alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Editorial Note on Part 20
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 20 appear at 57 FR 31451, July 16, 1992.

§ 20.33 Collection in installments. ( a ) Whenever feasible, and except as otherwise provided by law, debts owed to the United States, together with interest, penalties, and administrative costs should be collected in full in one lump sum. This is true whether the debt is being collected by administrative offset or by another method, including voluntary payment. However, if the debtor is financially unable to pay the indebtedness in one lump sum, payment may be accepted in regular installments. Agencies should obtain and may require financial statements from debtors who represent that they are unable to pay the debt in one lump sum. Agencies which agree to accept payment in regular installments should obtain a legally enforceable written agreement from the debtor which specifies all of the terms of the arrangement and which contains a provision accelerating the debt in the event the debtor defaults. The size and frequency of installment payments should bear a reasonable relation to the size of the debt and the debtor's ability to pay. If possible, the installment payments should be sufficient in size and frequency to liquidate the Government's claim in not more than 3 years. Installment payment of less than $50 per month should be accepted only if justifiable on the grounds of financial hardship or for some other reasonable cause. An agency holding an unsecured claim for administrative collection should attempt to obtain an executed confess-judgment note, comparable to the Department of Justice Form USA-70a, from a debtor when the total amount of the deferred installments will exceed $750. Such notes may be sought when an unsecured obligation of a lesser amount is involved. When attempting to obtain confess-judgment notes, agencies should provide their debtors with written explanation of the consequences of signing the note, and should maintain documentation sufficient to demonstrate that the debtor has signed the note knowingly and voluntarily. Security for deferred payments other than a confess-judgment note may be accepted in appropriate cases. An agency may accept installment payments notwithstanding the refusal of a debtor to execute a confess-judgment note or to give other security, at the agency's option.
( b ) If the debtor owes more than one debt and designates how a voluntary installment payment is to be applied as among those debts, that designation must be followed. If the debtor does not designate the application of the payment, agencies should apply payments to the various debts in accordance with the best interests of the United States, as determined by the facts and circumstances of the particular case, paying special attention to applicable statutes of limitations.
§ 778.207 Other types of contract premium pay distinguished. ( a ) *Overtime premiums are those defined by the statute.* The various types of premium payments which provide extra compensation qualifying as overtime premiums to be excluded from the regular rate (under sections 7(e)(5), (6), and (7) and credited toward statutory overtime pay requirements (under section 7(h)) have been described in §§ 778.201 through 778.206. The plain wording of the statute makes it clear that extra compensation provided by premium rates other than those described in the statute cannot be treated as overtime premiums. When such other premiums are paid, they must be included in the employee's regular rate before statutory overtime compensation is computed; no part of such premiums may be credited toward statutory overtime pay.
( b ) *Nonovertime premiums.* The Act requires the inclusion in the regular rate of such extra premiums as nightshift differentials (whether they take the form of a percent of the base rate or an addition of so many cents per hour) and premiums paid for hazardous, arduous or dirty work. It also requires inclusion of any extra compensation which is paid as an incentive for the rapid performance of work, and since any extra compensation in order to qualify as an overtime premium must be provided by a premium rate per hour, except in the special case of pieceworkers as discussed in § 778.418, lump sum premiums which are paid without regard to the number of hours worked are not overtime premiums and must be included in the regular rate. For example, where an employer pays 8 hours' pay for a particular job whether it is performed in 8 hours or in less time, the extra premium of 2 hours' pay received by an employee who completes the job in 6 hours must be included in his regular rate. Similarly, where an employer pays for 8 hours at premium rates for a job performed during the overtime hours whether it is completed in 8 hours or less, no part of the premium paid qualifies as overtime premium under sections 7(e) (5), (6), or (7). (For a further discussion of this and related problems, see §§ 778.308 to 778.314.)
[33 FR 986, Jan. 26, 1968, as amended at 84 FR 68772, Dec. 16, 2019]
§ 4281.12 Benefits to be valued. ( a ) *Form of benefit.* The plan sponsor shall determine the form of each benefit to be valued, without regard to the form of benefit valued in any prior year, in accordance with the following rules: ( 1 ) If a benefit is in pay status as of the valuation date, the plan sponsor shall value the form of benefit being paid.
( 2 ) If a benefit is not in pay status as of the valuation date but a valid election with respect to the form of benefit has been made on or before the valuation date, the plan sponsor shall value the form of benefit so elected.
( 3 ) If a benefit is not in pay status as of the valuation date and no valid election with respect to the form of benefit has been made on or before the valuation date, the plan sponsor shall value the form of benefit that, under the terms of the plan or applicable law, is payable in the absence of a valid election.
( b ) *Timing of benefit.* The plan sponsor shall value benefits whose starting date is subject to election— ( 1 ) By assuming that the starting date of each benefit is the earliest date, not preceding the valuation date, that could be elected; or
( 2 ) By using any other assumption that the plan sponsor demonstrates to the satisfaction of the PBGC is more reasonable under the circumstances.
(78 South. 990)

