alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2011319EN.01001202.xml

| 29.10.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 319/12 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.10.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 319/12

---

Judgment of the General Court of (Second Chamber) of 20 September 2011 — Arch Chemicals and Others v Commission

(Case T-120/08) (1)

1

(Action for annulment - Health policy - Marketing of biocidal products - Regulation (EC) No 1451/2007 - Not individually concerned - Inadmissibility - Default procedure)

2011/C 319/22

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicants: Arch Chemicals, Inc. (Norwalk, Connecticut, United States); Arch Timber Protection Ltd (Castleford, West Yorkshire, United Kingdom); Rhodia UK Ltd (Watford, Hertfordshire, United Kingdom); Sumitomo Chemical (UK) plc (London, United Kingdom); Troy Chemical Co. BV (Vlaardingen, Netherlands) (represented by: K. Van Maldegem and C. Mereu, lawyers)

Applicants:

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: P. Oliver and E. Kružíková, acting as Agents)

Defendant:

Intervener in support of the applicants: European Chemical Industry Council (CEFIC), (Brussels, Belgium) (represented: initially by Y. van Gerven and V. Terrien, and subsequently by Y. van Gerven, lawyers)

Intervener in support of the applicants:

Re:

Re:

Application for annulment of Article 3(2), Article 4, Article 7(3), the second subparagraph of Article 14(2), Article 15(3), Article 17 of and Annex II to Commission Regulation (EC) No 1451/2007 of 4 December 2007 on the second phase of the 10-year work programme referred to in Article 16(2) of Directive 98/8/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council concerning the placing of biocidal products on the market (OJ 2007, L 325, p. 3)

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Declares that there is no need to adjudicate on the applications for leave to intervene made by the European Parliament and the Council of the European Union; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Declares that there is no need to adjudicate on the applications for leave to intervene made by the European Parliament and the Council of the European Union;

| 3. | Orders Arch Chemicals, Inc., Arch Timber Protection Ltd, Rhodia UK Ltd, Sumitomo Chemical (UK) plc and Troy Chemical Co. BV to bear their own costs; |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders Arch Chemicals, Inc., Arch Timber Protection Ltd, Rhodia UK Ltd, Sumitomo Chemical (UK) plc and Troy Chemical Co. BV to bear their own costs;

| 4. | Orders the European Chemical Industry Council (CEFIC) to bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Orders the European Chemical Industry Council (CEFIC) to bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 128, 24.5.2008.

1

---
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                                    <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>				3-MOS 
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>				JUN-30-1998
<PERIOD-START>				JUL-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>				SEP-30-1998
<CASH>					0
<SECURITIES>				0
<RECEIVABLES>				0
<ALLOWANCES>				0
<INVENTORY>					0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>				0
<PP&E>					0
<DEPRECIATION>				0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>				0
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>			1,820
<BONDS>					0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>			0
<PREFERRED>					0
<COMMON>					428
<OTHER-SE>					(2,275)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>		0
<SALES>					0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>				2
<CGS>						0
<TOTAL-COSTS>				3
<OTHER-EXPENSES>				0
<LOSS-PROVISION>				0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>			0
<INCOME-PRETAX>				(1)
<INCOME-TAX>				0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>			(1)
<DISCONTINUED>				0
<EXTRAORDINARY>				0
<CHANGES>					0
<NET-INCOME>				(1)
<EPS-PRIMARY>				0
<EPS-DILUTED>				0



</TABLE>
# Greenville - Appalachian Regional Commission

- Feed and Seed: Nourishing Upstate South Carolina In Greenville, South Carolina, Feed &#38; Seed Co. is on a mission to serve farmers and families through a sustainable local food system. Their multi-purpose facility – located in Greenville County’s most food-insecure zip code – acts as a one-stop shop for both food entrepreneurs and shoppers. Through their market, café, crop boxes, food share, [&#8230;]The post Feed and Seed: Nourishing Upstate South Carolina appeared first on Appalachian Regional Commission.
- South Carolina Appalachian Council of Governments Executive Director Steve Pelissier Email &#160;i&#110;&#102;&#x6f;&#x40;s&#99;&#97;&#x63;&#x6f;&#x67;&#46;&#111;&#114;&#x67;The post South Carolina Appalachian Council of Governments appeared first on Appalachian Regional Commission.
James Louis Ferris, Jr

