alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2009058EN.01001301.xml

| 12.3.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 58/13 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

12.3.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 58/13

---

Authorisation of State aid pursuant to Article 61 of the EEA Agreement and Article 1(3) in Part 1 of Protocol 3 to the Surveillance and Court Agreement

(2009/C 58/08)

The EFTA Surveillance Authority raises no objections to the following State aid measure:

| Date of adoption: | 17 December 2008 |
| --- | --- |
| Case number: | 64333 |
| EFTA State: | Norway |
| Title: | SIVA innovation aid scheme |
| Objective: | Research, Development and Innovation |
| Form of aid | Services are made available to SMEs at a reduced price |
| Budget: | Approximately NOK 75 000 000 |
| Legal basis: | State Budget, annual allocation letters/letters of intent from the Ministry of Trade and Industry and the Ministry of Local Government and Regional Development |
| Duration: | Until end of 2013 |
| Economic sectors: | Horizontal aid to SMEs |
| Name and address of granting authority | SIVA — Selskapet for industrivekst SF |
| Postboks 1253 Pirsenteret |
| 7462 Trondheim |
| NORWAY |

Date of adoption:

Date of adoption:

17 December 2008

Case number:

Case number:

64333

EFTA State:

EFTA State:

Norway

Title:

Title:

SIVA innovation aid scheme

Objective:

Objective:

Research, Development and Innovation

Form of aid

Form of aid

Services are made available to SMEs at a reduced price

Budget:

Budget:

Approximately NOK 75 000 000

Legal basis:

Legal basis:

State Budget, annual allocation letters/letters of intent from the Ministry of Trade and Industry and the Ministry of Local Government and Regional Development

Duration:

Duration:

Until end of 2013

Economic sectors:

Economic sectors:

Horizontal aid to SMEs

Name and address of granting authority

Name and address of granting authority

SIVA — Selskapet for industrivekst SF

Postboks 1253 Pirsenteret

7462 Trondheim

NORWAY

The authentic text of the decision, from which all confidential information has been removed, can be found at:

http://www.eftasurv.int/fieldsofwork/fieldstateaid/stateaidregistry/

---
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY REGION

IX ppoø’

75 Hawthorne Street San Francisco,
CA 941 05-3901 JUN

2 6 2013 Mr. Richard W. Corey, Executive Officer California Air Resources Board Post Office Box 2815 Sacrament, C lifornia 95812 Dearorey: On April 22, 2013, CARB submitted revisions

to the California State Implementation
Plan (SIP). We have reviewed materials submitted with the following rules and found that they fulfill the completeness criteria

in 40 CFR Part 51, Appendix

V. APCD/AQMD

Rule

#

Rule Title Antelope Valley 431.1 Sulfur Content
of Gaseous Fuels Control
of Volatile Organic Compound Emissions from the Antelope Valley

1 174 Ignition
of Barbecue Charcoal Bay Area

2-1 Permits— General Requirements Bay Area

2-2 New Source Review Bay Area

2-4 Emissions Banking Feather River

1 0.9 Rice Straw Emission Reduction Credits and Banking Feather River
10.10 Prevention

of Significant Deterioration Monterey Bay

426 Architectural Coatings Ventura County 74.11.1 Large Water Heaters and Small Boilers Aerospace Assembly and Component Manufacturing Ventura County 74.13 Operations Ventura County 74.15.1 Boilers, Steam Generators,
and Process Heaters Ventura County 74.20 Adhesives and Sealants Ventura County 74.24 Marine Coating Operations This addresses

all revisions

in this submittal.

In the coming months we will review the complete revisions
for action pursuant

to Clean Air Act section 110(k). Questions regarding our completeness review should be directed

to Robert Marinaro

at (415) 972-3019. Sincerely, Jordan9 Director, Air Division

Printed
on Recycled Papercc:Sentbye-mailMr.JackBroadbent,ExecutiveOfficer,BayAreaAQMDMr.EldonHeaston,ExecutiveDirector,AntelopeValleyAQMDMr.RichardStedman,AirPollutionControlOfficer,MontereyBayAPCDMr.DaveValler,AirPollutionControlOfficer,FeatherRiverAQMDMr.MichaelVillegas,AirPollutionControlOfficer,VenturaCountyAPCDMr.MichaelGuzzetta,Manager,RuleEvaluationSection,CARB
42716.

