alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 185 (Friday, September 25, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Page 48960]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-23252]



[[Page 48960]]

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

FEDERAL ACCOUNTING STANDARDS ADVISORY BOARD


Notice of Issuance of Technical Bulletin 2009-1, Deferral of the 
Effective Date of Technical Bulletin 2006-1

AGENCY: Federal Accounting Standards Advisory Board.

ACTION: Notice.

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

    Board Action: Pursuant to 31 U.S.C. 3511(d), the Federal Advisory 
Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463), as amended, and the FASAB Rules of 
Procedure, as amended in April 2004, notice is hereby given that the 
Federal Accounting Standards Advisory Board (FASAB) has issued 
Technical Bulletin 2009-1, Deferral of the Effective Date of Technical 
Bulletin 2006-1.
    Technical Bulletin 2009-1 defers the effective date of Technical 
Bulletin 2006-1, Recognition and Measurement of Asbestos-Related 
Cleanup Costs, for two years to provide Federal agencies with 
additional time to resolve implementation issues that have been 
identified since Technical Bulletin 2006-1 was issued.
    The Technical Bulletin is available on the FASAB home page http://www.fasab.gov/tchbl.html. Copies can be obtained by contacting FASAB at 
(202) 512-7350.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Wendy Payne, Executive Director, at 
(202) 512-7350.

    Authority:  Federal Advisory Committee Act, Public Law 92-463.

    Dated: September 22, 2009.
Charles Jackson,
Federal Register Liaison Officer.
[FR Doc. E9-23252 Filed 9-24-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 1610-02-P
§ 21.3307 “Discontinued” status. ( a ) *Placement in “discontinued” status.* If reentrance from *interrupted* status into a program of special restorative training is not approved under the provisions of § 21.3306, a counseling psychologist or vocational rehabilitation counselor will place the case in *discontinued* status.
( b ) *Notification.* In any case of discontinuance the Department of Veterans Affairs will: ( 1 ) Notify the eligible person of the action taken, except that if the eligible person has a guardian or has not attained majority under laws applicable in his or her State of residence, VA will notify his or her parent or guardian (see § 21.3021(d)) of the action taken.
( 2 ) Inform the eligible person of his or her potential right to a program of education, except that if the eligible person has a guardian or has not attained majority under laws applicable in his or her State of residence, VA will inform his or her parent or guardian (see § 21.3021(d)) of the eligible person's potential right to a program of education. (Authority: 38 U.S.C. 3501, 3543(b))
( c ) *Effect of discontinuance.* An eligible person who has been placed in *discontinued* status is precluded from any further pursuit of special restorative training until a Department of Veterans Affairs counseling psychologist or vocational rehabilitation counselor in the Veteran Readiness and Employment (VR&E) Division determines that the cause of the discontinuance has been removed.
(Authority: 38 U.S.C. 3543(b))
[48 FR 37973, Aug. 22, 1983, as amended at 49 FR 42726, Oct. 24, 1984; 73 FR 2426, Jan. 15, 2008; 87 FR 8743, Feb. 16, 2022]
§ 21.9600 Overcharges. ( a ) *Overcharges by educational institutions may result in the disapproval of enrollments.* VA may disapprove an institution of higher learning for further enrollments if the institution of higher learning charges an individual, or receives from an individual, an amount for tuition and fees that exceeds the established charges that the institution of higher learning requires from similarly circumstanced individuals enrolled in the same course. (Authority: 38 U.S.C. 3034(a), 3323(a), 3690(a))
( b ) *Overcharges by organizations or entities offering licensing or certification tests may result in disapproval of tests.* VA may disapprove an organization or entity offering a licensing or certification test when the organization or entity offering the test charges an individual, or receives from an individual, an amount for fees that exceeds the established fees that the organization or entity requires from similarly circumstanced individuals taking the same test.
(Authority: 38 U.S.C. 3034(a), 3323(a), 3689(d), 3690(a))
## NO. 12

