alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 35.1





COMPLIANCE STATEMENT


OF


OHIO EDISON COMPANY, AS SERVICER


The undersigned hereby certifies that he is the duly elected and acting Vice President and Treasurer of Ohio Edison Company, as servicer (the “ Servicer ”) under the Phase-In-Recovery Property Servicing Agreement, dated as of June 20, 2013 (the “ Servicing Agreement ”), between the Servicer and OE Funding LLC, as Bond Issuer, and further certifies on behalf of the Servicer that:


|   |                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                             
|-- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|1. | A review of the activities of the Servicer and of its performance under the Servicing Agreement during the period that commenced January 1, 2017 and ended December 31, 2017 has been made under the supervision of the undersigned pursuant to Section 3.03 of the Servicing Agreement; and

|   |                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                             
|-- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|2. | To the best of the undersigned’s knowledge, based on such review, the Servicer has fulfilled all of its obligations in all material respects under the Servicing Agreement throughout the period that commenced January 1, 2017 and ended December 31, 2017.

Executed as of this 30th day of March 2018.





OHIO EDISON COMPANYBy:/s/ Steven R. StaubName:Steven R. StaubTitle:Vice President and Treasurer
PUBLIC SUBMISSION

As of: 4/27/15 9:28 AM

Received: April 25, 2015

Status: Pending_Post

Tracking No. 1jz-8ihr-2o68

Comments Due: July 06, 2015

Submission Type: API

Docket: EBSA-2014-0016

Fiduciary - Conflict of Interest Exemptions

Comment On: EBSA-2014-0016-0003

Best Interest Contract Exemptions

Document: EBSA-2014-0016-DRAFT-0008

Comment on FR Doc # 2015-08832

Submitter Information

Name: John Olsen, CLU, ChFC, AEP

Address: 

131 Hollywood Lane

Kirkwood, MO, 63122-2901

Email: jolsen02@earthlink.net

Phone: 3149098818

Organization: Olsen Financial Group

General Comment

On pages 8, 84 and elsewhere of the proposed rule, it appears that EBSA has determined that 

"broker sold" funds underperform by 200 bps/year? Does "broker sold funds" mean "A share 

loaded funds"? If so, what are these funds underperforming? Indices? Index Funds?

On page 16, it is stated that existing rules permit advisors to "give imprudent advice". Is no 

consideration being given to the fact that life insurance agents and registered representatives are 

subject to a SUITABILITY rule that prohibits the recommendation of products that are 

UNSUITABLE?

On page 41, it is stated that the Department does not believe that it would be appropriate "to 

carve out a special rule for IRAs, or for brokers or others who make specific recommendations 

to IRA owners". This, combined with the Department's conclusion that "broker sold" funds 

under-perform (query: under-perform WHAT?), suggests that advisors to IRA owners must not 

sell "loaded" funds. If not, how will such advisors who are not RIAs or IARs be compensated?

On page 53, it is stated that "disclosing conflicts alone would fail to adequately mitigate the 

conflicts or remedy the harm" and, on 54, that "Recent research suggests that even if disclosure 

Page 1 of 2

https://www.fdms.gov/fdms/getcontent?objectId=0900006481abac16&format=xml&show... 4/27/2015
about conflicts could be made simple and clear, it would be ineffective - or EVEN HARMFUL 

[emphasis mine]"! Just how might disclosure of an advisor's compensation be HARMFUL to a 

consumer?

