMBER 31, 2000

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                   Jurisdiction Under          Percentage
                Name of Subsidiary                  Which Organized           of Ownership
-----------------------------------------------  -----------------------    -----------------
<S>                                                     <C>                       <C>
The Delta Queen Steamboat Co.                           Delaware                  100%

     DQSB II, Inc.                                      Delaware                   (1)

     Cruise America Travel, Incorporated                Delaware                   (1)

     Great River Cruise Line, L.L.C.                    Delaware                   (2)

     Great Ocean Cruise Line, L.L.C.                    Delaware                   (2)

     Great AQ Steamboat, L.L.C.                         Delaware                   (2)

      Great Pacific NW Cruise Line, L.L.C.              Delaware                   (2)

      Delta Queen Coastal Voyages, L.L.C.               Delaware                   (2)

      Cape Cod Light, L.L.C.                            Delaware                   (5)

      Cape May Light, L.L.C.                            Delaware                   (5)

AMCV Capital Trust I                                    Delaware                  100%

AMCV Holdings, Inc.                                     Hawaii                    100%

      Great Hawaiian Cruise Line, Inc.                  Delaware                   (6)

        Great Independence Ship Co.                     Delaware                   (3)

        Great Hawaiian Properties Corporation           Delaware                   (3)

        American Hawaii Properties Corporation          Delaware                   (3)

        CAT II, Inc.                                    Delaware                   (3)

      Project America, Inc.                             Delaware                   (6)

         Oceanic Ship Co.                               Delaware                   (4)

         Project America Ship I, Inc.                   Delaware                   (4)

         Project America Ship II, Inc.                  Illinois                   (4)

         Ocean Development Co.                          Delaware                   (4)
</TABLE>

(1) 100% owned subsidiary of The Delta Queen Steamboat Co.
(2) 99% owned subsidiary of The Delta Queen Steamboat Co. and 1% owned
    subsidiary of DQSB II, Inc.
(3) 100% owned subsidiary of Great Hawaiian Cruise Line, Inc.
(4) 100% owned subsidiary of Project America, Inc.
(5) 99% owned subsidiary of Delta Queen Coastal Voyages, L.L.C. and 1% owned
    subsidiary of DQSB II, Inc.
(6) 100% owned subsidiary of AMCV Holdings, Inc.
Solo Replacement Leg Set

1 Remove the plastic sheet from the leg.

2 Detach the antenna by carefully pulling the cable.

3 Use a #2 Phillips screwdriver to remove the two 

screws and detach the old leg.

(For legs without an antenna, remove the two 

screws and replace the leg only.)

1 Thread the antenna cable through the notch in 

the new leg.

2 Secure the leg using the two screws.

1

2

3

2

1
4

3

2

1

2 Remove the backing and attach the velcro and 

antenna to the inside of the leg, placing the tip of 

the antenna 5 mm from the edge of the rubber foot.

1 Attach only the yellow-backed 

velcro strip to the velcro on the 

antenna.

3 Fold the ends of a new plastic sheet at right 

angles.

4 Remove the adhesive backing and stick the 

plastic sheet to the leg so it secures the antenna 

in place.

Replacing the Right-Rear Leg

Solo’s right-rear leg (arm #04) contains the compass 

module. To replace the right-rear leg, purchase a 

Solo Replacement Leg with Compass from store.3dr.

com or an authorized retailer. 

For more information, visit 3dr.com/solo/info

3D Robotics

1608 4th St, Suite 140

Berkeley, CA 94710

Tel. (858) 225-1414

©3D Robotics 2015

DCT0082

SLKAL01-01

Support

online: 3dr.com/support 

email: support@3dr.com 

call: +1 (858) 225-1414 (direct)

 +1 (855) 822-2898 (toll free)

Support line hours:

Mon-Fri 8 am to 5 pm PST 

Sat 9 am to 3 pm PST
Jeu de pieds de rechange 

pour Solo

1 Enlevez la feuille de plastique.

2 Détachez l’antenne en tirant délicatement sur 

le câble.

3 Utilisez un tournevis cruciforme n° 2 pour 

enlever les deux vis et enlever le pied.