Lockheed Martin Corporation MS2

1801 State Route 17C

Owego, NY 13827

Lockheed Martin, through its MS2 facility located in Owego, NY, is working with the FAA to obtain 

experimental certification to operate its Desert Hawk UAV in the Owego area. As part of the 

experimental certification process Lockheed Martin is requesting exemption from the following 

regulations:

14 CFR Part 91.9(b): requirement for a flight manual in the aircraft

14 CFR Part 91.203 (a) & (b): requirement for display of airworthiness certificate in the aircraft

14 CFR Part 45.22(d): Aircraft marking

The Desert Hawk is a small unmanned aerial vehicle operated remotely via a ground control stations. As 

a UAV, the Desert Hawk does not have a location or need for a flight manual or on board display of an 

airworthiness certificate. Lockheed Martin requests an exemption from the above listed regulations as 

application to a UAV aircraft is not appropriate to the usage of a UAV. Lockheed Martin believes that 

this exemption is in the public interest in that both the manual and experimental certification should 

reside with the ground control station operator, where the operator has access to this information to 

support operation of the UAV. As such granting this exemption does not compromise safety, in any way. 

With respect to Part 45.22(d), the Desert Hawk UAV’s size precludes marking the UAV with a country 

designator and tail number in any manner that would provide for a legible display of this information. 

Lockheed Martin recommends maintaining this information with the ground control station. For the 

purposes of the experimental approval that Lockheed Martin is seeking for the Desert Hawk, the UAV 

will be operated within a defined area that operators will maintain line of sight observation of the UAV 

and the ability to immediately retrieve it at the conclusion of any flight. Any aircraft markings would not 

be of any aid to the public in identifying the UAV. As the operation of the UAV will be in a defined area, 

the lack of markings will not introduce any safety issues to the public. 

To summarize, Lockheed Martin request exemption from 14 CFR Parts 91.9(b), 91.203(a)&(b), and 

45.22(d) to support operation of the Desert Hawk UAV under an FAA Experimental Certification. 

Standard aircraft markings are not suitable for the small UAV as the size constraints of the UAV would 

render any aircraft marking illegible due to the minute size needed to fit onto the UAV. As a UAV there 

is no need to carry and have available on board manuals or other documentation for display. As such 

Lockheed Martin request exemption from these regulations with the associated information being 

available at the ground stations as appropriate.
Exhibit
      32





**CERTIFICATION
      OF CEO and CFO PURSUANT TO**


**18
      U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**


**SECTION 906
      OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**  ****




In
      connection with report on Form 10-Q of Reed’s, Inc. (the “Company”) for the six
      months ended June 30, 2008, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
      on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Christopher J. Reed, as Chief Executive
      Officer and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, hereby certifies, pursuant
      to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
      2002, that, to the best of his knowledge:




(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 results of operations of the Company.




Date:
                August 19, 2008
            /s/ Christopher
                J. ReedChristopher
                J. Reed
              Chief
                Executive Officer and Chief Financial
                Officer
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 Annual Report of Encorium Group, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-K for the period
ending December 31, 2006 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Lawrence R. Hoffman, Executive Vice President, General Counsel, Secretary and Chief Financial Officer of the Company,
certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 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 results of operations of the Company.
| | --- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                                                        
|--------------------------------------------------------
|                                                        
|/S/     LAWRENCE R.
HOFFMAN                             
|Lawrence R. Hoffman                                     
|Executive Vice President, General Counsel, Secretary and
|Chief Financial Officer                                 

March 30, 2007

The foregoing certification is being furnished solely pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18 of the United States Code) and is not being filed as part of the Report or as a
separate disclosure document.
Exhibit 99.2

                    CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
                       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 Premier Development & Investment,
Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ending June 30, 2004 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),
I, Victoria Z. Carlton, Treasurer and Secretary of the Company, certify,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss.1350, as adopted pursuant to ss.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.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has executed this certification as of this
12th day of August, 2004.



