alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
AAM-11-226-E April 7, 2011

Exemption No. 10234 Regulatory Docket No. FAA-2011-0268

Mr. Keith Deschambeault Acadian Seaplanes, LLC

2640 Main Street Rangeley, MA 04970

Dear Mr. Deschambeault:

This letter is to inform you that we have granted your request for exemption. It transmits our decision, explains its basis, and gives you the conditions and limitations of the exemption, including the date it ends.

The Basis for Our Decision

By letter dated March 15, 2011, you petitioned the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) on behalf of Acadian Seaplanes, LLC (Acadian S eaplanes) for an exemption from part 120 of Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR). That exemption, if granted, would allow Acadian Seaplanes, which is operating under separate parts of the regulations, to cover its safety-sensitive employees under one testing program.

The FAA has determined that good cause exists for not publishing a summary of the petition

in the Federal Register because the requested exemption would not set a precedent, and any delay in acting on this petition would be detrimental to Acadian Seaplanes.

The FAA has issued a grant of exemption in circumstances similar in all material respects to those presented in your petition. In Grant of Exemption No. 9703 (copy enclosed), the FAA found that Solid Edge’s § 91.147 air tour operations were closely connected to its part 135 operations. The FAA also found that combining the petitioner’s two testing programs into one would be in the public interest and would maintain an equivalent level of safety to that provided by the current regulations. Thus, the FAA concluded it was unnecessary to burden the petitioner by requiring it to conduct two separate testing programs.2

Having reviewed your reasons for requesting an exemption, I find that—

 they are similar in all material respects to relief previously requested in the enclosed Grant of Exemption No. 9703;

 the reasons stated by the FAA for granting the enclosed Grant of Exemption No. 9703 also apply to the situation you present; and

 a grant of exemption is in the public interest.

Our Decision

Under the authority contained in 49 U.S.C. 40113 and 44701, which the FAA Administrator has delegated to me, I hereby grant Acadian Seaplanes, LLC an exemption from 14 CFR part 120 to the extent necessary to allow Acadian Seaplanes, which is operating under separate parts of the regulations, to cover its safety-sensitive employees under one testing program, subject to the conditions and limitations described below.

Conditions and Limitations

1. Employees of Acadian Seaplanes are subject to the drug and alcohol regulations at all times while conducting operations under part 135 or part 91.

2. The drug and alcohol testing program must be implemented under the auspices of the Acadian Seaplanes part 135 operation, not under part 91.

This exemption terminates on April 30, 2013, unless sooner superseded or rescinded.

Sincerely,

/s/
James R. Fraser, M.D. Deputy Federal Air Surgeon

Enclosure
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                   5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION
EXTRACTED FROM THE CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEET AS OF
APRIL 30, 1999 AND THE CONSOLIDATED STATEMENT OF
OPERATIONS FOR THE THREE MONTHS ENDED APRIL 30, 1999
AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO
SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
</LEGEND>

<S>                                    <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                          3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                      JAN-31-2000
<PERIOD-END>                           APR-30-1999
<CASH>                                   2,993,661
<SECURITIES>                               589,062
<RECEIVABLES>                           21,667,453
<ALLOWANCES>                             1,300,633
<INVENTORY>                                      0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                        27,333,594
<PP&E>                                  22,178,943
<DEPRECIATION>                           9,083,221
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                          42,792,333
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                   24,284,211
<BONDS>                                  1,427,371
<COMMON>                                   456,139
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                            0
<PREFERRED>                                      0
<OTHER-SE>                              16,339,047
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>            42,792,333
<SALES>                                 33,530,049
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                        33,530,049
<CGS>                                   26,529,684
<TOTAL-COSTS>                           26,529,684
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                         6,260,513
<LOSS-PROVISION>                           220,757
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                          40,442
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            487,371
<INCOME-TAX>                               191,500
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              0
<DISCONTINUED>                                   0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                  0
<CHANGES>                                        0
<NET-INCOME>                               295,871
<EPS-BASIC>                                 0.04
<EPS-DILUTED>                                 0.04



</TABLE>
#### James Stuart GASTON, Petitioner, v. Donald S. GENUNG, Sheriff of Pinellas County, Florida, Respondent.

