alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 69, Number 230 (Wednesday, December 1, 2004)]
[Notices]
[Pages 69923-69924]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 04-26479]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[FRL-7844-2]


Middlesboro, Tannery Superfund Site; Notice of Proposed 
Settlement

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency.

ACTION: Notice of proposed settlement.

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

SUMMARY: Under section 122h(h)(1) of the Comprehensive Environmental

[[Page 69924]]

Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA), the Environmental 
Protection Agency (EPA) has entered into an Agreement for Recovery of 
past response costs at the Middlesboro, Tannery Superfund Site located 
in Middlesboro, Bell county, Kentucky. EPA will consider public 
comments on the agreement until January 3, 2005. EPA may withdraw from 
or modify the Agreement should such comments disclose facts or 
consideration which indicate the Agreement is inappropriate, improper, 
or inadequate. Copies of the Agreement are available from: Ms. Paula V. 
Batchelor, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, (WMD-SEIMB), 
61 Forsyth Street, SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303, (404) 562-8887, 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#91d3f0e5f2f9f4fdfee3bfc1f0e4fdf0d1f4e1f0bff6fee7"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="6e2c0f1a0d060b02011c403e0f1b020f2e0b1e0f40090118">[email protected]</span></a>.
    Written comments may be submitted to Ms. Batchelor at the above 
address within 30 days of the date of publication.

    Dated: November 16, 2004.
Rosalind H. Brown,
Chief, Superfund Enforcement Information Management Branch.
[FR Doc. 04-26479 Filed 11-30-04; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
#### Sam Spatuzzi, Doing Business as Sammy’s Garage, Respondent, v. Leo B. Lia, Doing Business as Leo Cleaners & Dyers, Appellant.

Appeal dismissed, without costs upon stipulation.
§ 204.75 Collection services. Section 13 of the Debt Collection Act (31 U.S.C. 3718) authorizes agencies to enter into contracts for collection services to recover debts owed the United States. The Act requires that certain provisions be contained in such contracts, including: ( a ) The agency retains the authority to resolve a dispute, including the authority to terminate a collection action or refer the matter to the Attorney General for civil remedies; and
( b ) The contractor is subject to the Privacy Act of 1974, as it applies to private contractors, as well as subject to State and Federal laws governing debt collection practices.
§ 423.5 Unfair or deceptive acts or practices. ( a ) *Textile wearing apparel and certain piece goods.* In connection with the sale, in or affecting commerce, of textile wearing apparel and certain piece goods, it is an unfair or deceptive act or practice for a manufacturer or importer: ( 1 ) To fail to disclose to a purchaser, prior to sale, instructions which prescribe a regular care procedure necessary for the ordinary use and enjoyment of the product;
( 2 ) To fail to warn a purchaser, prior to sale, when the product cannot be cleaned by any cleaning procedure, without being harmed;
( 3 ) To fail to warn a purchaser, prior to sale, when any part of the prescribed regular care procedure, which a consumer or professional cleaner could reasonably be expected to use, would harm the product or others being cleaned with it;
( 4 ) To fail to provide regular care instructions and warnings, except as to piece goods, in a form that can be referred to by the consumer throughout the useful life of the product;
( 5 ) To fail to possess, prior to sale, a reasonable basis for all regular care information disclosed to the purchaser.
( b ) *Violations of this regulation.* The Commission has adopted this regulation to prevent the unfair or deceptive acts or practices, defined in paragraph (a) of this section. Each manufacturer or importer covered by this regulation must comply with the requirements in §§ 423.2 and 423.6 through 423.8 of this regulation. Any manufacturer or importer who complies with the requirements of §§ 423.2 and 423.6 through 423.8 does not violate this regulation.
(Approved by the Office of Management and Budget under control number 3084-0046)
**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO**

**18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**

**SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

The undersigned, Bonnie L. McNamara, the Chief Financial Officer of id-Confirm, Inc., hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

(1)    the annual report on Form 10-KSB of id-Confirm, Inc. for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2005 (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 id-Confirm, Inc.

Date: September 28, 2005
| /s/ Bonnie L. McNamara |
|------------------------|

Bonnie L. McNamara 

Chief Financial Officer 

(Principal Financial Officer and Principal Accounting Officer)
#### § 201.301 Hearings to be public.

