alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2006181EN.01001301.xml

| 3.8.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 181/13 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.8.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 181/13

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case COMP/M.4141 — Linde/BOC)

(2006/C 181/05)

(Text with EEA relevance)

On 6 June 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(2) 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 32006M4141. 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 32006M4141. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law. (http://ec.europa.eu/eur-lex/lex)

---
# C_2006294EN.01003806.xml

| 2.12.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 294/38 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

2.12.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 294/38

---

Order of the President of the Court of 8 August 2006 — Commission of the European Communities v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg

(Case C-236/06) (1)

1

(2006/C 294/81)

Language of the case: French

Language of the case: French

The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

---

(1)  OJ C 165, 15.07.2006.

1

---
### §8894. Stay of proceedings for taking evidence before suit is filed

(a) If in time of war, with respect to any claim against the United States on which a suit described in section 8891 of this title would lie, the Secretary of the Navy certifies to the court, or to a judge of the court, in which proceedings are pending for—

(1) the granting of a dedimus potestatem to take depositions;

(2) a direction to take depositions in perpetuam rei memoriam; or

(3) the taking of depositions or production of evidence pursuant to such dedimus potestatem or direction, or pursuant to any other proceedings for the purpose;

that the proceedings would tend to endanger the security of the United States or any of its naval or military operations in the war, or would tend to interfere with those operations, then the proceedings may not be started or, if they have been started, they shall, when the certificate is filed, be stayed.

(b) The time during which a claimant may file suit of the type described in section 8891 of this title is computed by excluding the time during which a stay under this section or any extension of such a stay is in effect.

(Aug. 10, 1956, ch. 1041, 70A Stat. 484, §7724; renumbered §8894 and amended Pub. L. 115–232, div. A, title VIII, §§807(d)(10), 809(a), Aug. 13, 2018, 132 Stat. 1837, 1840.)

| Revised section | Source (U.S. Code) | Source (Statutes at Large) |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 7724 | 46 U.S.C. 792 (less applicability to duration of stay). | July 3, 1944, ch. 399, §2 (less applicability to duration of stay), 58 Stat. 724. |
| | 46 U.S.C. 796. | July 3, 1944, ch. 399, §6, 58 Stat. 726. |

In subsection (b) the words "upon a claim against the United States" and "as to any proceedings by or on behalf of such claimant for the taking of a deposition or the production of evidence in connection with or in relation to such claim" are omitted as surplusage.

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Amendments

2018—Pub. L. 115–232 renumbered section 7724 of this title as this section and substituted "section 8891" for "section 7721" in introductory provisions of subsec. (a) and in subsec. (b).

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

#### Effective Date of 2018 Amendment

Amendment by Pub. L. 115–232 effective Feb. 1, 2019, with provision for the coordination of amendments and special rule for certain redesignations, see section 800 of Pub. L. 115–232, set out as a note preceding section 3001 of this title.
§ 81.34 How are the official ballots prepared? ( a ) The Secretarial Election Board must prepare the official ballot so that it is easy for the voters to indicate a choice between no more than two alternatives (*i.e.,* adopting or rejecting the proposed language). Separate ballots should be prepared for each proposed amendment or a single ballot for adoption of a proposed document (with a reference to the document provided in the Secretarial election notice).
( b ) The following information must appear on the face of the mailout or absentee ballot: OFFICIAL BALLOT (Facsimile Signature) CHAIR, SECRETARIAL ELECTION BOARD
( c ) When polling places are required by the tribe's governing document, the official ballot may be a paper ballot, voting machine ballot, or other type of ballot supporting the secret ballot process.
#### PITTMAN v. N.C. DEPT. OF TRANSPORTATION

No. 191P90

Case below: 97 N.C.App. 658

Petition by defendant for writ of certiorari to the North Carolina Court of Appeals denied 13 June 1990.
###### Editorial Note on Part 900

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 900 appear at 67 FR 34602, May 15, 2002.