No. 70-682.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Sept. 16, 1970.

Habeas corpus denied.
United States Court of Appeals

For the First Circuit

No. 20-1667

KAREN ELIZABETH RIVERA-MEDRANO,

Petitioner,

v.

MERRICK B. GARLAND,

UNITED STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL,

Respondent.

PETITION FOR REVIEW OF AN ORDER OF

THE BOARD OF IMMIGRATION APPEALS

Before

Thompson, Lipez, and Kayatta,

Circuit Judges.

ERRATA SHEET

The opinion of this Court issued on August 26, 2022 is amended 

as follows:

Page 25, line 5: The question mark should be changed to a 

period so that the sentence, as corrected, reads: Were it our 

job to decide in the first instance whether an IJ is likely to 

change his or her mind upon review of the new evidence RiveraMedrano offers, I would side with my colleagues.
<PAGE>

                                                                      EXHIBIT 21



             ARTESIAN RESOURCES CORPORATION AND SUBSIDIARY COMPANIES


                           Subsidiaries of Registrant


The following list includes the Registrant and all of its subsidiaries as of
December 31, 2003. The voting equity interests of each company shown is owned,
to the extent indicated by the percentage, by the company immediately above,
which is not indented to the same degree. All subsidiaries of the Registrant
appearing in the following table are included in the consolidated financial
statements of the Registrant and its subsidiaries.

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                                           Percentage of Voting
        Name of Company                     State of Incorporation        Equity Interests Owned
<S>                                               <C>                             <C>
Artesian Resources Corporation                    Delaware
   Artesian Water Company, Inc.                   Delaware                        100
   Artesian Water Pennsylvania, Inc.              Pennsylvania                    100
   Artesian Development Corporation               Delaware                        100
   Artesian Wastewater Management, Inc.           Delaware                        100
     AquaStructure Delaware, L.L.C.               Delaware                        33 1/3
</TABLE>

                         ARTESIAN RESOURCES CORPORATION
                 SCHEDULE II - VALUATION AND QUALIFYING ACCOUNTS

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                    Balance at      Charged to       Charged                      Balance at
                                                    Beginning       Costs and        to Other                     End of
                  Additions                         Of Period       Expenses         Accounts       Deductions    Period
Classification
<S>                                                 <C>              <C>             <C>            <C>           <C>
For the Year Ended December 31, 2003
  Valuation allowance for deferred tax assets       $506,000                         $6,000                        $512,000
For the Year Ended December 31, 2002
  Valuation allowance for deferred tax assets       $590,000                                        $84,000        $506,000
For the Year Ended December 31, 2001
  Valuation allowance for deferred tax assets       $685,000                                        $95,000        $590,000
</TABLE>


                                       63
Division of Advertising Practices 

Thomas P. Jirga1, Esq. 

Loeb & Loeb, LLP 

321 North Clark Street 

Suite 2300 

Chicago, IL 60654 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20580 

July 27,2010 

Re: NAD Referral re Comcast Corporation 

Dear Mr. J irga1: 

As you know, the staff of the Federal Trade Commission has conducted an inquiry into 

whether representations made by Comcast regarding the fiber-optic content of its consumer 

broadband network may violate Section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act. The National 

Advertising Division of the Council of Better Business Bureaus (''NAD'') referred this matter to 

us after Comcast stated it was unable to participate in the NAD's self-regulatory review process 

due to a conflict of interest. Upon review ofthe matter, we have determined not to recommend 

enforcement action at this time. This action is not to be construed as a determination that a 

violation did not occur. The Commission reserves the right to take such further action as the 

public interest may require. 

