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

- View	Aerial	Service s LLC

Charles	F.	Jacques	Jr. ,	Member

602	Centerton	Road

Pittsgrove,	NJ	08318

Phone:	(609)	315

- 9997

Email: chuckjacques@comcast.net

July	7,	2015

Ms.	Brenda	Robeson

Program Analyst,	Aircraft	and	Airport	Rules	Division

Federal	Aviation	Administration

800	Independence	Ave,	SW

Washington,	D.	C.	20591

Subject: Sky

- View	Aerial	Services,	LLC	Public	Docket	No.	FAA

- 2015

- 1346

Supplemental	Information

Dear	Ms.	Robeson,

In	resp onse	to	your	letter	dated	July	1,	2015,	I	respectfully	submit	the	additional	information

you’ve	requested	in	order	to	comply	with	the	requirements of	14 CFR § 11.81.		In	your	letter,

you	requested	that	I	specifically	address	the	following:

- The	reasons	why	granting	the	request	would	be	in	the	public	interest;	that	is,	how	it	would

benefit	the	public	as	a	whole.

- Any	additional	information,	views,	or arguments available	to	support	your	request.

I	trust	you	will	find	these	attachments	suff icient	to	reconsider	my	petition.

Respectfully	submitted;

Charles	Jacques	Jr.2 Sky

- View	Aerial	Services	LLC

Public	Interest:

G iv e n	the sm a ll	si z e of t he UA	involv e d a nd	the l imit e d e nvi r onm e nt	within	whi c h	it	will

op era t e ,	its	p r opos e d	op era tion “ fa lls	squ are l y within	th a t z one of s afe t y ( a n e quiv a l e nt

l e v e l	of s a f e t y ) in w hi c h C on g r e ss e nvision e d	th a t	the F AA	must, b y e x e mption, a llow

c omm erc i a l	o p era tions of UAS to c omm e n c e i mm e di a t e l y .” Also	b eca use o f the si z e of the

UA a nd	the r e st r i c t e d a r ea s	in	whi c h	the sUAS w ill	op era t e ,	the	p e tition e r a ss er ts a p p r ov a l

of the a ppli ca tion	p re s e nts	no	n a tion a l	s ec u r i t y i s su e

. Additionally,	the	ability	to	conduct

the	types	of	missions	outlined	in	the	Sky

- View	petition	by	a	craft	significantly	smaller	that	a

m anned	aircraft	and	carrying	no	passengers,	crew	or	flammable	fuel	significantly	enhances

safety	to	the	general	public	as	well	as	those	involved	with	the	mission.

G r a nting t h e re q u e st e d e x e mptions	is	in	t h e public int ere st	b eca use o f ( 1) t h e c l e a r

d i rec tion	in	s ec tion	333	of P ublic L a w	112

– 95, ( 2) the st r ong e quiv a l e nt	l e v e l	of s afe t y

su rr ounding t h e p r opos e d	op era tions, a nd ( 3 ) the si g ni f i ca nt	public	b e n ef it,	in c luding

e nh a n c e d	s afe t y a nd re d u c tion	in e nvi r onm e nt a l	imp ac ts ( su c h a s r e du ce d e missions

a sso c i a t e d	with a llowing sUAS f o r ph o to g ra p h y a nd	insp ec tion op era tions )

.

Additional	consideration:

The	FAA	has	set	precedence in	granting	petitions	to	other	entities that propose	to	engage

in	the	same	or	similar	types	of	activities	under	essentially	the	same	operating	parameters.

Below	is	a	list	of	exemptions		granted	which	we	believe	engage	in	operations	similar	to

those	we	propose.

- 11062	Astraeus	Aerial

- 11109	Clayco	I nc.

- 11112	VDOS	Global

- 11213	Aeryon	Labs,	Inc.

- 11969 HighGround	Images,	LLC

- 11941	soaring	Sky,	LLC

- 11940	Aerial	Associates	Photography,	Inc.