Page 2 of 2

https://www.fdms.gov/fdms/getcontent?objectId=0900006481abac16&format=xml&show... 4/27/2015
Docket: EBSA-2009-0010 

The Paul Wellstone and Pete Domenici Mental Health Parity and Addiction Equity Act of 2008 

Comment On: EBSA-2009-0010-0409 

Interim Final Rules Under the Paul Wellstone and Pete Domenici Mental Health Parity and 

Addiction Equity Act of 2008 

Document: EBSA-2009-0010-DRAFT-0706 

Comment on FR Doc # 2010-2167 

Submitter Information 

Name: Maureen Doheny 

Address: 

18 Paradise Point Road 

Shalimar, FL, 32579 

Phone: 850-651-6009 

Organization: Mental Health Association 

General Comment 

I am supporting the language in the Paul Wellstone and Pete Domenici Mental Health Parity and 

Addiciton Equity Act. I strongly feel that it is about time that the mentally ill are not discriminated 

against. I strongly feel that one deductible is all anyone can afford and dividing and adding extra 

penalties is discrimination again. No one chooses to have a mental illness just as no one chooses 

to have a heart attack. It is an illness. I strongly urge that this bill is not watered down. It is the 

right and humane thing to do. 

PUBLIC SUBMISSION

As of: May 03, 2010 

Received: May 03, 2010 

Status: Pending_Post 

Tracking No. 80ae5bb6 

Comments Due: May 03, 2010

Submission Type: Web

Page 1 of 1

https://fdms.erulemaking.net/fdms-web-agency/component/submitterInfoCoverPage?Call=P... 5/3/2010
#### § 236.710 Block, latch.

The lower extremity of a latch rod which engages with a square shoulder of the segment or quadrant to hold the lever in position.
§ 242.503 Petition requirements. ( a ) To obtain review of a railroad's decision to deny certification, deny recertification, or revoke certification, a person shall file a petition for review that complies with this section.
( b ) Each petition shall: ( 1 ) Be in writing;
( 2 ) Be filed with the Docket Clerk, U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations (M-30), West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590. The form of such request may be in written or electronic form consistent with the standards and requirements established by the Federal Docket Management System and posted on its Web site at *http://www.regulations.gov .*
( 3 ) Contain all available information that the person thinks supports the person's belief that the railroad acted improperly, including: ( i ) The petitioner's full name;
( ii ) The petitioner's current mailing address;
( iii ) The petitioner's daytime telephone number;
( iv ) The petitioner's email address (if available);
( v ) The name and address of the railroad; and
( vi ) The facts that the petitioner believes constitute the improper action by the railroad, specifying the locations, dates, and identities of all persons who were present or involved in the railroad's actions (to the degree known by the petitioner);
( 4 ) Explain the nature of the remedial action sought;
( 5 ) Be supplemented by a copy of all written documents in the petitioner's possession or reasonably available to the petitioner that document that railroad's decision; and
( 6 ) Be filed in a timely manner.
( 7 ) Be supplemented, if requested by the Operating Crew Review Board, with a copy of the information under 49 CFR 40.329 that laboratories, medical review officers, and other service agents are required to release to employees. The petitioner must provide written explanation in response to an Operating Crew Review Board request if written documents that should be reasonably available to the petitioner are not supplied.
( c ) A petition seeking review of a railroad's decision to deny certification or recertification or revoke certification in accordance with the procedures required by § 242.407 filed with FRA more than 120 days after the date the railroad's denial or revocation decision was served on the petitioner will be denied as untimely except that the Operating Crew Review Board for cause shown may extend the petition filing period at any time in its discretion: ( 1 ) Provided that the request for extension is filed before the expiration of the period provided in this paragraph (c); or
( 2 ) Provided that the failure to file timely was the result of excusable neglect.
( d ) A party aggrieved by a Board decision to deny a petition as untimely or not in compliance with the requirements of this section may file an appeal with the Administrator in accordance with § 242.511.
[76 FR 69841, Nov. 9, 2011, as amended at 85 FR 81325, Dec. 15, 2020]
**Exhibit10.d**

** **

**AMENDMENTTO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT**

 

The Employment Agreement betweenCinergy Corp., its subsidiaries and/or its affiliates (“Cinergy”) and WilliamJ. Grealis (the “Executive”) dated as of October 11, 2002 (the “Agreement”) ishereby amended effective as of December 17, 2003.