Very truly yours, 

Associate Director 

Division of Advertising Practices 

cc: Andrea C. Levine, National Advertising Division
I 

116TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 7243 

To require the Secretary of the Army, acting through the Chief of Engineers, 

to develop an inventory and carry out research with respect to PFAS, 

and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JUNE 18, 2020 

Mr. DELGADO (for himself and Mr. FITZPATRICK) introduced the following 

bill; which was referred to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure 

A BILL 

To require the Secretary of the Army, acting through the 

Chief of Engineers, to develop an inventory and carry 

out research with respect to PFAS, and for other purposes. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Identifying PFAS at 

5 Water Infrastructure Sites Act’’. 

6 SEC. 2. INVENTORY OF PFAS AT CORPS FACILITIES. 

7 Not later than 12 months after the date of enactment 

8 of this section, the Secretary of the Army, acting through 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 7243 IH

1 the Chief of Engineers, shall submit to the Committee on 

2 Transportation and Infrastructure of the House of Rep3 resentatives and the Committee on Environment and Pub4 lic Works of the Senate a report that identifies— 

5 (1) each facility owned or operated by the 

6 Corps of Engineers at which there is a release or 

7 threatened release of a perfluoroalkyl or polyfluoro8 alkyl substance; 

9 (2) the nature and extent of each such release 

10 or threatened release, including any associated po11 tential pathway for human exposure to the applica12 ble substance; and 

13 (3) measures taken by the Secretary to control, 

14 remove, or remediate such substances, or otherwise 

15 reduce the risk of human exposure to such sub16 stances. 

17 SEC. 3. PFAS CLEANUP RESEARCH. 

18 (a) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary of the Army, acting 

19 through the Chief of Engineers and the Hazardous Waste 

20 Research Center located at the Engineer Research and 

21 Development Center, shall, in coordination with other 

22 Federal agencies, develop innovative technologies and 

23 methodologies for the detection, treatment, and cleanup 

24 of perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substances associated 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 7243 IH

1 with Federal facilities, including in groundwater associ2 ated with such facilities. 

3 (b) SUPPLEMENTAL WORK.—In carrying out this 

4 section, the Secretary shall, to the maximum extent prac5 ticable, supplement and support work undertaken by other 

6 Federal agencies, including actions taken by the Adminis7 trator of the Environmental Protection Agency pursuant 

8 to the plan published by the Administrator entitled 

9 ‘‘EPA’s Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS) Ac10 tion Plan’’, dated February 2019, and updated by the doc11 ument published by the Administrator entitled ‘‘EPA 

12 PFAS Action Plan: Program Update’’, dated February 

13 2020. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
EXHIBIT10-11




EXHIBIT  10.11


Summary of Barry L. McCabe 2014 Compensation




The Knoll, Inc. compensation committee approved an annual base salary of $295,000 for Barry L. McCabe.  Mr. McCabe is also entitled to participate in the benefit plans provided by Knoll that are generally available to all Knoll employees.
EXHIBIT
32.1








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 1st Source Corporation (1st Source) on Form 10-Q
for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2009, as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Christopher J.
Murphy III, Chief Executive 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 my knowledge:








(1)  The
Report fully complies with the requirements of sections 13(a) or 15(d) of the
Securities and 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 1st Source.











By:








/s/CHRISTOPHER J. MURPHY
III


Christopher
J. Murphy III


Chief
Executive Officer


October
22, 2009
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20580

Division of Privacy and Identity Protection

Bureau of Consumer Protection

[Date]

BY CERTIFIED MAIL

[Company]

RE: Claims Regarding Safe Harbor Participation

Dear []:

We are writing because the website for [company name] (“the Company”), including the privacy 

policy, indicates that the company is a participant in the U.S.-EU Safe Harbor framework and/or 

the U.S.-Swiss Safe Harbor Framework. We are asking the Company to take those claims down. 