#### JOHNSON v. STATE.

(2 Div. 190.)

(Court of Appeals of Alabama.

April 2, 1918.)

Appeal from Circuit Court, Marengo County; R. I. Jones, Judge. Ed Johnson was convicted of the burglary of a storehouse, and appeals.

Reversed and remanded.

I. I. Canterbury, of Linden, for appellant. F. Loyd Tate, Atty. Gen., for the State.

SAMFORD, J.

The only question presented is the action of the court in refusing to give to the jury, at the request of the defendant, the general affirmative charge. We have examined the evidence, and are of the opinion that the insistence of appellant is correct. The Attorney General in brief confesses error. The judgment is reversed, and the cause is remanded. Smith v. State, 133 Ala. 145, 31 South. 806, 91 Am. St. Rep. 21. Reversed and remanded.
#### § 541.502 Away from employer's place of business.

An outside sales employee must be customarily and regularly engaged “away from the employer's place or places of business.” The outside sales employee is an employee who makes sales at the customer's place of business or, if selling door-to-door, at the customer's home. Outside sales does not include sales made by mail, telephone or the Internet unless such contact is used merely as an adjunct to personal calls. Thus, any fixed site, whether home or office, used by a salesperson as a headquarters or for telephonic solicitation of sales is considered one of the employer's places of business, even though the employer is not in any formal sense the owner or tenant of the property. However, an outside sales employee does not lose the exemption by displaying samples in hotel sample rooms during trips from city to city; these sample rooms should not be considered as the employer's places of business. Similarly, an outside sales employee does not lose the exemption by displaying the employer's products at a trade show. If selling actually occurs, rather than just sales promotion, trade shows of short duration (*i.e.,* one or two weeks) should not be considered as the employer's place of business.
§ 1918.22 Gangways. ( a ) Whenever practicable, a gangway of not less than 20 inches (.51 m) in width, of adequate strength, maintained in safe repair and safely secured shall be used. If a gangway is not practicable, a straight ladder meeting the requirements of § 1918.24 that extends at least 36 inches (.91 m) above the upper landing surface and is secured against shifting or slipping shall be provided. When conditions are such that neither a gangway nor straight ladder can be used, a Jacob's ladder meeting the requirements of § 1918.23 may be used.
( b ) Each side of the gangway, and the turntable, if used, shall have a hand rail with a minimum height of 33 inches (.84 m) measured perpendicularly from rail to walking surfaces at the stanchion, with a midrail. Rails shall be of wood, pipe, chain, wire, rope or materials of equivalent strength and shall be kept taut always. Portable stanchions supporting railings shall be supported or secured to prevent accidental dislodgement.
( c ) The gangway shall be kept properly trimmed.
( d ) When a fixed flat tread accommodation ladder is used, and the angle is low enough to require employees to walk on the edge of the treads, cleated duckboards shall be laid over and secured to the ladder.
( e ) When the gangway overhangs the water so that there is danger of employees falling between the ship and the dock, a net or suitable protection shall be provided to prevent employees from receiving serious injury from falls to a lower level.
( f ) If the foot of a gangway is more than one foot (.30 m) away from the edge of the apron, the space between them shall be bridged by a firm walkway equipped with a hand rail with a minimum height of approximately 33 inches (.84 m) with midrails on both sides.
( g ) Gangways shall be kept clear of supporting bridles and other obstructions, to provide unobstructed passage. If, because of design, the gangway bridle cannot be moved to provide unobstructed passage, then the hazard shall be properly marked to alert employees of the danger.
( h ) Obstructions shall not be laid on or across the gangway.
( i ) Handrails and walking surfaces of gangways shall be maintained in a safe condition to prevent employees from slipping or falling.
( j ) Gangways on vessels inspected and certificated by the U.S. Coast Guard are deemed to meet the requirements of this section.
- All
            - Title
            - Author
            - Subject
            - Date
            - Full-Text

            -                              Explore                            ******                - Educational Resources
              - Archival Collections
              -                                      Themes                                    ******                  - Economic Data
                - Federal Reserve
                - View all 
              - Timelines 
            -                              Browse                            ******                - Titles
              - Authors
              - Subjects
              - Dates 
            -                              About                            ******                - About FRASER
              - FAQ
              - Contact Us
              -                                      FRASER API                                    ******                  - REST API
                - OAI-PMH 
            - Inside FRASER Blog

            - **

Home                 > Browse by Title > Primer of Problems in the Millinery Industry

              																	United States. Women's Bureau					 and 	Robinson, Mary V. (Mary Viola). 						*Primer of Problems in the Millinery Industry : Women's Bureau Bulletin, No. 179*,												Washington: 								Govt. Print. Off., 										1941,									https://fraser.stlouisfed.org/title/5452,			accessed on September 12, 2024.						    

        - **FRASER**
        - About
        - FAQ
        - Legal and Privacy
        - FRASER API

          -                              @FedFRASER 
          - ** Contact Us
          -  **  What's New  
          -  **  Inside FRASER
### IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA DA 23 - 0218

_________________ KEVIN BARBER,

Plaintiff and Appellant, v. BRADFORD AQUATIC GROUP, LLC,

Defendant and Appellee. O R D E R

_________________ P ursuant to the Internal Operating Rules of this Court, this cause is classified for submission on briefs to a five - justice panel of this Court. The Clerk is directed to provide a copy hereof to all counsel of r ecord and to the Honorable Dann i Cof

fman , Di strict Judge . For the Court,

Electronically signed by: Mike McGrath Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