/s/ Andrew L. Jones
-------------------------------------------
Andrew L. Jones
Chairman, Director and Interim Treasurer and Secretary
Premier Development & Investment, Inc.
# Q!ongres.a nft4e 1llniteb**~tates** lt!fasl}ington, 

# mar 20515

The Honorable Anthony Foxx Secretary U.S. Department ofTransportation 1200 NewJersey Avenue SE Washington, DC 20590

DearMr. Secretary: March 31, 2014

We write to you regarding the foreign aircarrierapplication ofNorwegian Air International Limited (NAI). We are concerned thatNAI's "flag ofconvenience" structure violates the U.S.-EU Open Skies Agreement as well as federal statutes that ensure foreign air carrieroperations in the United States are in the public interest and uphold fair laborstandards.
The Department ofTransportation (DOT} has a strong record ofnegotiating air transport agreements, including the U.S.-EU Open Skies Agreement, which have increased international competition and expanded aviation market access while maintaining strong employment protections. Indeed, Article 17 bis ofthe U.S.- EU Open Skies Agreement states, "The opportunities created by the Agreement are not intended to undermine labour standards orthe labour-related rights and principles contained in the Parties' respective laws.'' This is consistentwith U.S. law that requires the DOT to apply, among other factors, apublic interest standard to make sure that U.S. air carriers are on at least an equal footing with foreign carriers when reviewing and approving applications from foreign aircarriers to provide new air service.
We believe that NAI's business model would weaken existing U.S. and EU employment protections. NAI's parent company is based in Norway, and NAI is owned and controlled by Norwegian citizens. However, NAI will operate as an Irish aircarrier, even though itdoes notplan to operate any flights in Ireland atthis time. Furthennore, it is ourunderstanding thatNAI plans to hire at least some ofits workforce through a recruitment firm based in Singapore, which is not aparty to the U.S.-EU Open Skies agreement. NAI's structure raises several serious questions about what employmentprotections will apply to NAI's workforce and whetherthis arrangement was created to allow the airline to avoid the more rigorous Norwegian labor and employment laws.

We support competition and increased consumerchoice, but not by unfairly disadvantaging U.S. airlines or threatening U.S.jobs. Due to NAI's operating structure, we do not believe its application complies with Article 17 bisor relevant federal statutes. Accordingly, we request that NAI's application be denied. Sincerely,

# ~ Member ofCongress

PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPf.R 

# s10-140331-025
#### HALL v. STATE.

No. A-11814.

Criminal Court of Appeals of Oklahoma.

July 15, 1953.

John L. Ward, Jr., Tulsa, for plaintiff in error.

Mac Q. Williamson, -Atty. Gen., and James P. Garrett, Asst. Atty. Gen., for defendant in- error.

BRETT, Judge.

The plaintiff in error, Olga Hall, defendant below, was charged by information in the Court of Common Pleas, of Tulsa county, Oklahoma, with the offense of Driving a Motor Vehicle on a Public Highway, a certain described truck, over and upon 21st and Memorial Streets, while under the influence of intoxicating liquor. The defendant was triéd, convicted by a jury, and his punishment left to be fixed by the court. The record is in confusion as to whether judgment and sentence of a $100 fine was entered on February 19, 1952, or whether it was made and entered on March 3, 1952. The appeal was lodged herein on July 12, 1952.

On the foregoing state of the record the State of Oklahoma filed its motion to dismiss. Considering the date most favorable to the defendant, it is apparent the appeal was not filed in the maximum time allowed by law (120 days) after the entry of judgment and sentence, as provided in Title 22, § 1054, O.S.A.1951, to the effect that an appeal in a misdemeanor case must be taken within 60 days after the judgment is Tendered, or a lawful extension thereof of not to exceed 60 days. Loving v. State, *87*Okl. Cr. 150, 151, 196 P.2d 519; McLean v. State, Okl.Cr.App., 244 P.2d 335.

The motion to dismiss is accordingly sustained for lack of jurisdiction, and the within appeal is hereby dismissed, with directions to enforce the judgment and sentence as entered in the trial court below.

POWELL, P. J., and JONES, J., concur.
#### BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF McCURTAIN COUNTY, Oklahoma, Plaintiff in Error, v. STATE BOARD OF EQUALIZATION of the State of Oklahoma, Defendant in Error.

No. 39418.

Supreme Court of Oklahoma.

June 27, 1961.

*267Lewis T. Martin, County Attorney, Mc-Curtain County, Idabel, for plaintiff in error.