From 2000 to 2017, the U.S.-EU Safe Harbor Framework provided a method for U.S. companies 

to transfer personal data outside of Europe consistent with the requirements of the European 

Union Directive on Data Protection. The U.S. Department of Commerce administered the U.S.-

EU Safe Harbor Framework. To join, a company had to self-certify to the Department of 

Commerce that it complied with seven principles and related requirements.

The U.S.-Swiss Safe Harbor Framework was identical to the U.S.-EU Safe Harbor Framework 

and provided a method for U.S. companies to transfer personal data outside of Switzerland

consistent with the requirements of the Swiss Federal Act on Data Protection.

The European Court of Justice declared the U.S.-EU Safe Harbor Framework invalid in 2015. 

As of October 2016, the Department of Commerce stopped accepting U.S.-EU Safe Harbor selfcertifications. The last valid self-certifications would have expired no later than October 2017. 

Similarly, U.S.-Swiss Safe Harbor self-certifications would have expired no later than April 

2018. The Safe Harbor frameworks have now been replaced by the EU-US and Swiss-US 

Privacy Shield frameworks.

The FTC has brought many cases based on a company’s false claim of participation in an 

international privacy program, including the Safe Harbor frameworks. These cases allege that 

such false claims deceive consumers in violation of Section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission 

Act. In an enforcement action brought under the FTC Act, the FTC may also name as 

respondents any individuals who controlled, had the authority to control, or participated in the 

unlawful conduct. 

We request, therefore, that your company (1) immediately remove from its website, privacy 

policy, and any other public documents, all representations that might be construed as claiming 
involvement in the Safe Harbor frameworks; and (2) contact us within 30 days at 

safeharbor@ftc.gov to confirm that you have done so. If we do not receive a timely and 

satisfactory response from you, we reserve the right to take appropriate legal action. We 

appreciate your prompt attention to this matter.

Sincerely,

Maneesha Mithal

Associate Director

Division of Privacy and Identity Protection
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 35 (Friday, February 21, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 8034]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-4282]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Bureau of Land Management
[AK-962-1410-00-P, AA-8446-A, AA-8446-A2]


Notice for Publication; Alaska Native Claims Selection

    In accordance with Departmental regulation 43 CFR 2650.7(d), notice 
is hereby given that a decision to issue conveyance under the 
provisions of Sec. 14(a) of the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act of 
December 18, 1971, 43 U.S.C. 1601, 1613(a), will be issued to The 
Chenega Corporation for approximately 1,509.46 acres. The lands 
involved are in the vicinity of Chenega, Alaska.

Seward Meridian, Alaska

U.S. Survey No. 1639

T. 4 N., R. 7 E.,
T. 1 N., R. 10 E.,
T. 3 N., R. 7 E.,

    A notice of the decision will be published once a week, for four 
(4) consecutive weeks, in the Anchorage Daily News. Copies of the 
decision may be obtained by contacting the Alaska State Office of the 
Bureau of Land Management, 222 West Seventh Avenue, #13, Anchorage, 
Alaska 99513-7599 ((907) 271-5960).
    Any party claiming a property interest which is adversely affected 
by the decision, an agency of the Federal government or regional 
corporation, shall have until March 24, 1997 to file an appeal. 
However, parties receiving service by certified mail shall have 30 days 
from the date of receipt to file an appeal. Appeals must be filed in 
the Bureau of Land Management at the address identified above, where 
the requirements for filing an appeal may be obtained. Parties who do 
not file an appeal in accordance with the requirements of 43 CFR part 
4, subpart E, shall be deemed to have waived their rights.
Chris Sitbon,
Land Law Examiner, ANCSA Team, Branch of 962 Adjudication.
[FR Doc. 97-4282 Filed 2-20-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-JA-P
COURT OF A PPEAL S EI GHTH D I STRI CT OF TEX AS ELPASO, TEXAS

I N RE: J AI ME L UEVAN O, Relator. § § § § § § No. 08-10-00170- CV

AN ORI GI

NAL PROCEEDI

NG I N MANDA MUS

MEMORAN DUM OP INION ON P ETIT ION F OR WRIT OF M ANDAM US J aime L uevano, pro se , has filed a petition for writ of manda mus requesting this Court t o compel the District Attorne y and Sheriff

of El Paso County

to “stop their patter

n of har assment campa ign a

nd to conspire . . .” ag ainst Relator. This Court does not have a uthority to issue a writ of manda

mus ag ainst the Respondents in this case. See T E X .G O V ’ T C O D E AN N . § 22.221(b)( Ver non 2004). Ther efor e, the manda mus relief reque sted is DENI ED.

