alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2007095EN.01001401.xml

| 28.4.2007 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 95/14 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

28.4.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 95/14

---

Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 18 January 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Czech Republic

(Case C-203/06) (1)

1

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Directive 93/16/EEC - Doctors - Mutual recognition of diplomas, certificates and other evidence of formal qualifications - Failure to transpose within the prescribed period)

(2007/C 95/23)

Language of the case: Czech

Parties

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: K. Walkerová and H. Støvlbæk, Agents)

Applicant:

Defendant: Czech Republic (represented by: T. Boček, Agent)

Defendant:

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations — Failure to have transposed, within the prescribed period, Council Directive 93/16/EEC of 5 April 1993 to facilitate the free movement of doctors and the mutual recognition of their diplomas, certificates and other evidence of formal qualifications (OJ 1993 L 165, p. 1)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1) | Declares that, by failing to adopt all the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Council Directive 93/16/EEC of 5 April 1993 to facilitate the free movement of doctors and the mutual recognition of their diplomas, certificates and other evidence of formal qualifications, the Czech Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 44 of that directive; |
| --- | --- |

1)

Declares that, by failing to adopt all the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Council Directive 93/16/EEC of 5 April 1993 to facilitate the free movement of doctors and the mutual recognition of their diplomas, certificates and other evidence of formal qualifications, the Czech Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 44 of that directive;

| 2) | Orders the Czech Republic to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2)

Orders the Czech Republic to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 143, 17.6.2006.

1

---
-  Home 
-  Pipeline 
-  Special Permits and State Waivers 

# In This Section

                      -  Pipeline Standards & Rulemaking Overview 
                      -  Pipeline Advisory Committees 
                      -  Recently Published Rulemakings 
                      -  Archived Rulemakings (pre-1995) 
                      -  Special Permits and State Waivers 
                      -  Interpretations 
                      -  Notices and Advisory Bulletins 

## Contact Us

Pipeline Standards and Rulemaking
U.S. Department of Transportation, Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration1200 New Jersey Avenue, SEWashington, DC20590United States

**Phone:**202-366-4595****Fax:**202-366-4566****Business Hours:**9:00am-5:00pm ET, M-F

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

# Special Permits and State Waivers Overview

## Special Permits

A special permit (previously called a waiver) is an order that waives or modifies compliance with a regulatory requirement if the pipeline operator requesting it demonstrates the need and PHMSA determines that granting a special permit would be consistent with pipeline safety. Special permits are authorized by statute in 49 USC § 60118(c) and the application process is set forth in 49 CFR 190.341. PHMSA performs extensive technical analysis on special permit applications and typically conditions a grant of a special permit on the performance of alternative measures that will provide an equal or greater level of safety. PHMSA is committed to public involvement and transparency in special permit proceedings and publishes notice of every special permit application received in the Federal Register for comment.
                      - Special Permits Issued
                      - Special Permits Denied
                      - Special Permits Withdrawn, Expired or Terminated

For background information on general and emergency special permits, please refer to the following documents:.
                      - OPS Special Permit Requirements (§190.341)
                      - Emergency Special Permit Information
                      - Guidelines Related to Special Permits for 192.611 (Change in Class Location)

## State Waivers

A state waiver is similar to a special permit, except that it waives or modifies compliance with a regulation adopted by the state pursuant to its participation in the pipeline safety program under a certification authorized by 49 USC § 60105 or an agreement authorized by 49 USC § 60106. Prior to issuing a state waiver, the state is required to provide PHMSA with a 60 day review period.
                      - Historical State Waivers (1970-Present)
                      - State Waivers Denial
                      - State Waivers Withdrawn, Expired or Terminated

## Federal Register Notices Related to Special Permit Applications
###### Editorial Note on Part 113

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 113 appear at 79 FR 55969, Sept. 18, 2014.