Mac Q. Williamson, Atty. Gen., Fred Hansen, First Asst. Atty. Gen., L. G. Hy-den, Asst. Atty. Gen., Albert Lynn, Gen. Counsel and Ed Armstrong, Asst. Counsel, Oklahoma Tax Commission, Oklahoma City, for defendant in error.

PER CURIAM.

Plaintiff in error appeals from the same order of the State Board of Equalization that was appealed from in other cases decided June 13, 1961, including Cause No. 39,321, Board of County Commissioners of Canadian County, Oklahoma v. State Board of Equalization of State of Oklahoma, Okl., 363 P.2d 242. As to McCurtain County, here involved, the order required the same respective percentages of increase in valuations for rural and urban property that it required in the county involved in the cited case.

There is no material difference between the arguments advanced herein by plaintiff in error and those urged under three of the appellant’s propositions for reversal in Cause No. 39,321. We, therefore, apply what was therein said concerning those arguments, to the arguments of plaintiff in error herein, and adopt, by reference, those pronouncements as our opinion in this case.

Affirmed.

Due to the exigencies related to the element of time affecting the situation involved herein, the usual IS day period allowed by this Court’s Rule No. 28 for the filing of petitions for rehearing generally, is, as applied to this case, reduced to 10 days.

WILLIAMS, C. J., BLACKBIRD, V. C. J., and WELCH, DAVISON, HALLEY, JOHNSON and BERRY, JJ., concur.

IRWIN, J., concurs specially.

JACKSON, J., dissents.

IRWIN, Justice

(concurring specially).

I concur specially for the reasons set forth in Case No. 39,321, Board of County Commissioners of Canadian County, Oklahoma v. State Board of Equalization, Okl., 363 P.2d 242.
Dolan Chemical Laboratory 4001 Bixby Road Groveport, OH 43125 T: 614-836-4221, Audinet 210-4221 F: 614-836-4168, Audinet 210-4168 http://aepenv/labs 

### Water Analysis Location: Mountaineer Plant Report Date: 8/13/2012 Form REP-703 Rev. 0, 4/2012



### Sample Number: 123394-001 Date Collected: 08/08/2012 08:45 Date Received: 8/9/2012 

### Trip Blank Units Parameter Result RL Analysis By Analysis Date/Time Method MDL Data Qual ng/L Mercury, Hg < 0.2 0.5 TLT EPA 1631E 0.2 08/10/2012 U 

### Sample Number: 123394-002 Date Collected: 08/08/2012 08:45 Date Received: 8/9/2012 

### Field Blank Units Parameter Result RL Analysis By Analysis Date/Time Method MDL Data Qual ng/L Mercury, Hg 0.2 0.5 TLT EPA 1631E 0.2 08/10/2012 J 

### Sample Number: 123394-003 Date Collected: 08/08/2012 08:45 Date Received: 8/9/2012 

### Plant Outfall #001 Units Parameter Result RL Analysis By Analysis Date/Time Method MDL Data Qual ng/L Mercury, Hg 1.8 2 TLT EPA 1631E 0.8 08/10/2012 J 

### Sample Number: 123394-004 Date Collected: 08/08/2012 08:00 Date Received: 8/9/2012 

### Bioreactor Effluent Units Parameter Result RL Analysis By Analysis Date/Time Method MDL Data Qual ng/L Mercury, Hg 2.5 5 TLT EPA 1631E 2 08/10/2012 J 

### Sample Number: 123394-005 Date Collected: 08/08/2012 08:05 Date Received: 8/9/2012 

### CPS Effluent Units Parameter Result RL Analysis By Analysis Date/Time Method MDL Data Qual ng/L Mercury, Hg 102 10 TLT EPA 1631E 4 08/10/2012

Mountaineer Plant, 123394 Page 1 of 2THIS TEST REPORT RELATES ONLY TO THE ITEMS TESTED AND SHALL NOT BE REPRODUCED EXCEPT IN FULL WITHOUT WRITTEN

APPROVAL OF THE LABORATORY. ALL TEST RESULTS MEET ALL OF THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE ACCREDITING AUTHORITY, UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED. U: Analyte was analyzed and not detected at or above adjusted Method Detection Limit J: Analyte was positively identified, though the quantitation was below Reporting Limit. Brian Snyder, Chemist II Email bssnyder@aep.com Tel. 614-836-4224 Fax 614-836-4168 Audinet 210-4224