#### HEARN v. BARDEN.

Submitted April 5, 1967

Decided May 5, 1967.

*709
      *James E. Hardy,*for appellant.

*Powell, Goldstein, Frazer & Murphy, John T. Marshall, Kendrick W. Mattox, Jr.,*for appellee.

Quillian, Judge.

A landlord has no duty of inspection “for the purpose of discovering defects arising subsequent to the time of the lease, and he is, therefore, not liable to his tenant for injuries resulting from defects thus arising, unless he has’ had actual knowledge of them, or has been notified of such defects and has failed to make repairs within a reasonable time, and the tenant could not have avoided the injuries resulting therefrom by the exercise of ordinary care on his own part.” *Finley v. Williams,*45 Ga. App. 863, 864 (1) (166 SE 265).

In our view the plaintiff can not recover because the petition reveals that she failed to exercise ordinary care for her own safety. The petition alleges “the plaintiff knew said nails were in said door.” A landlord is not liable for injuries to a tenant arising from a patent defect of which the tenant knew, or had means of knowing equal to those of the landlord. *Waddell v.*
      *710
      *Wofford Oil Co.,*84 Ga. App. 617 (66 SE2d 806). “When rented premises become defective and unsafe it is the duty of the tenant to refrain from using that part of the premises the use of which would be attended with danger. It is his duty to exercise ordinary care for his own safety, and where he is injured as a result of his failure to exercise such care, he can not recover damages from his landlord, even though the latter may have been negligent in failing to make repairs.” *Jackson v. Davis,*39 Ga. App. 621 (147 SE 913); *Bixby v. Sinclair Refining Co.,*74 Ga. App. 626 (40 SE2d 677).

This case is controlled by *Taylor v. Boyce,*105 Ga. App. 434 (124 SE2d 647), and *Alexander v. Rhodes,*104 Ga. 807 (30 SE 968), which held that even though the plaintiff alleged that the route chosen was one of necessity, yet where the plaintiff knew of the danger he assumed the risk and was guilty of such negligence as would bar recovery.

*Chotas v. J. P. Allen & Co.,*113 Ga. App. 731 (149 SE2d 527), relied upon by the plaintiff, is distinguishable since there it was pointed out that the plaintiff had no actual notice or knowledge of the defect.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*Jordan, P. J., and Deen, J., concur.*
# C_2019315EN.01000501.xml

| 19.9.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 315/5 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.9.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 315/5

---

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

of 14 May 2019

in Case E-4/18

EFTA Surveillance Authority v Iceland

(Failure by an EFTA State to fulfil its obligations — Failure to implement — Regulation (EU) No 524/2013)

(2019/C 315/06)

In Case E-4/18, EFTA Surveillance Authority v Iceland — APPLICATION for a declaration that Iceland has failed to adopt the measures necessary to make the Act referred to at points 7d, 7f and 7j of Annex XIX to the Agreement on the European Economic Area (Regulation (EU) No 524/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 May 2013 on online dispute resolution for consumer disputes and amending Regulation (EC) No 2006/2004 and Directive 2009/22/EC (Regulation on consumer ADR)), as adapted by Protocol 1 to the Agreement, part of its internal legal order as required by Article 7 of the Agreement, the Court, composed of Páll Hreinsson, President, Per Christiansen (Judge-Rapporteur) and Bernd Hammermann, Judges, gave judgment on 14 May 2019, the operative part of which is as follows:

The Court hereby:

| 1. | Declares that Iceland has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 7 of the Agreement on the European Economic Area by failing, within the time prescribed, to make part of its internal legal order the Act referred to at points 7d, 7f and 7j of Annex XIX to the Agreement (Regulation (EU) No 524/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 May 2013 on online dispute resolution for consumer disputes and amending Regulation (EC) No 2006/2004 and Directive 2009/22/EC (Regulation on consumer ADR)), as adapted by Protocol 1 to the Agreement. |
| --- | --- |

1.

