alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
### §§1594a–1, 1594a–2. Repealed. Pub. L. 97–214, §7(5), July 12, 1982, 96 Stat. 173

Section 1594a–1, Pub. L. 87–554, title V, §501(a)–(c), July 27, 1962, 76 Stat. 236; Pub. L. 90–110, title VI, §606, Oct. 21, 1967, 81 Stat. 304; Pub. L. 91–142, title V, §511, Dec. 5, 1969, 83 Stat. 312; Pub. L. 96–418, title V, §511, Oct. 10, 1980, 94 Stat. 1767, related to Department of Defense family housing management account. See section 2831 of Title 10, Armed Forces.

Section 1594a–2, Pub. L. 87–554, title V, §507, July 27, 1962, 76 Stat. 240, related to prior legislative approval for appropriations for family housing. See section 2821(a) of Title 10.

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

#### Effective Date of Repeal

Repeal effective Oct. 1, 1982, and applicable to military construction projects, and to construction and acquisition of military family housing before, on, or after such date, see section 12(a) of Pub. L. 97–214, set out as an Effective Date note under section 2801 of Title 10, Armed Forces.
```

[Congressional Bills 112th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 3619 Introduced in House (IH)]

112th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 3619

To permanently extend the Protecting Tenants at Foreclosure Act of 2009 
and establish a private right of action to enforce compliance with such 
                                  Act.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            December 8, 2011

Mr. Ellison (for himself and Mr. Stark) introduced the following bill; 
       which was referred to the Committee on Financial Services

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To permanently extend the Protecting Tenants at Foreclosure Act of 2009 
and establish a private right of action to enforce compliance with such 
                                  Act.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Permanently Protecting Tenants at 
Foreclosure Act of 2011''.

SEC. 2. REPEAL OF SUNSET PROVISION.

    Section 704 of the Protecting Tenants at Foreclosure Act of 2009 
(12 U.S.C. 5201 note; 12 U.S.C. 5220 note; 42 U.S.C. 1437f note) is 
hereby repealed.

SEC. 3. PRIVATE RIGHT OF ACTION.

    The Protecting Tenants at Foreclosure Act of 2009, as amended by 
section 2 of this Act, is further amended by adding at the end the 
following new section:

``SEC. 704. PRIVATE RIGHT OF ACTION.

    ``(a) Right of Action.--Any person aggrieved by a violation 
referred to in subsection (b) may bring a civil action in a court of 
competent jurisdiction for damages resulting from such violation, and 
may obtain other appropriate relief, including equitable relief. If the 
plaintiff prevails in any such action, the court shall award the 
plaintiff any litigation costs reasonably incurred, together with 
reasonable attorneys' fees and reasonable expert witness fees, as 
determined by the court.
    ``(b) Violation.--A violation referred to in this subsection is a 
violation of--
            ``(1) section 702 of this title; or
            ``(2) the matter in subparagraph (C) or (F) of section 
        8(o)(7) of the United States Housing Act of 1937 (42 U.S.C. 
        1437f(o)(7)) that was added by the amendments made by section 
        703 of this title''.
                                 <all>
```
### SUBCHAPTER VI—NATIONAL CRITICAL TECHNOLOGIES PANEL
Enclosure 

Baseline Assessment of Existing Cybersecurity Workforce 

at the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission

December 2016 

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) reports the following baseline assessment 

information required by Section 3(b)(1)(D) of the Federal Cybersecurity Workforce Assessment 

Act of 2015, contained in the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2016 (Public Law 114-113), 

enacted December 18, 2015. 

i. The percentage of personnel with information technology (IT), cybersecurity, or other 

cyber-related job functions who currently hold the appropriate industry-recognized 

certifications as identified under the National Initiative for Cybersecurity Education. 

