alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# Official Journal C 418/2017

| | ISSN 1977-091X |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | C 418 |
| | |
| English edition | Information and Notices | Volume 607 December 2017 |

ISSN 1977-091X

Official Journal

of the European Union

C 418

English edition

Information and Notices

Volume 607 December 2017

---

| Notice No | Contents | page |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | II   Information |
| | INFORMATION FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES |
| | European Commission |
| 2017/C 418/01 | Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.8618 — OMV/Verbund/Smatrics/E-Mobility Provider) (
  1
  ) | 1 |

Notice No

Contents

page

II   Information

INFORMATION FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES

European Commission

2017/C 418/01

Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.8618 — OMV/Verbund/Smatrics/E-Mobility Provider) (
  1
  )

1

1

---

| | IV   Notices |
| --- | --- |
| | NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES |
| | Council |
| 2017/C 418/02 | Council conclusions on smart youth work | 2 |
| | European Commission |
| 2017/C 418/03 | Euro exchange rates | 6 |
| | Court of Auditors |
| 2017/C 418/04 | Special Report No 19/2017 — ‘Import procedures: shortcomings in the legal framework and an ineffective implementation impact the financial interests of the EU’ | 7 |

IV   Notices

NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES

Council

2017/C 418/02

Council conclusions on smart youth work

2

European Commission

2017/C 418/03

Euro exchange rates

6

Court of Auditors

2017/C 418/04

Special Report No 19/2017 — ‘Import procedures: shortcomings in the legal framework and an ineffective implementation impact the financial interests of the EU’

7

---

| | V   Announcements |
| --- | --- |
| | ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES |
| | European Personnel Selection Office (EPSO) |
| 2017/C 418/05 | Notice of open competitions | 8 |

V   Announcements

ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES

European Personnel Selection Office (EPSO)

2017/C 418/05

Notice of open competitions

8

---

| | |
| --- | --- |
| | (1)   Text with EEA relevance. |

---

(1)   Text with EEA relevance.

1

| EN | |
| --- | --- |

EN
### SCOTT A. THOMPSON Executive Director

February 25, 2016 OKLAHOMA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY 

## OKLAHOMA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY

Mr. Jeffrey Robinson, Chief, Air Permits Section U.S. Environmental Protection Agency- Region VI (6MM) 1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 1200 Dallas, TX 75202-2733 Re: Oklahoma's Pre- and Post-construction Monitoring ofPM2.5 for the PSD Program DearMr. Robinson: 

### MARY FALLIN Governor

On February 6, 2012, Oklahoma's Secretary of Environment submitted a SIP revision to the Acting Regional Administrator ofU.S. EPA Region VI. Part ofthis submittal was an amendment to Subchapter 8 of the Oklahoma Administrative Code (OAC) 252:100, which incorporated the federal Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) implementation rule [75 FR 64864, October 20, 2010] for the 2006 

### PM25 NAAQS. On January 22, 2013, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia vacated the significant monitoring concentration (SMC) provision and vacated and remanded the significant impact levels (SILs) provisions ofEPA's PSD rule. In response to the court's decision, the EPA revised 40 CFR § 51.166(i)(5)(i)(c) to change the SMC for PM2.5 from 4 f!g/m3

, 24-hour average to 0 f!g/m3• [78 FR 73698, December 9, 2013] The EPA reasoned that removal of PM2.5 would have allowed the reviewing authority to grant an exemption from the air quality analysis requirements, including pre- and post-construction monitoring, under 40 § CFR 51.166(i)(5)(iii). OAC 252:100-8-33(c)(l)(C) is part ofthe aforementioned SIP submittal, and does not incorporate EPA's most recent revision to change the SMC for PM2.5to 0 f!g/m3• Should OAC 252:I00-8- 33(c)(l)(C) be disapproved, DEQ offers the following explanation as to how the Department, absent this language, would retain the authority to require pre- and post-construction PSD monitoring for 

### PM 25 under the submitted SIP. OAC 252: !00-8-35.l(b)(3) authorizes the Directorto request information regarding the air quality impact ofthe source or modification. This request can include the monitoring data required by OAC 252:I00-8- 35(c) [analogous to 40 CFR 51.166(m)] which the source may otherwise be exempt from providing. This provision should satisfY the air quality analysis component ofthe PSD permitting programrequirements. If you have questions, please contact Cheryl E. Bradley, Air Quality Division, Department of Environmental Quality at ( 405)702-4157.