Declares that Iceland has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 7 of the Agreement on the European Economic Area by failing, within the time prescribed, to make part of its internal legal order the Act referred to at points 7d, 7f and 7j of Annex XIX to the Agreement (Regulation (EU) No 524/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 May 2013 on online dispute resolution for consumer disputes and amending Regulation (EC) No 2006/2004 and Directive 2009/22/EC (Regulation on consumer ADR)), as adapted by Protocol 1 to the Agreement.

| 2. | Orders Iceland to bear the costs of the proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Iceland to bear the costs of the proceedings.

---
To: Project File Notes From: Tina Ndoh

Site visit s Date: 8/18/2011

Site visit locations: Huntington Ingalls Incorporated

- Newport New s Shipyard (NNS) , and BAE Systems

- Norfolk Shipyard

Escorts from Newport News Shipyard : William Cash

- Robertson and Frank Thorn

Escorts from BAE Systems Shipyard

- Mike Ewing

Average life span for an aircraft carrier is 50 yrs

o Vessel will have major overall once in that lifespan (at ~25 yrs of service)

o 10 years from planning to finishing a carrier, ~ 5 .5

- 6 yrs for construction

VOC batch certification is emailed from supplier to NNS

o All paint usage tracked on shipyard via paint usage forms

o Tracking is burdensome

– preferred method would be showing VOC/VOHAP content on batches used and not tracking paint application

Some small shipyards may have only 4

- 5 FTE

William

- working with VA DEQ; wants EPA assurance/certification on simplified recordkeeping and reporting but that still meets II.

o EPA stated that this information would have been useful during the p ublic comment period.

Toured blasting and coating areas at both shipyards

o Small parts can be blasted and coated in 1

- hour

o Saw small compartments on NNS that need to be coated

Switching to higher solids coatings where available

o This coating would require less reapplication (life extended from 6 yrs to 20 yrs)

Abrasive blasting media

o Surface profile on material to be blasted will influence media choiceo Steel grit can be reused (~8 times)

o Garnite will be single use media
§ 263.452 Conduct of a formal investigative proceeding. ( a ) A formal investigative proceeding may be initiated upon issuance of an order of investigation by the Board or by the General Counsel or his or her designees in accordance with 12 CFR 265.6. The order of investigation must indicate the purpose of the formal investigative proceeding and designate the Board's representatives to direct the conduct of the investigation.
( b ) Any person who is compelled or requested to furnish documentary evidence or testimony at a formal investigative proceeding may, upon request, inspect a copy of the order of investigation at a time and place that the Board's designated representative determines to be appropriate. Any person who is compelled or requested to furnish documentary evidence or testimony in a formal investigative proceeding may not refuse to comply with a subpoena on the grounds that the order of investigation was not made available in advance of the date of production or testimony set forth in a subpoena.
( c ) Copies of an order of investigation may not be produced to or retained by any person except with the express written approval of the Board officer supervising the investigation. The Board may provide a copy of an order of investigation, in whole or in part, if the Board officer concludes, in the officer's discretion, that disclosure of the order of investigation would not infringe upon the privacy of persons involved in the investigation or impede the conduct of the investigation.
42678.

#### SKAGGS v. CLARKE COUNTY MOTORS, INC.

Bell, Presiding Judge.

L. D. Skaggs brought this suit against Clarke County Motors, Inc., to recover for injuries sustained when an automobile operated by defendant’s agent Richard Higginbottam struck plaintiff’s person. The evidence on trial of the case showed that plaintiff, a pedestrian, was crossing Lumpkin Street from the southwest corner of the intersection of Lumpkin and Clayton Streets in Athens, Georgia, moving in a marked crosswalk and facing a green traffic light. Lump-kin Street was marked one-way for three lanes of northbound traffic, and cars were standing at the cross-walk, facing a red light, in each of the three lanes. Defendant’s car was standing at the crosswalk in the right-hand lane. While plaintiff was crossing from left to right, the signal lights changed, exhibiting a green light to the waiting vehicles. Higginbottam then accelerated defendant’s car to enter the inter*663section. As plaintiff was stepping from in front of the car standing in the center lane, he was looking straight ahead toward the curb, but glimpsed the movement of defendant’s car from the corner of his eye. Plaintiff instinctively raised his right arm to protect himself, and defendant’s car struck him. Trial resulted in a verdict and judgment for defendant. On appeal plaintiff contends that the court was not authorized to charge the jury on the issue of plaintiff’s negligence. *Held:*

*Jordan and Pannell, JJ., concur.*

Submitted April 4, 1967

Decided April 13, 1967

Rehearing denied April 27, 1967.