- 11947 Daniel	C.	Augspurger
```

[Journal of the House of Representatives, 1995]
[Thursday, March 30, 1995 (53), Para 53.15 Subpoena]
[Page 522]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]

para.53.15  subpoena

  The SPEAKER pro tempore, Mr. FOX, laid before the House a 
communication, which was read as follows:

                                         House of Representatives,

                                      Committee on the Budget,

                                   Washington, DC, March 29, 1995.
     Hon. Newt Gingrich,
     Speaker, House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Speaker: This is to formally notify you pursuant 
     to Rule L (50) of the Rules of the House that I have been 
     served with a subpoena issued by the Municipal Court for 
     Manville, New Jersey.
       After consultation with the General Counsel, I have 
     determined that compliance with the subpoena is not 
     consistent with the privileges and precedents of the House.
           Sincerely,
                                                   John R. Kasich,
                                                         Chairman.
```
```

[Journal of the House of Representatives, 1995]
[Tuesday, June 27, 1995 (87), Para 87.20 Recorded Vote]
[Page 1045]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]

para.87.20  recorded vote

  A recorded vote by electronic device was ordered in the Committee of 
the Whole on the following amendment submitted by Mr. HALL of Ohio:

       Page 7, strike line 18 and insert the following: ``CHILDREN 
     AND DISEASE PROGRAMS FUND''.
       Page 7, line 23, strike ``$484,000,000'' and insert 
     ``$592,660,000''.
       Page 8, line 6, strike ``and (7)'' and insert ``(7) basic 
     education programs, and (8)''.
       Page 8, line 16, strike ``$669,000,000'' and insert 
     ``$655,000,000''.
       Page 14, line 22, strike ``$2,326,700,000'' and insert 
     ``$2,300,000,000''.
       Page 30, line 17, strike ``$167,960,000'' and insert 
     ``$100,000,000''.

It was decided in the

Yeas

263

affirmative

Nays

157
```
[Civ. No. 15512.

Second Dist., Div. Two.

Oct. 2, 1946.]

#### EMMA M. LOWE et al., Respondents, v. C. H. PIERCE, Appellant.

Walter Gould Lincoln for Appellant.

No appearance for Respondents.

WILSON, J.

This action was brought by plaintiffs to recover damages for personal injuries suffered by them resulting from having been struck by an automobile driven by defendant. In his answer to the complaint defendant pleaded affirmatively that the accident was prosimately caused by the negligence of plaintiffs. From a judgment in their favor defendant appeals.

The only point necessary to be considered is the failure of the court to make a finding on said special defense.* * There is evidence in the record which, if believed by the trial judge, would support a finding of contributory negligence on the part of plaintiffs. The plea of that defense in a personal injury action, with evidence tending to support it, presents an issue upon which the court is required to make a finding, and its failure so to do is reversible error. *(Linde*v. *Emmick,*16 Cal.App.2d 676, 682 [61 P.2d 338] ; *Hall*v. *Kaufman,*30 Cal.App.2d 283, 285 [86 P.2d 151] ; *Tucker*v. *United Railroads,*171 Cal.702, 704 [154 P. 835] ; *Maxwell*v. *Western*
      *317
      *Auto Stage Co., Inc.,*46 Cal.App. 548, 550 [189 P. 710] ; *Huntington*v. *Vavra,*36 Cal.App. 352, 354 [172 P. 166] ; *Blaylock*v. *Jensen,*44 Cal.App.2d 850, 852 [113 P.2d 256] ; *Woodworth*v. *Morgan,*4 Cal.App.2d 488, 490 [41 P.2d 186].)

The court having failed to find upon the issue of contributory negligence, the judgment must be and it is reversed.

Moore, P. J., and McComb, J., concurred.

Appellant has tendered this as one of the grounds for reversal of the judgment but has not provided us with any authorities relating to the question. Respondent has presented neither brief nor oral argument.
Release dates | Full version (300 KB PDF)Actions by the Board | Actions 
  under delegated authority
  Applications and reports:Boston
 |
New York
 |
Philadelphia
 |
Cleveland
 |
Richmond
 |
Atlanta
Chicago
 |
St. Louis
 |
Minneapolis
 |
Kansas City
 |
Dallas
 |
San Francisco

# District: 4
Federal Reserve Bank of: Cleveland

## Filings received during the week ending November 26, 2011

|Filer               | Filing Type | Filing Proposal                                                                                                                                                                                                                 | End of Comment Period                          
|------------------- | ----------- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | -----------------------------------------------
|WVS FINANCIAL CORP. | CIC         | Notice of Change in Bank Control submitted by David J. Bursic and Valerie L. Brusic, Pittsburgh, PA of their intent to retain/acquire in excess of 10% of the outstanding voting shares of WVS Financial Corp., Pittsburgh, PA. | Newspaper:12/12/2011Federal Register:12/09/2011
|Newspaper:          | 12/12/2011 
|Federal Register:   | 12/09/2011 

## Availability of CRA Public Evaluations

|Institution / Location | RSSDID | Exam Date | CRAPublic Date | CRARating | Exam Method
|---------------------- | ------ | --------- | -------------- | --------- | -----------
|NONE                  

## CRA Examinations scheduled for First Quarter of 2012 (January 1, 2012 - March 31, 2012)

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

* Subject to the provisions of the Community Reinvestment Act

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

---

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

# District: 5
Federal Reserve Bank of: Richmond

## Filings received during the week ending March 20, 2010

|Filer             | Filing Type    | Filing Proposal                                                              | End of Comment Period                              
|----------------- | -------------- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ---------------------------------------------------
|CNB               | * 18C* Branch  | CNB, Centreville, Maryland, to merge with The Felton Bank, Felton, Delaware. | Newspaper:04/11/2010Federal Register:Not applicable
|Newspaper:        | 04/11/2010    
|Federal Register: | Not applicable

## Availability of CRA Public Evaluations

|Institution / Location                | RSSDID  | Exam Date  | CRAPublic Date | CRARating | Exam Method
|------------------------------------- | ------- | ---------- | -------------- | --------- | -----------
|FIRST B&TC, LEBANON, VIRGINIA         | 223322  | 11/02/2009 | 03/04/2010     | S         | Int Sm Bank
|VIRGINIA CMRC BK, ARLINGTON, VIRGINIA | 1190074 | 10/26/2009 | 02/09/2010     | S         | Large Bank 

## CRA Examinations scheduled for     Quarter of

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

* Subject to the provisions of the Community Reinvestment Act

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

---

Home Banking information and regulation  Accessibility Contact 
  us
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 134 (Friday, July 13, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Pages 38619-38620]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 07-3418]


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

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Antitrust Division


Notice Pursuant to the National Cooperative Research and 
Production Act of 1993--Semiconductor Test Consortium, Inc.

    Notice is hereby given that, on June 7, 2007, pursuant to section 
6(a) of the

[[Page 38620]]

National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993, 15 U.S.C. 
4301 et seq. (``the Act''), Semiconductor Test consortium, Inc. has 
filed written notifications simultaneously with the Attorney General 
and the Federal Trade Commission disclosing changes in its membership. 
The notifications were filed for the purpose of extending the Act's 
provisions limiting the recovery of antitrust plaintiffs to actual 
damages under specified circumstances. Specifically, Vicor Corporation, 
Andover, MA; Billy Antheunisse (individual member), Dallas, TX; 
Huber+Suhner AG, Herisau, Switzerland; Peter Hirschmann (individual 
member), Herrenberg, Germany; and Stefan Thurmaier (individual member), 
Bad Aibling, Germany have been added as parties to this venture. Also, 
Chroma ATE, Tao Yuan Hsien, Taiwan; Yasuichi Tanaka (individual 
member), Chiba-shi-Chiba, Japan; Dave Dowding (individual member), 
Loveland, CO; Carol Dowding (individual member), Loveland, CO; 
StatsChip Pac, Tempe, AZ; and Micro Component Tech, St. Paul, MN have 
withdrawn as parties to this venture.
    No other changes have been made in either the membership or planned 
activity of the group research project. Membership in this group 
research project remains open, and Semiconductor Test Consortium, Inc. 
intends to file additional written notifications disclosing all changes 
in membership.
    On May 27, 2003, Semiconductor Test Consortium, Inc. filed its 
original notification pursuant to section 6(a) of the Act. The 
Department of Justice published a notice in the Federal Register 
pursuant to section 6(b) of the Act on June 17, 2003 (68 FR 35913).
    The last notification was filed with the Department on April 3, 
2007. A notice was published in the Federal Register pursuant to 
section 6(b) of the Act on May 29, 2007 (72 FR 29549).

Patricia A. Brink,
Deputy Director of Operations, Antitrust Division.
[FR Doc. 07-3418 Filed 7-12-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410-11-M
#### §§ 1014.161-1014.169 [Reserved]
Release dates | Full version (300 KB PDF)Actions by the Board | Actions 
  under delegated authority
  Applications and reports:
Boston
 |
New York
 |
Philadelphia
 |
Cleveland
 |
Richmond
 |
Atlanta
Chicago
 |
St. Louis
 |
Minneapolis
 |
Kansas City
 |
Dallas
 |
San Francisco

# District: 1
Federal Reserve Bank of: Boston

## Filings received during the week ending August 13, 2011

|Filer                 | Filing Type   | Filing Proposal                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                          | End of Comment Period                             
|--------------------- | ------------- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | --------------------------------------------------
|HYDE PARK BANCORP MHC | * 3A1* 3A3    | Application by Hyde Park Bancorp, MHC, Boston, Massachusetts, a mutual bank holding company, to form a wholly-owned, mid-tier, stock bank holding company, Hyde Park Bancorp, Inc., Boston, Massachusetts, through its acquisition of 100% of the shares of Hyde Park Savings Bank, Boston, Massachusetts, pursuant to sections 3(a)(1) and 3(a)(3) of the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956, as amended. | Newspaper:Not availableFederal Register:09/02/2011
|Newspaper:            | Not available
|Federal Register:     | 09/02/2011   

## Availability of CRA Public Evaluations

|Institution / Location | RSSDID | Exam Date | CRAPublic Date | CRARating | Exam Method
|---------------------- | ------ | --------- | -------------- | --------- | -----------
|NONE                  

## CRA Examinations scheduled for     Quarter of

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

* Subject to the provisions of the Community Reinvestment Act

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

---

Home Banking information and regulation  Accessibility Contact 
  us
#### Brown Consolidated Milling Company, appellee, v. Chicago & Northwestern Railway Company, appellant.

Filed May 19, 1917.

No. 19527.

Appeal from the district court for Dodge county: Frederick W. Button, Judge.

*Reversed and dismissed.*

*A. A. McLaughlin, Lyle Hubbard*and *Wymer Dressier,*for appellant.,

*Courtright, Sidner & Lee, contra.*

*366Cornish, J.

Except that in this case all of the points of final destination of grain shipments were outside of the state, the facts herein are substantially the same as in *Fremont Milling Co. v. Chicago & N. W. R. Co., ante,*p. 362, and this case is governed by the law as laid down in said case.

For the reasons therein given, the judgment of the trial court should be reversed and the cause dismissed.

Reversed and dismissed.

Sedgwick, J., not sitting.
Editorial Note on Part 107
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 107 appear at 67 FR 61011, Sept. 27, 2002, 70 FR 56089, Sept. 23, 2005, and 70 FR 73159, Dec. 9, 2005.

§ 107.317 Informal response. ( a ) In responding to a notice of probable violation under § 107.311, the respondent may submit to the official who issued the notice, written explanations, information, or arguments in response to the allegations, the terms of a proposed compliance order, or the amount of the preliminarily assessed civil penalty.
( b ) The respondent may include in his informal response a request for a conference. Upon the request of the respondent, the conference may be either in person or by telephone. A request for a conference must set forth the issues the respondent will raise at the conference.
( c ) Upon receipt of a request for a conference under paragraph (b) of this section, the Chief Counsel's Office, in consultation with the Associate Administrator, arranges for a conference as soon as practicable at a time and place of mutual convenience.
( d ) The respondent's written explanations, information, and arguments as well as the respondent's presentation at a conference are considered by the Chief Counsel in reviewing the notice of probable violation. Based upon a review of the proceeding, the Chief Counsel may dismiss the notice of probable violation in whole or in part. If he does not dismiss it in whole, he issues an order directing compliance or assessing a civil penalty, or, if proposed in the notice, both.
[Amdt. 107-11, 48 FR 2651, Jan. 20, 1983, as amended by Amdt. 107-23, 56 FR 66157, Dec. 20, 1991; 66 FR 45377, Aug. 28, 2001]
98-2224.

