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

^ ^-lANSPORWION 

: m OPERATIONS 

September 15,2010 

m '~t? 23 A to Ob 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

Docket Management System 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE 

West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140 

Washington, DC 20590 

Dear Sir or Madam: 

Rhinelander Flying Service Inc., a FAR Part 135 and Part 91.147 operator, requests an 

exemption from the requirement of having multiple drug and alcohol testing programs as 

mandated by 14 CFR Part 120.117(a). 

In order to accomplish the requirements of FAR Part 120 and that of 49 CFR Part 40, we 

are requesting that both of these programs be pointed to and covered under our 14 CFR 

Part 135 Anti-drug (ADP) and Alcohol Misuse Prevention Program (AMPP) for 

administration. 

Rhinelander Flying Service and Wausau Flying Service is a small company, under the same 

management and operating as one entity, with less than 20 full or part time employees 

located at the Rhinelander and Wausau, Wisconsin airports. At this time, we are required 

to have two separate DER's to administer two separate FAA mandated Drug and Alcohol 

testing programs for a total of eight pilots and mechanics...three of which are on the 91.147 

testing program...most of these employees are part time only. This requires us to maintain 

different data management systems to keep the information separate (and confidential) 

between the two programs. This has become a cumbersome process for us and the MRO, 

not to mention the additional cost involved. 

Our company employs several pilots and aircraft which are used for both Part 135 and 

91.147 Scenic Flight Air Tours. The problem arises from how they accomplish their 

different roles while employed at one company. The 135 pilots must operate an Air Tour 

flight as a 135 flight while a 91.147 Scenic pilot can operate the same aircraft without the 

extra burden of 135 rules and regulations, resulting in less cost to us and the public. The 

maintenance rules differ from a 135 maintained aircraft than one under Part 91.1 am not 

sure if the mechanics must be under two drug programs to maintain a dual use (135 and 

91.147) aircraft. All of our mechanics are on the 135 Drug/Alcohol testing program. 

According to FAR Part 120.103 and .203, the purpose of this rule is to establish a program 

designed to help prevent accidents and injuries resulting from the use of prohibited drugs 

and misuse of alcohol by employees who perform safety sensitive functions at Rhinelander 

Flying Servicb. By allowing us to screen our employees under one comprehensive Drug ^n^ 
Alcohol Testing Program, we will be in a better position to catch mistakes in screening for 

unwanted substances rather than spending wasteful time administering multiple redundant 

programs. For this, and for the other reasons discussed above, I believe we will be able to 

provide a much safer environment to the general public. 

Thank you for your consideration in this matter. Please let me know if you have any 

further questions. 

SincereJt 

^t^v . 

Charles Turner 

President 

Rhinelander Flying Service 

715-365-3456 

aviation(g)newnorth.net
###### Editorial Note on Part 272

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 272 appear at 86 FR 11623, Feb. 26, 2021.

#### § 272.5 Notice and public procedure.

There ordinarily is no published notice of proposed action by the Committee or public procedure thereon, as described in section 553 of title 5 of the United States Code, because such notice and procedure are impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.
APPEAL,

[Hamilton Circuit Court,

June Term, 1891.]

Cox, Sháuck and Swing, JJ.

(Judge Shauck, of the Second Circuit, taking the place of Judge Smith.)

#### WILLIAM MILLER ET AL. v. CINCINNATI (CITY).

Action to ■ Quiet Title, though Embracing Land Claimed by City as a Street, is Appealable.

A petition alleging possession in plaintiff of ground, part of which the city claims is part of a street, seeking to quiet title against the city, is not a petition to vacate such part of the street, but to quiet title and is appealable.

Motion to dismiss appeal.

Van Seggern, Phares & DeWald, for motion.

W. H. Whittaker, assistant corporation counsel, *contra.*

SHAUCK, J.