*Hiidson & Stula, Jim Hudson,*for appellant.

*Erwin, Birchmore & Epting, Eugene A. Epting,*for appellee.

Some of plaintiff’s testimony is subject to the construction that plaintiff was not aware of the movement of defendant’s car until too late to escape the danger. However, on cross examination plaintiff testified that he might have been “in front of the extreme right-hand portion” of the car standing in the center traffic lane when he glimpsed the movement of defendant’s car in the right-hand lane. If so, he would have taken one or more additional steps, after sensing the oncoming vehicle, before placing himself in its path. This evidence would have authorized a finding that plaintiff’s negligence contributed to his injury or that he could have avoided the consequences of defendant’s negligence. Under these circumstances it was not error to charge the jury on the issue of plaintiff’s negligence although that issue was not raised in the pleadings. *Walker v. Southeastern Stages,*68 Ga. App. 320, 324 (22 SE2d 742); *Bentley v. Ayers,*102 Ga. App. 733, 736 (117 SE2d 633).

*Judgment affirmed.*
§ 1008.115 Determination of noncompliance. ( a ) *Evidence of compliance.* Any time a state enacts legislation that affects its compliance with the S.A.F.E. Act, it must notify the Bureau. Upon request from the Bureau, a state must provide evidence that it is in compliance with the requirements of the S.A.F.E. Act and this part, including citations to applicable state law and regulations; descriptions of processes followed by the state's supervisory authority; and data concerning examination, investigation, and enforcement actions.
( b ) *Initial determination of noncompliance.* If the Bureau makes an initial determination that a state is not in compliance with the S.A.F.E. Act, the Bureau will notify the state and will publish, in the Federal Register, a notice providing the Bureau's initial determination and presenting the opportunity for public comment for a period of no less than 30 days. This public comment period will allow the residents of the state and other interested members of the public to comment on the Bureau's initial determination.
( c ) *Final determination of noncompliance.* In making a final determination of noncompliance, the Bureau will review additional information that may be offered by a state and the comments submitted during the public comment period described in paragraph (b) of this section. If the Bureau makes a final determination that a state does not have in place by law or regulation a system that complies with the minimum requirements of the S.A.F.E. Act, as described in this part, the Bureau will publish that final determination in the Federal Register.
( d ) *Good-faith effort to comply.* If the Bureau makes the final determination described in paragraph (c) of this section, but the Bureau finds that the state is making a good-faith effort to meet the requirements of 12 U.S.C. 5104, 5105, 5107(d), and this subpart, the Bureau may grant the state a period of not more than 24 months to comply with these requirements. If an extension is granted to the state in accordance with this paragraph (d), then the Bureau will provide an additional initial and final determination process before it determines that the state is not in compliance and is subject to subparts C and E of this part.
( e ) *Effective date of subparts C and E.* The provisions of subparts C and E of this part will become effective with respect to a state for which a final determination of noncompliance has been made upon: ( 1 ) The effective date of the Bureau's final determination with respect to the state, pursuant to paragraph (c) of this section, unless an extension had been granted to the state in accordance with paragraph (d) of this section; or
( 2 ) If an extension had been granted to the state in accordance with paragraph (d) of this section, the effective date of the Bureau's subsequent final determination with respect to the state following the expiration of the period of time granted pursuant to paragraph (d) of this section.
# C_2023220EN.01002101.xml

| 22.6.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 220/21 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.6.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 220/21

---

Euro exchange rates (1)

21 June 2023

(2023/C 220/02)