p.**~** m**-~** :::JR:: -v**~I** [T**~** 

# !!!;: I**~-** 

### co <::J-' I {J) Sincerely, / '

# ~ Eddie Terrill Director, Air Quality Division 

# ""' 

# " {J) ::J;: 

### ,..,., 

# ""' r::? 

## rn :::! 0 CJ 

# t::' cc: Adina Wiley 707 NORTH ROBINSON, P.O. BOX 1677, OKLAHOMA Cll'l, OKLAHOMA 731 01·1677 :!!::: 00 printed on recycled paper with soy ink 

## 0
# Fleet Management Training

GSA Fleet offers multiple training options.
                        - GSA Fleet Leasing customers should visit the training page in  GSA Fleet Drive-thru  to learn more about their options. 
                        - Purchasing customers should visit the  Important Information and Notices  page for additional purchasing resources including instructions on how to purchase.
                        - The  Federal Fleet Manager Certification Program  is available for all level of federal fleet managers. 
                        - FedFleet  is an annual training event available for federal fleet managers.

Print PageEmail Page

Top

-  Training for federal employees-  Overview 
-  Client Enrichment Series 
-  Contracts and acquisition training 
-  GSA Portal FACA Training Registration 
-  Technology training 
-  Fleet Management Training 
-  Acquisition Training for the Real World
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY QUICKLOOK CRITERIA PARAMETERS Nov. 17, 2010 Report Request ID: 808998 Report Code: AMP450

Selection Criteria Page 1 User ID:AGR

State County City

Site Parameter POC AQCR UAR CBSA CSA EPA Region Method Duration Begin Date End Date 08 069 0012 GEOGRAPHIC SELECTIONS

PROTOCOL SELECTIONS Parameter Classification Parameter Method Duration 44201 SELECTED OPTIONS
EVENTS PROCESSING MERGE PDF FILES WORKFILE DELIMITER Option Type Option Value EXCLUDE REGIONALLY CONCURRED EVENTS

YES
, SORT ORDER
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Order Column

PARAMETER_CODE STATE_CODE COUNTY_CODE SITE_ID POC DATES EDT_ID GLOBAL DATES 2009 Start Date End Date 2010 Tribal

APPLICABLE STANDARDS Standard Description Ozone 1-hour Daily 2005 Ozone 8-Hour 2008Nov. 17, 2010

Note: The * indicates that the mean does not satisfy summary criteria. UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY AIR QUALITY SYSTEM QUICK LOOK REPORT (AMP450)



### Page 1of5 EXCEPTIONAL DATA TYPES EDT DESCRIPTION 0 1 2 5 NO EVENTS EVENTS EXCLUDED EVENTS INCLUDED EVENTS WITH CONCURRENCE EXCLUDEDNov. 17, 2010

Note: The * indicates that the mean does not satisfy summary criteria. UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY AIR QUALITY SYSTEM QUICK LOOK REPORT (AMP450)



### Page2of5 Ozone (44201) Colorado Parts per million (007)

SITE ID P

O C PQAO CITY COUNTY ADDRESS YEAR METH VALID DAYS MEAS 1ST

MAX 1-HR CERTEDT 08-069-0012 08-069-0012 1

1 0240 0240 Not in a city Not in a city Larimer Larimer 11835 Rist Canyon Road 11835 Rist Canyon Road 2009

2010 087 087 140 213 .092

.088 .087

.085 0 5 2ND MAX 1-HR 1-HOUR NUM DAYS REQ 214 214 .085 .084 3RD MAX 1-HR .077

.084 4TH MAX 1-HR DAY MAX>/= 0.125 0 0 EST DAYS>/= .125 0.0 0.0 MISS DAYS< 0.125 0 1Nov. 17, 2010

Note: The * indicates that the mean does not satisfy summary criteria. UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY AIR QUALITY SYSTEM QUICK LOOK REPORT (AMP450)



### Page3of5 Ozone (44201) Colorado Parts per million (007)

SITE ID P

O C PQAO CITY COUNTY ADDRESS YEAR METH VALID DAYS MEAS 4TH MAX 8-HR CERTEDT 08-069-0012 08-069-0012 1

1 0240 0240 Not in a city Not in a city Larimer

Larimer 11835 Rist Canyon Road 11835 Rist Canyon Road 2009

2010 087 087 .071 .074 .069

.072 0 5 8-HOUR NUM DAYS REQ 214 214 .069 .071 .069

.071 DAY MAX > 0.075 0 0 138 212 %OBS 64 99 1ST MAX 8-HR 2ND

MAX 8-HR 3RD

MAX 8-HRNov. 17, 2010

Note: The * indicates that the mean does not satisfy summary criteria. UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY AIR QUALITY SYSTEM QUICK LOOK REPORT (AMP450)



### Page 4of5 44201 087 INSTRUMENTAL ULTRA VIOLET ABSORPTION PARAMETER METHOD

CODE COLLECTION METHOD ANALYSIS METHOD METHODS USED IN THIS REPORTNov. 17, 2010

Note: The * indicates that the mean does not satisfy summary criteria. UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY AIR QUALITY SYSTEM QUICK LOOK REPORT (AMP450)



### Page5of5 PQAOS USED IN THIS REPORT
PQAO AGENCY DESCRIPTION 0240 Colorado Department of Public Health And Environment
#### FINANCIAL FIRE AND CASUALTY COMPANY, a Florida corporation, Appellant, v. UNITED BONDING INSURANCE COMPANY, an Indiana corporation, and Robert Kohlhorst, Appellees.

No. 69-659.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

June 24, 1970.

Appeal from Court of Record, Broward County; Robert W. Tyson, Jr., Judge.

Appeal dismissed.
#### INTERIOR CONTRACTORS, INC. and United Bonding Ins. Co. v. WESTERN WATERPROOFING CO., Inc.

No. 45735.

Supreme Court of Mississippi.

April 6, 1970.

Rehearing Denied April 27, 1970.

Tennyson & Britt, Jackson, for appellants.

K. Hayes Callicutt, Satterfield, Shell, Williams & Buford, Jackson, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
# Customer Supply Center Order

                - Title:  Customer Supply Center Order 
                - Form #:         GSA3542      
                - Current Revision Date:  03/1999
                - Authority or Regulation:  

PDF versions of forms use Adobe      ReaderTM.      Download Adobe ReaderTM

Search for another form

Print PageEmail Page

Top
Order filed June 23, 2016

In The

Eleventh Court of Appeals 

__________

No. 11-16-00167-CV

__________

JOE PAYNE, Appellant

V.

TRACI KIM COURSEY, Appellee

On Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 2

Midland County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 17623

O R D E R

Joe Payne filed a notice of appeal from an order in which the trial court granted 

Traci Kim Coursey’s motion for no-evidence summary judgment and entered a takenothing judgment against Payne on all causes of action asserted by him. After this 

appeal was filed, Coursey filed a motion to dismiss this appeal for lack of jurisdiction

and informed this court that the order from which Payne appealed was not final 

because Coursey has a pending counterclaim for damages against Payne. Coursey 

attached a file-stamped copy of the counterclaim to her motion. We note that the 
2

order from which Payne appeals does not contain any language indicating that it is 

a final, appealable order. The order, therefore, did not dispose of the claim for 

affirmative relief asserted by Coursey against Payne and, thus, does not appear to be 

a final, appealable order. Because we do not believe the order is a final, appealable 

order, we abate the appeal. 

Unless specifically authorized by statute, appeals may be taken only from 

final judgments. Tex. A & M Univ. Sys. v. Koseoglu, 233 S.W.3d 835, 840–41 (Tex. 

2007); Lehmann v. Har–Con Corp., 39 S.W.3d 191, 195 (Tex. 2001). We determine 

whether a judgment is a final, appealable judgment based on the language in the 

judgment and the record of the case. Lehmann, 39 S.W.3d at 195. A judgment is 

final and appealable if it disposes of all parties and all claims in the case. Id. The

order from which Payne attempts to appeal does not dispose of the various claims

for affirmative relief asserted by Coursey against Payne, nor does the order contain 

any language indicating that it is final and appealable. Therefore, it is not a final,

appealable order. See id. at 205–06. 

Consequently, we abate the appeal pursuant to TEX. R. APP. P. 27.2 to permit 

the trial court to enter a final order or judgment. If a final, appealable order or

judgment has not been entered by August 22, 2016, this court may dismiss this

appeal. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3. If a final judgment is entered by that date, the 

parties are ordered to notify this court immediately. 

The appeal is abated.

PER CURIAM

June 23, 2016

Panel consists of: Wright, C.J.,

Willson, J., and Bailey, J.
# Appointment Affidavit

                - Title:  Appointment Affidavit 
                - Form #:         SF61      
                - Current Revision Date:  08/2002
                - Authority or Regulation:  The Guide to Processing Personnel Actions

PDF versions of forms use Adobe      ReaderTM.      Download Adobe ReaderTM

Search for another form

Print PageEmail Page

Top
# ELECTRICITY GLOSSARY › FAQS › OVERVIEW DATA ANALYSIS & PROJECTIONS Home > Electricity> Restructuring Status 

## Status of Electricity Restructuring by State Data as of: September 2010 Next Release Date: None

• The map below shows information on the electric in dustry restructuring. Click on a State for details. • Restructuring means that a monopoly system of elec tric utilities has been replaced with competing sel lers.

d Source: Energy Information Administration 

# Page 1 of 1 Electricity Restructuring by State

8/ 1/ 2015 http://www.eia.gov/electricity/policies/restructuring/restructure_e lect.html
Exhibit 99.3



CERTIFICATIONS PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF
THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



I, Anthony P. Walsh, certify that:



I have reviewed this annual report on Form 40-F Amendment No. 1 of Miramar Mining Corporation;



1.

Based on my knowledge, this annual 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 annual report;



2.

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



3.

The issuers other certifying officer(s) 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 issuer 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 issuer, 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 issuer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 issuers internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the period covered by the annual report that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the issuers internal control over financial reporting; and



5.

The issuers other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the issuers auditors and the audit committee of the issuer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 issuer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 issuers internal control over financial reporting.



|                        |  |     |  |                                                             
|----------------------- |  | --- |  | ------------------------------------------------------------
|Date: September 8, 2005 |  | By: |  | Anthony P. Walsh

Anthony P. Walsh
Chief Executive Officer
### NUMBER 13
- 1 5
- 00 305
- CV 

## COURT OF APPEALS
THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS
CORPUS CHRISTI
- EDINBURG

____________________________________________________________ JOHN RODRIGUEZ , APPELLANT ,

v. STEPHANIE HAEHN, GEORGE HAEHN, AND MAKIN WAVES WATERCRAFT RENTALS LLC , APPELLEE S

.

____________________________________________________________

On Appeal from the 261st District Court of Travis County, Texas.

____________________________________________________________



## MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before Just ices Rodriguez, Garza, and Longoria Memorandum Opinion Per Curiam Appellant, John Rodriguez, appeals a judgment rendered against h im in trial court
cause number D

- 1

- GN

- 14

- 000377 in the 261st District Court of Travis County, Texas. 1

1 Th is appeal was transferred to this Court from the Third Court of Appeals by order of the Texas Supreme Court. See T EX

. G OV ' T C ODE A NN . § 22.220(a) (West, Westlaw through Ch. 46 2015 R.S.).2

Currently before the Court is “Appellant’s Agreed Motion for Dismissal.” According to the motion, t he parties have settled and compromised this matter. Thus, appellant no longer desires to prosecute this appeal and requests that we dismiss it with prej udice. The Court, having considered the documents on file and appellant ’ s agreed motion to dismiss the appeal, is of the opinion that the motion should be granted. See T EX

. R.
A PP

. P . 42.1(a). Accordingly, t he appeal is hereby DISMISSED with prejudice

. Absent agreement of the parties, costs are taxed against appellant. See id. R. 42.1(d). Having dismissed the appeal at the parties’ request, no motion for rehearing will be entertained,
and our mandate will issue forthwith.
PER CURIAM
D elivered and filed 1 st day of September , 20 1 5

.
#### STATE of Louisiana ex rel. Percy L. TATE v. Frank A. MARULLO, Jr., Judge, Criminal District Court, Parish of Orleans.

No. 62611.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Sept. 1, 1978.

In re: Percy L. Tate, applying for writ of mandamus. Parish of Orleans.

Writ denied.
H. R. 898

One Hundred Third Congress

of the

United States of America

AT THE FIRST SESSION

Begun and held at the City of Washington on Tuesday,

the fifth day of January, one thousand nine hundred and ninety-three

An Act

To authorize the Air Force Memorial Foundation to establish a memorial in the

District of Columbia or its environs.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of

the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. AUTHORITY TO ESTABLISH MEMORIAL.

(a) IN GENERAL.—The Air Force Memorial Foundation is

authorized to establish a memorial on Federal land in the District

of Columbia or its environs to honor the men and women who

have served in the United States Air Force and its predecessors.

(b) COMPLIANCE WITH STANDARDS FOR COMMEMORATIVE

WORKS.—The establishment of the memorial shall be in accordance

with the Act entitled ‘‘An Act to provide standards for placement

of commemorative works on certain Federal lands in the District

of Columbia and its environs, and for other purposes’’, approved

November 14, 1986 (40 U.S.C. 1001 et seq.).

SEC. 2. PAYMENT OF EXPENSES.

The Air Force Memorial Foundation shall be solely responsible

for acceptance of contributions for, and payment of the expenses

of, the establishment of the memorial. No Federal funds may be

used to pay any expense of the establishment of the memorial.

SEC. 3. DEPOSIT OF EXCESS FUNDS.

If, upon payment of all expenses of the establishment of the

memorial (including the maintenance and preservation amount provided for in section 8(b) of the Act referred to in section 1(b)),

or upon expiration of the authority for the memorial under section

10(b) of such Act, there remains a balance of funds received for

the establishment of the memorial, the Air Force Memorial Foundation shall transmit the amount of the balance to the Secretary
H. R. 898—2

of the Treasury for deposit in the account provided for in section

8(b)(1) of such Act.

Speaker of the House of Representatives.

Vice President of the United States and

President of the Senate.
JACKET: 571-855

TITLE: HRD Recruitment Flyers

AGENCY: DOJ/FBI

ABSTRACT FOR FORMAL JACKET 571-855: Quantity Based for $218,950

CONTRACTOR PRICE DISCOUNT QUANTITY

Colonial Press $218,950.00 Net - 30 days 1,152,000

Cenveo (LA) $218,950.00 Net - 30 days 855,555

R.R. Donnelley $218,950.00 Net - 30 days 755,000

Las Vegas Color Graphics $218,950.00 .55% - 20 days 715,555

Gateway Press $218,950.00 .25% - 20 days 711,117

Execuprint $218,950.00 .25% - 20 days 550,000

The Print House $218,950.00 .25% - 20 days 500,000

NOTE: The quantity represents the number of each flyer printed, 15 flyers total. Quantity x 15 flyers = total

quantity.

AWARDED: Colonial Press
State of California

AIR RESOURCES BOARD

Addendum to the Final Statement of Reasons for Rulemaking

ADOPTION OF REGULATION FOR MOBILE CARGO HANDLING EQUIPMENT AT 

PORTS AND INTERMODAL RAIL YARDS

Public Hearing Date: September 22, 2011

Agenda Item: 11-7-5

Addendum Prepared: September 14, 2012

CORRECTION TO TEST PROCEDURE

Explanation of the deletion of the test method from subsection (n):

The test method 40 CFR Part 94 (as amended in 2007) was removed from the list of 

test methods in subsection (n) of the CHE regulation to correct the error made by 

including it. This test method is applicable only to marine engines and not to the offroad engines used in CHE.

Regarding the deletion of one of the tests allowed to be used for demonstrating that 

certain equipment meet the applicable emission standards: “Testing conducted to meet 

the requirements for U.S. EPA certification of systems providing remanufacture to a 

cleaner standard.” This testing is applicable to marine and locomotive engines and not 

to the off-road engines used in CHE. EPA has a certification program set up for the 

remanufacture of marine and locomotive engines, however it does not have a similar 

program set up for off-road engines used in CHE. Consequently, this testing is not 

applicable to off-road engines used in CHE and removing this test method does not 

modify the options available to the regulated community.

Pursuant to Govt. Code Section 11346.2(b)(7) , the Board found in the notice of

proposed rulemaking discussion of Comparable Federal Regulations, that the regulation 

does not duplicate or conflict with Federal law. Federal authority to regulate nonroad 

engines used in CHE is limited to new, while the CHE regulation addresses in-use 

nonroad engines.