September 6 2023

09/06/2023
Case Number: DA 23-0218
```

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. Res. 263 Agreed to Senate (ATS)]

110th CONGRESS
  1st Session
S. RES. 263

  To authorize testimony and legal representation in State of Iowa v. 
   Chester Guinn, Brian David Terrell, Dixie Jenness Webb, Kathleen 
                   McQuillen, and Elton Lloyd Davis.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                              July 9, 2007

   Mr. Reid (for himself and Mr. McConnell) submitted the following 
             resolution; which was considered and agreed to

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
  To authorize testimony and legal representation in State of Iowa v. 
   Chester Guinn, Brian David Terrell, Dixie Jenness Webb, Kathleen 
                   McQuillen, and Elton Lloyd Davis.

Whereas, in the cases of State of Iowa v. Chester Guinn (SMAC288541), Brian 
        David Terrell (SMAC288544), Dixie Jenness Webb (SMAC288545), Kathleen 
        McQuillen (SMAC288543), and Elton Lloyd Davis (SMAC288539), pending in 
        Iowa District Court for Polk County in Des Moines, Iowa, testimony has 
        been requested from Robert Renaud and Janice Goode, employees in the 
        office of Senator Chuck Grassley;
Whereas, pursuant to sections 703(a) and 704(a)(2) of the Ethics in Government 
        Act of 1978, 2 U.S.C. Sec. Sec. 288b(a) and 288c(a)(2), the Senate may 
        direct its counsel to represent employees of the Senate with respect to 
        any subpoena, order, or request for testimony relating to their official 
        responsibilities;
Whereas, by the privileges of the Senate of the United States and Rule XI of the 
        Standing Rules of the Senate, no evidence under the control or in the 
        possession of the Senate may, by the judicial or administrative process, 
        be taken from such control or possession but by permission of the 
        Senate; and
Whereas, when it appears that evidence under the control or in the possession of 
        the Senate may promote the administration of justice, the Senate will 
        take such action as will promote the ends of justice consistent with the 
        privileges of the Senate: Now, therefore, be it
    Resolved,  That Robert Renaud and Janice Goode, are authorized to 
testify in the cases of State of Iowa v. Chester Guinn, Brian David 
Terrell, Dixie Jenness Webb, Kathleen McQuillen, and Elton Lloyd Davis, 
except concerning matters for which a privilege should be asserted.
    Sec. 2.  The Senate Legal Counsel is authorized to represent Robert 
Renaud and Janice Goode in the actions referenced in section one of 
this resolution.
                                 <all>
```
USGS HomeContact USGSSearch USGS

U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 2010-1178

Geophysical Data from offshore of the Gulf Islands National Seashore, Cat Island to Western Horn Island, Mississippi

----

## Acknowledgments

AccessibilityFOIAPrivacyPolicies and Notices

U.S. Department of the Interior |		U.S. Geological Survey
#### § 548.300 Introductory statement.

Section 548.3 contains a description of a number of basic rates any one of which, when established by agreement or understanding, is authorized for use without prior specific approval of the Administrator. These basic rates have been found in use in industry and the Administrator has determined that they are substantially equivalent to the straight-time average hourly earnings of the employee over a representative period of time. The authorized basic rates are described below.

[20 FR 5681, Aug. 6, 1955]
EX-10.2



 Exhibit 10.2 
  

			
	 Enbridge Pipelines Inc.
 3000, 425-1st Street SW
 Calgary, AB T2P 3L8
		





 Enbridge Energy Limited Partnership 

1100 Louisiana Street, Suite 3300 
 Houston, TX 77002 

February 12, 2015 
 United Refining Company and 

Kiantone Pipeline Corporation 
 823 11th Ave. 
 New York, New York 10019 

Attention: J. Nelson Happy 
  

			
	Subject:		Amendment to the Letter Agreement between Enbridge Pipelines Inc., Enbridge Energy Limited Partnership, United Refining Company and Kiantone Pipeline Corporation dated July 31, 2014 (the “Letter
Agreement”)

 The parties agree that Section C.1 of the Letter Agreement shall be amended by replacing “February 14, 2015” with
“February 20, 2015.” 
 Please acknowledge your agreement to the terms and conditions contained herein by signing the enclosed duplicate copy in
the space provided below and returning the acknowledged copy to the undersigned. 
  

									
	ENBRIDGE ENERGY, LIMITED PARTNERSHIP BY ENBRIDGE PIPELINES (LAKEHEAD) L.L.C. ITS GENERAL PARTNER				ENBRIDGE PIPELINES INC.
					
	Per:		 /s/ Joel Kanvik
				Per:		 /s/ R.T. Schwertz

			 Joel Kanvik
 Corporate Secretary
						 R.T. Schwertz
 V.P., Liquid Pipelines Law
& Deputy General Counsel


  

									
	UNITED REFINING COMPANY				KIANTONE PIPELINE CORPORATION
					
	Per:		 /s/ John A. Catsimatidis
				Per:		 /s/ John A. Catsimatidis

			 John A. Catsimatidis
 Chairman &
CEO
						 John A. Catsimatidis
 Chairman &
CEO
Need to return call by / at/between and . Signature: 

 Project No.: 0172.08.005.603 Page 1 of 1 

 Project Name: DMR2009 CBI? 