#### State v. Williams.

Hamilton App. No. C-971091. This cause is pending before the court as a discretionary appeal and claimed appeal of right. It appears from the records of this court that appellant has not filed a memorandum in support of jurisdiction, due November 16, 1998, in compliance with the Rules of Practice of the Supreme Court and therefore has failed to prosecute this cause with the requisite diligence. Upon consideration thereof,

IT IS ORDERED by the court that this cause be, and hereby is, dismissed *sua sponte.*
<PAGE>
 
                                 EXHIBIT 23.1
                          SUBSIDIARIES OF THE COMPANY

          The consolidated financial statements include the accounts of RYKA
Inc. and its wholly owned subsidiary, RYKA GmbH, a German corporation. During
1994 RYKA GmbH was involuntarily dissolved by the Munich Trade Register. RYKA
GmbH's sole business activity consisted of holding title to the stylized RYKA
and dual parallelogram trademarks, which are both key trademarks of the Company,
and licensing them back to the Company. During 1995, the Company had legal
proceedings in Germany and caused full ownership of such trademarks to be
transferred to the Company from RYKA GmbH. All intercompany accounts and
transactions have been eliminated in consolidation. The Company currently
operates without a subsidiary.
§ 76.27-70 Application of SOLAS and FSS Code. When the design, manufacture, installation, and operation of a fire detection and alarm system is to be in accordance with SOLAS Chapter II-2, Part C, Regulation 7 and FSS Code Chapter 9 (both incorporated by reference, see § 76.01-2) as allowed by § 76.27-1(b)(2), the following requirements apply: ( a ) The periodic testing of fire detection and alarm systems required in SOLAS Chapter II-2, Regulation 7.3.2 must be conducted as part of the annual inspection mandated in subpart 71.25 of this subchapter.
( b ) Control stations must be included among the spaces to be protected by a fire detection and alarm system under SOLAS Chapter II-2, Regulation 7.5.3.
( c ) The Commanding Officer of the U.S. Coast Guard Marine Safety Center will determine whether a cargo space in a passenger vessel is inaccessible and whether or not it is reasonable to provide fire detection for the space under SOLAS Chapter II-2, Regulation 7.6.
( d ) The Commanding Officer of the U.S. Coast Guard Marine Safety Center will determine whether or not there is risk of fire originating in concealed and inaccessible places that otherwise would require access of a fire patrol under SOLAS Chapter II-2, Regulation 7.8.2.
( e ) Any detectors operated by factors other than heat, smoke, or other products of combustion, or flame as addressed in FSS Code Chapter 9.2.3.1.1, may be used if they are approved types.
( f ) Notwithstanding the provisions of FSS Code Chapter 9.2.3.1.2, the required sensitivity and other performance criteria of smoke detectors must be as set forth in 46 CFR 161.002.
( g ) Notwithstanding the provisions of FSS Code Chapter 9.2.3.1.3, the required sensitivity and other performance criteria of heat detectors must be as set forth in 46 CFR 161.002.
( h ) As addressed in FSS Code Chapter 9.2.4.1.3, when a fire detection and alarm system does not include means for identifying each detector individually, no section of detectors and manually operated call points may include more than 25 enclosed spaces.
( i ) Notwithstanding the spacing set forth in FSS Code Chapter 9, Table 9.1, fire detectors must be placed in accordance with spacing requirements as tested and approved.
( j ) Footnotes to SOLAS Chapter II-2, Regulation 7.9 and FSS Code Chapter 9.2.51 refer to the Code on Alarms and Indicators, 2009, as adopted by IMO Resolution A.1021(26) (incorporated by reference, see § 76.01-2). The provisions of the Code on Alarms and Indicators are recommended but not required under the option in § 76.27-1(b)(2).
#### Ninth National Bank of the City of New York, Appellant, *v.*Morris Moses et al., as Receivers of Lesser Brothers et al., Defendants. Ernest Werner, as Surviving Partner of Joseph *&*Werner, Respondent.

*Ninth Nat. Bank, New York City,*v. *Moses,*139 App. Div. 906, affirmed.

(Argued September 27, 1910;

decided October 11, 1910.)

•Appeal from an order of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the first judicial department, entered June 24, 1910, which affirmed an order of Special Term determining the priority of lien of various judgment creditors of Lesser Brothers.

*Otto G. Wierum, Jr.,*and *Nelson S. Spencer*for appellant.

*Stanleigh P. Friedman, Daniel P. Ilays*and *Edwin D. Ilays*for respondent.

Order affirmed, with costs ; no opinion.

Concur; Cullen, Ch. J., Haight, Vann, Werner, Willard Bartlett, Hiscocic and Chase, JJ.
#### Joseph J. Kittle and others, *Respondents, v.*Daniel J. O’Brien, *Appellant.*

Order affirmed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements.