alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 69, Number 218 (Friday, November 12, 2004)]
[Notices]
[Pages 65445-65446]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 04-24645]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Bureau of Customs and Border Protection

[CBP Decision 04-37]


CBP Decision; Recordation of Trade Name: ``Joy Enterprises''

ACTION: Notice of application for recordation of trade name.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: Application has been filed pursuant to section 133.12, Customs 
Regulations (19 CFR 133.12), for the recordation under section 42 of 
the Act of July 5, 1946, as amended (15 U.S.C. 1124), of the trade name 
``Joy Enterprises''. The trade name is owned by Shell Stores 
Corporation d/b/a Joy Enterprises, a Florida corporation.
    The application states that the trade name ``Joy Enterprises'' is 
used in connection with knives, outdoor and sport supplies, police and 
security equipment, gift and premium items, swords, daggers, scissors, 
multitools and key chains, which are manufactured in China, Taiwan, 
Japan, Spain, USA, Italy and Germany.
    Applicant states that the trade name ``Joy Enterprises'' is 
customarily used

[[Page 65446]]

apart from the complete business name Shell Stores Corporation. The 
applicant states that there are no foreign persons or business entities 
authorized or licensed to use the trade name.
    Before final action is taken on the application, consideration will 
be given to any relevant data, views, or arguments, submitted in 
writing, by any person in opposition to the recordation of this trade 
name. Notice of the action taken on the application for recordation of 
this trade name will be published in the Federal Register.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before January 11, 2005.

ADDRESSES: Written comments should be addressed to U.S. Customs and 
Border Protection, Attention: Office of Regulations and Rulings, 
Intellectual Property Rights Branch, 1300 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., 
(Mint Annex), Washington, DC 20229.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: La Verne Watkins, Paralegal, 
Intellectual Property Rights Branch at (202) 572-8702.

    Dated: November 1, 2004,
George Frederick McCray,
Chief, Intellectual Property Rights Branch.
[FR Doc. 04-24645 Filed 11-10-04; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4820-02-P
EXHIBIT 32.1

                            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 Quarterly Report of American Bio Medica Corporation
(the  "Company")  on Form 10-QSB for the period  ending  March 31, 2004 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange  Commission on May 14, 2004 (the "Report"),  I,
Edmund M. Jaskiewicz,  President of the Company,  certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
ss.  1350,  as adopted  pursuant to ss. 906 of the  Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of 2002,
that:

            (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.


                                                     /s/ Edmund M. Jaskiewicz
                                                     ------------------------
                                                     President

                                                     May 14, 2004
§ 537.108 Loss of eligibility for student loan repayment benefits. ( a ) An employee receiving student loan repayment benefits from an agency is ineligible for continued benefits from that agency if the employee— ( 1 ) Separates from the agency;
( 2 ) Does not maintain an acceptable level of performance, as determined under standards and procedures prescribed by the agency; or
( 3 ) Violates a condition in the service agreement, if the agreement specifically provides that eligibility is lost when the condition is violated.
( b ) For the purpose of applying paragraph (a)(2) of this section, an acceptable level of performance is one that is equivalent to level 3 (“Fully Successful” or equivalent) or higher, as described in 5 CFR 430.208(d). An employee loses eligibility for student loan repayment benefits if his or her most recent official performance evaluation does not meet this requirement.
Issue Date: 06/20/07 07–020 -1-

 NRC INSPECTION MANUAL DIRS

 

Change Notice 07-020 

 

 DELETED: TRANSMITTED: 

 Number Date Number Date

1. IMC 0040 03/05/07 IMC 0040 06/20/07 

2. ------------ ------------ IP 88109 06/20/07 

TRAINING: None 

REMARKS: IMC 0040 (Preparing, Revising, and Issuing Documents for the NRC 

Inspection Manual) has been revised to establish deadlines for submission 

of Manual documents in WordPerfect and Word formats, update the Office 

of New Reactors’ document issuing form, provide greater clarity, and 

incorporate editorial changes. It also serves as a template for a Manual 

document in Word. 