The NRC identified approximately 375 employees with information technology (IT), 

cybersecurity, or cyber-related functions. These employees were surveyed to determine if 

they have any current industry-recognized certifications. About 30 percent of the employees 

surveyed responded. Approximately 25 percent of those responding to the survey have 

current industry-recognized certifications. 

ii. The level of preparedness of other civilian and non-civilian cyber personnel without existing 

credentials to take certification exams. 

Approximately 75 percent of the employees with IT, cybersecurity, or cyber-related functions 

who responded to the survey do not have current industry-recognized certifications. The 

overall self-reported levels of preparedness of these employees to complete a certification 

exam are as follows: approximately 65 percent feel unprepared; 20 percent feel somewhat 

prepared; 5 percent feel prepared; and 10 percent did not provide a response to this 

question. Ten employees indicated that they plan to obtain an industry-recognized 

certification within the next year. 

iii. A strategy for mitigating any gaps identified in clause (i) or (ii) with the appropriate training 

and certification for existing personnel. 

The NRC’s baseline assessment did not identify any gaps that necessitate additional 

training or certification requirements. The NRC hires highly skilled professionals for its IT 

and cybersecurity workforce and, therefore, no gaps were identified. While certifications are 

one of the many qualifications we consider, they are not currently required. For those 

employees who choose to obtain certifications, preparation resources are available under an 

NRC contract with Skillsoft and the Department of Homeland Security’s Federal Virtual 

Training Environment, which is open to all Federal employees.
###### Editorial Note on Part 140

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 140 appear at 89 FR 71813, Sept. 4, 2024.

#### § 140.14 Delegation of authority to the Secretary of the Commission.

After the Commission has formally reached a decision or taken other action on a matter, has agreed upon the language of the document which embodies the Commission decision or other action, including, but not limited to, a rule, regulation or order, and has directed that the document be issued, the Secretary of the Commission (or a person designated in writing by the Secretary) shall sign the document on behalf of the Commission. Signature by the Secretary shall be a ministerial function and shall not be discretionary. The delegation to the Secretary of the authority to sign documents on the Commission's behalf shall not affect any other delegation which the Commission has made, or may make, which authorizes any other officer or employee of the Commission to take action and to sign documents on the Commission's behalf. In addition, the Commission reserves the authority to provide for signature on its behalf by the Chairman or any other member of the Commission in particular circumstances.

[44 FR 33677, June 12, 1979]
NRC NEWS U. S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

 Office of Public Affairs Region IV 

 611 Ryan Plaza Drive - Suite 400

 Arlington, TX 76011-4005

No. IV-04-020 April 28, 2004

Contact: Victor Dricks E-Mail: opa4@nrc.gov

Phone: 817-860-8128

NRC PROPOSES $6,000 FINE AGAINST

ALL TECH CORP., OF POCATELLO, IDAHO

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff has proposed a $6,000 fine against All Tech

Corporation of Pocatello, Idaho, for a willful violation of NRC requirements.

In a letter to the company, Bruce S. Mallett, Administrator of the NRC’s Region IV office

in Arlington, Texas, said the company’s General Manager deliberately failed to provide complete

and accurate information to an NRC inspector in February 2002 when asked to account for the

gauges containing radioactive material in the company’s possession. 

“The NRC must be able to rely on licensees and their employees to conduct their

activities in accordance with NRC requirements, and to provide complete and accurate

information to the NRC during its inspections,” Mr. Mallett said. “In this case, the actions of

your employee prevented the NRC from carrying out its responsibility to ensure that All Tech

was storing and securing radioactive material in accordance with NRC requirements.”

All Tech officials met with NRC officials in Pocatello on September 15 to discuss the

violation. At the conference, All Tech officials described corrective actions taken to ensure its

inventory of gauges and record keeping would be accurate. 

The NRC has proposed a $6,000 fine against All Tech for the proposed violation, which

it characterized as a Severity III violation. The agency uses a four-level severity scale on which

Severity Level I is the most serious. Because the violation was committed willfully, the base

penalty of $3,000 was doubled.

The NRC letter, its enclosures, and the company’s response will be made available to

interested members of the public through the agency’s electronic reading room at:

http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html .
-2-

Help in accessing these documents is available from the NRC Public Document Room at

(301) 415-4737 or at 1-800-397-4209. The company has 30 days from receipt of the letter to

either pay the civil penalty or to protest its imposition.

###
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Adrian Gerard, Appellant.

No opinion. Present — Nolan, P. J., Carswell, Adel, Wenzel and MacCrate, JJ.
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Office of Personnel Management

# AGENCY:

Office of Personnel Management. 

# ACTION:

Notice. 

# SUMMARY:

In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-13, May 22, 1995), this notice announces that the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) has submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) a request for review of a revised information collection. DPRS-2809, Request to Change Federal Employees Health Benefits (FEHB) Enrollment or to Receive Plan Brochures, is used by former spouses, Temporary Continuation of Coverage enrollees, and direct pay annuitants to change health benefits enrollment or request plan brochures for plans they wish to consider for enrollment during open season. 

Approximately 27,000 DPRS-2809 forms are completed annually. We estimate it takes approximately 45 minutes to complete the form. The annual burden is 20,250 hours. 

                        For copies of this proposal, contact Mary Beth Smith-Toomey on (202) 606-8358, FAX (202) 418-3251 or via E-mail to                         *mbtoomey@opm.gov.*                         Please include a mailing address with your request.                     

# DATES:

Comments on this proposal should be received within 30 calendar days from the date of this publication.

# ADDRESSES:

Send or deliver comments to—

Ellen Korchek, CEBS, Chief, Program Planning & Evaluation Group,  Insurances Services Program, Center for Retirement and Insurance Services,  U.S. Office of Personnel Management, 1900 E Street, NW., Room 3425, Washington, DC 20415-3650

  and

Joseph F. Lackey, OPM Desk Officer, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management & Budget, New Executive Office Building, NW., Room 10235, Washington, DC 20503. 

*For Information Regarding Administrative Coordination—Contact:*                         Cyrus S. Benson, Team Leader, Publications Team, Support Group, (202) 606-0623.                    

Office of Personnel Management.

Kay Coles James,

Director.

[FR Doc. 04-26729 Filed 12-3-04; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6325-38-P
### §1543. Omitted

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section, acts Oct. 14, 1940, ch. 862, title III, §303, formerly §6, 54 Stat. 1127; renumbered title III, §303, June 28, 1941, ch. 260, §4(b), 55 Stat. 363; amended Ex. Ord. No. 9070, §1, eff. Feb. 24, 1942, 7 F.R. 1529; July 7, 1943, ch. 196, §3, 57 Stat. 388; Feb. 18, 1946, ch. 30, title I, §101, 60 Stat. 9; June 11, 1948, ch. 448, 62 Stat. 356; Apr. 20, 1950, ch. 94, title II, §204, 64 Stat. 73, which related to disposition of moneys derived from rentals or operations of acquired or constructed property and to establishment, limitations on, and termination of reserves, was omitted in view of the omission of section 1541 of this title.
#### Stumpf AG, Appellant, v Dynegy Inc. et al., Respondents, et al., Defendant.

[820 NYS2d 24]

*233Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Karla Moskowitz, J.), entered on or about December 5, 2005, which denied plaintiffs motion for partial summary judgment on the issues of liability and the amount of damages against defendant Crisscross Communications, and sought to preclude defendants Dynegy and 360Networks Holdings from relitigating those issues, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

The court properly declined to recognize the English High Court judgment as conclusive on the issues of the breach of contract and levels of liability against Crisscross, and preclusion of defendants Dynegy and 360Networks Holdings from “relitigating” those issues as they might affect their own liability derivative from that of Crisscross. The High Court judgment did not fall within CPLR article 53, inasmuch as it was not “enforceable where rendered” (CPLR 5302). In order to get the liquidator in the English proceeding to consent to entry of a judgment against Crisscross, plaintiff agreed that it would not enforce that judgment against Crisscross. The judgment gave plaintiff no additional rights beyond those it already had in the liquidation proceeding. As Crisscross was the only party against whom the judgment was entered, and plaintiff could not enforce the judgment against Crisscross, the judgment was unenforceable.

The court also properly found that defendants are not collaterally estopped from litigating the issues of the alleged breach and level of damages. Collateral estoppel bars parties to a litigation, and those in privity with them, from relitigating issues necessarily decided in a prior litigation. In order to invoke the doctrine of collateral estoppel, the identical issue must necessarily have been decided in the prior litigation and be decisive of the present action, and there must have been a full and fair opportunity to contest the issue in the prior proceeding *(D’Arata v New York Cent. Mut. Fire Ins. Co.,*76 NY2d 659, 665-666 [1990]; *Gramatan Home Invs. Corp. v Lopez,*46 NY2d 481, 485 [1979]). Here, the matter was not previously “litigated” *(see Kaufman v Eli Lilly & Co.,*65 NY2d 449, 456-457 [1985] [issue not “ ‘actually litigated and determined’ in a prior action” where “there has been a default, a confession of liability, a failure to place a matter in issue by proper pleading or even because of a stipulation”]; *see also Zimmerman v Tower Ins. Co. of N.Y.,*13 AD3d 137, 140 [2004]).

In view of the foregoing, plaintiffs remaining contentions need not be addressed. Concur — Nardelli, J.P., Williams, Catterson, McGuire and Malone, JJ.
I 

112TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 3719 

To provide that funds made available to the Corps of Engineers for certain 

Missouri River fish and wildlife purposes be used for the reconstruction 

of flood control structures, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

DECEMBER 16, 2011 

Mr. KING of Iowa (for himself, Mr. BRALEY of Iowa, Mr. BOSWELL, Mr. 

LOEBSACK, Mr. GRAVES of Missouri, Mrs. HARTZLER, Mr. LATHAM, Mr. 

TERRY, and Ms. JENKINS) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, and in addition to the Committee on Natural Resources, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such 

provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned 

A BILL 

To provide that funds made available to the Corps of Engineers for certain Missouri River fish and wildlife purposes be used for the reconstruction of flood control 

structures, and for other purposes. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. USE OF FUNDS FOR RECONSTRUCTION OF 

4 FLOOD CONTROL STRUCTURES. 

5 Notwithstanding any other provision of law, all unob6 ligated balances of funds made available in appropriations 


jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 3719 IH

1 Acts, and all funds subsequently appropriated, for the 

2 Missouri River Fish and Wildlife Recovery, Iowa, Kansas, 

3 Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, North Dakota, and South 

4 Dakota, and Tributaries, and the carrying out of the Army 

5 Corps of Engineers’ responsibilities in the management of 

6 the Missouri River under the fish and wildlife authorized 

7 purpose, shall be available only for the reconstruction of 

8 flood control structures until the structures are returned 

9 to the elevation and design that predates the 2011 Mis10 souri River flood event and the reconstruction efforts are 

11 completed. 

Æ 


jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
#### Philip Singer, Respondent, v. Dees Holding Corp. et al., Appellants.

No opinion. Present — Nolan, P. J., Carswell, Adel, Wenzel and MaeCrate, JJ.
### §14336. New product or use

On petition of a person that proposes a new use for a battery technology described in this subchapter or the use of a battery described in this subchapter in a new product, the Administrator may exempt from this subchapter the new use of the technology or the use of such a battery in the new product on the condition, if appropriate, that there exist reasonable safeguards to ensure that the resulting battery or product without an easily removable battery will not be disposed of in an incinerator, composting facility, or landfill (other than a facility regulated under subtitle C of the Solid Waste Disposal Act (42 U.S.C. 6921 et seq.)).

