alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation 

75-91 

July 15, 1975 

REFERENCE: 

 [*1] 4041 Termination by Plan Administrator

4043(b)(2) Reportable Events. Amendment Decreasing Benefits 

OPINION: 

 This is in response to your July 3, 1975 letter to the Office of the General Counsel, Pension Benefit Guaranty

Corporation ("PBGC") in which you inquired if a reduction in pension benefits is considered a plan termination. 

Under Title IV of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 ("ERISA"), which establishes the PBGC,

the "reduction" that you describe in your letter does not constitute a termination. However, it does appear to constitute

a "reportable event" under ERISA, § 4043(b). As such, the plan administrator of your pension plan should notify the

PBGC of the adoption of the proposed change within 30 days from the date of the adoption. (ERISA, § 4043(a)). 

I hope this information has been helpful to you. 

Henry Rose 

General Counsel
# C_2006294EN.01002702.xml

| 2.12.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 294/27 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

2.12.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 294/27

---

Action brought on 19 September 2006 — Commission of the European Communities v Republic of Finland

(Case C-387/06)

(2006/C 294/46)

Language of the case: Finnish

Parties

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by M. Huttunen and M. Shotter, acting as Agents)

Applicant:

Defendant: Republic of Finland

Defendant:

Form of order sought

| — | declare that, by restricting in Paragraph 43 of the Viestintämarkkinalaki (Communications Market Law) the powers of the national regulatory authority to regulate the termination of calls from a fixed network to a mobile network, the Republic of Finland has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 8(1), (2)(b) and 3(c) of Directive 2002/21/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 March 2002 on a common regulatory framework for electronic communications networks and services (1) and under Article 8(1) and (4) of Directive 2002/19/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 March 2002 on access to, and interconnection of, electronic communications networks and associated facilities (2); |
| --- | --- |

—

declare that, by restricting in Paragraph 43 of the Viestintämarkkinalaki (Communications Market Law) the powers of the national regulatory authority to regulate the termination of calls from a fixed network to a mobile network, the Republic of Finland has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 8(1), (2)(b) and 3(c) of Directive 2002/21/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 March 2002 on a common regulatory framework for electronic communications networks and services (1) and under Article 8(1) and (4) of Directive 2002/19/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 March 2002 on access to, and interconnection of, electronic communications networks and associated facilities (2);

1

2

| — | order the Republic of Finland to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Republic of Finland to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The period prescribed for implementation of the directive expired on 24 July 2003.

---

(1)  OJ 2002 L 108, p. 33.

1

(2)  OJ 2002 L 108, p. 7.

2

---
[Exhibit 99.4]

                      CERTIFICATION

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Link Plus Corporation,
(the "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ending December 31,
2002 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the
date hereof (the "Report"), I, Donald L. Kolasch, President,
certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant
to Section 906 of the Sarbanes Oxley Act, that:

(1) 	The Report fully complies with Section 13(a) or 15(d) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

(3) 	The Information contained in the Report fairly represents,
in all material aspects, the financial condition and result of
operations on the Company.



By: /s/ Donald L. Kolasch,
President
---------------------------------

May 14, 2003
Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation 

75-15 

January 24, 1975 

REFERENCE: 

 [*1] 4021(a) Plans Covered. Requirements of Coverage

4041(a) Termination by Plan Administrator. Filing of Notice of Intent to Terminate 

OPINION: 

 This letter is in response to your inquiry of January 3, 1975. In your letter you asked whether Section 4041 of the

Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (hereinafter the "Act") which requires notification to this Corporation

in the event a plan proposes to terminate, applies to plans excluded under Section 4021(b) of the Act. 

Section 4041(a) makes no reference to plans specifically covered under Section 4021. In addition, Section 4021

does not state that plans covered under that section are subject to Section 4041 of the Act. Read liternally, Section 4041

grants this Corporation the authority to require termination notices from plans whether or not they are covered under

Section 4021. The Corporation, however, does not read the statute literally. In its view only plans covered under Section

4021 must comply with the notice of termination procedure in Section 4041. 