**AMENDMENTS**

1.                                       Section 3b(ii) of the Agreement is hereby amended by addingthe following new subsection (4) at the end thereof:

###### **“(4)  Special Payment Election Without a Change in Control.  Notwithstanding the foregoing, the Executivemay make an election, on a form provided by Cinergy, to receive a single lumpsum cash payment in an amount equal to one-half of the Actuarial Equivalent (asdefined above in Section 3b(ii)(3)(D)) of his supplemental retirement benefitpayable no later than 30 days after the date of his termination ofemployment.  In order to be effective,the special payment election under this Section 3b(ii)(4) must be made either(A) at least one year prior to the termination of the Executive’s employmentwith Cinergy or (B) during 2003 and at least six months prior to thetermination of the Executive’s employment with Cinergy.  The lump sum amount payable pursuant to thisSection 3b(ii)(4) shall be calculated in accordance with the provisions ofSection 3b(ii)(3)(D).  In the event anamount is paid to or on behalf of the Executive pursuant to this Section3b(ii)(4), such payment shall discharge any liability under this Agreement toor on behalf of the Executive with respect to one-half of the ActuarialEquivalent (as defined above in Section 3b(ii)(3)(D)) of his supplementalretirement benefit.”**

 

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Executive and Cinergy have causedthis Amendment to the Agreement to be executed as of the date first specifiedabove.

 
|   |   | CINERGY  SERVICES, INC.      |                                                   |
|--------|--------|------------------------------|--------------------------------------------------------|
|   |   |                         |
|   |   | By:                          | /s/  James E.  Rogers                             |   |
|   |   |                         | James E. Rogers  Chairman and  Chief Executive Officer |
|   |   |                         |                                                   |
|   |   |                         |                                                   |
|   |   | EXECUTIVE                    |                                                   |
|   |   |                         |                                                   |
|   |   | /s/  William J. Grealis |                                                   |
|   |   | William  J. Grealis          |                                                   |
|        |        |                              |                                                        |  |  |

 

1

----
#### § 236.72 [Reserved]
From: joneseye1@aol.com [mailto:joneseye1@aol.com] 

Sent: Monday, April 26, 2010 7:36 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, 

Michael Jones 

1 Battle Dr 

Newark, DE 19702
EXHIBIT
      21.6








METROPOLITAN
      EDISON
      COMPANY


SUBSIDIARIES
      OF THE
      REGISTRANT


AT
      DECEMBER 31,
      2005











Name
                Of
                Subsidiary
            
            Business
            
            State
                of
                OrganizationYork
                Haven
                Power Company
            
            Hydroelectric
                Generation
            
            New
                YorkMet-Ed
                Funding
                LLC
            
            Special-Purpose
                Finance
            
            Delaware











Note:
      Met-Ed, along
      with its affiliates JCP&L and Penelec, collectively own all of the common
      stock of Saxton Nuclear Experimental Corporation, a Pennsylvania non-profit
      corporation organized for nuclear experimental purposes which is now inactive.
      The carrying value of the owners' investment has been written down to a nominal
      value.





Exhibit
      Number 21,
      List of Subsidiaries of the registrant at December 31, 2005, is not included
      in
      the printed document.
```

[Journal of the House of Representatives, 1995]
[Tuesday, November 7, 1995 (141), Para 141.32 Order of Business--Consideration of S. Con. Res. 31]
[Page 1879]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]

para.141.32  order of business--consideration of s. con. res. 31

  On motion of Mr. GILMAN, by unanimous consent,
  Ordered, That it may be in order on Wednesday, November 8, 1995, to 
consider in the House the concurrent resolution (S. Con. Res. 31) 
honoring the life and legacy of Yitzhak Rabin; and that the previous 
question be considered as ordered on the resolution to its adoption 
without intervening motion or demand for division of the question, 
except 90 minutes of debate equally divided and controlled by the 
chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on International 
Relations.
```
exv10w16



 