- 1 0

- 00 240

- CV

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT

TYLER, TEXAS

ROBERT F. CALDWELL , § APPEAL FROM THE 87 TH APPELLANT

V. § JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT

ASSISTANT WARDEN EDDIE BAKER , ET AL, APELLEE S § ANDERSON COUNTY, TEXAS

MEMORANDUM OPINION PER CURIAM This appeal is being dismissed because Appellant, Robert F. Caldwell, has failed to comply with the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 42.3. Pursuant to rule 32.1, Caldwell’s docketing statement was due to have been filed at the time the appeal was perfected, i.e., July 1, 2010. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 32.1. On July 28, 2010, this court received Caldwell’s notice of appeal from the trial court, and notified Caldwell th at he should file a docketing statement immediately if he had not already done so. Because Caldwell did not file the docketing statement as requested in our July 28, 2010, letter, this court issued a second notice on August 12, 2010
, advising Caldwell t hat the docketing statement was past due. The notice further provided that unless the docketing statement was filed on or before August 23, 2010, the appeal would be presented for dismissal in accordance with Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 42.3. By le tter filed on August 16, 2010, Caldwell responded that docketing statements are for attorneys and , without completing it, returned the form we had furnished him. Because Caldwell has failed, after notice, to comply with rule 32.1, the appeal is
dismissed

. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 42.3(c). Opinion delivered August 18 , 2010. Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Griffith, J., and Hoyle, J. (PUBLISH)
###### Editorial Note on Part 3

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 3 appear at 61 FR 7216, Feb. 27, 1996; 62 FR 35970, July 3, 1997; 62 FR 47532, Sept. 9, 1997; and 67 FR 46868, July 17, 2002.

#### § 3.372 Initial grant following inactivity of tuberculosis.

When service connection is granted initially on an original or supplemental claim for pulmonary or nonpulmonary tuberculosis and there is satisfactory evidence that the condition was active previously but is now inactive (arrested), it will be presumed that the disease continued to be active for 1 year after the last date of established activity, provided there is no evidence to establish activity or inactivity in the intervening period. For a veteran entitled to receive compensation on August 19, 1968, the beginning date of graduated ratings will commence at the end of the 1-year period. For a veteran who was not receiving or entitled to receive compensation on August 19, 1968, ratings will be assigned in accordance with the Schedule for Rating Disabilities (part 4 of this chapter). This section is not applicable to running award cases.

[33 FR 16275, Nov. 6, 1968, as amended at 84 FR 170, Jan. 18, 2019]
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 96-7074

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

ALBERT W. WHITE, JR.,

Defendant - Appellant.

No. 96-7076

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

ALBERT W. WHITE, JR.,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeals from the United States District Court for the District of

South Carolina, at Florence. William B. Traxler, Jr., District

Judge. (CR-83-316, CA-96-1140, CR-84-22, CA-96-1141)

Submitted: December 19, 1996 Decided: January 6, 1997

Before ERVIN and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit

Judge.
2
3

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Albert W. White, Jr., Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).

PER CURIAM:

Appellant seeks to appeal the district court's order denying

his Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59 motion for reconsideration

and his motion filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (1994), amended by

Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996, Pub. L. No.

104-132, 110 Stat. 1214. We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we

deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeals on the

reasoning of the district court. United States v. White, Nos. CR83-316; CR-84-22; CA-96-1140; CA-96-1141 (D.S.C. May 24, 1996; June

17, 1996). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and

legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before

the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
41768.

#### SODERHAMN MACHINE MANUFACTURING COMPANY v. WILSON.

Submitted January 4, 1966

Decided March 11, 1966.

*309*Sharpe, Sharpe & Hartley, T. Boss Sharpe,*for appellant.

*Neville & Neville, Oliver & Maner, Edwin Maner, Jr.,*for appellee.

Felton, Ohief Judge.

It is contended that the petition is an *310attempt to state a cause of action based upon implied warranty and that the plaintiff does not have the privity of contract requisite to the bringing of such an action. Although there are allegations of negligence in the manufacturing of the machine, the fact that the action is not predicated upon the theory of implied warranty is evidenced by the absence of any reference whatsoever to this term in the petition.

