alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
-  Home 
-  107 

# In This Section

-  PHMSA Rules 
-  Hazardous Materials Approvals and Permits 
-  Notices and Advisory Bulletins 
-  Pipeline Special Permits & State Waivers 

# 107.801

## Section §107.801: Purpose and scope

Below are the available interpretations and guidance for the given section. To return to the list of parts, use the Parts link above. If you do not see any guidance or interpretation information below, that means there is none available for the given part/section. Return to the search page to browse additional regulations sections.

PHMSA has published several Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) documents on regulatory topics. Please review our FAQ documents below:

https://www.phmsa.dot.gov/about-phmsa/phmsa-faqs.

Additionally PHMSA has Hazardous Materials FAQs based on letters of interpretation on the following topics:
                              - Applicability of the Hazardous Materials Regulations
                              - Hazardous Materials Incident Reporting
                              - Hazardous Materials Training Requirements

This section of the website provides the ability to find regulations information including regulations parts, content of sections, and interpretations for regulations sections. Below is a list of parts, identified by the part number and subject. To browse sections by part, click on the subject link below. You will be taken to the eCFR website to view sections for a part.

A written regulatory interpretation, response to a question, or an opinion concerning a pipeline safety issue may be obtained by submitting a written request to the Office of Pipeline Safety (PHP–30), PHMSA, U.S. Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590–0001 or at the email address: pipeline_interp_submittal@dot.gov. In addition to email address, the requestor must include his or her return address and should also include a daytime telephone number. Requests should be submitted at least 120 days before the time the requestor needs a response.

Note: electronic submission is provided as alternative to the 49 CFR Part 190.11(b) mail-in requirement.

The regulations text of the section can be found on the eCFR website. To view the regulations text, use the link below. For assistance, please send an email to PHMSA.Webmaster@dot.gov.

View section 107.801 on the ECFR website

## Interpretation Responses
### Consolidation of Corporations
§ 166.413 To whom are grazing rental payments made? ( a ) A permit must specify whether grazing rental payments will be made directly to the Indian landowners or to us on behalf of the Indian landowners. If the permit provides for payment to be made directly to the Indian landowners, the permit must also require that the permittee retain specific documentation evidencing proof of payment, such as canceled checks, cash receipt vouchers, or copies of money orders or cashier's checks, consistent with the provisions of §§ 166.1000 and 166.1001 of this part.
( b ) Grazing rental payments made directly to the Indian landowners must be made to the parties specified in the permit, unless the permittee receives a notice of a change of ownership. Unless otherwise provided in the permit, grazing rental payments may not be made payable directly to anyone other than the Indian landowners.
( c ) A permit which provides for grazing rental payments to be made directly to the Indian landowners must also provide for such payments to be suspended and rent thereafter paid to us, rather than directly than to the Indian landowners, if: ( 1 ) An Indian landowner dies;
( 2 ) An Indian landowner requests that payment be made to us;
( 3 ) An Indian landowner is found by us to be in need of assistance in managing his/her financial affairs; or
( 4 ) We determine, in our discretion and after consultation with the Indian landowner(s), that direct payment should be discontinued.
(38 South. 903.)

No. 15,601.

#### In re INTERDICTION OF LAMBERT.

(June 19, 1905.)

Appeal — Dismissal.

The sole matter involved being as to whether the court should homologate the proceedings of a family meeting held for the purpose of recommending some person for appointment as curator, and the death of the interdict having put an end to the controversy, this appeal is dismissed.

(Syllabus by the Court.)

Appeal from Civil District Court, Parish of Orleans; Fred D. King, Judge.

In the matter of the interdiction of Louise Helene Lambert. From the judgment, the undercurator appeals.

Dismissed.

Charles Joseph Théard, Omer Villeré, and John G. Robin, for appellant undercurator. John Alonzo Woodville, for appellee provisional curator.

PROVOSTY, J.

The sole matter involved being as to whether the court should homologate the proceedings of a family meeting held for the purpose of recommending some person for appointment as curator, and the death of the interdict having put an end to the controversy, this appeal is dismissed.

Appeal dismissed.
§ 158.804 Appraisal reviews. ( a ) Under 5 U.S.C. Chapter 43 and 5 CFR part 430, the Department establishes an appraisal program to review and evaluate the performance of DHS-CS employees to ensure DHS-CS employees' individual accountability.
( b ) The appraisal program for DHS-CS employees includes one or more progress reviews, as defined in 5 CFR 430.203, and an appraisal of an employee's performance that results in a rating of record, as defined in 5 CFR 430.203.
( c ) The Department addresses unacceptable performance, as defined in 5 U.S.C. 4301(3), under the provisions of 5 CFR part 432 or part 752. The CTMB may assist with any decision, or action, or both, made under the authority in this section and 5 CFR part 430 and 5 CFR part 432 or 752.
( d ) If the Department determines a DHS-CS employee's performance is unacceptable or the employee receives an unacceptable rating of record, the employee is ineligible to receive recognition under §§ 158.630 through 158.634 and the employee may be excluded from mission impact reviews under § 158.805.
# C_2006331EN.01004502.xml

| 30.12.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 331/45 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.12.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 331/45

---

Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Third Chamber) of 13 December 2006 — Neophytou v Commission

(Case F-22/05) (1)

1

(Officials - Open competition - Selection Board - Composition - Equal treatment - Conditions for admission)

(2006/C 331/101)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Neophytos Neophytou (Itzig, Luxembourg) (represented by: S.A. Pappas, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: J. Currall and H. Kraemer, Agents)

Defendant:

Re:

Annulment of the decision of the selection board EPSO/A/1/03 for the constitution of a reserve list of deputy administrators (A8) of Cypriot nationality not to include the applicant on the reserve list drawn up following that competition

Operative part of the judgment

The Tribunal:

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

1.

Dismisses the action.

| 2. | Orders the parties to bear their own costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the parties to bear their own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 155, 25.6.2005 (case initially registered before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities under number T-165/05 and transferred to the European Civil Service Tribunal by order of 15.12.2005).

1

---
# C_2014023EN.01000601.xml

| 25.1.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 23/6 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.1.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 23/6

---

Authorisation for State aid pursuant to Articles 107 and 108 of the TFEU

Cases where the Commission raises no objections

(Text with EEA relevance)

2014/C 23/05

| Date of adoption of the decision | 14.11.2013 |
| --- | --- |
| Reference number of State Aid | SA.37525 (13/N) |
| Member State | Estonia |
| Region | — | — |
| Title (and/or name of the beneficiary) | Eesti 2007.–2013. aasta regionaalabi kaardi kehtivuse pikendamine kuni 30. juunini 2014 |
| Legal basis | Valitsuse otsus Eesti 2007.–2013. aasta regionaalabi kaardi kehtivuse pikendamise kohta (eelnõu) |
| Type of measure | Scheme | — |
| Objective | Regional development |
| Form of aid | Soft loan, Guarantee, Direct grant |
| Budget | — |
| Intensity | — |
| Duration (period) | 1.1.2014-30.6.2014 |
| Economic sectors | All economic sectors eligible to receive aid |
| Name and address of the granting authority | Eesti Valitsus |
| Stenbocki maja |
| Rahukohtu 3 |
| 15161 Tallinn |
| EESTI/ESTONIA |

Date of adoption of the decision

14.11.2013

Reference number of State Aid

SA.37525 (13/N)

Member State

Estonia

Region

—

—

Title (and/or name of the beneficiary)

Eesti 2007.–2013. aasta regionaalabi kaardi kehtivuse pikendamine kuni 30. juunini 2014

Legal basis

Valitsuse otsus Eesti 2007.–2013. aasta regionaalabi kaardi kehtivuse pikendamise kohta (eelnõu)

Type of measure

Scheme

—

Objective

Regional development

Form of aid

Soft loan, Guarantee, Direct grant

Budget

—

Intensity

—

Duration (period)

1.1.2014-30.6.2014

Economic sectors

All economic sectors eligible to receive aid

Name and address of the granting authority

Eesti Valitsus

Stenbocki maja

Rahukohtu 3

15161 Tallinn

EESTI/ESTONIA

Other information

—

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

http://ec.europa.eu/competition/elojade/isef/index.cfm

---
EXHIBIT 32.2


Section 1350


Certification of the Chief Financial Officer


Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes- Oxley Act of 2002








Paul A. Romano, Chief Financial Officer and Vice President of Atlas Financial Holdings Inc. (the "Company"), certifies in his capacity as an officer of the Company that he has reviewed the Annual Report of the Company on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2011 (the “Report”) and that to the best of his knowledge:





1.   the  Report  fully  complies  with  the  requirements  of  Sections  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: March 26, 2012





/s/ Paul A. Romano Paul A. Romano


Chief Financial Officer and Vice


President





The purpose of this statement is solely to comply with Title 18, Chapter 63, Section 1350 of the