1 euro =

| | Currency | Exchange rate |
| --- | --- | --- |
| USD | US dollar | 1,0923 |
| JPY | Japanese yen | 154,89 |
| DKK | Danish krone | 7,4479 |
| GBP | Pound sterling | 0,85828 |
| SEK | Swedish krona | 11,7563 |
| CHF | Swiss franc | 0,9803 |
| ISK | Iceland króna | 148,30 |
| NOK | Norwegian krone | 11,7470 |
| BGN | Bulgarian lev | 1,9558 |
| CZK | Czech koruna | 23,763 |
| HUF | Hungarian forint | 369,90 |
| PLN | Polish zloty | 4,4328 |
| RON | Romanian leu | 4,9625 |
| TRY | Turkish lira | 25,7343 |
| AUD | Australian dollar | 1,6154 |
| CAD | Canadian dollar | 1,4435 |
| HKD | Hong Kong dollar | 8,5510 |
| NZD | New Zealand dollar | 1,7697 |
| SGD | Singapore dollar | 1,4678 |
| KRW | South Korean won | 1 413,88 |
| ZAR | South African rand | 20,0783 |
| CNY | Chinese yuan renminbi | 7,8519 |
| IDR | Indonesian rupiah | 16 330,80 |
| MYR | Malaysian ringgit | 5,0737 |
| PHP | Philippine peso | 60,747 |
| RUB | Russian rouble | |
| THB | Thai baht | 38,056 |
| BRL | Brazilian real | 5,2273 |
| MXN | Mexican peso | 18,7393 |
| INR | Indian rupee | 89,5765 |

Currency

Exchange rate

USD

US dollar

1,0923

JPY

Japanese yen

154,89

DKK

Danish krone

7,4479

GBP

Pound sterling

0,85828

SEK

Swedish krona

11,7563

CHF

Swiss franc

0,9803

ISK

Iceland króna

148,30

NOK

Norwegian krone

11,7470

BGN

Bulgarian lev

1,9558

CZK

Czech koruna

23,763

HUF

Hungarian forint

369,90

PLN

Polish zloty

4,4328

RON

Romanian leu

4,9625

TRY

Turkish lira

25,7343

AUD

Australian dollar

1,6154

CAD

Canadian dollar

1,4435

HKD

Hong Kong dollar

8,5510

NZD

New Zealand dollar

1,7697

SGD

Singapore dollar

1,4678

KRW

South Korean won

1 413,88

ZAR

South African rand

20,0783

CNY

Chinese yuan renminbi

7,8519

IDR

Indonesian rupiah

16 330,80

MYR

Malaysian ringgit

5,0737

PHP

Philippine peso

60,747

RUB

Russian rouble

THB

Thai baht

38,056

BRL

Brazilian real

5,2273

MXN

Mexican peso

18,7393

INR

Indian rupee

89,5765

---

(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.

---
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr., Chief Justice

Stephen J. Markman

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano 

Richard H. Bernstein

Joan L. Larsen, Justices

I, Larry S. Royster, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

 November 25, 2015

a1118

Order 

Clerk

November 25, 2015

151292

LAKELAND HOSPITALS AT NILES

AND ST. JOSEPH, INC.,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 151292

COA: 318440

Berrien CC: 12-000067-NF

AUTO-OWNERS INSURANCE

COMPANY,

Defendant-Appellant,

and

HOME-OWNERS INSURANCE

COMPANY

Defendant.

____________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the February 12, 2015 

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not 

persuaded that the question presented should be reviewed by this Court.
```

[Congressional Bills 108th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2728 Introduced in House (IH)]

108th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2728

To amend the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 to provide for 
adjudicative flexibility with regard to an employer filing of a notice 
  of contest following the issuance of a citation by the Occupational 
                   Safety and Health Administration.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             July 15, 2003

 Mr. Norwood introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                Committee on Education and the Workforce

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To amend the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 to provide for 
adjudicative flexibility with regard to an employer filing of a notice 
  of contest following the issuance of a citation by the Occupational 
                   Safety and Health Administration.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Occupational Safety and Health Small 
Business Day in Court Act of 2003''.

SEC. 2. CONTESTING CITATIONS UNDER THE OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH 
              ACT.

    (a) Citation.--The second sentence of section 10(a) of the 
Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 (29 U.S.C. 659(a)) is 
amended by inserting ``(unless such failure results from mistake, 
inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect)'' after ``assessment of 
penalty''.
    (b) Failure to Correct.--The second sentence of section 10(b) of 
the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 (29 U.S.C. 659(b)) is 
amended by inserting ``(unless such failure results from mistake, 
inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect)'' after ``assessment of 
penalty''.
                                 <all>
```