(Pub. L. 104–142, title II, §207, May 13, 1996, 110 Stat. 1336.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### References in Text

The Solid Waste Disposal Act, referred to in text, is title II of Pub. L. 89–272, Oct. 20, 1965, 79 Stat. 997, as amended generally by Pub. L. 94–580, §2, Oct. 21, 1976, 90 Stat. 2795. Subtitle C of the Act is classified generally to subchapter III (§6921 et seq.) of chapter 82 of this title. For complete classification of this Act to the Code, see Short Title note set out under section 6901 of this title and Tables.
##### 



Exhibit 32.1 Certification
Pursuant to Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18 of the
United States Code as Adopted Pursuant to Section 906
of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 In connection with the filing of the quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of Biomass Processing
Technology, Inc. (the Company) for the quarter ended March 31, 2005, as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), the undersigned, Larry W. Denney,
Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, hereby certifies, pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. §1350, that:  (1)
    The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, 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:
    
    /s/ Larry W. DenneyMay 20, 2005
    
    Name: Larry W. DenneyTitle:
    
    Chairman, President andChief Executive Officer(principal executive officer)
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

939 

CAF 13-00701 

PRESENT: SCUDDER, P.J., CENTRA, CARNI, LINDLEY, AND WHALEN, JJ. 

 

IN THE MATTER OF JANET WOODWORTH, 

PETITIONER-RESPONDENT, 

V ORDER

MICHAEL ATKINSON, RESPONDENT, 

AND DEANNA LOWDEN, RESPONDENT-APPELLANT. 

 

DEANNA LOWDEN, RESPONDENT-APPELLANT PRO SE. 

PAMELA A. MUNSON, ATTORNEY FOR THE CHILD, FULTON. 

 

Appeal from an order of the Family Court, Oswego County (Kimberly

M. Seager, J.), entered January 23, 2013 in a proceeding pursuant to

Family Court Act article 4. The order denied the objections of

respondent Deanna Lowden to an order of a support magistrate. 

It is hereby ORDERED that the order so appealed from is

unanimously affirmed without costs for reasons stated in the decision

at Family Court.

Entered: September 26, 2014 Frances E. Cafarell

Clerk of the Court
Part 5348 - Value Engineering

DAFFARS PART 5348 Knowledge Center

Revised: June 2023

Subpart 5348.1 — POLICIES AND PROCEDURES

5348.104-3 Sharing Collateral Savings

Subpart 5348.1 — POLICIES AND PROCEDURES

5348.104-3 Sharing Collateral Savings

(a) See MP5301.601(a)(i).
[Federal Register Volume 69, Number 233 (Monday, December 6, 2004)]
[Notices]
[Page 70470]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 04-26734]


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

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Drug Enforcement Administration


Manufacturer of Controlled Substances; Notice of Application; 
Correction

    By Notice dated June 28, 2004, and published in the Federal 
Register on July 13, 2004, (69 FR 42067-42068), dated April 29 2004, 
the listing of controlled substances for Oxycodone (9143) and 
Hydrocodone (9193), were inadvertently omitted, by Cedarburg 
Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 870 Badger Circle, Grafton, Wisconsin 53024.

    Dated: November 22, 2004.
William J. Walker,
Deputy Assistant Administrator, Office of Diversion Control, Drug 
Enforcement Administration.
[FR Doc. 04-26734 Filed 12-3-04; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410-09-P
Home > NRC Library > ADAMS Public Documents

# Oak Ridge National Lab Non-Military Radium Report

Accession Number: ML16287A522

Date Released: Monday, October 17, 2016

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.
    - ML16287A516 - Oak Ridge National Lab. Non-Military Radium Report. (2 page(s), 10/17/2016)
    - ML16291A485 - ORNL Report: Historical Non-Military Radium Sites Research Effort. (17 page(s), 11/24/2015)
    - ML16291A488 - ORNL Report: Historical Non-Military Radium Sites Research Effort  Addendum. (166 page(s), 11/24/2015)

Privacy PolicySite Disclaimer