#### § 113.211 [Reserved]
Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation 

75-60 

December 1, 1975 

REFERENCE: 

 [*1] 4041 Termination by Plan Administrator 

OPINION: 

 This is in response to your inquiry of November 19, 1975. Your letter raises the question 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 covered plan proposes to * * * terminate, applies to plans terminated prior to * * * September

2, 1974, the effective date of the Act. 

The provisions of Title IV, in general, became effective on the date of enactment of the Act, September 2, 1974.

Consequently, the termination of a plan prior to * * * September 2, 1974 does not require notice to the Pension Benefit

Guaranty Corporation pursuant to Section 4041 of the Act. The latter section requires notice of a proposed termination

only from covered plans terminating subsequent to September 2, 1974. 

George B. Driesen 

Deputy General Counsel
MF·:MORANDUM

To: I!tah.**Unavoidabk~~:s,kdown)~l~JeFiJe** From: Laurie Ostrand.,.!7':0-"" 

### (:r;.:".{ Date: September9.2010 Rc: Utah August 2, 2006 MidyearCall

As the air staITmember then responsible for issues related to the Utah Unavoidable Breakdown Rule. Iparticipated in Region 8'sAugust 2, 2006 midyeur review call with the Utah Division ofAir Quality (UDAQ). Rick Sprott, then head of UDi\Q. indicated that they were m adead end with industry with respect to changing the ruJi.:· because industry felt !':PA was not bending with respect to the excess emissions policy. Rick indicated that he did not want to continue aprocess that had no hope. Rick

was aware that Colorado W<IS in the process ofrevising its malfunction rule due to the citizens pdition. Rick indicated that he would be 1110re than happy to benefit from the Colorado process. Rick said that he would follow the Colorado process and ifit concluded within the next .:+ months he would lead the effort to adopt anew rule in Utah that might be helpful. Rick also indicated that he recognized that important operators art: in both states. Finally, Rick also indicated that held like to get arule revision done throug.h acooperative process, but ifthat couldn't be done, EPA should do a SIP Call.
**Company Plant**  **Source Source ID**  **Control method Stack ID** 

CertainTeed Athens, GA Oxy fuel A2 ESP A2 CertainTeed Athens, GA Cold top electricA1 Baghouse A1 CertainTeed Athens, GA Forming A11 2-Scrubber/Mist eliminatorsA11 CertainTeed Athens, GA Curing, CoolingA11 Scrubber/Mist Eliminator A11 CertainTeed Athens, GA Forming A12 3 wet walled Cyclones A12 CertainTeed Athens, GA Forming A23 2 wet walled Cyclones A23 CertainTeed Chowchilla, CAOxy fuel C1 DESP/ Caustic Injection High Stack CertainTeed Chowchilla, CACuring/CoolingC11 WESP (both Curing and Cooling go to a WESP) High Stack CertainTeed Chowchilla, CA Forming C11 Scrubber and WESP High Stack CertainTeed Chowchilla, CA Forming C12 Wet Cyclonic Scrubbers/WESP High Stack

CertainTeed Kansas City, KSOxy fuel K1 DESP K1 Stack CertainTeed Kansas City, KSOxy fuel K2 DESP K2 Stack CertainTeed Kansas City, KS Forming, K11 Forming WESP K11 Forming Stack CertainTeed Kansas City, KS Forming, K12 Forming 1S K12 Stack CertainTeed Kansas City, KScuring, cooling K11 Curing and Cooling WESP (both curing and cooling routed to a WESP) K11 Oven Stack (different than forming stack) CertainTeed Kansas City, KS Forming K21 Forming 3 WESPs=> 1 stack K21 Forming Stack CertainTeed Kansas City, KSCuring, cooling K21 Curing and Cooling WESP (both curing and cooling routed to a WESP) K21 Oven Stack (Same as forming stack)CertainTeed Kansas City, KS Forming K22 1S Forming K22 Stack

CertainTeed Mountain Top, PAAir gas M1 ESP CertainTeed Mountain Top, PAAir gas M2 ESP CertainTeed Mountain Top, PA Forming, curing,

cooling M1

CertainTeed Mountain Top, PA Forming, curing,

cooling M2**Stack Height (ft) Stack Diameter (ft)**  **Notes/Questions** 55 19.75 in ICR: A2 Furnace was idled 10/07 30 37.5 in 80 72 Forming Scrubbers and 1 Curing Scrubber all route to single exhaust stack 80 72 Forming Scrubbers and 1 Curing Scrubber all route to single exhaust stack 90 96 in Unbonded -no binder used manufacturing line 90 96 in ICR: A2 Furnace was idled 10/07 150 8 ft Everything routed to High stack. 150 8 ft Everything routed to High stack. 150 8 ft Everything routed to High stack. 150 8 ft Everything routed to High stack. Unbonded -no binder used manufacturing line 31 ft 5.5 ft 150 ft 3 ft 120 8 Unbonded -no binder used manufacturing line 31 ft 5.5 ft

185 8 185 8185 17 Unbonded -no binder used manufacturing line

Closed Closed Closed

Closed
§ 81.62 How is the petition validated? ( a ) The Local Bureau Official must: ( 1 ) Confirm the petition has the required number of signatures;
( 2 ) Indicate any signatures appearing more than once and include only one in the count;
( 3 ) Make recommendations regarding any challenge to the validity of signatures based upon the documentation provided by the challenger; and
( 4 ) Verify the petitioning procedures complied with this Subpart.
( 5 ) Transmit within 45 calendar days of the Official Filing Date the original petition, challenges, and recommendations to the Authorizing Official.
( b ) The Authorizing Official must within 60 calendar days of the Official Filing Date: ( 1 ) Determine whether the petition complies with the requirements of this Subpart;
( 2 ) Inform the spokesperson for the petitioners and the recognized tribal governing body, in writing, whether the petition is valid, the basis for that determination, and a statement that the decision of the Authorizing Official is a final agency action. ( i ) If the petition is determined valid for the purposes of calling a Secretarial election, it will be deemed a “tribal request” for the purposes of this part, and the Authorizing Official will instruct the Local Bureau Official to call and conduct the Secretarial election in accordance with §§ 81.19 through 81.45 of subpart D.
( ii ) If the petition is determined invalid, the Authorizing Official will notify the spokesperson for the petitioners, with a courtesy copy to the tribe's governing body, that the petition was not valid and a Secretarial election will not be called.
No. AP-77,038

IN THE

COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TEXAS

AT AUSTIN, TEXAS

_________________________________________________

US CARNELL PETETAN,JR. AKA CARNELL PETETAN,JR.

APPELLANT

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS

___________________________________________

AN APPEAL OF A CONVICTION IN

CAUSE NO. 2012-2331-C1 

FROM THE 19TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF

MCLENNAN COUNTY, TEXAS

____________________________________________

MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME

TO FILE THE STATE’S BRIEF

____________________________________________

ABELINO "ABEL" REYNA STERLING HARMON

Criminal District Attorney Appellate Division Chief 

McLennan County, Texas State Bar No. 09019700

219 North 6th Street, Suite 200

Waco, Texas 76701

Tel: (254) 757-5084

Fax: (254) 757-5021

Email: 

sterling.harmon@co.mclennan.tx.us 

AP-77,038

COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

AUSTIN, TEXAS

Transmitted 9/28/2015 6:15:46 PM

Accepted 9/30/2015 9:17:20 AM

ABEL ACOSTA

CLERK
TO THE HONORABLE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

The State of Texas, moves for an extension of Ninety Days in which 

to file its Brief, pursuant to Tex. R. App. P. 10.5(b). The State’s request is 

based upon the following reasonable explanation of the need for additional 

time, within the personal knowledge of Sterling Harmon, the attorney 

signing this motion, namely:

The State of Texas moves this court to allow an extension of ninety

days to file its Brief. The State’s Brief is due on September 28, 2015. The 

State requests that the new deadline be December 28, 2015. This is the 

first extension the State has requested.