Exhibit 10.16




Base Salaries for Named Executive Officers




The following are the annual base salaries for the named executive officers of Fauquier Bankshares,
Inc., effective January 1, 2006:



Randy K. Ferrell $221,000

Eric P. Graap $142,000
§ 245.5 Effect and construction. ( a ) FRA does not intend, by use of the term dispatcher in this part, to alter the terms, conditions, or interpretation of existing collective bargaining agreements that employ other job classification titles when identifying a person who dispatches a train.
( b ) FRA does not intend, by issuance of the regulations in this part, to alter the authority of a railroad to initiate disciplinary sanctions against its employees, including managers and supervisors, in the normal and customary manner, including those contained in its collective bargaining agreements.
( c ) Except as provided in § 245.213, nothing in this part shall be construed to create or prohibit an eligibility or entitlement to employment in other service for the railroad as a result of denial, suspension, or revocation of certification under this part.
( d ) Nothing in this part shall be deemed to abridge any additional procedural rights or remedies not inconsistent with this part that are available to the employee under a collective bargaining agreement, the Railway Labor Act, or (with respect to employment at will) at common law with respect to removal from service or other adverse action taken as a consequence of this part.
§ 29.915 Must a Tribe certify a Contract Disputes Act claim? A Tribe must certify a claim for more than $100,000 in accordance with the Contract Disputes Act. The Tribe must certify that: ( a ) The claim is made in good faith;
( b ) Documents or data supporting the claim are accurate and complete to the best of the Tribe's knowledge and belief;
( c ) The amount claimed accurately reflects the amount the Tribe believes is owed; and
( d ) The individual making the certification is authorized to make the claim on behalf of the Tribe and bind the Tribe with respect to the claim.
**Exhibit
        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 Utah Medical Products, Inc. (the
        “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ending March 31, 2007, as filed with the
        Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Paul O.
        Richins, Principal 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, to the best of my knowledge and belief:
 
 (1)
              the
                  Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
                  15(d) of
                  the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
 
 (2)
              the
                  information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
                  respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the
                  Company.
 
 
 /s/ Paul O. Richins
 Paul
        O.
        Richins
 May
        9,
        2007
 
 
 *A
        signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other
        document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature
        that
        appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement
        has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and
        furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.*
# Visual Observer



# Training Procedures Training Procedures

# Overview

 Initial Qualifications Check

– (5 Minutes)

 Medical  In- Person Interview (30 Minutes)

 Mental Check

 Establish an understanding for the importance of the role  Discussion of the responsibilities assigned to the role  Visual Observance

– Learning Seminar (60 Minutes)

 What is perception?  How is it influenced?  Strategies of Observance  Classroom Training (90 Minutes)

 Introduction to the Role  Responsibilities Review  Terminology  FAA Regulation Review for Applicable Airspace  COA Provisions Review  Flight Training (20 Hours Total)

 Real World Simulations with Person In Command

 PIC will need to perform 20 hrs. of Flight Training and w/ exemption, will be required to have a VO, so the PIC and VO will train together for flight training and thus have the same hours.

# Initial Qualifications Check

 

## Initial Medical Check  

### Preliminary check to make sure Visual Observer meets qualification standards  

### Medical Check  All observers must have a valid Class 2 Medical from the FAA or equivalent  Will accept a valid U.S. Drivers license as that is currently considered an equivalent for the Person In Command of the Aircraft

# In- Person Interview

 

## Mental Check  

### Establish an understanding of the importance of the VO role  

### Why are VO’s necessary?  

### Why do they need training?  

### VO’s are crewmembers  

### Mission-Critical Responsibilities  Assessment of airspace  Air traffic  Obstacles  Flight Hazards  

### Ensure the safety of sUAS flights  Avoid manned aircraft  Prevent accidents with obstacles  Prevent hazards/notify PIC of hazards

# Visual Observance

– Learning Seminar

 