The petition in this case was not filed in the court below for the vacation of Sycamore street under sec. 2655 Rev. Stat. Such relief is not prayed for; nor are facts alleged to which such relief would be appropriate.

Plaintiffs allege that they are in possession of the several parcels of ground which the city claims as parts of Sycamore street; that the city never had title to such parcels for any purpose, and that if it had such title, it has been forfeited, and they pray that their title may be quieted as against the adverse title asserted by the city. In substance it is an action.to quiet title. Such actions are appeal-able. Motion overruled.
```

[Congressional Bills 108th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2771 Enrolled Bill (ENR)]

        H.R.2771

                       One Hundred Eighth Congress

                                 of the

                        United States of America

                          AT THE SECOND SESSION

          Begun and held at the City of Washington on Tuesday,
           the twentieth day of January, two thousand and four

                                 An Act

 
 To amend the Safe Drinking Water Act to reauthorize the New York City 
                      Watershed Protection Program.

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

SECTION 1. NEW YORK CITY WATERSHED PROTECTION PROGRAM.

    Section 1443(d)(4) of the Safe Drinking Water Act (42 U.S.C. 300j-
2(d)(4)) is amended by striking ``1997 through 2003'' and inserting 
``2003 through 2010''.

                               Speaker of the House of Representatives.

                            Vice President of the United States and    
                                               President of the Senate.
```
<PAGE>
 
                                                                   EXHIBIT 11.1
 
     COMPUTATION OF LOSS PER SHARE (IN THOUSANDS EXCEPT PER SHARE AMOUNTS)
 
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                    YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31,
                                                  -----------------------------
                                                    1996       1995      1994
                                                  ---------  ---------  -------
<S>                                               <C>        <C>        <C>
Net loss attributable to common stockholders....  $ (10,220) $ (10,411) $(5,587)
                                                  =========  =========  =======
Weighted average shares used to compute net loss
 per share
Weighted average number of shares outstanding:
Convertible Preferred Stock.....................      3,682      5,706    4,461
Common Stock....................................      4,857        569      551
Number of common equivalents as a result of
 warrants granted using the treasury stock
 method in accordance with Staff Accounting
 Bulletin 83....................................         46        185      185
Number of common equivalents as a result of
 stock options granted using the treasury stock
 method in accordance with Staff Accounting
 Bulletin 83....................................        118        474      474
                                                  ---------  ---------  -------
Total...........................................      8,703      6,934    5,671
                                                  =========  =========  =======
Net loss per share attributable to common
 stockholders...................................  $   (1.17) $   (1.50) $ (0.99)
                                                  ---------  ---------  -------
</TABLE>
 
  The calculations for all periods shown include the shares and warrants of
convertible preferred stock as if they had converted to common stock on their
respective original dates of issuance, because such shares automatically
converted to common stock upon the closing of the initial public offering of
the Company's common stock.
<PAGE>   1
                                                               Exhibit No. 10.8


          AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO AMENDED AND RESTATED EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT


         Amendment No. 1 to the Amended and Restated Employment Agreement dated
as of May 30, 1996 between IPC, Inc. (formerly named Ivex Packaging Corporation)
("Ivex" or the "Company") and George V. Bayly (the "Executive").

         The Executive and the Company are parties to an Amended and Restated
Employment Agreement, dated as of May 30, 1996 (the "Employment Agreement"). The
Executive and the Company wish to amend the Employment Agreement.

         In consideration of the mutual covenants and agreements herein
contained, the parties hereto hereby agree to amend the Employment Agreement as
follows:

         Section 1.   Definitions.

         Except as otherwise defined in this Amendment No. 1, capitalized terms
defined in the Employment Agreement are used herein as defined therein.

         Section 2.   Amendments.


         2.1 Section 2.1 of the Employment Agreement is hereby amended by
deleting the first sentence of Section 2.1 thereof and by inserting the
following language in lieu thereof:

             "The Company shall pay to the Executive an annual salary (the
             "Annual Salary") in accordance with the following schedule:
             $420,000 during the year ending December 31, 1996; $491,000 during
             the year ending December 31, 1997; $515,000 during the year ending
             December 31, 1998; $541,327 during the year ending December 31,
             1999; and $568,393 during the year ending December 31, 2000."

         Section 3.   Miscellaneous.

         Except as herein provided, the Employment Agreement shall remain
unchanged and in full force and effect. This Amendment No. 1 may be executed in
any number of counterparts, all of which taken together shall constitute one and
the same agreement.



<PAGE>   2


         IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this Amendment No. 1
to be duly executed and delivered as of the date above written.

                                               IPC, INC. (formerly named
                                               IVEX PACKAGING CORPORATION)


                                               By:                            
                                                  ------------------------------




                                               ---------------------------------
                                                        George V. Bayly
# C_2012128EN.01000801.xml

| 3.5.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 128/8 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.5.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 128/8

---

Request for an Advisory Opinion from the EFTA Court by Oslo tingrett, dated 11 November 2011, in the case of Arcade Drilling AS v Staten v/Skatt Vest

(Case E-15/11)

2012/C 128/04

A request has been made to the EFTA Court by a letter of 11 November 2011 from Oslo tingrett (Oslo District Court), which was received at the Court Registry on 28 November 2011, for an Advisory Opinion in the case of Arcade Drilling v Staten v/Skatt Vest, on the following questions:

| 1. | Is it a restriction pursuant to Article 31 of the EEA, cf. Article 34 of the EEA to impose liquidation tax on a company if national company law entails an obligation to liquidate the company because the company has transferred its de facto head office from Norway to another EEA State?
  Is it of any significance that deferral of tax payment is not given until a realisation, if any, is effected? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Is it a restriction pursuant to Article 31 of the EEA, cf. Article 34 of the EEA to impose liquidation tax on a company if national company law entails an obligation to liquidate the company because the company has transferred its de facto head office from Norway to another EEA State?

Is it of any significance that deferral of tax payment is not given until a realisation, if any, is effected?

| 2. | In the event that the district court holds that a restriction exists: what criteria will be decisive in determining whether the national regulation pursues grounds of overriding public interest and whether it is suitable and necessary for the attainment of such grounds? |
| --- | --- |

2.

In the event that the district court holds that a restriction exists: what criteria will be decisive in determining whether the national regulation pursues grounds of overriding public interest and whether it is suitable and necessary for the attainment of such grounds?

---
<Page>


                                                                    Exhibit 32.6


                            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 Elephant & Castle Group Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-K for the period ended December 26, 2004 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Roger
Sexton, 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.



                                             s/Roger Sexton
                                             -----------------------------
                                             Roger Sexton
                                             Chief Financial Officer

Dated: March 24, 2005
AERO CONTRACTORS, L TO. • Johnston County Airport • P.O. Box 1138 • Smithfield. N.C. 27577 

(911) 134-0171 

134-0171 

Federal Aviation Administration 

Mr. Timothy Shaver 

Avionics Branch Manager, 

Avionics Branch AFS-360 

5 th Floor, 950 L'Enfant Plaza, S.W. 

Washington, DC 20024 

Aero Contractors, Ltd. 

3463 Swift Creek Road 

Smithfield, NC 27577 

(919) 934-0978 

(919) 934-1161 fax 

December 20, 2011 

Aero Contractors, Ltd. is requesting a 24 month exemption from 14 CFR Part 125.226 to operate CASA 

CN-235-300 SIN C-135, (AE01) and SIN C-139, C-143 and C-145(AE02) with their respective Digital 

Flight Data Recorder. 

Petition for Relief: 

Aero Contractors, Ltd. is requesting an exemption from 14 CFR Part 125.226 based upon there is no 

Supplemental Type Certificate for a Digital Flight Data Recorder installation that covers the 88 

parameters required. 

Supportive Information: 

Aero Contractors, Ltd. has installed a manufactured Data Image Recorder System on Nl87D, S/N C-143 

on a FAA Field Approval from FAA FSDO EA-39. The Data Image Recorder system is being reviewed 

as an equivalent means of compliance for the Digital Flight Data Recorder. This installation and the 

aircraft's current configuration pose no detrimental effect on National Airspace System Safety. Aero 

Contractors, Ltd. is working with the Data Image Recorder System Manufacturer as a member of a beta 

group in providing installation and operational data from the device. 

CASA CN-235-300 exemption 14 CFR Part 125 Page 1 
Description of operation under the proposed exemption: 

Aero Contractors, Ltd. will operate these aircraft under the rules and regulation of 14 CFR 125 as a 

passenger and cargo airplane with a 24 month exemption for the Digital Flight Data Recorder 

requirements under 14 CFR Part 125.226. Aero Contractors, Ltd. will continue to work with the Data 

Image Recorder Manufacturer, FAA Avionics Branch AFS-360, and FAA Flight Standards District 

Office, EA-39 on the approval process for the device as an equivalent means of compliance until such 

time as FAA Avionics Branch AFS-360 determines the Data Image Recorder acceptable. 

Respectfully yours, 

~~nuactorscom) Director ofMaintenance 

CASA CN-235-300 exemption 14 CFR Part 125 Page2
----

EXHIBIT 21.1 

TURBOSONIC TECHNOLOGIES, INC. 

SUBSIDIARIES 

|                      | State of         |        |
|---------------------------|------------------|-------------|
| Name                      | Incorporation    | % Ownership |
|                      |             |        |
|                      |             |        |
|                      |             |        |
| TurboSonic Canada, Inc.   | Canada (Ontario) | 100%        |
|                      |             |        |
| TurboSonic Inc.           | Canada (Ontario) | 100%        |
|                      |             |        |
| TurboSonic Europe Limited | Ireland          | 100%        |

 

----
§ 28.14 Limitations based upon capital of a foreign bank. ( a ) *General.* Any limitation or restriction based upon the capital of a national bank shall be deemed to refer, as applied to a Federal branch or agency, to the dollar equivalent of the capital of the foreign bank.
( b ) *Calculation.* Unless otherwise provided by the OCC, a foreign bank must calculate its capital in a manner consistent with 12 CFR part 3, subpart C, for purposes of this section.
( c ) *Aggregation.* The foreign bank shall aggregate business transacted by all Federal branches and agencies with the business transacted by all state branches and state agencies controlled by the foreign bank in determining its compliance with limitations based upon the capital of the foreign bank. The foreign bank shall designate one Federal branch or agency office in the United States to maintain consolidated information so that the OCC can monitor compliance.
[61 FR 19532, May 2, 1996, as amended at 79 FR 11312, Feb. 28, 2014]
§ 28.3 Filing requirements for foreign operations of a national bank. ( a ) *Notice requirement.* A national bank shall notify the OCC when it: ( 1 ) Files an application, notice, or report with the FRB to: ( i ) Establish or open a foreign branch;
( ii ) Acquire or divest of an interest in, or close, an Edge corporation, Agreement corporation, foreign bank, or other foreign organization; or
( 2 ) Opens a foreign branch, and no application or notice is required by the FRB for such transaction.
( b ) *Other applications and notices accepted.* In lieu of a notice under paragraph (a)(1) of this section, the OCC may accept a copy of an application, notice, or report submitted to another Federal agency that covers the proposed action and contains substantially the same information required by the OCC.
( c ) *Additional information.* A national bank shall furnish the OCC with any additional information the OCC may require in connection with the national bank's foreign operations.
[61 FR 19532, May 2, 1996, as amended at 68 FR 70699, Dec. 19, 2003]
#### §§ 217.64-217.99 [Reserved]
# C_2022037EN.01000101.xml

| 24.1.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 37/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

24.1.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 37/1

---

Last publications of the Court of Justice of the European Union in the Official Journal of the European Union

(2022/C 37/01)

Last publication

OJ C 24, 17.1.2022

Past publications

OJ C 11, 10.1.2022

OJ C 2, 3.1.2022

OJ C 513, 20.12.2021

OJ C 502, 13.12.2021

OJ C 490, 6.12.2021

OJ C 481, 29.11.2021

These texts are available on:

EUR-Lex: http://eur-lex.europa.eu

---
42555.