IP 88109 (Quality Assurance: Inspection, Test Control, and Control of 

Measuring and Test Equipment (Pre-licensing and Construction)) has 

been issued for the mixed oxide (MOX) inspection program to improve 

effectiveness and efficiency by incorporating and consolidating controls for 

measuring and test equipment inspection requirements. 

DISTRIBUTION: Standard 

END
### §12252. Eligibility to receive grants

To be eligible to receive a grant under section 12251 of this title, a State shall submit to the Attorney General an application at such time, in such form, and containing such information as the Attorney General reasonably may require by rule.

(Pub. L. 103–322, title III, §31912, Sept. 13, 1994, 108 Stat. 1895.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section was formerly classified to section 13892 of Title 42, The Public Health and Welfare, prior to editorial reclassification and renumbering as this section.
### §12553. Establishment of Office of the Police Corps and Law Enforcement Education

There is established in the Department of Justice, under the general authority of the Attorney General, an Office of the Police Corps and Law Enforcement Education.

(Pub. L. 103–322, title XX, §200104, Sept. 13, 1994, 108 Stat. 2050.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section was formerly classified to section 14093 of Title 42, The Public Health and Welfare, prior to editorial reclassification and renumbering as this section.
### §7109. Appropriations available for joint financing

An appropriation available for technical assistance or personnel training under an assistance program is available for technical assistance and training for a project proposed or approved for joint financing involving the program and another assistance program.

(Pub. L. 97–258, Sept. 13, 1982, 96 Stat. 1039.)

| Revised Section | Source (U.S. Code) | Source (Statutes at Large) |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 7109 | 42:4258. | Dec. 5, 1974, Pub. L. 93–510, §9, 88 Stat. 1607. |

In this section, the words "the provision of" are omitted as surplus and the word "for" is substituted for "in connection with" for consistency.
Sanitized Version

of K1 Structure
#### Mildred Edelstein et al., Respondents, v. Aribar Corp., Appellant, et al., Defendants. Aribar Corp., Third-Party Plaintiff-Respondent, et al., Third-Party Plaintiffs, v. Jacob Altneu et al., Doing Business as Crystal Window Cleaning Co., Third-Party Defendants-Appellants.

Judgment, insofar as appealed from by the defendant Aribar, unanimously reversed, with costs, and a new trial ordered, on the ground that the amounts awarded are excessive, unless the plaintiffs stipulate to reduce the verdict in favor of plaintiff Mildred Edelstein to $3,500, and in favor of the coplaintiff Henry Edelstein to $1,000, in which event the judgment, as so modified, is affirmed, without costs. Judgment, so far as appealed from by the third-party defendants, unanimously affirmed. Settle order on notice. Present — Peek, P. J., Dore, Cohn, Breitel and Bastow, JJ.
### §725. Repealed. Pub. L. 116–283, div. G, title LVXXXV [LXXXV], §8512(a)(1), Jan. 1, 2021, 134 Stat. 4759

Section, R.S. §4680; acts June 17, 1910, ch. 301, §§6, 13, 36 Stat. 538, 539; June 20, 1918, ch. 103, §7, 40 Stat. 608; 1939 Reorg. Plan No. II, §2(a), eff. July 1, 1939, 4 F.R. 2731, 53 Stat. 1432; Aug. 4, 1949, ch. 393, §§1, 20, 63 Stat. 496, 561, related to prohibition against officers and employees being interested in contracts for materials, etc.

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

R.S. §4680 derived from act Aug. 31, 1852, ch. 112, §17, 10 Stat. 120.

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

#### Savings

Pub. L. 116–283, div. G, title LVXXXV [LXXXV], §8512(b)(1), Jan. 1, 2021, 134 Stat. 4759, provided that: "Notwithstanding any repeals made by this section [repealing this section and sections 717, 727, 728, 730a, 743, 745a, 747b, 748, 754a, 763–1, 763–2, 763a–1, and 770 to 772 of this title], any individual beneficiary currently receiving payments under the authority of any provisions repealed in this section shall continue to receive such benefits."
MATERIALS NOT INCLUDED IN

AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVE (AD) DOCKET

FAA-2012-0632

Docket Number

2011-SW-044-AD

Directorate Identifier

Name/Description of Item(s) Not Included in DMS Docket and Maintained in the 

Supplemental AD Docket

Eurocopter Emergency Alert Service Bulletin Nos. 63.00.17, 63.00.12, 63A011,

65.03, and 65.47, Revision 0, dated May 7, 2008

MAY BE VIEWED AT: Federal Aviation Administration

Office of the Regional Counsel,

Southwest Region

Rules Docket

2601 Meacham Blvd., Room 663

Fort Worth, Texas 76137

DURING THE HOURS OF: 9 a.m. and 3 p.m., Monday through Friday, 

except Federal holidays.
United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

Nos. 97-1208/2077

___________

Jeffrey Barge, *

*

Plaintiff - Appellant, *

* 

v. * 

* 

Knight Ridder Corp.; Seattle Times * Appeals from the United States

Co., T.A.; Blethen Corp.; BRJG * District Court for the

Publishing, Inc.; Minnesota Law * District of Minnesota.

and Politics, T/A; West Publishing * [UNPUBLISHED]

Company; Mead Data Central, Inc.; *

Reed Elsevier, PLC; Brett Johnson; *

William White; Michele Matassa *

Flores; John Doe, 1-100, *

*

Defendants - Appellees. *

___________

 Submitted: April 15, 1998 

 Filed: April 24, 1998

___________

Before FAGG, BEAM, and HANSEN, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.
The Honorable Michael J. Davis, United States District Judge for the District 1

of Minnesota, adopting the report and recommendations of the Honorable John M.

Mason, United States Magistrate Judge for the District of Minnesota.

-2-

Jeffrey Barge appeals the district court&s orders dismissing his diversity suit.

1

After reviewing the parties’ submissions and following our de novo review, we affirm

the judgment of the district court. See 8th Cir. R. 47B. We deny Barge’s motion for

sanctions.

A true copy.

Attest:

CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
### §7101. Purposes

The purposes of this chapter are to—

(1) enable States, local governments, and private nonprofit organizations to use assistance of the United States Government more effectively and efficiently;

(2) adapt the assistance more readily to particular needs through wider use of projects that are supported by more than one executive agency, assistance program, or appropriation of the United States Government; and

(3) encourage Federal-State arrangements under which local governments and private nonprofit organizations may more effectively and efficiently combine Federal and State resources to support projects of common interest to those local governments and those organizations.

(Pub. L. 97–258, Sept. 13, 1982, 96 Stat. 1035.)

| Revised Section | Source (U.S. Code) | Source (Statutes at Large) |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 7101 | 42:4251. | Dec. 5, 1974, Pub. L. 93–510, §2, 88 Stat. 1604. |

In the chapter, the words "executive agency" are substituted for "Federal agency" because of the definition in section 102 of the revised title. The words "assistance program" are substituted for "Federal assistance programs" because of the definition in section 7102 of the revised title.

In the section, the words "resources available from" and "It is the further purpose of this chapter" are omitted as unnecessary because of the restatement.
§ 351.302 Transfer of employees. ( a ) Before a reduction in force is made in connection with the transfer of any or all of the functions of a competitive area to another continuing competitive area, each competing employee in a position identified with the transferring function or functions shall be transferred to the continuing competitive area without any change in the tenure of his or her employment.
( b ) An employee whose position is transferred under this subpart solely for liquidation, and who is not identified with an operating function specifically authorized at the time of transfer to continue in operation more than 60 days, is not a competing employee for other positions in the competitive area gaining the function.
( c ) Regardless of an employee's personal preference, an employee has no right to transfer with his or her function, unless the alternative in the competitive area losing the function is separation or demotion.
( d ) Except as permitted in paragraph (e) of this section, the losing competitive area must use the adverse action procedures found in 5 CFR part 752 if it chooses to separate an employee who declines to transfer with his or her function.
( e ) The losing competitive area may, at its discretion, include employees who decline to transfer with their function as part of a concurrent reduction in force.
( f ) An agency may not separate an employee who declines to transfer with the function any sooner than it transfers employees who chose to transfer with the function to the gaining competitive area.
( g ) Agencies may ask employees in a canvass letter whether the employee wishes to transfer with the function when the function transfers to a different local commuting area. The canvass letter must give the employee information concerning entitlements available to the employee if the employee accepts the offer to transfer, and if the employee declines the offer to transfer. An employee may later change and initial acceptance offer without penalty. However, an employee may not later change an initial declination of the offer to transfer.
[52 FR 10024, Mar. 30, 1987, as amended at 60 FR 3062, Jan. 13, 1995]
### §12401. Grant program

#### (a) In general

The Attorney General is authorized to provide grants to States and units of local government to improve and implement processes for entering data regarding stalking and domestic violence into local, State, and national crime information databases.