## Learning Objectives  

### Challenges to human visual perception  

### Limits of human visual perception  

### Describe how orientation, context, and extraneous cues impact our visual perception  

### Describe how relative motion, altered light angles, contrast, and loss of depth cues can impact visual perception

# Classroom Training

 

## Classroom

– PowerPoint and/or Video Training Module  

### Introduction to the Role  What is a Visual Observer?  

### Responsibilities Review  Ensure the Safety of the Flights  

### Terminology  Return to Home  Land Immediately  Avoidance Dive  

### FAA Regulation Review for Applicable Airspace  Right of Way  Weather Minimums  Operations near other aircraft  

### COA Provisions Review  Height, Weight, Speed, Proximity Rules, etc.

# Flight Training

 

## Person In Command/Visual Observer Joint Operations  

### Review Pre- Flight Checklists  

### Review Aircraft Maintenance  

### Review Weather Minimum Rules and make current weather observation  

### Review flight logs and log the flights  

### Take
-Offs & Landings  

### In- Flight Operations and Communication  

### Evasive Maneuvers  

### Emergency Action Plan Steps and Execution

# Questions?

 

## Please contact:
 

### Document Preparer

– DMZ Marketing, LLC. Zach Fiene 1501 Parkview Court Prairie du Sac, WI 53578 USA
 

### dmzaerial@gmail.com
 

### (608) 370-2858
## United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________ No. 00-2404

___________ Frankie J. Zemo, * * Petitioner, * * Petition for Review of an Order v. * of the Benefits Review Board, * United States Department of Labor. Director, Office of Workers’ * [UNPUBLISHED] Compensation Programs, United * States Department of Labor, * * Respondent. *

___________ Submitted: February 15, 2001 Filed: March 14, 2001

___________ Before WOLLMAN, Chief Judge, BRIGHT, and MORRIS SHEPPARD ARNOLD, Circuit Judges.

___________ PER CURIAM. Frankie J. Zemo worked at a coal mine in Iowa in the early 1950s and now suffers from several ailments, including pneumoconiosis. On January 15, 1992, Zemo applied for benefits under the Black Lung Benefits Act, 30 U.S.C. §§ 901 et seq. , which provides for benefits payments to coal miners totally disabled by pneumoconiosis. Id. § 901(a). An administrative law judge (ALJ) denied the application, and Zemo sought review at the Benefits Review Board (Board) of the-2-

Department

of Labor (Department). On December 17, 1999, the Board upheld the denial, and Zemo filed this petition for review.
The ALJ held, and the Board agreed, that Zemo could not meet the relevant test of 20 C.F.R. § 718.204(c)(4) (1999), which provides for the payment of benefits when a physician, exercising “reasoned medical judgment,” concludes that a claimant is pr evented from coal mine work or comparable, gainful employment because of his respiratory or pulmonary condition. The record contains the opinions of four physicians, three of which were, for various reasons, insufficient to support an award.
The fourth physician’s opinion was generated from a statutorily required complete pulmonary evaluation. Zemo is entitled to such an examination funded and arranged by the Department in order to provide him with “an opportunity to substantiate his . . . claim.” 30 U.S.C. § 923(b); see 20 C.F.R. §§ 718.101, 725.405, 725.406; Oliver

v. Director, OWCP , 993 F.2d 1353, 1354 (8th Cir. 1993) (per curiam); Cline v. Director, OWCP , 917 F.2d 9, 11 (8th Cir. 1990)

. This doctor’s opinion, however, was discredited by the ALJ and the Board as insufficiently reasoned, and thus the record thus lacks the necessary evaluation. See Oliver , 993 F.2d at 1354 (upholding Board decision because record contained one credible pulmonary evaluation). The Board agrees that a remand is proper so that Zemo may obtain the complete pulmonary evaluation he is entitled to under the law. Accordingly, we vacate the Board’s denial of benefits and remand the case for further proceedings. A true copy.
Attest: CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.