In the situation mentioned in your letter, where a plan clearly falls within Section 4021(b)(1) and is therefore not

a plan covered under Section 4021(a), the plan would [*2] not be subject to the notice of termination requirement of

Section 4041 of the Act. 

I hope this answers your question. 

Steven E. Schanes 

Acting Executive Director
> 

**U.S.    GEOLOGICAL SURVEY    Techniques and Methods 2-A2**
Sampling Protocol for Monitoring Abiotic and Biotic Characteristics of Mountain Ponds and Lakes
**By Robert L. Hoffman, Torrey J. Tyler, Gary L. Larson, Michael J. Adams, Wendy Wente, and Stephanie Galvan**
```

[Congressional Bills 106th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 618 Agreed to House (ATH)]

106th CONGRESS
  2d Session
H. RES. 618

Expressing the condolences of the House of Representatives on the death 
  of the Honorable Bruce F. Vento, a Representative from the State of 
                               Minnesota.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            October 10, 2000

 Mr. Oberstar submitted the following resolution; which was considered 
                             and agreed to

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
Expressing the condolences of the House of Representatives on the death 
  of the Honorable Bruce F. Vento, a Representative from the State of 
                               Minnesota.

    Resolved, That the House has heard with profound sorrow of the 
death of the Honorable Bruce F. Vento, a Representative from the State 
of Minnesota.
    Resolved, That a committee of such Members of the House as the 
Speaker may designate, together with such Members of the Senate as may 
be joined, be appointed to attend the funeral.
    Resolved, That the Sergeant at Arms of the House be authorized and 
directed to take such steps as may be necessary for carrying out the 
provisions of these resolutions and that the necessary expenses in 
connection therewith be paid out of applicable accounts of the House.
    Resolved, That the Clerk communicate these resolutions to the 
Senate and transmit a copy thereof to the family of the deceased.
    Resolved, That when the House adjourns today, it adjourn as a 
further mark of respect to the memory of the deceased.
                                 <all>
```
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

59–491 u WASHINGTON : 1999

A COHESIVE STRATEGY IS NEEDED TO ADDRESS

CATASTROPHIC WILDFIRE THREATS

HEARING

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON FORESTS AND FOREST HEALTH

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED SIXTH CONGRESS

FIRST SESSION

JUNE 29, 1999, WASHINGTON, DC

Serial No. 106–42

Printed for the use of the Committee on Resources

(

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.access.gpo.gov/congress/house

or

Committee address: http://www.house.gov/resources
**EXHIBIT 99.2**

** **

**WRITTEN STATEMENT OF THE CHIEF FINANCIALOFFICER**

** **

**PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C****'1350**

 

Solely for the purposes of complying with 18 U.S.C.'1350, I, the undersigned Chief Financial Officer of The RiceX Company (the“Company”), hereby certify, based on my knowledge, that the Quarterly Report onForm 10-QSB of the Company for the quarter ended March 31, 2003 (the “Report”)fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information contained in theReport fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition andresults of operations of the Company.

 
| Dated:  May 15, 2003 | /s/ Todd C. Crow |   |
|---------------------------|------------------|--------|
|                      | Todd C. Crow     |

 

 

A signed original of this written statement requiredby Section 906 has been provided to The RiceX Company, and will be retained byThe RiceX Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission orits staff upon request.

 

This certification “accompanies” the Quarterly Reporton Form 10-QSB to which it relates, is not deemed filed with the SecuritiesExchange Commission, and is not to be incorporated by reference into any filingof the company under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934, as amended (whether made before or after the date of theQuarterly Report on Form 10-QSB, irrespective of any general incorporationlanguage contained in such filing).

 

1

----
### §§1750aa to 1750jj. Omitted

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section 1750aa, act Aug. 2, 1954, ch. 649, title VI, §601, 68 Stat. 637, contained a declaration of policy for voluntary home mortgage credit.

Section 1750bb, acts Aug. 2, 1954, ch. 649, title VI, §602, 68 Stat. 637; Sept. 2, 1958, Pub. L. 85–857, §13(s)(1), 72 Stat. 1266, defined "Insured or guaranteed mortgage loan", "Private financing institutions", "Administrator", and "State".

Section 1750cc, acts Aug. 2, 1954, ch. 649, title VI, §603, 68 Stat. 637; Aug. 11, 1955, ch. 783, title I, §109(a)(3), 69 Stat. 640, provided for establishment and composition of National Voluntary Mortgage Credit Extension Committee.

Section 1750dd, act Aug. 2, 1954, ch. 649, title VI, §604, 68 Stat. 638, provided for establishment, composition, and organization of regional subcommittees of National Voluntary Mortgage Credit Extension Committee.

Section 1750ee, act Aug. 2, 1954, ch. 649, title VI, §605, 68 Stat. 638, set forth general functions of National Committee and regional subcommittees.

Section 1750ff, act Aug. 2, 1954, ch. 649, title VI, §606, 68 Stat. 638, authorized National Committee to study and review demand and supply of funds for residential mortgage loans, to receive reports from and correlate the activities of regional subcommittees to report periodically to Commissioner of Federal Housing Administration and Administrator of Veterans' Affairs, to maintain liaison with State and local government housing officials, and to submit reports to Congress.

Section 1750gg, acts Aug. 2, 1954, ch. 649, title VI, §607, 68 Stat. 639; Sept. 2, 1958, Pub. L. 85–857, §13(s)(1), 72 Stat. 1266, set forth the functions, powers, and duties of regional subcommittees.

Section 1750hh, act Aug. 2, 1954, ch. 649, title VI, §608, 68 Stat. 640, authorized Administrator, after consultation with National Committee, to issue general rules and procedures for implementation of this subchapter and functioning of regional subcommittees.

Section 1750ii, act Aug. 2, 1954, ch. 649, title VI, §609, 68 Stat. 640, exempted laws promulgated pursuant to this subchapter from prohibitions of antitrust laws or Federal Trade Commission Act of United States, provided for status of members of National Committee or any of regional subcommittees, and provided for an office, staff assistance and expenses of members.

Section 1750jj, acts Aug. 2, 1954, ch. 649, title VI, §610, 68 Stat. 640; June 29, 1957, Pub. L. 85–66, 71 Stat. 209; July 12, 1957, Pub. L. 85–104, title VI, §602, 71 Stat. 304; July 31, 1959, Pub. L. 86–119, 73 Stat. 266; Sept. 23, 1959, Pub. L. 86–372, title VIII, §806, 73 Stat. 687; June 30, 1961, Pub. L. 87–70, title IX, §903, 75 Stat. 191, provided that, unless Congress authorized for an earlier termination, this subchapter and all authority conferred hereunder was to terminate at close of Oct. 1, 1965.
#### The People of the State of New York ex rel. John H. Bloodgood and Henry W. Hayden, as Executors and Trustees under the Last Will and Testament of Elizabeth Bloodgood, Deceased, Appellants, v. Lawson Purdy and Others, as Commissioners of Taxes and Assessments of the City of New York, Respondents.

Order affirmed,' with costs and disbursements. Ho opinion.
#### William K. Voorhees Grain Company, Respondent, v. Thomas Lloyd, Appellant.

Judgment of the Municipal Court affirmed, with costs. No opinion. Woodward, Jenks, Hooker, Gaynor and Miller, JJ., concurred.
# C_2006212EN.01002902.xml

| 2.9.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 212/29 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

2.9.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 212/29

---

Order of the Court of First Instance of 16 June 2006 — Volkswagen v OHIM (CLIMATIC)

(Case T-306/03) (1)

1

(Community trade mark - Partial refusal of registration - Withdrawal of the application for registration - No need to adjudicate)

(2006/C 212/52)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Volkswagen AG (Wolfsburg, Germany) (represented by: S. Risthaus, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: B. Müller and G. Schneider, Agents)

Defendant:

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Second Board of Appeal of OHIM of 7 July 2003 (Case R 1012/2001-2) regarding an application for registration of a figurative mark containing the word sign CLIMATIC as a Community trade mark

Operative part of the judgment

| 1. | There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the action. |
| --- | --- |

1.