 Appellant in the case at bar has presented twenty-nine points of 

error in this appeal of his Capital Murder conviction and sentence of death. 

The State’s attorney requires additional time to properly brief the case at 

bar as well as to properly address the other pending matters that require 

his attention. The additional time sought is not sought frivolously or for 

delay, but will be of genuine assistance in preparing the State’s brief.

For the foregoing reasons, the State prays that the Court grant this 

Motion and modify and extend the deadline for filing the State’s brief to 

December 28, 2015 or that this Court grant such additional time as is just 

and proper.

Respectfully Submitted:

ABELINO ‘ABEL’ REYNA
Criminal District Attorney

McLennan County, Texas

 //S// Sterling Harmon 

 STERLING HARMON

 Appellate Division Chief

 219 North 6th Street, Suite 200 

 Waco, Texas 76701

 Tel: (254) 757-5084

 Fax: (254) 757-5021

 Email: 

 sterling.harmon@co.mclennan.tx.us

 State Bar No. 09019700

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I certify that I caused to be served a true and correct copy of this 

motion by electronic service or email on counsel for Appellant, Richard E. 

Wetzel at wetzel_law@1411west.com.

DATE: 9/28/15 //S// STERLING HARMON

STERLING HARMON
PBGC Asset Evaluation 

for the 

Delphi Subsidiary Plans
EXHIBIT
      32.2





CERTIFICATION
      PURSUANT TO


18
      U.S.C.
      SECTION 1350


AS
      ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION
      906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





In
      connection with the report of Wits Basin Precious Minerals Inc. (the “Company”)
      on Form 10-KSB for the quarter ending December 31, 2007, as filed with the
      Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Mark D.
      Dacko, the Chief Financial Officer of the Company, hereby certifies, pursuant
      to
      and for purposes of 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section
      906
      of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of his knowledge:





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





(2)
      The
      information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
      the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.







Dated:
                April 2, 2008
            By:
            /s/
                Mark D. DackoMark
                D. DackoChief
                Financial Officer
```

[Congressional Bills 106th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 1082 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

106th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 1082

   To amend part Q of title I of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe 
     Streets Act of 1968 to provide assistance for unincorporated 
                      neighborhood watch programs.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                              May 19, 1999

Mr. Torricelli introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
               referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
   To amend part Q of title I of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe 
     Streets Act of 1968 to provide assistance for unincorporated 
                      neighborhood watch programs.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. ASSISTANCE FOR UNINCORPORATED NEIGHBORHOOD WATCH PROGRAMS.

    (a) Short Title.--This Act maybe cited as the ``Neighborhood Watch 
Partnership Act of 1999''.
    (b) In General.--Section 1701(d) of title I of the Omnibus Crime 
Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 3796dd(d)) is amended--
            (1) in paragraph (10), by striking ``and'' at the end;
            (2) in paragraph (11), by striking the period at the end 
        and inserting ``; and''; and
            (3) by adding at the end the following:
            ``(12) provide assistance to unincorporated neighborhood 
        watch organizations approved by the appropriate local police or 
        sheriff's department, in an amount equal to not more than $1950 
        per organization, for the purchase of citizen band radios, 
        street signs, magnetic signs, flashlights, and other equipment 
        relating to neighborhood watch patrols.''.
    (c) Authorization of Appropriations.--Section 1001(a)(11) of title 
I of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 
3793(a)(11)) is amended--
            (1) in subparagraph (A), by striking clause (vi) and 
        inserting the following:
            ``(vi) $282,625,000 for fiscal year 2000.''; and
            (2) in subparagraph (B) by inserting after ``(B)'' the 
        following: ``Of amounts made available to carry out part Q in 
        each fiscal year $14,625,000 shall be used to carry out section 
        1701(d)(12).''.
                                 <all>
```
Editorial Note on Part 900
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 900 appear at 67 FR 34602, May 15, 2002.

§ 900.164 What rights do Indian tribes, tribal organizations, and the government have during the appeal process? Both the Indian tribe or tribal organization and the government agency have the same rights during the appeal process. These rights include the right to: ( a ) Be represented by legal counsel;
( b ) Have the parties provide witnesses who have knowledge of the relevant issues, including specific witnesses with that knowledge, who are requested by either party;
( c ) Cross-examine witnesses;
( d ) Introduce oral or documentary evidence, or both;
( e ) Require that oral testimony be under oath;
( f ) Receive a copy of the transcript of the hearing, and copies of all documentary evidence which is introduced at the hearing;
( g ) Compel the presence of witnesses, or the production of documents, or both, by subpoena at hearings or at depositions;
( h ) Take depositions, to request the production of documents, to serve interrogatories on other parties, and to request admissions; and
( i ) Any other procedural rights under the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. 556.
§ 158.704 Official worksite. ( a ) *Definition.* A DHS-CS employee's official worksite is the geographic location where the employee regularly performs DHS-CS cybersecurity work or where the employee's DHS-CS cybersecurity work is based, as determined and documented by the Department under this section.
( b ) *Determination.* The Department determines a DHS-CS employee's official work site for purposes of administering compensation under this part, especially eligibility for any compensation described in §§ 158.612 and 158.643. The Department's determination of a DHS-CS employee's official worksite includes consideration of any of the following for the employee: Telework, variation in location where the employee performs DHS-CS cybersecurity work, and temporary situations affecting the location where the employee performs DHS-CS cybersecurity work.
( c ) *Documentation.* Upon appointment of an individual to a qualified position, the Department documents the individual's official worksite as part of documenting the employee's appointment to a qualified position and the employee's assignment, as described in § 158.706. The Department updates documentation of a DHS-CS employee's official worksite, if the geographic location where the DHS-CS employee regularly performs DHS-CS cybersecurity work changes and such change impacts the determination of the DHS-CS employee's official worksite under paragraph (a) of this section and such change is expected to last, or does last, for six months or more.
§ 102.14 Names of political committees (52 U.S.C. 30102(e)(4) and (5)). ( a ) The name of each authorized committee shall include the name of the candidate who authorized such committee. Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this section, no unauthorized committee shall include the name of any candidate in its name. For purposes of this paragraph, “name” includes any name under which a committee conducts activities, such as solicitations or other communications, including a special project name or other designation.
( b ) ( 1 ) A delegate committee, as defined at 11 CFR 100.5(e)(5), shall include the word *delegate(s)* in its name and may also include in its name the name of the presidential candidate which the delegate committee supports.
( 2 ) A political committee established solely to draft an individual or to encourage him or her to become a candidate may include the name of such individual in the name of the committee provided the committee's name clearly indicates that it is a draft committee.
( 3 ) An unauthorized political committee may include the name of a candidate in the title of a special project name or other communication if the title clearly and unambiguously shows opposition to the named candidate.
( c ) The name of a separate segregated fund established pursuant to 11 CFR 102.1(c) shall include the full name of its connected organization. Such fund may also use a clearly recognized abbreviation or acronym by which the connected organization is commonly known. Both the full name and such abbreviation or acronym shall be included on the fund's Statement of Organization, on all reports filed by the fund, and in all notices required by 11 CFR 109.11 and 110.11. The fund may make contributions using its acronym or abbreviated name. A fund established by a corporation which has a number of subsidiaries need not include the name of each subsidiary in its name. Similarly, a separate segregated fund established by a subsidiary need not include in its name the name of its parent or another subsidiary of its parent.
[45 FR 15104, Mar. 7, 1980, as amended at 45 FR 21209, Apr. 1, 1980; 57 FR 31426, July 15, 1992; 59 FR 17269, Apr. 12, 1994; 59 FR 35785, July 13, 1994; 67 FR 78680, Dec. 26, 2002]