(Pour les pieds sans antenne, retirez seulement 

les deux vis et remplacez le pied.)

1 Enfilez le câble d’antenne dans l’encoche du 

nouveau pied.

2 Fixez le pied en utilisant les deux vis.

2

1

1

2

3
1 Fixez seulement la bande de velcro 

avec l’autocollant jaune au velcro de 

l’antenne. 

2 Enlevez l’autocollant, fixez le velcro et l’antenne 

à l’intérieur du pied en plaçant l’extrémité de 

l’antenne à 5 mm de l’embout en caoutchouc.

1

4

3

2

3 Pliez à angle droit les extrémités d’une nouvelle 

feuille de plastique.

4 Enlevez le support adhésif et collez la feuille de 

plastique au pied pour fixer l’antenne.

Remplacement du pied arrière droit

Le module de boussole se situe dans le pied 

arrière droit de Solo (bras n° 04). Pour remplacer 

le pied arrière droit, achetez un pied de rechange 

avec boussole pour Solo sur le store.3dr.com ou 

auprès d’un détaillant agréé. 

Pour plus de renseignements, visitez 

3dr.com/solo/info

3D Robotics

1608 4th St, Suite 140

Berkeley, CA 94710

Tel. (858) 225-1414

©3D Robotics 2015

DCT0082 

Soutien 

en ligne: 3dr.com/support

courriel: support@3dr.com

téléphone: 

+1 (858) 225-1414 (direct)

+1 (855) 982-2898 (gratuit 

depuis tles Etats-Unis et le Canada)

Horaires du service à la clientèle:

lundi au vendredi 8 h-17 h HNP

samedi 9 h-15 h HNP

SLKAL01-01
#### § 339.3 Good faith cost estimates.

Even though not legally binding, some agency guidance may result in a substantial economic impact. For example, the issuance of departmental guidance may induce private parties to alter their conduct to conform to recommended standards or practices, thereby incurring costs beyond the costs of complying with existing statutes and regulations. While it may be difficult to predict with precision the economic impact of voluntary guidance, the proposing component of the Department must, to the extent practicable, make a good faith effort to estimate the likely economic cost impact of the guidance document to determine whether the document might be significant. When the component is assessing or explaining whether it believes a guidance document is significant, it will, at a minimum, provide the same level of analysis that would be required for a major determination under the Congressional Review Act (5 U.S.C. chapter 8). When it is determined that a guidance document will be economically significant (see § 339.7(a)(1) of this part), the component must conduct and publish a Regulatory Impact Analysis of the sort that would accompany an economically significant rulemaking (see requirements in E.O. 12866, E.O. 13563, and OMB Circular A-4), to the extent reasonably possible.
§ 746.2 Policy. ( a ) A major premise of the Presidential Statement fo Government Patent Policy, August 23, 1971 (36 FR 16887, August 26, 1971), is that government inventions normally will best serve the public interest when they are developed to the point of practical application and made available to the public in the shortest possible time. The granting of express nonexclusive or exclusive licenses for the practice of these inventions may assist in the accomplishment of the national objective to achieve a dynamic and efficient economy.
( b ) The granting of nonexclusive licenses generally is preferable, since the invention is thereby laid open to all interested parties and serves to promote competition in industry, if the invention is in fact promoted commercially. However, to obtain commercial utilization of the invention, it may be necessary to grant an exclusive license for a limited period of time as an incentive for the investment of risk capital to achieve practical application of an invention.
( c ) Whenever the grant of an exclusive license is deemed appropriate, it shall be negotiated on terms and conditions most favorable to the public interest. In selecting an exclusive licensee, consideration shall be given to the capabilities of the prospective licensee to further the technical and market development of the invention, his plan to undertake the development, the projected impact on competition, and the benefit to the Government and the public. Consideration shall be given also to assisting small business and minority business enterprises, as well as economically depressed, low income, and labor surplus areas, and whether each or any applicant is a United States citizen or corporation. Where there is more than one applicant for an exclusive license, that applicant shall be selected who is determined to be most capable of satisfying the criteria and achieving the goals set forth in this part.
( d ) Subject to the following: ( 1 ) Any existing or future treaty or agreement between the United States and any foreign government or inter-governmental organization, or
( 2 ) Licenses under or other rights to inventions made or conceived in the course of or under Department of the Navy research and development contracts where such licenses or other rights to such inventions are provided for in the contract and retained by the party contracting with the Department of the Navy, no license shall be granted or implied in a government invention, except as provided for in this part.
( e ) No grant of a license under this part shall be construed to confer upon any licensee any immunity from the antitrust laws or from a charge of patent misuse, and the acquisition and use of rights pursuant to this part shall not be immunized from the operation of state or federal law by reason of the source of the grant.
### §2262a. Overseas tort claims