The petition contains allegations of the defendant’s negligence subsequently to the manufacture of the machine—not only in failing either to correct the potentially dangerous defects, of which it allegedly knew or which it could have discovered, or to warn the vendee, the decedent, or other users of the machine of such defects, but also in making positive representations that the machine was in safe operating condition. For cases holding that such negligence may be found to' be actionable, see: MacPherson v. Buick Motor Co., 217 N. Y. 382 (111 NE 1050, LRA 1916F 696, AC 1916C 440); *Maytag Company v. Arbogast,*42 Ga. App. 666 (1, 2) (157 SE 350); *Simmons Co. v. Hardin,*75 Ga. App. 420, 423 (43 SE2d 553); *Washburn &c. Co. v. General Motors Corp.,*90 Ga. App. 380 (3) (83 SE2d 26); *G. Bernd Co. v. Rahn,*94 Ga. App. 713, 7201 (96 SE2d 185); *Hand v. Harrison,*99 Ga. App. 429, 432 (108 SE2d 814); *Smith v. Clarke Hardware Co.,*100 Ga. 163 (28 SE 73, 39 LRA 607); *Floyd v. Morgan,*106 Ga. App. 332, 334 (127 SE2d 31). The allegation of the knocking sounds emitted from the machine from the date of its initial operation up until the date of decedent’s death does not show that decedent had notice of any defects in the machine, since it is also alleged that the defendant inspected the machine after receiving notice of these sounds and represented that such sounds were caused by a harmless air pocket and could be disregarded. The petition shows no reason why the’ plaintiff’s recovery would be barred.

The petition alleges actionable negligence; therefore, the court did not err in overruling the general demurrer thereto.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*Frankum and Pannell, JJ., concur.*
# Official Journal C 203E/2010

| | ISSN 1725-2423
  doi:10.3000/17252423.CE2010.203.eng |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | C 203E |
| | |
| English edition | Information and Notices | Volume 5327 July 2010 |

ISSN 1725-2423

doi:10.3000/17252423.CE2010.203.eng

Official Journal

of the European Union

C 203E

English edition

Information and Notices

Volume 5327 July 2010

---

| Notice No | Contents | page |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | III   Preparatory acts |
| | Council |
| 2010/C 203E/01 | Position (EU) No 11/2010 of the Council at first reading with a view to the adoption of a directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on the framework for the deployment of Intelligent Transport Systems in the field of road transport and for interfaces with other modes of transportAdopted by the Council on 10 May 2010 (1) | 1 |
| 2010/C 203E/02 | Position (EU) No 12/2010 of the Council at first reading with a view to the adoption of a directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on the protection of animals used for scientific purposesAdopted by the Council on 3 June 2010 (1) | 19 |

Notice No

Contents

page

III   Preparatory acts

Council

2010/C 203E/01

Position (EU) No 11/2010 of the Council at first reading with a view to the adoption of a directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on the framework for the deployment of Intelligent Transport Systems in the field of road transport and for interfaces with other modes of transportAdopted by the Council on 10 May 2010 (1)

1

2010/C 203E/02

Position (EU) No 12/2010 of the Council at first reading with a view to the adoption of a directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on the protection of animals used for scientific purposesAdopted by the Council on 3 June 2010 (1)

19

---

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

---

(1)   Text with EEA relevance

1

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

EN
###### Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter I

#### Editorial Note:

Part 2 is placed in the separate grouping of parts pertaining to trademarks regulations.

###### Editorial Note on Part 5

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 5 appear at 68 FR 14338, Mar. 25, 2003.

#### § 5.2 Secrecy order.

(a) When notified by the chief officer of a defense agency that publication or disclosure of the invention by the granting of a patent would be detrimental to the national security, an order that the invention be kept secret will be issued by the Commissioner for Patents.

(b) Any request for compensation as provided in 35 U.S.C. 183 must not be made to the Patent and Trademark Office, but directly to the department or agency which caused the secrecy order to be issued.

(c) An application disclosing any significant part of the subject matter of an application under a secrecy order pursuant to paragraph (a) of this section also falls within the scope of such secrecy order. Any such application that is pending before the Office must be promptly brought to the attention of Licensing and Review, unless such application is itself under a secrecy order pursuant to paragraph (a) of this section. Any subsequently filed application containing any significant part of the subject matter of an application under a secrecy order pursuant to paragraph (a) of this section must either be hand-carried to Licensing and Review or mailed to the Office in compliance with § 5.1(a).

[24 FR 10381, Dec. 22, 1959, as amended at 62 FR 53203, Oct. 10, 1997; 65 FR 54683, Sept. 8, 2000]

###### Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter I

#### Editorial Note:

Part 6 is placed in the separate grouping of parts pertaining to trademarks regulations.

###### Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter I

#### Editorial Note:

Part 7 is placed in the separate grouping of parts pertaining to trademarks regulations.

###### Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter I

#### Editorial Note:

Part 1 is placed in the separate grouping of parts pertaining to patents regulations.

###### Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter I

#### Editorial Note:

Part 3 pertaining to both patents and trademarks is placed in the grouping pertaining to patents regulations.

###### Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter I

#### Editorial Note:

Part 4 is placed in the separate grouping of parts pertaining to patents regulations.

###### Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter I

#### Editorial Note:

Part 5 is placed in the separate grouping of parts pertaining to patents regulations.
ii[c il ri E#

SPPT CH}[ SOCMA 'ii I$tf, stP -9 At{

a .:. a" r .-.+ 1r ,L lcilr I urr:t:t

23

CBIC Control Humber

366218 September 4, 2015

Document Control Office (7405M)

Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics (OPPT)

Environmental Protection Agency

Environmental Protection Agency East Building, Room E6428 (202-564-8930)

1201 Constitution Avenue, NW

Washington, DC 20460

Attention: Toxic Substances Control Act Section 4

40 cFR 799.s087

Docket ID Number: EPA-HQ-OPPT-2007-0531

Rel Testing of Certain Hieh Production Volume Chemicals; Second Group of Chemicals,

Federal Register 76 (5), 1067-1093, Janudry7,2011; Castor Oil, Sulfated, Sodium Salt, CAS

No. 68187-76-g

To Whom It May Concern:

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) promulgated a final TSCA test rule on January

7,201-1 (75 FR 1067-L093) that requires manufacturers (including importers) and processors of

Sulfated Castor Oil to conduct testing to obtain screening level data for health and

environmental effects and chemical fate.

The Sulfated Castor Oil (SCO) Consortium, a cost-sharing consortium affiliated with the Society

of Chemical Manufacturers & Affiliates (SOCMA), is pleased to provide test results in response

to the EPA test rule, which we believe will fulfill the rule requirements. The SCO is made up of

the following U.S. manufacturers of Castor Oil, Sulfated, sodium Salt, CAS No. 58187-76-8:

Afton Chemical Corporation

M anufacturers Chemical, LLC

Emerald Carolina Chemical LLC

The SCO has conducted testing in accordance with the EPA-approved Test Plan and offers the

following studies:

1850 M Street NW. Suite 700. Washington, DG.20036

Phone: 2O2-TZl4t57 . Fax: 202-296{{20

<, _t

C, f+- ift '-= EotfsSErb

$ [E sa"d

s h-P

,t It F

f l, t,

g 

E $$M

$ 

$ElE

=*

IN/

$H

i=E--SE

+:=

*-=

1JEI 

clffi =E-== T-- 6-

Labet 400 Jan. 2013 roso_raoob_iifi

-1

:D(:

(-) (,N7\C mrn c:.tz..Er, :)T :O :rt cf ,H f :r .J(4-I1. c>rl Fl :lar\).r:D (D'LJ I ll-\,11r-rxa -J- :=. rj)r*Eo

E3,-"1 -._.rrr- 2

?tLfl ur :( B <f :D i?l LJ
§ 38.775 Compliance review requirements. ( a ) *Site visits.* VA may conduct, as needed, site visits to grantee locations to review grantee accomplishments and management control systems.
( b ) *Inspections.* VA may conduct, as needed, inspections of grantee records to determine compliance with the provisions of this part. All visits and evaluations will be performed with minimal disruption to the grantee to the extent practicable.
(Authority: 38 U.S.C. 501(d), 2400 note and 2 CFR 200.203)
# Eligibility of the Economic Community of Central African States to Receive Defense Articles and Defense Services Under the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, as Amended, and the Arms Export Control Act, as Amended

# Memorandum for the Secretary of State 

Pursuant to the authority vested in me by the Constitution and the laws of the United States, including section 503(a) of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, as amended, and section 3(a)(1) of the Arms Export Control Act, as amended, I hereby find that the furnishing of defense articles and defense services to the Economic Community of Central African States will strengthen the security of the United States and promote world peace.

                    You are authorized and directed to transmit this determination to the Congress and to arrange for the publication of this determination in the                     *Federal Register*.                

[FR Doc. E9-23086

Billing code 4710-10-P
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 20-2262

EDWIN ANTONIO ALGARIN MOURE, 

Plaintiff - Appellant, 

v. 

