alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 69, Number 228 (Monday, November 29, 2004)]
[Notices]
[Page 69398]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 04-26218]


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

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Antitrust Division


Notice Pursuant to the National Cooperative Research and 
Production Act of 1993--Network Processing Forum

    Notice is hereby given that, on September 20, 2004, pursuant to 
Section 6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 
1993, 15 U.S.C. 4301 et seq. (``the Act''), Network Processing Forum 
(``NPF'') has filed written notifications simultaneously with the 
Attorney General and the Federal Trade Commission disclosing (1) the 
name and principal place of business of the standards development 
organization and (2) the nature and scope of its standards development 
activities. The notifications were filed for the purpose of invoking 
the Act's provisions limiting the recovery of antitrust plaintiffs to 
actual damages under specified circumstances.
    Pursuant to Section 6(b) of the Act, the name and principal place 
of business of the standards development organization is: Network 
Processing Forum, Fremont, CA. The nature and scope of NPF's standards 
development activities are: Identifying, selecting, augmenting, as 
appropriate, and publishing Implementation Agreements to encourage the 
development and effective use of network processing technology.

Dorothy B. Fountain,
Deputy Director of Operations, Antitrust Division.
[FR Doc. 04-26218 Filed 11-26-04; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410-11-M
### §14661. Transferred

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section 14661 was editorially reclassified as former section 40501 of Title 34, Crime Control and Law Enforcement.
### §1437i. Obligations of public housing agencies; contestability; full faith and credit of United States pledged as security; tax exemption

(a) Obligations issued by a public housing agency in connection with low-income housing projects which (1) are secured (A) by a pledge of a loan under any agreement between such public housing agency and the Secretary, or (B) by a pledge of annual contributions under an annual contributions contract between such public housing agency and the Secretary, or (C) by a pledge of both annual contributions under an annual contributions contract and a loan under an agreement between such public housing agency and the Secretary, and (2) bear, or are accompanied by, a certificate of the Secretary that such obligations are so secured, shall be incontestable in the hands of a bearer and the full faith and credit of the United States is pledged to the payment of all amounts agreed to be paid by the Secretary as security for such obligations.

(b) Except as provided in section 1437c(g) of this title, obligations, including interest thereon, issued by public housing agencies in connection with low-income housing projects shall be exempt from all taxation now or hereafter imposed by the United States whether paid by such agencies or by the Secretary. The income derived by such agencies from such projects shall be exempt from all taxation now or hereafter imposed by the United States.

(Sept. 1, 1937, ch. 896, title I, §11, as added Pub. L. 93–383, title II, §201(a), Aug. 22, 1974, 88 Stat. 667; amended Pub. L. 97–35, title III, §322(c), Aug. 13, 1981, 95 Stat. 402; renumbered title I, Pub. L. 100–358, §5, June 29, 1988, 102 Stat. 681; Pub. L. 101–625, title V, §572(2), Nov. 28, 1990, 104 Stat. 4236.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Prior Provisions

A prior section 11 of act Sept. 1, 1937, ch. 896, 50 Stat. 893, as amended, authorized capital grants to public housing agencies in assistance of low rentals and was classified to section 1411 of this title, prior to the general revision of this chapter by Pub. L. 93–383.

#### Amendments

1990—Pub. L. 101–625 substituted "low-income housing" for "lower income housing" wherever appearing.

1981—Pub. L. 97–35 substituted reference to lower income for reference to low-income wherever appearing.

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

#### Effective Date of 1981 Amendment

Amendment by Pub. L. 97–35 effective Oct. 1, 1981, see section 371 of Pub. L. 97–35, set out as an Effective Date note under section 3701 of Title 12, Banks and Banking.
#### Sharonell Herring, Appellant, v Lefrak Organization et al., Respondents.

[821 NYS2d 624]

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Schulman, J.), dated February 17, 2005, which granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, the motion is denied, and the complaint is reinstated.

The plaintiff allegedly fell in the parking lot of a building owned and maintained by the defendants. The area where she fell, located near the entrance of the building, was cracked. At the time, the plaintiff was carrying her three-year-old son in her arms and running away from a pit bull.

“Generally, the issue of whether a dangerous or defective condition exists depends on the particular facts and circumstances of each case, and is properly a question of fact for the jury” *(Riser v New York City Hous. Auth.,*260 AD2d 564 [1999]; *see Corrado v City of New York,*6 AD3d 380 [2004]). However, injuries resulting from trivial defects are not actionable, and in *901determining whether a defect is trivial a court must examine all “the facts presented, including the width, depth, elevation, irregularity and appearance of the defect along with the ‘time, place, and circumstance’ of the injury” *(Trincere v County of Suffolk,*90 NY2d 976, 978 [1997], quoting *Caldwell v Village of Is. Park,*304 NY 268 [1952]; *see Corrado v City of New York, supra).*

Here, the defendants’ showing in support of the motion for summary judgment, which included photographs of the accident site, was insufficient to demonstrate as a matter of law that the allegedly defective condition was too trivial to be actionable *(see Fairchild v J. Crew Group, Inc.,*21 AD3d 523 [2005]; *Gray v New York City Tr. Auth.,*12 AD3d 638 [2004]; *Corrado v City of New York, supra).*Accordingly, the Supreme Court should have denied the defendants’ motion. Schmidt, J.P., Spolzino, Fisher and Lifson, JJ., concur.
### §1392. Availability of funds during certain fiscal years; limitation on amount; utilization of grant

The sums appropriated pursuant to the first sentence of section 1391 of this title shall be available for grants to States by the Secretary during the fiscal year ending June 30, 1964, and the succeeding fiscal year; and the sums appropriated pursuant to the second sentence of such section for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1966, shall be available for such grants during such year and the next two fiscal years, and sums appropriated pursuant thereto for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1967, shall be available for such grants during such year and the succeeding fiscal year. Any such grant to a State, which shall not exceed 75 per centum of the cost of the planning and related activities involved, may be used by it to determine what action is needed to combat mental retardation in the State and the resources available for this purpose, to develop public awareness of the mental retardation problem and of the need for combating it, to coordinate State and local activities relating to the various aspects of mental retardation and its prevention, treatment, or amelioration, and to plan other activities leading to comprehensive State and community action to combat mental retardation.

(Aug. 14, 1935, ch. 531, title XVII, §1702, as added Pub. L. 88–156, §5, Oct. 24, 1963, 77 Stat. 275; amended Pub. L. 89–97, title II, §211(b), July 30, 1965, 79 Stat. 356.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Amendments

1965—Pub. L. 89–97 inserted provision making appropriations for fiscal year ending June 30, 1966, available for grants during such fiscal year and the next two fiscal years and the appropriation for fiscal year ending June 30, 1967, available for grants during such fiscal year and the succeeding fiscal year.
#### The People of the State of New York ex rel. Charles Gioia, Appellant, against Arthur D. Britt, as Sheriff, Respondent.

Motion to enlarge time for argument of appeal denied on the ground that section 535 of the Code of Criminal Procedure does not apply to appeals in civil proceedings.
UNITED STATES

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20555-0001 

October 13, 2016 

 IN RESPONSE, PLEASE 

 REFER TO: M161006 

MEMORANDUM TO: Andrea Valentin, Executive Director 

Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards 

FROM: Annette Vietti-Cook, Secretary /RA/ 

SUBJECT: STAFF REQUIREMENTS – MEETING WITH THE ADVISORY 

COMMITTEE ON REACTOR SAFEGUARDS, 10:00 A.M., 

THURSDAY, OCTOBER 6, 2016, COMMISSIONERS’ 

CONFERENCE ROOM, ONE WHITE FLINT NORTH, 

ROCKVILLE, MARYLAND (OPEN TO PUBLIC ATTENDANCE) 

The Commission met with the Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards (ACRS) to discuss 

the Committee’s recent accomplishments and its ongoing and future activities. The ACRS 

presented updates on the following specific items: 1) Non-Power Production or Utilization 

Facilities Proposed License Renewal Rulemaking, 2) Draft Interim Staff Guidance JLD-ISG2016-01, “Guidance for Activities Related to Near-Term Task Force Recommendation 2.1, 

Flooding Hazard Reevaluation; Focused Evaluation and Integrated Assessment,” 3) NuScale 

Power, LLC Licensing Topical Report, “Risk Significance Determination,” and 4) Draft Final 

Regulatory Guide 1.230, “Regulatory Guidance on the Alternative Pressurized Thermal Shock 

Rule,” and Draft Report NUREG-2163, “Technical Basis for Regulatory Guidance on the 

Alternative Pressurized Thermal Shock Rule.” 

There were no requirements identified for staff action. 

cc: Chairman Burns 

 Commissioner Svinicki 

 Commissioner Baran 

 EDO 

 OGC 

 CFO 

 OCA 

 OIG 

 OPA 

 ODs, RAs, ACRS, ASLBP (via E-Mail) 

 PDR
- FPL_1479ocr-1
- FPL_1479ocr-2
- FPL_1479ocr-3
- FPL_1479ocr-4
- FPL_1479ocr-5
- FPL_1479ocr-6
- FPL_1479ocr-7
- FPL_1479ocr-8
- FPL_1479ocr-9
- FPL_1479ocr-10
- FPL_1479ocr-11
- FPL_1479ocr-12
- FPL_1479ocr-13
- FPL_1479ocr-14
- FPL_1479ocr-15
- FPL_1479ocr-16
- FPL_1479ocr-17
- FPL_1479ocr-18
- FPL_1479ocr-19
- FPL_1479ocr-20
#### § 1116.10 Restrictions on use of reports.

No member of the Commission, no officer or employee of the Commission, and no officer or employee of the Department of Justice may use information provided to the Commission under section 37 for any purpose other than to carry out the responsibilities of the Commission.
No: II-08-030 May 12, 2008 

CONTACT: Ken Clark (404)562-4416 E-mail: OPA2@nrc.gov 

 Roger Hannah (404)562-4417 

NRC TO DISCUSS APPARENT VIOLATIONS AT GLOBAL NUCLEAR FUELS 

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff has scheduled a meeting for Monday, 

May 19 to discuss apparent violations of NRC regulations associated with an Alert declared on 

Jan. 30 at the Global Nuclear Fuels facility in Wilmington, N.C. 

The meeting, called a predecisional enforcement conference, is scheduled to begin at 1:00 

p.m. in the NRC Region II Office on the 24th floor of the Sam Nunn Atlanta Federal Center, 61 

Forsyth Street, SW, in Atlanta. It will be open to the public, and those in attendance will have an 

opportunity to ask questions of NRC staff before the end of the meeting. 

The Alert, the lowest level of emergency classification at nuclear fuel facilities, was 

declared based on the potential for the introduction of moisture into a container holding uranium 

dioxide powder. Adding moisture to sufficient quantities of enriched uranium dioxide increases 

the possibility of a criticality event. A criticality event is an unanticipated nuclear reaction 

resulting in a release of radiation. In this particular case, there was no criticality and no actual 

health and safety impact to workers, people living nearby or the environment, but the NRC 

initiated a special inspection to look into causes leading to the event. 

NRC inspectors identified four apparent violations during the special inspection in late 

January and early February, and during follow-up reviews and telephone conversations. The 

apparent violations were in the areas of maintaining double contingency control, emergency 

level declaration, approved procedures for maintenance activities, and approval by the criticality 

safety function of maintenance activities. 

The purpose of the May 19 conference is to discuss the apparent violations and provide 

the company an opportunity to respond and to provide details of its corrective actions and other 

additional information to enable the NRC to determine what, if any, enforcement action is 

warranted. 

NRC NEWS

U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

Office of Public Affairs, Region II 

61 Forsyth Street SW, Atlanta GA 30303 

Web Site: www.nrc.gov 
No enforcement decision will be made by the NRC staff at the conference. Agency 

managers will make a decision following a review of information from the enforcement 

conference and final evaluation of the apparent violations. 

### 

 News releases are available through a free listserv subscription at the following Web address: 

http://www.nrc.gov/public-involve/listserver.html. The NRC homepage at www.nrc.gov also offers a SUBSCRIBE 

link. E-mail notifications are sent to subscribers when news releases are posted to NRC's Web site.
#### Harold Cole, Appellant, v. Charles B. Skinner, Individually and as Administrator of the Estate of William I. Skinner, Deceased, et al., Respondents.

Present — Foster, P. J., Heffernan, Brewster, Santry and Bergan, JJ.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Richard Davis, Appellant.

[821 NYS2d 208]

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Philip M. Grella, J.), rendered March 22, 2004, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of burglary in the third degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to a term of 3V2 to 7 years, unanimously affirmed.

The verdict was based on legally sufficient evidence and was not against the weight of the evidence. There is no basis for disturbing the jury’s determinations concerning credibility. The evidence clearly established that defendant unlawfully entered a college building that had no-trespassing signs and a security guard at its entrance, and that was only open to those visitors who complied with security procedures and obtained passes *(see e.g. People v Mason,*292 AD2d 294 [2002], *lv denied*99 NY2d 630 [2003]; *People v Taylor,*190 AD2d 628 [1993], *lv denied*81 NY2d 1020 [1993]). Defendant’s behavior, including his attempt to steal a laptop computer, supported the inference that he entered with criminal intent *(see People v Castillo,*47 NY2d 270, 277-278 [1979]).

*804The court properly exercised its discretion in denying defendant’s belated request for an adjournment so that his family might attempt to retain private counsel *(see People v Arroyave,*49 NY2d 264, 271-272 [1980]). Defendant made this request at the commencement of the *Wade*hearing, he had already caused two other attorneys to be relieved, and he had rejected the services of yet another assigned counsel whom the court made available. Furthermore, defendant’s sister advised the court that it was unlikely that the family could pay for private counsel.

The court properly permitted defendant to proceed pro se after he knowingly, intelligently and voluntarily waived his right to counsel. Defendant unequivocally invoked his right to self-representation, and the court’s searching inquiry established that he understood the dangers and disadvantages of proceeding pro se and the value of legal representation *(see People v Arroyo,*98 NY2d 101 [2002]; *People v Smith,*92 NY2d 516 [1998]).

We have considered and rejected defendant’s remaining claims. Concur — Mazzarelli, J.P., Andrias, Sullivan, Nardelli and McGuire, JJ.
### §11333. Role of Federal Emergency Management Agency

#### (a) In general

The Director shall provide the National Board with administrative support and act as Federal liaison to the National Board.

#### (b) Specific support activities

The Director shall—

(1) make available to the National Board, upon request, the services of the legal counsel and Inspector General of the Federal Emergency Management Agency;

(2) assign clerical personnel to the National Board on a temporary basis; and

(3) conduct audits of the National Board annually and at such other times as may be appropriate.

(Pub. L. 100–77, title III, §303, July 22, 1987, 101 Stat. 490.)

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

#### Transfer of Functions

For transfer of all functions, personnel, assets, components, authorities, grant programs, and liabilities of the Federal Emergency Management Agency, including the functions of the Under Secretary for Federal Emergency Management relating thereto, to the Federal Emergency Management Agency, see section 315(a)(1) of Title 6, Domestic Security.

For transfer of functions, personnel, assets, and liabilities of the Federal Emergency Management Agency, including the functions of the Director of the Federal Emergency Management Agency relating thereto, to the Secretary of Homeland Security, and for treatment of related references, see former section 313(1) and sections 551(d), 552(d), and 557 of Title 6, Domestic Security, and the Department of Homeland Security Reorganization Plan of November 25, 2002, as modified, set out as a note under section 542 of Title 6.
**EXHIBIT
      32.2**




**CERTIFICATION
      OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER**


**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 on Form 10-QSB (the "Report") under the
      Securities Exchange Act of 1934 of Narrowstep Inc. (the "Company"), I, Lisa
      VanPatten, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, do hereby certify, pursuant
      to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
      Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my knowledge:




(1)
      The
      Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
      Securities Exchange Act of 1934, 15 U.S.C. Section 78m(a) or 78o(d);
      and




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




Date: July
              13, 2007
            By:
            /s/ Lisa
              VanPattenLisa
              VanPattenChief
                Financial Officer
5308.707 Prices.       Contracting Officers are required to obtain the Fair Market Price (FMP) Determination from the U.S. Ability One Commission prior to contract award. Please note that the self-inspection program at DAFFARS MP5301.601-91reviews compliance with this requirement for contracts awarded under the AbilityOne program.    **Parent topic:** Subpart 5308.7 - ACQUISITION FROM NONPROFIT AGENCIES EMPLOYING PEOPLE WHO ARE BLIND OR SEVERELY DISABLED
### §1131. Annual report

The Administrator annually shall submit to Congress an assessment of the progress made in executive agencies in implementing the policy regarding major acquisitions that is stated in section 3103(a) of this title. The Administrator shall use data from existing management systems in making the assessment.

(Pub. L. 111–350, §3, Jan. 4, 2011, 124 Stat. 3690.)

| Revised Section | Source (U.S. Code) | Source (Statutes at Large) |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 1131 | 41:405(k). | Pub. L. 93–400, §6(k), as added Pub. L. 103–355, title V, §5051(b), Oct. 13, 1994, 108 Stat. 3351; Pub. L. 105–85, title VIII, §851(b), Nov. 18, 1997, 111 Stat. 1851. |

Section
### §14043d–2. Transferred

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section 14043d–2 was editorially reclassified as section 12463 of Title 34, Crime Control and Law Enforcement.
§ 1605.4 Orders for access. ( a ) In the event an inspection pursuant to § 1605.2 herein is refused, in whole or in part, or prior to any such inspection, the Commission may issue an order requiring any person, sole proprietorship, partnership, or corporation to allow access to a duly-designated officer or employee of the Commission for the purpose of conducting an inspection. Such order will be issued by the Commission upon the demonstration by the staff of a justifiable need to gain access. Inspections conducted after service of an order for access shall be conducted in accordance with the procedures provided in § 1605.2.
( b ) After issuance of an order for access, the staff may, upon request of the recipient of the order, agree to modify the order to limit its scope, impose conditions or extend the time for compliance. If an agreement cannot be voluntarily reached, the recipient of the order may file a motion to limit or quash the order. Any such motion shall set forth the reasons why the order should be limited or quashed; and may be accompanied by memoranda, affidavits, or other documents submitted in support of the motion. Unless a different period of time for filing a motion is specified in the order, the motion must be received in the Office of the Secretary of the Commission within ten calendar days after the order is mailed or delivered in person to such person, sole proprietorship, partnership, or corporation unless the Commission, upon a showing of good cause, grants an extension of time within which to file a motion to limit or quash an order of access.
( c ) Upon receipt of a motion to limit or quash the order for access, the Office of the Secretary shall immediately notify and trasmit a copy of the motion to Associate Executive Director for Compliance and Enforcement or the General Counsel, as appropriate. Unless a different period of time is specified in the order, the Associate Executive Director for Compliance and Enforcement or General Counsel shall file an answer with the Office of the Secretary within ten calendar days after receipt of a copy of the motion. A copy of the answer shall be served upon the moving party or the counsel of the moving party. No reply to the answer will be permitted.
( d ) All motions to limit or quash shall be ruled upon by the Commission. The Office of the Secretary shall serve the decision on the motion to limit or quash the order of access upon the moving party or the counsel of the moving party and shall furnish a copy of the decision to the Associate Executive Director for Compliance and Enforcement or the General Counsel, as appropriate. The decision on the motion to limit or quash shall be the final decision on the matter. Motions for reconsideration will not be received.