There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the action.

| 2. | The applicant is ordered to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The applicant is ordered to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 289 of 29.11.2003

1

---
# CA2007021EN.01000101.xml

| 30.1.2007 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CA 21/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.1.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CA 21/1

---

NOTICE TO READERS

Image

---
### §1251. Repealed. Pub. L. 86–230, §24, Sept. 8, 1959, 73 Stat. 466

Section, act Mar. 4, 1923, ch. 252, title II, §210, 42 Stat. 1469, related to right to file application for stock and discretion of Comptroller of Currency.
Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation 

81-22 

July 29, 1981 

REFERENCE: 

4063 Liability of Substantial Employer for Withdrawal 

OPINION: 

 This is in reference to your letter regarding the division of assets of the Employees' Retirement Plan of the * * * (the

"Plan"). You ask whether Section 4063 of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 ("ERISA") applied

to that transaction and whether the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation ("PBGC" ) will require the posting of a bond

or the placing of funds in an escrow account pursuant to that section. 

As we understand the facts, the Plan was a tax-qualified defined benefit pension plan maintained by three unrelated

contributing employers. You indicated that the assets constituting the Plan trust fund were split between those assets

attributable to benefits earned for service rendered to the * * * ("College"), one of the Plan sponsors, and those assets

attributable to benefits earned for services rendered to the * * * ("Center") and the * * * ("Foundation"), the other two

Plan sponsors. After the division of Plan assets, there were two retirement plans in existence. The terms of the plan

sponsored by the College are identical to those of the plan sponsored by the Center and the Foundation. Both plans [*2]

are identical in substance to the Plan. 

You indicated also that on July 1, 1979, the date of the asset division, Plan assets were sufficient to pay all vested

accrued Plan benefits. It is apparent from the actuarial reports you submitted to us that as of July 1, 1980, the assets held

by each of the resulting plans were sufficient to satisfy all vested accrued benefits attributable to the respective plans.

You stated that the Plan administrator has sought and received a favorable ruling from the Internal Revenue Service

regarding the division of Plan assets. Finally, you informed us that plan participants in each of the resulting plans will

be entitled to receive a benefit after the division that is equal to or greater than the benefit to which the participants were

entitled before the division of assets. It is thus apparent from these circumstances that the interests of Plan participants

are not in jeopardy. 

Since, as you have represented, on the date of the asset division, Plan assets were sufficient to pay all vested accrued

benefits and the assets of the resulting Plans continue to be sufficient to satisfy all vested accrued benefits, the purposes

underlying ERISA Section [*3] 4063 - the protection of the Plan and its participants - have been assured. Therefore,

responding to your inquiry, no escrow account or bond is required. 

We trust that this answers your inquiry. 

Henry Rose 

General Counsel
### §1715g. Insurance of mortgage where mortgagor is not occupant of property

The Secretary is hereby authorized to insure any mortgage otherwise eligible for insurance under any of the provisions of this chapter without regard to any requirement with respect to the occupancy of the mortgagor of the property at the time of insurance, where the Secretary is satisfied that the inability of the mortgagor to meet such requirement is by reason of his entry on active duty in a uniformed service subsequent to the filing of an application for insurance and the mortgagor expresses an intent to meet such requirement upon his release from active duty.

(June 27, 1934, ch. 847, title II, §216, as added Sept. 1, 1951, ch. 378, title VI, §607, 65 Stat. 315; amended Pub. L. 90–19, §1(a)(3), May 25, 1967, 81 Stat. 17; Pub. L. 91–621, §7(a), Dec. 31, 1970, 84 Stat. 1865; Pub. L. 100–242, title IV, §406(b)(8), Feb. 5, 1988, 101 Stat. 1901.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### References in Text

This chapter, referred to in text, was in the original "this Act", meaning act June 27, 1934, ch. 847, 48 Stat. 1246, which is classified principally to this chapter (§1701 et seq.). For complete classification of this Act to the Code, see Tables.