J uly 7, 2010 DAVI D WEL L I NGTON CHEW, C hief Just ice Be fore Chew, C.J ., McClure, a nd Rivera, JJ
.
Exhibit 10.21





 


Description
of the Material Terms of Rocky Brands, Inc.’s


Bonus Plan for the Fiscal Year Ending
December 31, 2014


 


 


Messrs. Sharp, McDonald, J. Brooks, Simms,
and Adam are eligible to receive cash bonuses under the Company’s Incentive Compensation Plan for the fiscal year ending
December 31, 2014 (the “2014 IC Plan”). The 2014 IC Plan has two separate measurement periods, Spring being January
through June, and Fall being July through December. The cash incentive is based on a percentage of base salary if performance goals
are met for the particular period. Any awards for the Spring period will be weighted at 33.3% and awards for the Fall period will
be weighted at 66.67%, respectively, of the total amount of any cash awards made under the 2014 IC Plan. The Compensation Committee
determined that the performance criterion for the Spring period will be Operating Income, and approved the following threshold,
target and maximum payouts based on specified levels of Operating Income:


 





	 	Payout as a Percentage of Base Salary (x 33%)	 
	 	 	Threshold	 	 	Target	 	 	Maximum	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	David Sharp	 	 	19	%	 	 	95	%	 	 	190	%
	James E. McDonald	 	 	12	%	 	 	60	%	 	 	120	%
	Jason Brooks	 	 	10	%	 	 	50	%	 	 	100	%
	Richard Simms	 	 	8	%	 	 	40	%	 	 	80	%
	Gary Adam	 	 	6.6	%	 	 	33	%	 	 	66	%








 


The performance criteria for Messrs. Brooks,
Simms and Adam will be based on Operating Income at the corporate level and on Profit Contribution (as determined in the reasonable
discretion of the Compensation Committee based on Company financial and accounting records) at the business unit level that is
applicable to each, while the performance criteria for Messrs. Sharp and McDonald will be based solely on Operating Income at the
corporate level.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

EASTERN DISTRICT

JEFFREY SINNOTT,

 Petitioner

 v.

WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEAL

BOARD (TEMPLE UNIVERSITY

HOSPITAL),

 Respondent

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 351 EAL 2014

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from the

Order of the Commonwealth Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 5th day of January, 2015, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is

DENIED.
EXHIBIT
32.2








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 1st Source Corporation (1st Source) on Form 10-Q
for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2009, as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Larry E. Lentych,
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
to my knowledge:








(1)  The
Report fully complies with the requirements of sections 13(a) or 15(d) of the
Securities and 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 1st Source.











By:








/s/LARRY E.
LENTYCH


Larry E.
Lentych


Chief
Financial Officer


July 30,
2009
<PAGE>

Exhibit 99.9

                   Letter to the SEC regarding representations
                           made by Arthur Andersen LLP


June 7, 2002



Securities and Exchange Commission
Washington, DC



     Arthur Andersen LLP has represented to Environmental Elements Corporation
that its audit was subject to Andersen's quality control system for the U.S.
accounting and auditing practice to provide reasonable assurance that the
engagement was conducted in compliance with professional standards and that
there was appropriate continuity of Andersen personnel working on the audit,
availability of national office consultation and availability of personnel at
foreign affiliates of Andersen to conduct the relevant portions of the audit.



/s/ Lawrence Rychlak
-------------------------------------------------
Lawrence Rychlak
Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer