alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
CALIFORNIA AIR RESOURCES BOARD

SIP APPROVABILITY CHECKLIST--ENFORCEABILITY - PAGE 1

District: South Coast Air Quality Management District

Rule No.: 1610

Date Amended: April 11. 1997

Rule Title: Old-Vehicle Scrapping

APPLICABILITY

a. What sources are being regulated?

Stationary and indirect emission sources subiect to other specific rules and regulations, such as

Regulations XI. XIII, and XX.

See Sections (a). (c)(1). and (i) [Rule 1610 1.

b. What exemptions are provided?

See Section(s) N/A [Rule 1.

c. What is the calculation procedure for exemptions?

See Section(s) N/A [Rule 1.

d. Is the averaging time used in the rule greater than that of the applicable federal ambient

standard(s)?

No. See Section(s) N/A [Rule 1.

e. What are the units of compliance?

Total pounds of VOC. NOx, CO. or PM.

See Section (h)(1) [Rule 1610 1.

f. Is bubbling or averaging of any type allowed?

No.

g. If there is a redesignation of the AQCR to attainment, will this change the emissions limitation

in the rule?

N/A
CALIFORNIA AIR RESOURCES BOARD

SIP APPROVABILITY CHECKLIST--ENFORCEABILITY - PAGE 2

COMPLIANCE DATES

a. What is compliance date?

Rule 1610 is a voluntary rule and does not have compliance dates in itself, but does require that an

MSERC Application, a Scrapping Plan, and a Compliance Plan (for credits to be used for compliance

with Regulation XI and Regulation XIII rules) be submitted within time constraints. The compliance

dates of the applicable prerequisite Regulation Xl rules for which credits are aenerated a~olv to the

submittal date of a Scrapping Plan.

See Sections (c)(3), (c)(4), (d). (e)(2). (e)(4), (h)m, (k)(l). & (l)(7) [Rule 1610 1.

b. What is attainment date?

Nitrogen dioxide 12/31/1995

Carbon monoxide 12/31/2000

Ozone 12/31/2010

TSP 12/31/2006

Sulfur dioxide Attained

SPECIFICITY OF CONDUCT

a. What test method is required?

Not Applicable.

b. What is the averaging time in the compliance test method?

Not Applicable.

c. Is a compliance calculation or evaluation required?

Yes. A calculation methodology is given for determining the Mobile Source Emission Reduction

Credits per scrapped vehicle.

See Section (h) [Rule 1610 1.

INCORPORATION BY REFERENCE

a. What is District authority for rulemaking?

See Board amendment Resolution.

b. What methods/rules are incorporated in the rule?

No new methods/rules were incorporated into this amendment.
CALIFORNIA AIR RESOURCES BOARD

SIP APPROVABILITY CHECKLIST--ENFORCEABILITY - PAGE 3

RECORDKEEPING

a. What records are required to determine compliance?

See Sections (i). (k). and (I) [Rule 1610 1.

b. What form or units must the records be kept?

See Sections (c)(4). (h). (i)(3,4), & (fl(1) [Rule 1610 1.

c. On what time basis must the records be kept?

See Sections (i)(1.2.6.7). (k)(t5). & (l)(8) [Rule 1610 1.

d. Does the rule affirmatively require that the records be kept?

Yes. See Sections (I) and (k) [Rule 1610 1.

EXEMPTIONS

a. Are any exemptions allowed?

N/A

b. What is the criteria for application?

N/A

7. MALFUNCTION PROVISIONS

N/A

(ARBFORM - 6/93)
# C_2017300EN.01000401.xml

| 11.9.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 300/4 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.9.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 300/4

---

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 19 July 2017 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Corte suprema di cassazione — Italy) — Abercrombie & Fitch Italia Srl v Antonino Bordonaro

(Case C-143/16) (1)

1

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Social policy - Directive 2000/78/EC - Equal treatment in employment and occupation - Article 2(1) - Article 2(2)(a) - Article 6(1) - Age discrimination - On-call employment contract which may be concluded with persons under 25 years of age - Automatic termination of the employment contract when the worker reaches 25 years of age))

(2017/C 300/05)

Language of the case: Italian

Referring court

Referring court

Corte suprema di cassazione

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Abercrombie & Fitch Italia Srl

Applicant:

Defendant: Antonino Bordonaro

Defendant:

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

Article 21 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and Article 2(1), Article 2(2)(a) and Article 6(1) of Council Directive 2000/78/EC of 27 November 2000 establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation must be interpreted as not precluding a provision, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which authorises an employer to conclude an on-call contract with a worker of under 25 years of age, whatever the nature of the services to be provided, and to dismiss that worker as soon as he reaches the age of 25 years, since that provision pursues a legitimate aim of employment and labour market policy and the means laid down for the attainment of that objective are appropriate and necessary.

---

(1)  OJ C 200, 6.6.2016.

1

---
No. 51308.

#### Protests 509408-G, etc., of S. Hato Shoten, Ltd., et al. (Honolulu, etc.).

Opinion by

Mollison, J.

Following the authorities cited in Abstract 15400 the court dismissed the protests.
# C_2016048EN.01005201.xml

| 8.2.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 48/52 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.2.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 48/52

---

Action brought on 23 October 2015 –Frank v Commission

(Case T-603/15)

(2016/C 048/60)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Regine Frank (Bonn, Germany) (represented by: W. Trautner, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Commission

Defendant:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the decision notified by letter of 5 June 2015 by which the applicant’s application No 680151 — QUASIMODO in level 1 was negatively assessed and she was not admitted to level 2; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decision notified by letter of 5 June 2015 by which the applicant’s application No 680151 — QUASIMODO in level 1 was negatively assessed and she was not admitted to level 2;

| — | order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

By the present action, the applicant contests the implicit negative decision of the Commission on the administrative complaint against the decision of ERCEA of 5 June 2015 to negatively assess the applicant’s application No 680151 — QUASIMODO in the context of the calls for proposals and related activities under the ERC Work Programme 2016 under Horizon 2020 of the Framework Programme for Research and Innovation (2014-2020) — ‘Horizon 2020’ and the decision not to admit the applicant to level 2.

In support of the action, the applicant relies on two pleas in law.

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging an infringement of the principle of transparency
  The applicant claims that ERCEA’s actions infringe the principle of transparency. The assessment bases were neither set out in the ‘Guidelines for Applicants’ nor consistently stated in the decision of 5 June 2015. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging an infringement of the principle of transparency

The applicant claims that ERCEA’s actions infringe the principle of transparency. The assessment bases were neither set out in the ‘Guidelines for Applicants’ nor consistently stated in the decision of 5 June 2015.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging an infringement of the principle of equality
  In addition, it is claimed that, as a result of its undifferentiated assessment and attacks on the applicant’s economic reputation, the Commission also infringes the principle of equality. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging an infringement of the principle of equality

In addition, it is claimed that, as a result of its undifferentiated assessment and attacks on the applicant’s economic reputation, the Commission also infringes the principle of equality.

---
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

CASSIA ENRIGHT, ET AL

: CIVIL ACTION

:

 v. :

:

SPRINGFIELD SCHOOL DISTRICT : NO. 04-1653

 v.

J.W. AND T.P., ET AL

CIVIL JUDGMENT

Before the Honorable J. Curtis Joyner 

AND NOW, this 5TH day of DECEMBER, 2006 , in

accordance with the verdict rendered,

IT IS ORDERED that Judgment be and the same is hereby

entered in favor of Cassia Enright against Springfield School

District for $400,000.00; in favor of Springfield School and

against Donald and Sandra Enright; in favor of Springfield School

and against T.P. for $1.00 and J.W. for $1.00.

BY THE COURT

 ATTEST: s/ ANGELA J. MICKIE

 Angela Mickie 

 Deputy Clerk

Civ 1 (8/80)

Case 2:04-cv-01653-JCJ Document 87 Filed 12/08/06 Page 1 of 1
### Regulatory Evaluation

Docket No. FAA

- 2011

- 0566 Directorate Identifier: 2010

-NM

- 271

- AD If you make changes to the values in the table below, you must ensure the totals update accordingly. If they do not, click (or Tab) into and then out of the changed c ell

. Estimated Costs:

Action (e.g., Inspection, replacement) Costs per Product (e.g., aircraft, engine,

propeller, appliance) Work

- h ours (include access, testing, and close

- up) Labor

cost ( @ $8 5 /h our) Part s Cost Total Costs ( labor + parts) Number of

U. S. Registered Products Total Cost

for U

. S

. Fleet
Leading edge fluid Drainage Modification (Group 1

- 6) 94.5 $8,032.5 0 $33,609 $41,641.50 143 $5,954,734.5 0 Leading edge fluid Drainage Modification (Group 7

- 10) 90.0 $7,650.0 0 $29,304 $36,954.00 115 $4,914,8 82.0 0 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0. 00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00 

### The known number of products in compliance: 0 

### Total Costs of compliance for U.S. fleet: $10,869,617 

### Costs covered under warranty ( if known ) $ 

### Special considerations for Economic Analysis (Use this field to explain anything in the Estimated Costs table that was assumed or might not be obvious. This field can also be used to explain warranty costs) 

### :

Executive Order 12866: Could the AD be considered a “significant regulatory action”? YES * NO

### * Explanation:

DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures: Is the AD significant? YES * NO

* Explanation: Regulatory Flexibility Act: Will the AD have a significant econo mic impact on a substantial number of small entities? E xplain for either a Yes or No answer. YES NO Explanation: Intrastate Aviation in Alaska: This AD could affect intrastate aviation in Alaska. Is it appropriate to include specific requirements for aircraft operated in Alaska where aviation might be the only mode of transportation? YES * NO

* 

### Explanation :
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

DELSINO and LIVIER HERNANDEZ :

: CIVIL ACTION NO. 02-CV-4126

Plaintiffs, :

:

v. :

:

BAYER CORPORATION;

BAYER AG;

GLAXOSMITHKLINE, PLC;

GLAXOSMITHKLINE;

SMITHKLINE BEECHAM

:

:

:

:

:

ENTRY OF APPEARANCE

:

Defendants. :

ENTRY OF APPEARANCE

To the Clerk of the Court:

Kindly enter the appearances of Hope S. Freiwald, Aline Fairweather, Erin

Brennan and Kirstin J. Miller as attorneys for defendant SmithKline Beecham Corporation d/b/a

GlaxoSmithKline.

Respectfully Submitted,

_____________________________ _____________________________

Hope S. Freiwald Aline Fairweather

_____________________________ _____________________________

Erin Brennan Kirstin J. Miller

DECHERT PRICE & RHOADS

4000 Bell Atlantic Tower

1717 Arch Street

Philadelphia, PA 19103-2793

(215) 994-4000

Case 2:02-cv-04126-SD Document 8 Filed 10/02/2002 Page 1 of 1
No. 64050.

protest 59/24565 (New York).

#### Hudson Shipping Co., Inc. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Johnson, J.

Since the protest was filed more than 60 days after liquidation, it was dismissed as untimely, by virtue of section 514, Tariff Act of 1930.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE>                5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
<CURRENCY> USD

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2001
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-01-2000
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                          47,228
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   14,886
<ALLOWANCES>                                       125
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                81,074
<PP&E>                                          15,833
<DEPRECIATION>                                   6,231
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 115,396
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           35,066
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            35
<OTHER-SE>                                      74,354
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   115,396
<SALES>                                         31,675
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                31,675
<CGS>                                           11,718
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   11,718
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                16,634
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 279
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  3,831
<INCOME-TAX>                                     1,686
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              2,145
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     2,137
<EPS-BASIC>                                        .06
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .05


</TABLE>
February 2, 1949

No. 52870.

Suit 4592.

#### Marques Del Merito, Inc. *v.*United States.

C. D. 1080 affirmed December 7, 1948. C. A. D. 394.
# C_2015118EN.01004201.xml

| 13.4.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 118/42 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.4.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 118/42

---

Action brought on 18 February 2015 — Laboratorios Thea v OHIM — Sebapharma (Sebacur)

(Case T-84/15)

(2015/C 118/54)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Laboratorios Thea, SA (Barcelona, Spain) (represented by: D. Mallo Saint-Jalmes, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Sebapharma GmbH & Co. KG (Boppard, Germany)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal:

Details of the proceedings before OHIM

Details of the proceedings before OHIM

Applicant: Applicant

Applicant:

Trade mark at issue: Community figurative mark containing the word element ‘Sebacur’ — Community trade mark application No 1 0 5 54  194

Trade mark at issue:

Procedure before OHIM: Opposition proceedings

Procedure before OHIM:

Contested decision: Decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 18 December 2014 in Case R 2403/2013-1

Contested decision:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | Annul the contested decision to the extent that it dismissed the applicant’s request to annul the decision of the Opposition Division and it ordered the applicant to reimburse EUR 550 to Sebapharma GmbH & Co.; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the contested decision to the extent that it dismissed the applicant’s request to annul the decision of the Opposition Division and it ordered the applicant to reimburse EUR 550 to Sebapharma GmbH & Co.;

| — | Order the losing party to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the losing party to pay the costs.

Plea in law

Plea in law

| — | Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009.

---
# C_2018319EN.01000301.xml

| 10.9.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 319/3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

10.9.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 319/3

---

Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 12 July 2018 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Lietuvos vyriausiasis administracinis teismas — Lithuania) — ‘Spika’ UAB, ‘Senoji Baltija’ AB, ‘Stekutis’ UAB, ‘Prekybos namai Aistra’ UAB v Žuvininkystės tarnyba prie Lietuvos Respublikos žemės ūkio ministerijos

(Case C-540/16) (1)

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Common fisheries policy - Regulation (EU) No 1380/2013 - Article 16(6) and Article 17 - Allocation of fishing opportunities - National legislation laying down a method based on objective and transparent criteria - Inequalities in the conditions of competition between operators in the sector - Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union - Articles 16 and 20 - Freedom to conduct a business - Equal treatment - Proportionality))

(2018/C 319/03)

Language of the case: Lithuanian

Referring court

Lietuvos vyriausiasis administracinis teismas

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellants:‘Spika’ UAB, ‘Senoji Baltija’ AB, ‘Stekutis’ UAB, ‘Prekybos namai Aistra’ UAB

Respondent: Žuvininkystės tarnyba prie Lietuvos Respublikos žemės ūkio ministerijos

Interveners: Lietuvos Respublikos žemės ūkio ministerija, ‘Sedija’ BUAB, V. Malinausko gamybinė-komercinė firma ‘Stilma’, ‘Starkis’ UAB, ‘Banginis’ UAB, ‘Baltijos šprotai’ UAB, ‘Monistico’ UAB, ‘Ramsun’ UAB, ‘Rikneda’ UAB, ‘Laivitė’ AB, ‘Baltijos jūra’ UAB, ‘Baltlanta’ UAB, ‘Grinvita’ UAB, ‘Strimelė’ UAB, ‘Baltijos žuvys’ BUAB

Operative part of the judgment

Article 16(6) and Article 17 of Regulation (EU) No 1380/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 December 2013 on the Common Fisheries Policy, amending Council Regulations (EC) No 1954/2003 and (EC) No 1224/2009 and repealing Council Regulations (EC) No 2371/2002 and (EC) No 639/2004 and Council Decision 2004/585/EC, and Articles 16 and 20 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, must be interpreted as not precluding legislation of a Member State, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, by which that Member State adopts a method of allocation of fishing opportunities which, while being based on a transparent and objective allocation criterion, may create a difference in treatment between operators having fishing vessels flying that Member State’s flag, provided that that method pursues one or more general interests recognised by the European Union and respects the principle of proportionality.

---

(1)  OJ C 6, 9.1.2017.

---
* Pursuant to Local Rule 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent

except under the limited circumstances set forth in Local Rule

47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 95-31263

Summary Calendar

 

MARVIN ROLLINS,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

PETRO DRIVE INCORPORATED,

Defendant-Appellee.

- - - - - - - - - -

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Louisiana

USDC No. 94-CV-2075

- - - - - - - - - -

September 4, 1996

Before DAVIS, EMILIO M. GARZA and STEWART, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

The appellant Marvin Rollins appeals the district court's

grant of summary judgment dismissing his suit filed pursuant to

the Jones Act, 46 U.S.C. app. § 688, against the appellee, Petro

Drive, Incorporated (Petro-Drive). The principal issue in this

appeal is whether Rollins raised a fact issue as to his status as

a seaman in order to maintain his action under the Jones Act. We

have reviewed the record and arguments on appeal and find no
No. 95-31263

-2-

reversible error. The judgment of the district court is affirmed

for essentially the reasons stated by the district court in its

memorandum ruling granting summary judgment for Petro-Drive. See

Rollins v. Petro-Drive, Inc., No. 94-2075 (W.D. La. Oct. 30,

1995).

AFFIRMED.
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 Annual Report of Watair. (the “Company”) on Form 10-K for the period ending March 31, 2012, as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, David Hill, Chief Executive
Officer of Vyre Network (formerly, Watair, Inc.), certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906
of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



| | (1) | The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and                              
| | --- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| |     |                                                                                                                                                    
| | (2) | The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the Company.



|                 | On behalf of: WATAIR, INC.           
|---------------- | -------------------------------------
|January 26, 2024 | /s/ David Hill                       
|                 | Chief Executive Officer, Vyre Network
|                 | (Principal executive).               
|                 |
From: Culligan, Kevin [mailto:Culligan.Kevin@epa.gov] 

Sent: Friday, May 30, 2014 1:30 PM 

To: Higgins, Cortney 

Cc: Wayland, Robertj 

Subject: Goal computation TSD 

<< TSD for goal setting_InteragencyCommentsUnderEO12866+05252014 (2) 5-27 (BF - 5-

29).docx >> 

<< Final TSD (May 30).pdf >> 

<< Appendix 1 & 2 - State Goal Data and Computation.xlsx >> 

<< Appendix 7 - Plant-level data and unit-level inventory.xlsx >>