#### AETNA CASUALTY & SURETY COMPANY et al. v. GROOVER.

Argued January 10, 1967

Decided March 15, 1967.

*419*Powell, Goldstein, Frazer & Murphy, Frank Love, Jr., Warner R. Wilson, Jr.,*for appellants.

*Archer, Patrick & Sidener, Griffin Patrick, Jr.,*for appellee.

Quillian, Judge.

1. The employer contends that the claimant’s application for a hearing should have been dismissed because it was filed on September 2, 1965, which was not within two years from the date the supplemental agreement and final settlement receipt were filed with the board. *Code*§ 114-709, as amended (Ga. L. 1937, pp. 230, 233; Ga. L. 1937, pp. 528, 534, Ga. L. 1943, pp. 167-169), provides: “Upon their own motion before judicial determination or upon the application of any party in interest on the ground of a change in condition, *the State Board of Workmen’s Compensation may, within two years from the date that the Board is notified of the final payment of claim, review any award or any settlement made between the parties and filed with the Board,*and, on such review, may make an award ending, diminishing or increasing the compensation previously awarded or agreed upon, subject to the maximum or minimum provided in this Title, and shall immediately send to the parties a copy of the award. No such review shall affect such award as regards any moneys paid.” (Emphasis supplied.)

The question for determination is whether the filing of the supplemental agreement and the final settlement receipt constituted notice to the board of the final payment of the claim as provided in the above quoted statute. The question is answered in the affirmative. This case is controlled by *Priest v. Exposition Cotton Mills,*86 Ga. App. 301 (71 SE2d 743) in which it was held that an application for a hearing which was filed more than two years from the date of the filing of a supplemental agreement and final settlement receipt was barred.

*420Nothing held herein is in conflict with *Taylor v. Sunnyland Packing Co.,*112 Ga. App. 544 (145 SE2d 587), which dealt primarily with whether the filing of a supplemental return to work agreement constituted a change in claimant’s condition. Whereas, in the case sub judice, as it was in the *Priest*case, the issue before the court is whether the filing of the supplemental agreement and final settlement receipt was sufficient to comply with the condition precedent prescribed in *Code Ann.*§ 114-709' and thereby cause the two year limitation period to begin.

The judge of the superior court erred in affirming the award of the State Board of Workmen’s Compensation.

*Judgment reversed.*

*Frankum, P. J., and Deen, J., concur.*
```

[Congressional Bills 108th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2998 Referred in Senate (RFS)]

  1st Session
                                H. R. 2998

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            October 14, 2003

  Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on Armed Services

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
 To amend title 10, United States Code, to provide permanent authority 
for the exemption for certain members of the uniformed services from an 
otherwise-applicable requirement for the payment of subsistence charges 
                          while hospitalized.

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

SECTION 1. PERMANENT AUTHORITY FOR EXEMPTION FOR CERTAIN MEMBERS OF THE 
              UNIFORMED SERVICES FROM REQUIREMENT TO PAY SUBSISTENCE 
              CHARGES WHILE HOSPITALIZED.

    Subsection (c) of section 1075 of title 10, United States Code (as 
added by section 8146(a)(2) of the Department of Defense Appropriations 
Act, 2004 (Public Law 108-87)), is repealed.

            Passed the House of Representatives October 8, 2003.

            Attest:

                                                 JEFF TRANDAHL,

                                                                 Clerk.
```