United States Code, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002
**Exhibit 31.1**

 

CERTIFICATION

 

I, James Whang, certify that:

 

1.	         I have reviewed this reporton Form 10-K and all reports on Form 10-D required to be filed in respect of the period covered by this report on Form10-K of Fixed Income Trust for Prudential Financial, Inc. Notes, Series 2012-1 (the “Exchange Act periodic reports”);

 

2.	         Based on my knowledge, theExchange Act periodic reports, taken as a whole, do not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a materialfact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleadingwith respect to the period covered by this report;

 

3.	         Based on my knowledge, allof the distribution, servicing and other information required to be provided under Form 10-D for the period covered by this reportis included in the Exchange Act periodic reports;

 

4.	         Based on my knowledge and theservicer compliance statement required in this report under Item 1123 of Regulation AB, and except as disclosed in the ExchangeAct periodic reports, the servicer has fulfilled its obligations under the servicing agreement in all material respects; and

 

5.	         All of the reports on assessmentof compliance with servicing criteria for asset-backed securities and their related attestation reports on assessment of compliancewith servicing criteria for asset-backed securities required to be included in this report in accordance with Item 1122 ofRegulation AB and Exchange Act Rules 13a-18 and 15d-18 have been included as an exhibit to this report, except as otherwise disclosedin this report. Any material instances of noncompliance described in such reports have been disclosed in this report on Form 10-K.

 

In giving the certifications above, I have reasonably reliedon information provided to me by the following unaffiliated party: The Bank Of New York Mellon, as Trustee.

 

Date: March 13, 2015

 

/s/ James Whang
#### Allen L. Marechale et al., appellees, v. George T. Burr,, appellant, Impleaded with Betty Crowson Jones Hasbrouck et al., appellees.

237 N. W. 2d 860

Filed January 29, 1976.

No. 40066.

George T. Burr, pro se.

E. Dean Hascall, for appellees Marechale et al.

Heard before White, C. J., Boslaugh, Clinton, and Brodkey, JJ., and Moran, District Judge.

Moran, District Judge.

This is a suit to quiet title. What was purportedly plaintiffs’ motion for judgment on the pleadings was treated as a motion for summary judgment. ' The trial court sustained the motion and quieted title to the real estate against the claims of the defendant, George T. Burr. Burr appealed. We affirm the judgment of the District Court.

Burr, an attorney, had performed legal services for Joseph M. Jones and had not been paid. While Jones owned the real estate in question, Burr filed two instruments in the office of the register of deeds against *307the real estate. One was a notice of lis pendens which recited the filing of his attorney’s lien in another action then pending in the District Court for Sarpy County. The other instrument was entitled “Notice of an Attorney’s Lien,” and in it Burr claimed, among other things, a lien on the real estate and the proceeds of any gain from its conveyance. Jones thereafter conveyed the real estate to the plaintiffs who then brought this action.

Burr makes four claims on appeal. First, he has an attorney’s lien on the real estate by agreement; second, plaintiffs do not come into court with clean hands; third, that there was a material issue of fact on his claim that the conveyance to the plaintiffs was made to defraud him of his attorney’s fees; and fourth, that the trial court erred in not sustaining his motion to bring in Jones as an additional party.

Apart from section 7-108, R. R. S. 1943, an attorney’s lien, like any other, can be created by agreement. If, however, it is to be upon real estate and effective against subsequent purchasers, it must meet the requirements of section 76-211, R. R. S. 1943. Burr’s claim is on oral agreement, and it is not good.

Burr informed the parties of the instruments filed before the conveyance. He perceives a lack of clean hands in the conveyance of the real estate despite his claimed lien. The answer is that those concerned were not required to recognize his so-called lien as valid and were entitled to ignore him when the real estate was conveyed.

There is no evidence to support the claim that the conveyance was fraudulent, and Jones had conveyed his entire interest in the real estate. He was not a proper party to the action.

The judgment of the District Court is affirmed.

Affirmed.
<PAGE>

                                                                    Exhibit 31.2

Certifications

I, Scott Schwartzman, Principal Financial Officer of ServiceWare Technologies,
Inc., certify that:

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of ServiceWare
Technologies, Inc.;

2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a
material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements
made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not
misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the
financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as
of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

4. The registrant's other certifying officer and I are responsible for
establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in
Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:

a. Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure
controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that
material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated
subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly
during the period in which this report is being prepared;

b. Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls and
procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness
of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered
by this report based on such evaluation; and

c. Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant's internal control over
financial reporting that occurred during the registrant's most recent fiscal
quarter (the registrant's fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report)
that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the
registrant's internal control over financial reporting; and

5. The registrant's other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our
most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the
registrant's auditors and the audit committee of the registrant's board of
directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):

a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or
operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably
likely to adversely affect the registrant's ability to record, process,
summarize and report financial information; and

b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other
employees who have a significant role in the registrant's internal control over
financial reporting.

Date: November 8, 2004                      /s/ Scott Schwartzman
                                            -------------------------------
                                            Title: Principal Financial Officer

                                       28
<PAGE>
                                                                      EXHIBIT 23

                       CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS

    We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration
Statement on Form S-3 (File Nos. 33-95792, 33-99858, 333-18235 and 333-49359),
Form S-8/S-3 (File Nos. 333-05087 and 333-34687) and Form S-8 (File
No. 333-05141 and 333-62887) of CenterPoint Properties Trust of our report dated
February 11, 2000, relating to the financial statements, which is incorporated
in this Annual Report on Form 10-K. We also consent to the incorporation by
reference of our report dated February 11, 2000 relating to the financial
statement schedules which appears in this Form 10-K.

                                          PRICEWATERHOUSECOOPERS LLP

Chicago, Illinois
March 20, 2000

                                      F-38
§ 1001.7 Administrative appeals. ( a ) You may appeal an adverse determination related to your FOIA request, or the Board's failure to respond to your FOIA request within the prescribed time limits, to the Chief FOIA Officer, Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board. Requestors should check the Board's Web site at *https://www.pclob.gov* for the Board's current mailing address.
( b ) Your appeal must be in writing, sent to the address posted on the Board's Web site in accordance with paragraph (a) of this section, and it must be postmarked, or in the case of electronic submissions, transmitted, within 90 calendar days after the date of the letter denying your request, in whole or in part. The appeal should clearly identify the agency determination that is being appealed and the assigned case request number. In case of the Board's failure to respond within the statutory time frame, you may submit an administrative appeal at any time until an agency response has been provided. For the most expeditious handling, your appeal letter and envelope, or subject line of the electronic transmission, should be marked “Freedom of Information Act appeal.”
( c ) Your appeal letter should state facts and may cite legal or other authorities in support of your request.
( d ) On receipt of any appeal involving classified information, the Chief FOIA Officer must take appropriate action to ensure compliance with applicable classification rules.
( e ) The Chief FOIA Officer shall respond to all administrative appeals in writing and within the time frame stated in § 1001.8(d). If the decision affirms, in whole or in part, the FOIA Officer's determination, the letter shall contain a statement of the reasons for the affirmance, including any FOIA exemption(s) applied, and will inform you of the FOIA's provisions for court review. If the Chief FOIA Officer reverses or modifies the FOIA Officer's determination, in whole or in part, you will be notified in writing and your request will be reprocessed in accordance with that decision. The Board may work with Office of Government Information Services (OGIS) to resolve disputes between FOIA requestors and the Board. A requester may also contact OGIS in the following ways: Via mail to OGIS, National Archives and Records Administration, 8601 Adelphi Road—OGIS, College Park, MD 20740 (*ogis.archives.gov*), via email at *ogis@nara.gov ,* or via the telephone at 202-741-5770 or 877-684-6448. Facsimile is also available at 202-741-5769.
[82 FR 34836, July 27, 2017]
# C_2007069EN.01001401.xml

| 24.3.2007 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 69/14 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

24.3.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 69/14

---

Action brought on 8 February 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Ireland

(Case C-65/07)

(2007/C 69/32)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: B. Stromsky and D. Lawunmi, Agents)

Applicant:

Defendant: Ireland

Defendant:

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | declare that by failing to adopt the laws, regulations or administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2004/24/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 amending, as regards traditional herbal medicinal products, Directive 2001/83/EC on the Community code relating to medicinal products for human use (1) or, in any event, by failing to notify such provisions to the Commission, Ireland has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 2 of that Directive. |
| --- | --- |

—

declare that by failing to adopt the laws, regulations or administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2004/24/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 amending, as regards traditional herbal medicinal products, Directive 2001/83/EC on the Community code relating to medicinal products for human use (1) or, in any event, by failing to notify such provisions to the Commission, Ireland has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 2 of that Directive.

1

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

—

order Ireland to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The period within which the directive had to be transposed expired on 30 October 2005.

---

(1)  OJ L 136, p. 85.

1

---