alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
)Q(

... ",....' ...."...,;

STATE OF CONNECTICUT

DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

STATE OF CONNECTICUT

VS.

THE CONNECTICUT UGH!

AND POWER COMPANY, I

CONSENT QRDER

ORDER NO. 1494

MODmCATION NO.6

.. 1 ,I

eJ ! '(.. ! ':oJ ! '-'-·0 I [<

'I .I

In the maner of a consent order between the Commissioner of Environmental Protection

("Commissioner") and The Connecticut Light and Power Company (~Respondenrn).

WHEREAS, the Commissioner and Respondent, having agreed to the tenns and conditions

set fonh in Consent Order No. 1494 issued on October 15, 1996, the Consent Order No. 1494

Modification issued on May 14, 1997, Consent Order No. 1494 Modification NO.2 issued on

May 6, 1998, Consent Order No. 1494 Modification No.3 issued on February 3, 1999, Consent

Order No. 1494 Modification No.4 issued on April 29, 1999, and Consent Order No. 1494

Modification No.5 issued on November 29. 1999 (hereinafter collectively referred to as

"Consent Order") do now, by mutual agreement, modify said Consent Order as follows:

J. Paragraph B.l.i. is added as follows:

Respondent is a budget source by virtue of its ownership and operation of the peaking

units. Pursuant to Section 22a-174-22a(f)(4) of the RCSA, Respondent, as a budget

source, may use allowances· acquired pursuant to the provisions of Section 22a-174-22a

of the RCSA to comply with subsection (e) of Section 22a-174-22 of the RCSA pur.;uant

to the provisions of subsection mof Section 22a-174-22 of the RCSA as long as

Respondent remains an owner of the peaking units, for purposes of this Consenr Order.

Any allowance used for compliance with subsection (e) of Section 22a-174-22 of the

RCSA shall be subject to all restrictions andlor requirements applicable to ERCs

contained in this Consent Order and Section 22a-174-22a of the RCSA,

All other tenns and conditions of Consent Order No, 1494 issued by the Commissioner acting

under Chapter 4460, Sections 22a-6, 22a-171, 22a-174, 22a-176, 22a-l77 and 22a-l78 of the

Connecticut General Statutes shall remain in effect.

f'" j..--' -'7{·.j U .... / Respondent's Initials: v ~~ Date:

(Prinled on Recycled Paper)

79 Elm Streel • Hartfold, CT 06106· SI27

hl1P:fldep.uate .tt.IIS

An Eq~al Opponuni/.'" Employer r.a

rkbrarint Connecticut Coastal RtSou.ret Manat,,,,,nt: 1980·2000 P
THE CONNECTICUT UGHT

AND POWER COMPANY

2 CONSENT ORDER NO, 1494

MODIFICATION NO, 6

The Connecticut Light and Power Company hereby consents ro the entry of this modification to

the Consent Order without funher notice.

for

liortheast Utilities Service".Cornpany

~~ticujL~.ght,and Power Company

Signature: 117:

~7vJdJ:y ':::::~~.a'::::.'::::::'=::2:::::"::=~ _

as Ag£

Dennis E. Welch

Type Name:

, 7

ur J. Roc"qJ.l.eff T.

commiss;or

Vice President-Environmental,Safety

and Ethics Northeast Utilities Service

Com any

Date: , 2L II

Type Title:

/

Entered as a modification of an Order of the CO~~SS)L:of

numbered 1494 this ~~ day of -Lq'-70",_"n.L.::.==-I"v

CITY OF Hartford

LAND RECORDS

MAJlED CER JfrIED MAIL,

RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED

Cenified Document No. 158 813 684
1

Memo 

To: Docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0799 

From: Joseph McDonald 

CC: Ed Nam, U.S. EPA-OTAQ-ASD 

Date: Tuesday, November 29, 2011 

Re: EV Charging Infrastructure Guidelines 2009 citation 

A hard copy of the following citation: 

Electric Vehicle Charging Infrastructure Deployment Guidelines - British Columbia.” Report by the 

Electric Transportation Engineering Corporation for Natural Resources Canada and BCHydro. 

is available within EPA’s Docket Center. 

This document has been copyrighted and is not available in the electronic docket. Parties that wish to 

view a hard copy of this document can do so at the at the EPA Docket Center: Air and Radiation 

Docket and Information Center, EPA/DC, EPA West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW, 

Washington DC. The Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through 

Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Public Reading Room is (202) 566-

1744, and the telephone number for the Air Docket is (202) 566-1742.
Order entered October 22, 2015

In The 

## Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05
- 15
- 00550
- CR DOYLE GENE ROBERSON, Appellant

V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee On Appeal from the Criminal District Court No. 6

Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. F13
- 55492
- X



### O RDER Appellant’s October 20, 2015 second motion to extend the time to file appellant’s brief is before the Court. The record in this appeal shows the reporter’s record was not complete until an exhibit was filed on September 4, 2015. Because of the delay in filing a complete record, we GRANT appellant’s motion to the extent we E XTE ND the time to file appellant’s brief until November 4, 2015

.

/s/ LANA MYERS JUSTICE
# C_2022318EN.01003301.xml

| 22.8.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 318/33 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.8.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 318/33

---

Action brought on 8 July 2022 — European Commission v Romania

(Case C-455/22)

(2022/C 318/45)

Language of the case: Romanian

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: M. Escobar Gómez, E.A. Stamate and C. Valero, Agents)

Defendant: Romania

Form of order sought

The Commission claims that the Court should:

| — | declare that, until 3 October 2020, Romania failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 4(1) of Directive 2010/75/EU; (1) |
| --- | --- |

—

declare that, until 3 October 2020, Romania failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 4(1) of Directive 2010/75/EU; (1)

| — | order Romania to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order Romania to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

It is submitted that, from 2014 until 3 October 2020, S.C. CET Govora nr. 2, S.C. Electrocentrale Deva (Mintia) nr. 2 and S.C. Electrocentrale Deva (Mintia) nr. 3 were operated without a valid environmental permit according to the requirements laid down in Directive 2010/75. The Romanian authorities acknowledged that the three installations continued to be operated without a valid environmental permit until 3 October 2020, but argued that the installations were operated sporadically in order to ensure the safety of the national energy system.

Since Romania failed to take the measures necessary to ensure that S.C. CET Govora nr. 2, S.C. Electrocentrale Deva (Mintia) nr. 2 and S.C. Electrocentrale Deva (Mintia) nr. 3 were operated on the basis of a valid environmental permit, it infringed Article 4(1) of Directive 2010/75.

As regards the argument relating to the sporadic operation of the installations in order to ensure the safety of the national energy system, Directive 2010/75 does not contain such a possibility for a general exemption from the obligation to hold an environmental permit laid down in Article 4(1) of that directive. In addition, in accordance with the case-law of the Court, Member States are responsible for an infringement of obligations under EU law regardless of the State body in question responsible and they may not rely on provisions, practices or circumstances existing in the domestic legal order in order to justify the failure to comply with obligations provided for by [EU] directives. In that regard, Romania cannot rely on purely internal situations such as the operators’ insolvency or disputes relating to the suspension of the installations’ activities in order justify the failure to fulfil obligations under the directive.

---

(1)  Directive 2010/75/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 November 2010 on industrial emissions (integrated pollution prevention and control) (OJ 2010 L 334, p. 17).

---
<PAGE>
                                                                    EXHIBIT 99.1

                                 PUBLICARD, INC.
                            AND SUBSIDIARY COMPANIES

               LETTER TO COMMISSION PURSUANT TO TEMPORARY NOTE 3T

March 20, 2002

Securities and Exchange Commission
450 Fifth Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20549-0408

Ladies and Gentlemen:

Pursuant to Temporary Note 3T to Article 3 of Regulation S-X, PubliCARD, Inc.
has obtained a letter of representation from Arthur Andersen LLP ("Andersen")
stating that the December 31, 2001 audit was subject to their 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, that there was appropriate continuity of Andersen personnel working
on the audit and availability of national office consultation. Availability of
personnel at foreign affiliates of Andersen is not relevant to this audit.


Sincerely,

/s/ Antonio L. DeLise
Antonio L. DeLise
President, Chief Operating Officer &
         Chief Financial Officer
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<CIK> 0000818257
<NAME> JOHN HANCOCK REALTY INCOME FUND-II LIMITED PARTNERSHIP
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1998
<CASH>                                       3,688,664
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  110,066
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             3,798,730
<PP&E>                                      19,258,208
<DEPRECIATION>                               4,704,489
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              26,202,632
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          471,393
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                  25,610,270
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                26,202,632
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             2,354,939
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  617,915
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               518,326
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              1,218,698
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          1,218,698
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 1,218,698
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.46
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.46
        

</TABLE>
#### BROZMAN, C. v. WCAB (COMMONWEALTH)

1697 CD 2016

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania.

10/05/2017

Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board, A16-0120

Affirmed
I 

116TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 938 

To amend the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, with respect to eligibility for approval of a subsequent generic drug, to remove the barrier 

to that approval posed by the 180-day exclusivity period afforded to 

a first generic applicant that has not yet received final approval, and 

for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JANUARY 31, 2019 

Mr. SCHRADER (for himself and Mr. CARTER of Georgia) introduced the 

following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce 

A BILL 

To amend the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, with 

respect to eligibility for approval of a subsequent generic 

drug, to remove the barrier to that approval posed by 

the 180-day exclusivity period afforded to a first generic 

applicant that has not yet received final approval, 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 ‘‘Bringing Low-cost Op5 tions and Competition while Keeping Incentives for New 

6 Generics Act of 2019’’ or the ‘‘BLOCKING Act of 2019’’. 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42 with BILLS
2 

•HR 938 IH

1 SEC. 2. CHANGE CONDITIONS OF FIRST GENERIC EXCLU2 SIVITY TO SPUR ACCESS AND COMPETITION. 

3 Section 505(j)(5)(B)(iv) of the Federal Food, Drug, 

4 and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 355(j)(5)(B)(iv)) is amend5 ed— 

6 (1) in subclause (I), by striking ‘‘180 days 

7 after’’ and all that follows through the period at the 

8 end and inserting the following: ‘‘180 days after the 

9 earlier of— 

10 ‘‘(aa) the date of the first com11 mercial marketing of the drug (includ12 ing the commercial marketing of the 

13 listed drug) by any first applicant; or 

14 ‘‘(bb) the applicable date speci15 fied in subclause (III).’’; and 

16 (2) by adding at the end the following new sub17 clause: 

18 ‘‘(III) APPLICABLE DATE.—The appli19 cable date specified in this subclause, with 

20 respect to an application for a drug de21 scribed in subclause (I), is the date on 

22 which each of the following conditions is 

23 first met: 

24 ‘‘(aa) The approval of such an 

25 application could be made effective, 

26 but for the eligibility of a first appliVerDate Sep 11 2014 22:43 Feb 11, 2019 Jkt 089200 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\H938.IH H938

kjohnson on DSK79L0C42 with BILLS
3 

•HR 938 IH

1 cant for 180-day exclusivity under 

2 this clause. 

3 ‘‘(bb) At least 30 months have 

4 passed since the date of submission of 

5 an application for the drug by at least 

6 one first applicant. 

7 ‘‘(cc) Approval of an application 

8 for the drug submitted by at least one 

9 first applicant is not precluded under 

10 clause (iii). 

11 ‘‘(dd) No application for the drug 

12 submitted by any first applicant is ap13 proved at the time the conditions 

14 under items (aa), (bb), and (cc) are 

15 all met, regardless of whether such an 

16 application is subsequently ap17 proved.’’. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42 with BILLS
# C_2022191EN.01002001.xml

| 10.5.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 191/20 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

10.5.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 191/20

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Frankfurt am Main (Germany) lodged on 25 February 2022 — flightright GmbH v Swiss International Air Lines AG

(Case C-131/22)

(2022/C 191/25)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Amtsgericht Frankfurt am Main

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: flightright GmbH

Defendant: Swiss International Air Lines AG

Questions referred

| 1. | Do extraordinary circumstances within the meaning of Article 5(3) of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 (1) exist where meteorological conditions occur which are incompatible with the operation of a flight, irrespective of their specific nature? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Do extraordinary circumstances within the meaning of Article 5(3) of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 (1) exist where meteorological conditions occur which are incompatible with the operation of a flight, irrespective of their specific nature?

| 2. | If the answer to Question 1 is in the negative, can the extraordinary nature of the meteorological conditions be determined by reference to their regional and seasonal frequency at the place and time at which they occur? |
| --- | --- |

2.