COMVALTECH CORP. OF PUERTO RICO; LIQUID CAPTIAL EXCHANGE 

INC.; GARRINGTON GROUP LTD; HECTOR RAFAEL FIGUEROA 

FERNANDEZ; WYETH PHARMACEUTICALS COMPANY INC.; WYETHWHITEHALL PARMACEUTICALS INC.; PFIZER PHARMACEUTICALS INC.; 

PFIZER PHARMACEUTICALS LLC; PFIZER GLOBAL MANUFACTURING; 

PFIZER INDUSTRY ASSOCIATION PUERTO RICO; PFIZER GLOBAL 

MANUFACTURING PUERTO RICO; LILLY DEL CARIBE INC.; FIRST BANK 

OF PUERTO RICO; SCOTIA BANK OF PUERTO RICO; GENERAL 

ATTORNEY OF THE UNITED STATE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, 

Defendants - Appellees. 

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at 

Alexandria. Liam O’Grady, Senior District Judge. (1:20-cv-00743-LO-IDD) 

Submitted: February 18, 2021 Decided: February 22, 2021

Before NIEMEYER, KING, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges. 

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. 
2

Edwin A. Algarin-Moure, Appellant Pro Se. Theresa Allyn Queen, GREENBERG 

TRAURIG, LLP, McLean, Virginia; Craig Crandall Reilly, LAW OFFICE OF CRAIG C. 

REILLY, Alexandria, Virginia; Peter John Komorowski, III, COVINGTON & BURLING, 

LLP, Washington, D.C., for Appellees. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 
3

PER CURIAM: 

Edwin A. Algarin-Moure seeks to appeal the magistrate judge’s order denying his 

motions for extension of time to respond to Defendants’ motions to dismiss his civil action. 

This court may exercise jurisdiction only over final orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and certain 

interlocutory and collateral orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1292; Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b); Cohen v. 

Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541, 545-47 (1949). The order Algarin-Moure

seeks to appeal is neither a final order nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral order. 

Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. We deny Algarin-Moure’s 

motions to appoint counsel and for a transcript at government expense and dispense with 

oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the 

materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process. 

DISMISSED
*The case is unanimously ordered submitted without oral argument pursuant to

Fed. R. App. P. 34(a) and 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. This order and judgment is not binding

precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral

estoppel. The court generally disfavors the citation of orders and judgments;

nevertheless, an order and judgment may be cited under the terms and conditions of 10th

Cir. R. 36.3.

F I L E D

United States Court of Appeals

Tenth Circuit

MAY 30 1997

PATRICK FISHER

Clerk

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

TENTH CIRCUIT

TAD THORNHILL,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

OKLAHOMA DEPARTMENT OF

PUBLIC SAFETY,

Defendant-Appellee.

No. 96-6263

(D.C. No. CIV-95-0546-R)

(W.D. Okla.)

ORDER AND JUDGMENT*

Before BRORBY, EBEL, and KELLY, Circuit Judges.

Plaintiff-Appellant Tad Thornhill, an Oklahoma resident, holds a valid

Oklahoma driver’s license. In order for Thornhill to keep that license, defendantappellee Oklahoma Department of Public Safety (“the Department”) requires

Thornhill to report periodically concerning a neuropsychiatric condition suffered

by Thornhill. Thornhill objects to this reporting requirement.
- 2 -

To voice his objections, Thornhill sued the Department in federal district

court. His complaint alleged that:

I don’t believe I have mental problems that are concerned topics. I

take a very low dosage of thorazine. It has no bad effects on my

alert system. My mental problems have always been under good

control.

The district court dismissed Thornhill’s complaint pursuant to Fed. R. Civ.

P. 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6), noting that Thornhill had failed to state a claim under

which relief could be granted, and had failed to demonstrate any basis for federal

subject matter jurisdiction. Thornhill v. Department of Pub. Safety, No. CIV-95-

0546-R (W.D. Okla. July 15, 1996) (Order). Thornhill now appeals the dismissal

of his complaint.

After reviewing the record, we AFFIRM the dismissal of Thornhill’s

complaint for the reasons set forth in the district court’s order.

The mandate shall issue forthwith.

ENTERED FOR THE COURT

David M. Ebel

Circuit Judge