#### (a) In general

The Secretary of Agriculture may pay a tort claim in the manner authorized by section 2672 of title 28, if the claim arises outside the United States in connection with activities of individuals who are performing services for the Secretary.

#### (b) Period for presentation of claim

A claim may not be allowed under this section unless the claim is presented in writing to the Secretary of Agriculture within 2 years after the date on which the claim accrues.

#### (c) Finality

Notwithstanding any other provision of law, an award or denial of a claim by the Secretary of Agriculture under this section is final.

(Pub. L. 104–127, title IX, §920, Apr. 4, 1996, 110 Stat. 1191.)
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. James Teasley, Appellant.

Motion for leave to appeal as a poor person, will be treated as a motion to dispense with printing. Motion granted. The appeal will be heard on the original papers and on a typewritten brief. The appellant is directed to file five copies of his brief and to serve one copy. The appellant’s time to perfect the appeal is enlarged to the January 1961 Term, for which term the appeal is ordered to be placed on the calendar. Motion for assignment of counsel granted. Frederick G. Demarest, Esq., 48 Elm Street, Huntington, New York, is assigned as counsel to prosecute the appeal. Nolan, P. J., Beldock, Ughetta, Kleinfeld and Christ, JJ., concur.
###### Editorial Note on Part 724

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 724 appear at 65 FR 62616, Oct. 19, 2000.

#### § 724.408 Secretary of the Navy.

The final authority within the Department of the Navy in discharge review.
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION 

Standard Operating Permit Condition XII – SO2 Material 

Balance Calculation 

Permit Condition for Air Quality Permits 

Adopted by Reference in 18 AAC 50.346 

April 1, 2002 

REVISED August 25, 2004
Standard Operating Permit Condition XII – 

SO2 Material Balance Calculation 1 April 1, 2002 

Revised August 25, 2004

Standard Operating Permit Condition XII – SO2 Material Balance 

Calculation

Emission Unit [SOURCE] or Stationary Source [FACILITY] Categories This 

Condition Applies to: Any fuel burning equipment using liquid fuel. 

The department will use standard permit condition XII in any operating permit unless the 

department determines that emission unit [SOURCE] or stationary source [FACILITY] 

specific conditions more adequately meet the requirements of 18 AAC 50. 

Permit Wording:

SO2 Material Balance Calculation 

If a fuel shipment contains more than 0.75 percent sulfur by weight, calculate the three-hour 

exhaust concentration of SO2 using the following equations: 

A = 31,200 x [wt%Sfuel] = 31,200 x ______ = ______ 

B = 0.148 x [wt%Sfuel] = 0.148 x ______ = ______ 

C = 0.396 x [wt%Cfuel] = 0.396 x ______ = ______ 

D = 0.933 x [wt%Hfuel] = 0.933 x ______ = ______ 

E = B + C + D = ______ + ______ + ______ = ______ 

F = 20.9 – [vol%dryO2, exhaust] = 20.9 - ______ = ______ 

G = [vol%dryO2, exhaust] ÷ F = ______ ÷ ______ = ______ 

H = 1 + G = 1 + ______ = ______ 

I = E x H = ______ x ______ = ______ 

SO2 concentration = A ÷ I = ______ ÷ ______ = ______ PPM 

The wt%Sfuel, wt%Cfuel, and wt%Hfuel are equal to the weight percents of sulfur, 

carbon, and hydrogen in the fuel. These percentages should total 100%. 