If the answer to Question 1 is in the negative, can the extraordinary nature of the meteorological conditions be determined by reference to their regional and seasonal frequency at the place and time at which they occur?

| 3. | Do extraordinary circumstances within the meaning of Article 5(3) of the regulation exist where the impact of an air traffic management decision in relation to a particular aircraft on a particular day gives rise to a long delay, an overnight delay or the cancellation of one or more flights by that aircraft, irrespective of the reason for that decision? |
| --- | --- |

3.

Do extraordinary circumstances within the meaning of Article 5(3) of the regulation exist where the impact of an air traffic management decision in relation to a particular aircraft on a particular day gives rise to a long delay, an overnight delay or the cancellation of one or more flights by that aircraft, irrespective of the reason for that decision?

| 4. | If the answer to Question 3 is in the negative, must the reason for the decision also be extraordinary, such that it need not be expected? |
| --- | --- |

4.

If the answer to Question 3 is in the negative, must the reason for the decision also be extraordinary, such that it need not be expected?

---

(1)  Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 February 2004 establishing common rules on compensation and assistance to passengers in the event of denied boarding and of cancellation or long delay of flights, and repealing Regulation (EEC) No 295/91 (OJ 2004 L 46, p. 1).

---
AAM-11-364-E 

July 11, 2011 

 Exemption No. 10307 

 Regulatory Docket No. FAA-2011-0692 

Mr. Henry Roberson 

Air Carriage, LLC 

P.O. Box 3099 

Chico, CA 95927 

Dear Mr. Roberson: 

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 submission dated June 22, 2011, you petitioned the Federal Aviation Administration 

(FAA) on behalf of Air Carriage, LLC (Air Carriage) for an exemption from part 120 of Title 

14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR), to allow Air Carriage, which is operating under 

separate parts of 14 CFR, 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 Air Carriage. 

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. 

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; 
2 

 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 Air Carriage, LLC an exemption from part 120 to the 

extent necessary to allow Air Carriage, 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 Air Carriage 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 Air Carriage part 135 operation, not under part 91. 

This exemption terminates on July 31, 2013 unless sooner superseded or rescinded. 

Sincerely, 

/s/ 

James R. Fraser, M.D. 

Deputy Federal Air Surgeon 

Enclosure
##### 



EXHIBIT 12.1 ARCHSTONE-SMITH OPERATING TRUST
COMPUTATION OF RATIO OF EARNINGS TO FIXED CHARGES (Dollar amounts in thousands) (Unaudited) Years Ended December 31,2003(1)
    
    2002(1)
    
    2001(1)
    
    2000(1)
    
    1999(1)Earnings from operations
    
    $
    108,262
    
    
    $
    127,619
    
    
    $
    130,070
    
    
    $
    139,295
    
    
    $
    140,920Add:Interest expense
    
    
    186,832
    
    
    
    190,005
    
    
    
    88,081
    
    
    
    107,231
    
    
    
    94,471Earnings as adjusted
    
    $
    295,094
    
    
    $
    317,624
    
    
    $
    218,151
    
    
    $
    246,526
    
    
    $
    235,391Fixed charges:Interest expense
    
    $
    186,832
    
    
    $
    190,005
    
    
    $
    88,081
    
    
    $
    107,231
    
    
    $
    94,471Capitalized interest
    
    
    26,854
    
    
    
    32,377
    
    
    
    31,600
    
    
    
    37,079
    
    
    
    41,099Total fixed charges
    
    $
    213,686
    
    
    $
    222,382
    
    
    $
    119,681
    
    
    $
    144,310
    
    
    $
    135,570Ratio of earnings to fixed charges
    
    
    1.4
    
    
    
    1.4
    
    
    
    1.8
    
    
    
    1.7
    
    
    
    1.7
   (1)
    
    Net earnings from discontinued operations have been reclassified
for all years presented.   90