#### (b) Eligibility

To be eligible to receive a grant under subsection (a), a State or unit of local government shall certify that it has or intends to establish a program that enters into the National Crime Information Center records of—

(1) warrants for the arrest of persons violating protection orders intended to protect victims from stalking or domestic violence;

(2) arrests or convictions of persons violating protection 1 or domestic violence; and

(3) protection orders for the protection of persons from stalking or domestic violence.

(Pub. L. 103–322, title IV, §40602, Sept. 13, 1994, 108 Stat. 1951; Pub. L. 106–386, div. B, title I, §1106(b), Oct. 28, 2000, 114 Stat. 1497.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section was formerly classified to section 14031 of Title 42, The Public Health and Welfare, prior to editorial reclassification and renumbering as this section.

#### Amendments

2000—Subsec. (a). Pub. L. 106–386 inserted "and implement" after "improve".

1 So in original. Probably should be followed by "orders intended to protect victims from stalking".
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

ARTHUR LOUIS FOLEY, JR.,

Appellant,

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

Appellee. §

§

§

§

§

§ No. 08

- 13

- 00039

- CR

Appeal from the

Criminal District Court Number Three

of Tarrant County, Texas

(TC# 1302886R)

J U D G M E N T

The Court has considered this cause on the record and concludes there was no error in the

judgment. We therefore affirm the judgment of t he court below. This decision shall be certified

below for observance.

IT IS SO ORDERED THIS 29TH DAY OF JULY, 2015.

YVONNE T. RODRIGUEZ, Justice

Before McClure, C.J., Rivera, and Rodriguez, JJ.

Rivera, J., not participating
NRC NEWS

 U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 

 Office of Public Affairs, Region I

 475 Allendale Road, King of Prussia, Pa.

www.nrc.gov

 

No. I-05-062 November 10, 2005

Contact: Diane Screnci, 610/337-5330 Email: opa1@nrc.gov

Neil Sheehan, 610/337-5331

NEW NRC RESIDENT INSPECTOR ASSIGNED

TO INDIAN POINT 2 NUCLEAR PLANT

Nuclear Regulatory Commission officials in King of Prussia, Pa., have assigned Gregory T.

Bowman as the new resident inspector at Indian Point 2 in Buchanan, N.Y. He joins

NRC Senior Resident Inspector Mark Cox at Unit 2. Two resident inspectors are also assigned to

Indian Point 3: Senior Resident Inspector Tom Hipschman and Resident Inspector Brian Wittick. 

Both Indian Point units are operated by Entergy Nuclear. 

“Greg Bowman’s experience and commitment to safety will help the NRC ensure that

Indian Point continues to conduct operations with the highest safety standards to protect public health

and safety,” said NRC Region I Administrator Samuel J. Collins.

Bowman joined the NRC in 2002 as a reactor inspector in the Regional Office. Prior to

joining the agency, he worked at the Bechtel-Bettis Atomic Power Laboratory in Charleston, SC., as a

training supervisor. 

Bowman is a graduate of the University of Virginia, where he earned a bachelor’s

degree in chemical engineering. He also completed the U.S. Navy’s nuclear power school.

Each U.S. commercial nuclear site has at least two NRC resident inspectors. They serve as the

agency's eyes and ears at the facility, conducting inspections, monitoring major work projects and

interacting with plant workers and the public. 

The Indian Point resident inspectors can be reached at 914/739-9360.

###
§ 550.802 Coverage. ( a ) Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this section, this subpart applies to employees, as defined in § 550.803 of this subpart.
( b ) This subpart does not apply to— ( 1 ) Employees of the government of the District of Columbia; and
( 2 ) Employees of the Tennessee Valley Authority.
[46 FR 58275, Dec. 1, 1981]
Home > NRC Library > ADAMS Public Documents

# SECY-06-0069 - Issue Proposed Rule Concerning Treatment of Accelerator Produced & Other Radioactive Material as Byproduct Material; Statute Mandates Publication of Final Rule by 2/7/07 - Due to Comm 12/29/06

Accession Number: ML053620236

Date Released: Wednesday, April 5, 2006

Package Contents

The following links on this page are to Adobe Portable Document Format (PDF) files. To obtain a free viewer for displaying this format, see our Plugins, Viewers, and Other Tools.
    - ML060680386 - SECY-06-0069 - Proposed Rule: Requirements for Expanded Definition of Byproduct Material (RIN: 3150-AH84) (21 page(s), 3/27/2006)
    - ML060680389 - SECY-06-0069Atch1 - Federal Register Notice, re: Proposed Rule: Requirements for Expanded Definition of Byproduct Material (166 page(s), 3/27/2006)
    - ML060680393 - SECY-06-0069Atch2 - Draft Report: Environmental Assessment for Proposed Rulemaking - Expanded Definition of Byproduct Material Established by Section 651 (e) of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (20 page(s), 3/27/2006)
    - ML060680116 - SECY-06-0069Atch3 - Draft Report for Comment: Regulatory Analysis for Proposed Rulemaking, re: Expanded Definition of Byproduct Material Established by Section 651 (e) of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (44 page(s), 3/27/2006)
    - ML060620372 - Request for Comments - Draft Proposed Rule: 10 CFR Parts 20, 30, 31, 32, 35, 40, "Expanded Definition of Byproduct Material" (STP-06-001). (13 page(s), 2/2/2006)
    - ML060690131 - SECY-06-0069Atch5 - Staff Position on the Compatibility Category for the Definition of Byproduct Material (2 page(s), 3/27/2006)
    - ML060620369 - Draft Proposed Rule: 10 CFR Parts 20, 30, 31, 32, 35, 40, "Expanded Definition of Byproduct Material" (STP-06-001). (13 page(s), 2/27/2006)
    - ML060620105 - Letter from the Conference of Radiation Control Program Directors, Inc. (CRCPD) to Charles Miller of IMNS/NMSS re:  Draft Proposed Rule "Expanded Definition of Byproduct Material" (STP-06-001). (1 page(s), 3/1/2006)

Privacy PolicySite Disclaimer
§ 432.103 Definitions. For the purpose of this part— ( a ) *Acceptable performance* means performance that meets an employee's performance requirement(s) or standard(s) at a level of performance above “unacceptable” in the critical element(s) at issue.
( b ) *Critical element* means a work assignment or responsibility of such importance that unacceptable performance on the element would result in a determination that an employee's overall performance is unacceptable.
( c ) *Current continuous employment* means a period of employment or service immediately preceding an action under this part in the same or similar positions without a break in Federal civilian employment of a workday.
( d ) *Opportunity to demonstrate acceptable performance* means a reasonable chance for the employee whose performance has been determined to be unacceptable in one or more critical elements to demonstrate acceptable performance in the critical element(s) at issue.
( e ) *Reduction in grade* means the involuntary assignment of an employee to a position at a lower classification or job grading level.
( f ) *Removal* means the involuntary separation of an employee from employment with an agency. P>
( g ) *Similar positions* mean positions in which the duties performed are similar in nature and character and require substantially the same or similar qualifications, so that the incumbents could be interchanged without significant training or undue interruption to the work.
( h ) *Unacceptable performance* means performance of an employee that fails to meet established performance standards in one or more critical elements of such employee's position.
[54 FR 26179, June 21, 1989, as amended at 54 FR 49076, Nov. 29, 1989; 55 FR 25950, June 26, 1990; 57 FR 23045, June 1, 1992; 57 FR 60717, Dec. 22, 1992; 58 FR 65534, Dec. 15, 1993; 60 FR 43946, Aug. 23, 1995; 85 FR 65982, Oct. 16, 2020]