The fuel weight percent (wt%) of sulfur is obtained pursuant to condition XI.2. The fuel 

weight percents of carbon and hydrogen are obtained from the fuel refiner. 

The volume percent of oxygen in the exhaust (vol%dryO2, exhaust) is obtained from oxygen 

meters, manufacturer’s data, or from the most recent analysis under 40 C.F.R. 60, 

Appendix A-2, Method 3, adopted by reference in 18 AAC 50.040(a), at the same engine 

load used in the calculation. 
Standard Operating Permit Condition XII – 

SO2 Material Balance Calculation 2 April 1, 2002 

Revised August 25, 2004

Enter all of the data in percentages without dividing the percentages by 100. For 

example, if wt%Sfuel = 1.0%, then enter 1.0 into the equations, not 0.01, and if 

vol%dryO2, exhaust = 3.00%, then enter 3.00, not 0.03.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Noel Tursi, Appellant.

Judgments of a Court of Special Sessions of the City of New York, New York County, held by a City Magistrate of the City of New York, rendered on June 27, 1962, convicting defendant on his plea of guilty of violating the New York City Health Code, unanimously reversed, on consent, as evidenced by letter of the Corporation Counsel dated May 13, 1963, -and the causes remanded for further proceedings. (See *People*v. *Malloy,*14 A D 2d 761.) Concur — ■ Rabin, J. P., McNally, Stevens, Eager and Steuer, JJ.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Frederick S. Knowles, Appellant.

Motion granted and time for argument of appeal enlarged to include February 1961 Term on condition that appellant’s brief is filed and served on or before January 23, 1961. Respondent directed to file brief on or before February 2, 1961. (Order entered Jan. 9, 1961.)
P.1 

OAR Box 1830 

Prepped by Ollie Stewart 

Document Number: 

26) IV-B-22 

Docket Number: 

A-87-11 

Printed 11/13/2008 7:20:52 AM Sheet 26 of 232 
P.2 

4-87-11 

f*sfa\ \ UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY |V ~ B " 2 2 . 

r^| ^ ° ANN ARBOR. MICHIGAN 48105 

X ^ 

OFFICE OF 

AIR AND RADIATION 

MEMORANDUM 

SUBJECT: Opportunity For AIAM Input on Onboard Vapor Recovery 

FROM: Glenn w. Passavant, Chief j&c8ft~ CO t^^c^^Z/ 

1 Special Regulatory Projects Branch 

TO: Public Docket A-87-11 

On January 22, 1993 the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. 

Circuit lissued an opinion causing EPA to reinstitute its rulemaking 

for onboard vapor recovery standards. In response, EPA has decided 

to prepare a Federal Register notice reopening the comment period 

and discussing the key issues and areas in the onboard vapor 

recovery NPRM and notice of August 1987 and September 1991, 

respectively. 

On March 10, 1993 I contacted Susan Tasjian of the Association 

of International Automobile Manufacturers (AIAM). The purpose of 

my call was to offer AIAM and its member companies an opportunity 

to provide EPA input on what issues and areas should be addressed 

in the forthcoming notice. I stated that any input should be in 

writing and that in order for us to move expeditiously in 

developing the notice it must be received not later than March 19, 

1993. 

p \ '.'
EXHIBIT 23.1



T     Thigpen, Jones, Seaton & Co.,
J     P.C.
S     CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS
      BUSINESS CONSULTANTS



                  CONSENT OF THIGPEN, JONES, SEATON & CO., PC



As independent public accountants, we hereby consent to the incorporation by
reference in the Registration Statement on Form S-8 filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on November 29, 2000 (no. 333-50870) of Southwest
Georgia Financial Corporation of our reports, dated March 19, 2010 included
in the December 31, 2009 Annual Report on Form 10-K of Southwest Georgia
Financial Corporation.



/s/ THIGPEN, JONES, SEATON & CO., PC


Dublin, Georgia
March 31, 2010
##### 



1.
    
    I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Erie Family Life Insurance
Company;2.
    
    Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a
material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made,
in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading
with respect to the period covered by this report;3.
    
    Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information
included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial
condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the
periods presented in this report;4.
    
    The registrants other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing
and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules
13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:
 a.
    
    Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such
disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to
ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its
consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities,
particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;b.
    
    Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure controls
and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the
effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the
period covered by this report based on such evaluation; andc.
    
    Disclosed in this report any change in the registrants internal
control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrants most
recent fiscal quarter that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to
materially affect, the registrants internal control over financial reporting;
and
 5.
    
    The registrants other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most
recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrants
auditors and the audit committee of registrants board of directors:
 a.
    
    All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or
operation of internal control over financial reporting, which are reasonably
likely to adversely affect the registrants ability to record, process,
summarize and report financial information; andb.
    
    Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other
employees who have a significant role in the registrants internal control over
financial reporting.
 /s/ Philip A. GarciaDate: May 3, 2006
    
    Philip A. Garcia, Executive Vice President & CFO
 30
#### In the Matter of William Ryan, Appellant, v. State Liquor Authority, Respondent.

Order, entered on October 13, 1960, dismissing petition brought pursuant to article 78 of the Civil Practice Act to review a determination of the State Liquor Authority, unanimously affirmed, with $20 costs and disbursements to the respondent. No opinion. Concur — Botein, P. J., Breitel, Valente, McNally and Stevens, JJ.
[if !vml]>[endif]>

[if !vml]>[endif]>

You have reached the FederalDepository Library Program Electronic Collection (FDLP/EC) Archive. Thisarchive assures ongoing access to publications in the FDLP/EC. Access topublications in the archive is available through GPO's suite of cataloging andlocator services, including the Catalog of U.S. Government Publications(CGP).  Archived copies of publications are retrieved in the event thatpublications are no longer available from the original publishing agency site. 
**Title:****Fuel cell buses in U.S. transitfleets: summary of experiences and current status**
 
2007 | 2008| 2009
2010 | 2011 | 2012 | 2013 | 2014 | 2015 | 2016 | 2017
 
SuDoc NumberE9.16:B 96/2/:
Item Number:0430-P-03 (online)
CGP systemNumber:000633822
 
May 7, 2018
§ 37.895 How is the final performance report to be sent to the Defense Technical Information Center? ( a ) Whether your TIA requires a final performance report or uses an alternative means under § 37.890,[5] you may include an award term or condition or otherwise instruct the recipient to submit the documentation, electronically if available, either: ( 1 ) Directly to the DTIC; or
( 2 ) To the office that is administering the award (for subsequent transmission to the DTIC).
( b ) If you specify that the recipient is to submit the report directly to the DTIC, you also: ( 1 ) Must instruct the recipient to include a fully completed Standard Form 298, “Report Documentation Page,” with each document, so that the DTIC can recognize the document as being related to the particular award and properly record its receipt; and
( 2 ) Should advise the recipient to provide a copy of the completed Standard Form 298 to the agreements officer responsible for administering the TIA.
[68 FR 47160, Aug. 7, 2003, as amended at 85 FR 51246, Aug. 19, 2020] Footnotes -
37.895
[5] Additional information on electronic submission to the DTIC can be found online, currently at *http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/submitting/elec_subm.html .*
11TH COURT OF APPEALS

EASTLAND, TEXAS

JUDGMENT

In re Lone Star NGL Pipeline LP * Original Mandamus Proceeding

and ETP Crude LLC,

No. 11-20-00010-CV * February 3, 2020

 * Opinion by Bailey, C.J.

(Panel consists of: Bailey, C.J.,

Stretcher, J., and Wright, S.C.J., 

sitting by assignment)

(Willson, J., not participating)

This court has inspected the record in this cause and concludes that 

Relator’s petition for writ of mandamus should be denied in part and 

conditionally granted in part. We deny Relators’ petition for writ of mandamus 

to the extent that they request that we order the Honorable Judge John Smith 

“to refuse to issue any injunction to cease use of the pipeline in place and 

subject to the condemnation proceeding initiated by cross-claim in this matter.” 

We conditionally grant the petition for writ of mandamus as to the portion of 

the December 18, 2019 order in which Judge Smith denied Relators’ motion 

to set security. A writ of mandamus will issue only if Judge Smith does not 

vacate that portion of the order and set adequate security by February 13, 2020.