#### Amendments

1988—Pub. L. 100–242 substituted "with respect to the occupancy of the mortgagor" for "that the mortgagor be the occupant" and "meet such requirement" for "occupy the property" wherever appearing.

1970—Pub. L. 91–621 substituted "on active duty in a uniformed service" and "release from active duty" for "into military service" and "discharge from military service".

1967—Pub. L. 90–19 substituted "Secretary" for "Commissioner" wherever appearing.

#### **Statutory Notes and Related Subsidiaries**

#### Effective Date of 1988 Amendment

Amendment by Pub. L. 100–242 applicable only with respect to mortgages insured pursuant to conditional commitment issued on or after Feb. 5, 1988, or in accordance with direct endorsement program (24 CFR 200.163), if approved underwriter of mortgagee signs appraisal report for property on or after Feb. 5, 1988, see section 406(d) of Pub. L. 100–242, set out as a note under section 1709 of this title.
ELLEN MIHAICH, PH.D
, DABT ENVIRONMENTAL AND REGULATORY RESOURCES 

# Endocrine Policy Forum Comments on Guideline Changes

# Prescriptive Guidelines

 

### No stakeholder review prior to publication

 

### Many guidelines are overly prescriptive

 More like a protocol than a guideline



###  

### Test orders require strict adherence to guideline

 Consultation with Agency if need to deviate



###  

### Protocol deviations common

# Consultation with EPA

 

### Technical guidance meeting in 2010

 Flexibility on software, lab equipment

 Corrections to equations, concentrations, etc.



###  

### “Corrections and Clarifications”

 Posted to EPA website



###  

### Guidelines have not been formally updated

## Standard Evaluation Procedures/ Study Profile Templates

 

### Many examples of inconsistencies between documents

 Uterotrophic SEP for both estrogen agonist and antagonist but only agonist is supported in guideline

 Inconsistent testosterone proprionate dose across TG/SET/DER for Hershberger



###  

### Clarity important

 Contract research organizations/laboratories

 Agency contractors and reviewers

## Charge Questions on Performance Criteria, Etc.

 

### Performance criteria should be re

- evaluated

 32 performance criteria in male pubertal and all 15 studies evaluated had at least 2 out of acceptable range

 In the AMA, in 7 of the 18 screens, analytical concentration performance criteria were out of range



###  

### A ll List 1 study data should be evaluated

 2008 SAP recommended evaluation of 50

- 100

 At most 21 were analyzed

 From a battery perspective, consistency across the pathways should be confirmed

# Conclusion

 

### EPA should take the opportunity to amend the guidelines and other related documents before issuing new test orders (List 2)

 Fix errors

 Make consistent

 Guideline instead of protocol

 Address Panel and stakeholder recommendations



###  

### EPA should insure adequate stakeholder review of Tier 2 guidelines prior to finalizing and before requiring testing
[No. 7917.]

#### ARNOLD, AS MAYOR, V. CHAMBERLIN.

*Error to Denver District Court.*Hon. Greeley W. Whitford, Judge.

*Dismissed.*

Mr. W. H. Bryant, Mr. J. A. Marsh, and Mr. W. R. Kennedy, for plaintiff in error.

Mr. Henry A. Lindsley, and Mr. Walter E. Schwed, for defendant in error.
# C_2006248EN.01002502.xml

| 14.10.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 248/25 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.10.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 248/25

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case COMP/M.4339 — SCOR/Revios)

(2006/C 248/15)

(Text with EEA relevance)

On 6 September 2006, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the common market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004. The full text of the decision is available only in English and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

| — | from the Europa competition website (http://ec.europa.eu/comm/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes, |
| --- | --- |

—

from the Europa competition website (http://ec.europa.eu/comm/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website under document number 32006M4339. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law. (http://ec.europa.eu/eur-lex/lex) |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website under document number 32006M4339. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law. (http://ec.europa.eu/eur-lex/lex)

---