Mountaineer Plant, 123394 Page 2 of 2
```

[Congressional Record Volume 158, Number 117 (Thursday, August 2, 2012)]
[House]
[Page H5708]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

           By Ms. RICHARDSON:
       H.R. 6284.
       Congress has the power to enact this legislation pursuant 
     to the following:
       This bill is enacted pursuant to the power granted to 
     Congress under Article I, Section 8, Clauses 1 and 18 of the 
     United States Constitution.
```
p.1 

OAR Box 1828 

Prepped by Ollie Stewart 

Document Number: 

91) ll-K-(B)-79 

Docket Number: 

A-83-27 

Printed 11/12/2008 11:12:51 AM Sheet 91 of 325 
P.2 

A-83-27 

II-K-(B)-79 

DISCUSSION OF DIFFERENCE IN COST ALGORITHMS BETWEEN 

IFCAM AND RADIAN FOR BOILER CAPITAL COSTS AND WORKSHIFT 

ASSUMPTIONS. 

Letter from E. Medine, EEA to Dr. A Wehe, EPA:SASD. 

September 11, 1981. 

THIS INFORMATION CAN BE FOUND IN DOCKET A-79-02, ITEM 

II-K-(B)-79
January 22, 2016 U.S. Department of Transportation Docket Management System 1200 New Jersey Ave., SE Washington, DC 20590 RE: Company Name Change

Department of Transportation Representatives:

Pursuant to Section 333 of the FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012 ("Reform Act") and 14 C.F.R. Part 11, Jeff Bennett Engineering, hereby submits the following amendment to its Petition for Exemption filed November 25, 2015 tracking number: 1jz

- 8mgh

- l iq1

.

The Petition for Exemption was filed on behalf of "Jeff Bennett Engineering" on November 25, 2016. Since filing, the Petitioner business name has changed to “Bennett Analytics Corporation ”. Accordingly, P etitioner respectfully requests that the dock et and Exemption Request Letter “Jeff Bennett Engineering Sec 333 Petition for Exemption” be amended as well.

The P etitioner does not seek any changes to the request for exemption beyond this request.

This requested amendment is in the public interest, as having the petitioner correctly identified in the Grant of Exemption will avoid confusion and further the FAA's interests in accountability.

If you have any questions or require any additional information, please do not hesitate to call.

Sincerely,

Grady Boyce gboyce@skygenavaition.com

770

- 733

- 2939
# C_2008079EN.01002802.xml

| 29.3.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 79/28 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.3.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 79/28

---

Action brought on 21 December 2007 — Commission v CAE Consulting

(Case T-474/07)

(2008/C 79/56)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: A.-M. Rouchaud-Joët, S. Lejeune, acting as Agents, and O. Prost, avocat)

Applicant:

Defendant: CAE Consulting GmbH (Sexau, Germany)

Defendant:

Form of order sought

| — | declare the Commission's application to be admissible and well founded and, in accordance with it, |
| --- | --- |

—

declare the Commission's application to be admissible and well founded and, in accordance with it,

| — | order the defendant to pay to the Commission the sum of EUR 25 574 in capital, together with the sum of EUR 10 189,31 by way of default interest until 31 December 2007, and, from 1 January 2008 onwards until all sums have been paid, to pay EUR 3,67 for each day of delay, with this interest to be capitalised from 31 May 2001 onwards; |
| --- | --- |

—

order the defendant to pay to the Commission the sum of EUR 25 574 in capital, together with the sum of EUR 10 189,31 by way of default interest until 31 December 2007, and, from 1 January 2008 onwards until all sums have been paid, to pay EUR 3,67 for each day of delay, with this interest to be capitalised from 31 May 2001 onwards;

| — | order the defendant to pay all costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the defendant to pay all costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

By this action, the applicant requests that the defendant be ordered to repay the balance of the advance disbursed to it by the Community, together with default interest, following its failure to perform the part of the cost reimbursement contract EP No 26970 concluded with the consortium of which it was a member, concerning the project ‘Neutral Archiving of EDA Data (ARCHIVE)’, implemented within the framework of the Fourth European Strategic Programme for Research and Development in Information Technologies (ESPRIT) (1994-1998).

---