All hearings, except hearings on applications for confidential treatment filed pursuant to § 201.190, hearings held to consider a motion for a protective order pursuant to § 201.322, and hearings on *ex parte* application for a temporary cease-and-desist order, shall be public unless otherwise ordered by the Commission on its own motion or the motion of a party. No hearing shall be nonpublic where all respondents request that the hearing be made public.
### §1437aaa–7. Limitation on selection criteria

In establishing criteria for selecting applicants to receive assistance under this subchapter, the Secretary may not establish any selection criterion or criteria that grant or deny such assistance to an applicant (or have the effect of granting or denying assistance) based on the implementation, continuation, or discontinuation of any public policy, regulation, or law of any jurisdiction in which the applicant or project is located.

(Sept. 1, 1937, ch. 896, title III, §308, as added Pub. L. 101–625, title IV, §411, Nov. 28, 1990, 104 Stat. 4159.)
#### § 10.111 Recommendation of procedure for implementing restitution.

Except as provided by § 10.114, after such time as any order requiring restitution becomes effective (*i.e.,* becomes final and is not stayed), the Division of Enforcement shall petition the Commission for an order directing the Division to recommend to the Commission or, in the Commission's discretion, the Administrative Law Judge a procedure for implementing restitution. Each party that has been ordered to pay restitution shall be afforded an opportunity to review the Division of Enforcement's recommendations and be heard.
### §15965. Time limit for award; extension

If a Clean Coal Power Initiative project selected after March 11, 2009, for negotiation under this or any other Act in any fiscal year, is not awarded within 2 years from the date the application was selected, negotiations shall cease and the Federal funds committed to the application shall be retained by the Department for future coal-related research, development and demonstration projects, except that the time limit may be extended at the Secretary's discretion for matters outside the control of the applicant, or if the Secretary determines that extension of the time limit is in the public interest.

(Pub. L. 111–8, div. C, title III, Mar. 11, 2009, 123 Stat. 616.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section was enacted as part of the Energy and Water Development and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2009, and also as part of the Omnibus Appropriations Act, 2009, and not as part of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 which comprises this chapter.
AUSTIN.TEXAS 

November 21,, 1949 

~Hon, Tom A. Craven 

County Auditor 

MoLeman Couuty 

Waco, Texas 

opiuiou Ro. v-948. 

Re: The legality of raising the 

cmapensatlou of couutg of- 

, 

ficials under S.B. Bo. 92, 

31st Legislature, without 

giving a like raise to the 

Dear Sira Critinal District Attorney. 

YQU Fequest an opinion conceruing the legality of raising the compensation of county officials (includiqg members of the Cosnnlsslouers' Court) uudep Senate Bill Ro, 92, 51st Legislature, without giving a 

like raise to the Criminal District Attorney. 

Seuate Dill 92 was passed Ray 31, 1949, and 

became effective June 6, 1949. Under its provisions, 

the Comissloners~ Court of each county was compelled 

to raise the salary of county officers in like proportion before a raise could be granted the members of the 

Conmissioners Court. A. G. Opinion Ro. V-864. However, House Bill 339, applicable to McLennan County, 

was passed subsequent to Senate Bill 92 (June 16, 1949) 

and set the salary of the Crimlual District Attorney at 

$6500.00, payable in twelve equal installments. A. G. 

opinion No. v-893. 

Since House Bill 339 is a specifio statute 

covering the salary of the Criminal District Attorney, 

it would control over the provisions of Senate Bill 

v, Terrell, 118 Tex. 463, 16 S.W.28 1063 

Lawhlin, 147 Tex. 169, 214 S.W.28 

erefore our opinion that the pro92 are not applicable to the 

salary of the Criminal District Attorney in McLeman 

county . 

Rouse Bill 339, Acts of the 51st Legislature, was passed after Senate Bill 92, Acts 

of the 31st Legislature, set the salary of 

the Crimiml District Attorney in certain 
Hon. Tom A. Craven, page 2 (V-948) 

counties at $6500.00. It is a specific statute covering~the salary of the Crimiual District Attorney, and controls over the general 

provisions of Senate Bill 92. Townsend v. 

Temell, 118 Tex. 463, 16 S.W.28 1063 (1929); 

v. LawhUn, 147 Tex.'l69, 214 S.W.26 IY1 

Your~~ very t+~; 

ATTOFU'iEY GE!+AL,OF TEXAS 

JEF:mwrbh 

BY J@-Je.Yy 

James E. Ferguson 

Assistant 

ATTOKUEY GEB'lQATj
[Federal Register Volume 69, Number 232 (Friday, December 3, 2004)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 70185]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 04-26670]


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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 71

[Docket No. FAA-2004-19325; Airspace Docket No. 04-ACE-54]


Modification of Class E Airspace; Dodge City, KS

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Direct final rule; confirmation of effective date.

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

SUMMARY: This document confirms the effective date of the direct final 
rule which revises Class E airspace at Dodge City, KS.

Effective Date: 0901 UTC, January 20, 2005.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kathy Randolph, Air Traffic Division, 
Airspace Branch, ACE-520C, DOT Regional Headquarters Building, Federal 
Aviation Administration, 901 Locust, Kansas City, MO 64106; telephone: 
(816) 329-2525.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The FAA published this direct final rule 
with a request for comments in the Federal Register on October 19, 2004 
(69 FR 61439) and subsequently published corrections to the direct 
final rule on October 29, 2004 (69 FR 63032) and November 22, 2004 (69 
FR 67811). The FAA uses the direct final rulemaking procedure for a 
non-controversial rule where the FAA believes that there will be no 
adverse public comment. This direct final rule advised the public that 
no adverse comments were anticipated, and that unless a written adverse 
comment, or a written notice of intent to submit such an adverse 
comment, were received within the comment period, the regulation would 
become effective on January 20, 2005. No adverse comments were 
received, and thus this notice confirms that this direct final rule 
will become effective on that date.

    Issued in Kansas City, MO on November 23, 2004.
Elizabeth S. Wallis,
Acting Area Director, Western Flight Services Operations.
[FR Doc. 04-26670 Filed 12-2-04; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-M
NRC NEWS

U. S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

OFFICE OF PUBLIC AFFAIRS, REGION III

801 Warrenville Road, Lisle IL 60532

CONTACT: Jan Strasma (630) 829-9663/e-mail: rjs2@nrc.gov

Angela Greenman (630) 829-9662/e-mail: opa3@nrc.gov

 NEWS ANNOUNCEMENT: RIII-96-12 April 1, 1996

 CONTACT: Jan Strasma 708/829-9663

 Angela Dauginas 708/829-9662

 E-mail: opa3@nrc.gov

 PRAIRIE ISLAND PLANT RATED "SUPERIOR" IN THREE AREAS,

 "GOOD" IN ONE AREA IN LATEST SYSTEMATIC ASSESSMENT REPORT

 The Prairie Island Nuclear Power Plant has received

 performance ratings of "superior" in plant operations,

 maintenance, and plant support and "good" in engineering in

 the Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff's latest Systematic

 Assessment of Licensee Performance (SALP) report for the

 facility.

 The SALP report was sent March 28 to Northern States

 Power Company (NSP), which operates the plant in Red Wing,

 Minnesota. It evaluates the plant's performance from July

 24, 1994, through February 17.

 NRC and NSP officials will discuss the assessment during

 a meeting set for 9 a.m. on April 17 at the Prairie Island

 Training Center on the plant site. The meeting will be open

 for public observation. NRC officials will be available

 afterwards to speak with reporters, state and local

 officials, and members of the public.

 NRC SALP reports rate licensees in four functional areas

 - plant operations, maintenance, engineering, and plant

 support - and assign ratings of Category 1, 2 or 3 depending

 on whether their performance in those areas was superior,

 good or adequate. The report on Prairie Island gives a the

 plant a "Category 1" rating in plant operations, maintenance,

 and plant support, indicating superior performance. It

 assigns a rating of "Category 2" to engineering, indicating

 good performance.

 NRC Regional Administrator Hubert J. Miller, in a letter

 to the utility, said: "...the conduct of nuclear activities

 at Prairie Island was excellent overall, and was properly

 focused on nuclear safety."

 "Prairie Island's performance was characterized by

 strong management involvement and a conservative approach to

 operations," he added. "Interdepartmental communications,

 teamwork and work controls were strong."
 The ratings for each functional area of this report and

 the previous report were:

 Functional Area Current Period Previous Period

 Operations 1 1

 Maintenance 1 1

 Engineering 2 2

 Plant Support 1 1

 # # # #

 (Note: A copy of the full report may be obtained from the

 Region III Office of Public Affairs at the telephone numbers

 or e-mail address above.)
### §10826. Administration

#### (a) In general

The Secretary shall carry out this subchapter through the Administrator of the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration.

#### (b) Regulations

Not later than 6 months after November 27, 1991, the Secretary shall promulgate final regulations to carry out this subchapter and subchapter III.

(Pub. L. 99–319, title I, §116, May 23, 1986, 100 Stat. 485; Pub. L. 102–173, §9, Nov. 27, 1991, 105 Stat. 1219; Pub. L. 102–321, title I, §163(c)(3)(B), July 10, 1992, 106 Stat. 377.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Amendments

1992—Subsec. (a). Pub. L. 102–321 substituted "the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration" for "the Alcohol, Drug Abuse, and Mental Health Administration".

1991—Pub. L. 102–173 designated existing provisions as subsec. (a), inserted heading, and added subsec. (b).

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

#### Effective Date of 1992 Amendment

Amendment by Pub. L. 102–321 effective Oct. 1, 1992, see section 801(c) of Pub. L. 102–321, set out as a note under section 236 of this title.
I 

112TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 3809 

To amend title 28 of the United States Code to exclude the State of New 

Jersey from the prohibition on professional and amateur sports gambling 

to the extent approved by the legislature of the State. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JANUARY 23, 2012 

Mr. PALLONE introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on the Judiciary 

A BILL 

To amend title 28 of the United States Code to exclude 

the State of New Jersey from the prohibition on professional and amateur sports gambling to the extent approved by the legislature of the State. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘New Jersey Betting 

5 and Equal Treatment Act of 2012’’. 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 3809 IH

1 SEC. 2. EXCLUSION OF THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY FROM 

2 THE PROHIBITION ON AMATEUR AND PRO3 FESSIONAL SPORTS GAMBLING TO THE EX4 TENT APPROVED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF 

5 THE STATE. 

6 Section 3704(a) of title 28, United States Code, is 

7 amended— 

8 (1) in paragraph (3)(B), by striking ‘‘or’’ at the 

9 end; 

10 (2) in paragraph (4), by striking the period at 

11 the end and inserting ‘‘; or’’; and 

12 (3) by adding at the end the following: 

13 ‘‘(5) a lottery, sweepstakes, or other betting, 

14 gambling, or waging scheme operating exclusively in 

15 the State of New Jersey, to the extent such scheme 

16 is approved by the legislature of the State by stat17 ute.’’. 

18 SEC. 3. APPLICABILITY. 

19 The amendments made by this Act apply to conduct 

20 occurring on or after the date of the enactment of this 

21 Act. 

Æ 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with BILLS
### §14051. Transferred

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section 14051 was editorially reclassified as section 12521 of Title 34, Crime Control and Law Enforcement.
§ 201.35 Standards for awards. ( a ) A prevailing applicant may receive an award for fees and expenses incurred in connection with a proceeding or in a significant and discrete substantive portion of the proceeding, unless the position of the Office or Division over which the applicant has prevailed was substantially justified. The position of the Office or Division includes, in addition to the position taken by the Office or Division in the adversary adjudication, the action or failure to act by the Office or Division upon which the adversary adjudication is based. The burden of proof that an award should not be made to an eligible prevailing applicant is on counsel for an Office or Division of the Commission, which must show that its position was reasonable in law and fact.
( b ) An award will be reduced or denied if the applicant has unduly or unreasonably protracted the proceeding or if special circumstances make the award sought unjust.
[47 FR 610, Jan. 6, 1982, as amended at 54 FR 53051, Dec. 27, 1989]
#### Evelyn Schultz, Respondent, v. Forest Hills Gardens Corp., Appellant.

— Action to recover damages for personal injuries alleged to have been sustained by plaintiff when she fell on an accumulation of snow and ice on a private street owned and controlled by defendant and customarily used by the public. The jury rendered a verdict for $5,000 in favor of plaintiff and against defendant. Defendant appeals from the judgment entered thereon. Judgment unanimously affirmed, with costs. Ro opinion. Present — Rolan, P. J., Carswell, MacCrate, Schmidt and Beldock, JJ.
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

February 5, 2020

No. 04-19-00773-CV

Stephen S. STOKWITZ,

Appellant

v.

Marcus TINAJERO, Charles P. Jones and Linda Tinajero Jones,

Appellee

From the 81st Judicial District Court, Atascosa County, Texas

Trial Court No. 18-05-0464-CVA

Honorable Lynn Ellison, Judge Presiding

O R D E R

The Appellant’s Second Motion for Extension of Time to File Brief is hereby 

GRANTED. The appellant’s brief is due by March 4, 2020. No further extensions absent 

extenuating circumstances. 

_________________________________

Rebeca C. Martinez, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said 

court on this 5th day of February, 2020.

___________________________________

MICHAEL A. CRUZ,

Clerk of Court
§ 1115.3 Definitions. In addition to the definitions given in section 3 of the CPSA (15 U.S.C. 2052), the following definitions apply: ( a ) *Adequately informed* under section 15(b) of the CPSA means that the Commission staff has received the information requested under §§ 1115.12 and/or 1115.13 of this part insofar as it is reasonably available and applicable or that the staff has informed the subject firm that the staff is adequately informed.
( b ) *Commission meeting* means the joint deliberations of at least a majority of the Commission where such deliberations determine or result in the conduct or disposition of official Commission business. This term is synonymous with “Commission meeting” as defined in the Commission's regulation issued under the Government in the Sunshine Act, 16 CFR part 1012.
( c ) *Noncompliance* means the failure of a consumer product to comply with an applicable consumer product safety rule or with a voluntary consumer product safety standard upon which the Commission has relied under section 9 of the CPSA.
( d ) A *person* means a corporation, company, association, firm, partnership, society, joint stock company, or individual.
( e ) *Staff* means the staff of the Consumer Product Safety Commission unless otherwise stated.
( f ) *Subject firm* means any manufacturer (including an importer), distributor, or retailer of a consumer product.
[43 FR 34998, Aug. 7, 1978, as amended at 57 FR 34227, Aug. 4, 1992]
#### § 201.326 Evidence: Presentation, rebuttal and cross-examination.

In any proceeding in which a hearing is required to be conducted on the record after opportunity for hearing in accord with 5 U.S.C. 556(a), a party is entitled to present its case or defense by oral or documentary evidence, to submit rebuttal evidence, and to conduct such cross-examination as, in the discretion of the Commission or the hearing officer, may be required for a full and true disclosure of the facts. The scope and form of evidence, rebuttal evidence, if any, and cross-examination, if any, in any other proceeding shall be determined by the Commission or the hearing officer in each proceeding.
###### Editorial Note on Part 140

#### Editorial Note:

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

#### § 140.735-3 Non-governmental employment and other outside activity.

A Commission member or employee shall not accept employment or compensation from any person, exchange, swap execution facility, swap data repository or derivatives clearing organization subject to regulation by the Commission. For purposes of this section, a person subject to regulation by the Commission includes but is not limited to a contract market, swap execution facility, swap data repository or derivatives clearing organization or member thereof, a registered futures commission merchant, any person associated with a futures commission merchant or with any agent of a futures commission merchant, floor broker, commodity trading advisor, commodity pool operator or any person required to be registered in a fashion similar to any of the above or file reports under the Act or pursuant to any rule or regulation promulgated by the Commission.[11]

[ 77 FR 66348, Nov. 2, 2012]

###### Footnotes -
  140.735-3

[11] Attention is directed to section 2(a)(8) of the Commodity Exchange Act, which provides, among other things, that no Commission member or employee shall accept employment or compensation from any person, exchange or derivatives clearing organization (“clearinghouse”) subject to regulation by the Commission, or participate, directly or indirectly, in any contract market operations or transactions of a character subject to regulation by the Commission.
# Subpart 519.14 - [Reserved]

**Parent topic:**Part 519 - Small Business Programs