#### § 900.241 Who may retrocede a contract, in whole or in part?

An Indian tribe or tribal organization authorized by an Indian tribe may retrocede a contract.
# C_2006331EN.01003001.xml

| 30.12.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 331/30 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.12.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 331/30

---

Judgment of the Court of First Instance (Fifth Chamber) of 5 December 2006 — Westfalen Gassen Nederland v Commission

(Case T-303/02) (1)

1

(Competition - Cartels - Dutch market for industrial and medical gases - Price fixing - Proof of participation in the cartel - Proof of distancing - Principles of non-discrimination and proportionality - Calculation of fines)

(2006/C 331/66)

Language of the case: Dutch

Parties

Applicant: Westfalen Gassen Nederland BV (Deventer, Netherlands) (represented by: M. Essers and M. Custers, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: A. Bouquet, Agent)

Defendant:

Re:

Application for partial annulment of Commission Decision 2003/207/EC of 24 July 2002 relating to a proceeding pursuant to Article 81 of the EC Treaty (case COMP/E 3/36.700 — Industrial and medical gases) (OJ 2003 L 84, p. 1) and, alternatively, reduction of the fine imposed on the applicant.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Westfalen Gassen Nederland BV to bear its own costs and to pay three quarters of those incurred by the Commission and orders the Commission to bear one quarter of its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Westfalen Gassen Nederland BV to bear its own costs and to pay three quarters of those incurred by the Commission and orders the Commission to bear one quarter of its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 305, 17.12.2002.

1

---
# C_2007095EN.01005703.xml

| 28.4.2007 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 95/57 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

28.4.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 95/57

---

Action brought on 26 February 2007 — O'Connor v Commission

(Case F-12/07)

(2007/C 95/115)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Elizabeth O'Connor (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: S. Orlandi, A. Coolen, J.-N. Louis and E. Marchal, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities

Defendant:

Form of order sought

| — | annul the Commission's decision to set at 11 months and 25 days the maximum period for the award of an unemployment allowance to the applicant; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the Commission's decision to set at 11 months and 25 days the maximum period for the award of an unemployment allowance to the applicant;

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

—

order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The applicant, a former member of the Commission's temporary staff, worked for the latter continuously from 16 January 2001 to 31 December 2005 under six different fixed-term contracts concluded in the following order: a first contract as a member of the temporary staff, a first contract as a member of the auxiliary staff, a second contract as a member of the temporary staff, a second contract as a member of the auxiliary staff, a third contract as a member of the temporary staff and, finally, a contract as a member of the contract staff.

The administration granted her entitlement to the unemployment allowance for a maximum period of 11 months and 25 days, in so far as it held that the periods covered by the auxiliary staff contracts should be treated as periods spent in the service of an employer other than the Community institutions.

In support of her action, the applicant submits, first, that the Commission committed an abuse of rights by retaining her in its service more than five years under a variety of fixed-term contracts and under different sets of staff regulations. Secondly, she submits that the Commission misapplied Article 28a(4) and Article 96(4) of the Conditions of Employment of Other Servants, in so far as the period during which the applicant worked as a member of the auxiliary staff was not taken into account for the purposes of their provisions.

---
#### § 75.14 Appeals.

Any person whose application for enrollment has been rejected by the Enrollment Committee shall have the right to appeal to the Tribal Council from the determination made by the Enrollment Committee: *Provided,* That such appeal shall be made in writing and shall be filed in the office of the Principal Chief for presentation to the Tribal Council within sixty (60) days from the date on which the Enrollment Committee issues notice to the applicant of his rejection. The applicant may submit with his appeal any additional data to support his claim to enrollment not previously furnished. The decision of the Tribal Council as to whether the applicant meets the requirements for enrollment set forth in this part shall be final. The Tribal Council shall review no applications for enrollment except in those cases where the rejected applicant appeals to the Council in writing from the determination made by the Enrollment Committee.

[38 FR 9999, Apr. 23, 1973. Redesignated at 47 FR 13327, Mar. 30, 1982]
-  Home 
-  Hazmat 
-  Rulemaking 

# In This Section

                      -  Hazardous Materials Standards & Rulemaking Overview 
                      -  International Program Overview 
                      -  PHMSA's Online CFR (oCFR) 
                      -  Rulemakings                          -  Overview 
                        -  Recently Published Rulemakings 
                        -  Archived Hazardous Materials Rulemakings (pre-1995) 
                      -  Petitions for Rulemaking 
                      -  Interpretations 
                      -  Regulations 
                      -  Preemption Determinations                          -  Overview 
                        -  Inconsistency Rulings 
                      -  Notices and Advisory Bulletins 
                      -  Lithium Battery Air Safety Advisory Committee 
                      -  Hazardous Materials Information Center 

## Contact Us

Lithium Battery Air Safety Advisory CommitteeU.S. Department of Transportation, Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration
1200 New Jersey Avenue, SEWashington, DC20590United States

**Email:**lithiumbatteryFACA@dot.gov**Phone:**202-366-4488**

If you are deaf, hard of hearing, or have a speech disability, please dial 7-1-1 to access telecommunications relay services.

# Lithium Battery Air Safety Advisory Committee September 2020 Meeting Agenda

MEETING AGENDA - Sept 2020 Lithium Battery Air Safety Advisory Committee.pdf (189.63 KB)

*DOT is committed to ensuring that information is available in appropriate alternative formats to meet the requirements of persons who have a disability. If you require an alternative version of files provided on this page, please contact          PHMSA-Accessibility@dot.gov.*
```

[Congressional Bills 106th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 626 Engrossed in House (EH)]

                 In the House of Representatives, U.S.,

                                                      October 12, 2000.
    Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it shall be in order to 
consider the conference report to accompany the bill (H.R. 4392) to authorize 
appropriations for fiscal year 2001 for intelligence and intelligence-related 
activities of the United States Government, the Community Management Account, 
and the Central Intelligence Agency Retirement and Disability System, and for 
other purposes. All points of order against the conference report and against 
its consideration are waived. The conference report shall be considered as read.
            Attest:

                                                                          Clerk.
```
Federal Depository Library ProgramPersistent URL Home Page      

# Target for /GPO/LPS80046 lost

The target resource for this PURL can no longer be traced. The following is a list of the targets this PURL was previously assigned to.

Powered by the Federal Depository Library Program.                A service of the U.S. Government Publishing Office.
§ 81.39 How does the Board determine whether the required percentage of registered voters have cast ballots? The Secretarial Election Board must count the number of valid ballots and cast spoiled ballots to determine total voter participation. The Board must take the total voter participation and divide it by the total number of Registered Voters. This total is used to determine whether the percentage of Registered Voters who cast votes meets the requirements of the tribe's governing documents or Federal statute that requires at least 30 percent voter participation. For example: ( a ) If there were 200 registered voters of which 75 cast valid ballots and 5 cast spoiled ballots for a total of 80 cast ballots (75 + 5 = 80). The percentage of voter participation would be determined as follows: Total number of votes cast (80) divided by the total number registered voters (200) or 80 ÷ 200 = 0.40 or 40 percent voter participation.
( b ) This example meets the Federal statutory requirement of at least 30 percent voter participation.
§ 163.26 Forest product harvesting permits. ( a ) Except as provided in §§ 163.13 and 163.27 of this part, removal of forest products that are not under formal contract, pursuant to § 163.19, shall be under forest product harvesting permit forms approved by the Secretary. Permits will be issued only with the written consent of the beneficial Indian owner(s) or the Secretary, for harvest of forest products from Indian forest land, as authorized in § 163.20 of this part. To be valid, permits must be approved by the Secretary. Minimum stumpage rates at which forest products may be sold will be set at the time consent to issue the permit is obtained. Payment and bonding requirements will be stipulated in the permit document as appropriate.
( b ) Free use harvesting permits issued shall specify species and types of forest products to be removed. It may be stipulated that forest products removed under this authority cannot be sold or exchanged for other goods or services. The estimated value which may be harvested in a fiscal year by any individual under this authority shall not exceed $5,000. For the purpose of issuance of free use permits, individual shall mean an individual Indian or any organized group of Indians.
( c ) Paid permits subject to forest management deductions, as provided in § 163.25 of this part, may be issued. Unless otherwise authorized by the Secretary, the stumpage value which may be harvested under paid permits in a fiscal year by any individual under this authority shall not exceed $25,000. For the purpose of issuance of paid permits, individual shall mean an individual or any operating entity comprised of more than one individual.
( d ) A Special Allotment Timber Harvest Permit may be issued to an Indian having sole beneficial interest in an allotment to harvest and sell designated forest products from his or her allotment. The special permit shall include provision for payment by the Indian of forest management deductions pursuant to § 163.25 of this part. Unless waived by the Secretary, the permit shall also require the Indian to make a bond deposit with the Secretary as required by § 163.21. Such bonds will be returned to the Indian upon satisfactory completion of the permit or will be used by the Secretary in his or her discretion for planting or other work to offset damage to the land or the timber caused by failure to comply with the provisions of the permit. As a condition to granting a special permit under authority of this paragraph, the Indian shall be required to provide evidence acceptable to the Secretary that he or she has arranged a bona fide sale of the forest products, on terms that will protect the Indian's interests.
#### The People of the State of Illinois, Plaintiff-Appellee, *v.*Ricardo Norals, Defendant-Appellant.

(No. 60003;

First District (1st Division)

December 2, 1974.

James J. Doherty, Public Defender, of Chicago (Robert P. Isaacson, Assistant Public Defender, and Frederick F. Cohn, of counsel), for appellant.

Remard Carey, State’s Attorney, of Chicago (Patrick T. Driscoll, Jr., and Michael J. PoleUe, Assistant State’s Attorneys, of counsel), for the People.

PER CURIAM.
### §214d. Prohibition on conversion

A national banking association may not convert to a State bank or State savings association during any period in which the national banking association is subject to a cease and desist order (or other formal enforcement order) issued by, or a memorandum of understanding entered into with, the Comptroller of the Currency with respect to a significant supervisory matter.

(Aug. 17, 1950, ch. 729, §10, as added Pub. L. 111–203, title VI, §612(a), July 21, 2010, 124 Stat. 1612.)

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

#### Effective Date

Section effective 1 day after July 21, 2010, except as otherwise provided, see section 4 of Pub. L. 111–203, set out as a note under section 5301 of this title.
```

[Congressional Bills 106th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 278 Engrossed in House (EH)]

                 In the House of Representatives, U.S.,

                                                       October 3, 2000.
Whereas an estimated 175,000 women and 1,300 men will be diagnosed with breast 
        cancer in 1999, and an estimated 43,300 women and 400 men will die of 
        the disease;
Whereas breast cancer is the most common form of cancer among women, excluding 
        skin cancers;
Whereas breast cancer is the second leading cause of cancer death among all 
        women and the leading cause of cancer death among women between ages 40 
        and 55;
Whereas breast cancer can often be treated most successfully if detected early 
        on;
Whereas education, regular clinical and self-examinations, regular mammograms, 
        and biopsies (when appropriate) are critical to detecting and treating 
        breast cancer in a timely manner;
Whereas the American Cancer Society recommends that all women aged 40 and over 
        have annual screening mammograms and clinical breast examinations by 
        health professionals, that women aged 20 to 39 have clinical 
        examinations every 3 years, and that all women aged 20 and over perform 
        a breast self-examination every month; and
Whereas the House of Representatives as an institution and Members of Congress 
        as individuals are in unique positions to help raise public awareness 
        about the detection and treatment of breast cancer and to support the 
        fight against breast cancer: Now, therefore, be it
    Resolved, That it is the sense of the House of Representatives that--
            (1) all Americans, and above all women, should take an active role 
        in the fight against breast cancer by using all the means available to 
        them, including regular clinical and self-examinations, regular 
        mammograms, and biopsies (when appropriate);
            (2) the role played by national and community organizations and 
        health care providers in promoting awareness of the importance of 
        regular clinical and self-examinations, regular mammograms, and biopsies 
        (when appropriate), and in providing information, support, and access to 
        services, should be recognized and applauded; and
            (3) the Federal Government has a responsibility to--
                    (A) endeavor to raise awareness about the importance of the 
                early detection of, and proper treatment for, breast cancer;
                    (B) continue to fund research so that the causes of, and 
                improved treatment for, breast cancer may be discovered; and
                    (C) continue to consider ways to improve access to, and the 
                quality of, health care services for detecting and treating 
                breast cancer.
            Attest:

                                                                          Clerk.
```
# C_2006326EN.01007601.xml

| 30.12.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 326/76 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.12.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 326/76

---

Action brought on 27 November 2006 — Enercon GmbH v OHIM

(Case T-329/06)

(2006/C 326/155)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Enercon GmbH (Aurich, Germany) (represented by R. Böhm, lawyer)

Applicant:

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

Defendant:

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 8 September 2006 (Case R 0394/2006-1); |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 8 September 2006 (Case R 0394/2006-1);

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

—

order the defendant to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Community trade mark concerned: The word mark ‘E’ for goods in Classes 7, 9 and 19 (application No 3 817 566)

Community trade mark concerned:

Decision of the Examiner: Refusal of the application

Decision of the Examiner:

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissal of the appeal

Decision of the Board of Appeal:

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 40/94 (1) as it was held that the mark for which registration was sought lacked distinctive character and that its availability had to be preserved.

Pleas in law:

1

---

(1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the Community trade mark (OJ 1994 L 11, p. 1).

1

---