 Yes 

 No 

TELEPHONE CALL RECORD 

 Incoming 

 Outgoing 

Date: 02/23/11 Time: 3:00 am 

 pm 

Company Name: Butler County Landfill ERG Staff Name: Kimberly Landick and 

Elizabeth Sabol 

Contact Name: Marletta Cozad Contact Phone Number: (573) 840-9750 

General Subject: 2009 DMR Lead Discharges 

TOPICS DISCUSSED AND ACTION TAKEN 

ERG Contact: Kimberly Landick 

On February 23, 2011 at 3pm I called the Missouri Department of Natural Resources and asked to speak with 

someone about water quality monitoring. I was transferred to the Water Protection Program and they took my 

name and number and told me someone would get back to me shortly. 

On February 24, 2011 at 3pm Marletta Cozad at the SE Regional Office (573-840-9750) returned my call and 

confirmed the values below: 

 Lead Concentration: 2010 Outfall 001 77 UGL 

 2009 Outfall 001 51 UGL 

 2009 Outfall 002 13 UGL 

 Flow: 20090930 Outfall 001 1.8 MGD 

 20090930 Outfall 022 1.5 MGD 

We have MGL for concentration values. Recommend changing concentration units to micrograms per liter, not 

milligrams per liter. 

ERG Contact: Elizabeth Sabol 

On May 18, 2011 at 11:30 am, I called Ms. Cozad to ask about the copper concentrations reported in the 2009 

DMR database. Ms. Cozed stated that the September 2009 copper concentration for Outfall 001 was 21 ug/L, 

not 21 mg/L. Copper concentrations and other pollutants of similar magnitude were divided by 1,000 to convert 

value to ug/L.
Argued January 13;

appeal dismissed April 14, 1931

#### TALBOT & CASEY, Inc., *v.*SIMON

(298 P. 644)

*Frederick H. Drake,*of Portland, for appellant.

*Herbert L. Swett,*of Portland (Dey, Hampson & Nelson, of Portland, on the brief), for respondent.

KOSSMAlN, J.

The issue which awaits our disposition occurs upon the respondent’s motion to dismiss the appeal taken by the appellant from an order of the circuit court which set aside a default judgment and permitted the respondent to file an answer. In seeking to sustain the appeal the plaintiff argues that the order aforementioned is of the type embraced by § 7-501, Oregon Code 1930, which defines the appealable orders, judgments and decrees: *Bowman v. Holman,*48 Or. 351 (86 P. 792), and *Hall v. McCan,*62 Or. 556 (126 P. 5), hold that an order setting aside a default *75judgment is not a “final order affecting a substantial right” as defined by the above section of our code. Since the decision in *Bowman v. Holman,*supra, the 1907 Session Laws, chapter 162, § 6, amended the quoted language by adding thereto: “An order setting aside a judgment and granting a new trial.” In *Taylor v. Taylor,*61 Or. 257 (121 P. 431, 121 P. 964), this court construed the language last quoted and held that an order which sets aside a default and permits an answer to be filed is not one which sets aside a judgment and grants a new trial. See to the same effect *Carmichael v. Carmichael,*101 Or. 172 (199 P. 385). After again considering the language of § 7-501, Oregon Code 1930, we remain satisfied with the construction placed upon it by the above decisions. It follows that the motion is allowed.

Dismissed.

Bean, C. J., Band and Kelly, JJ., concur.
#### Wilson *et al.,*Appellants, v. Haxby.

Practice. Where the record does not show that exception was taken to the action of the trial court in overruling the motions for new trial and in arrest of judgment, and no error appears in the record proper, the judgment will be affirmed.

*Appeal from Ad'air Circuit*Court.—Hon. Andrew Ellison, Judge.

Aeeirmed.

*J. R. Musick*for appellants.

P. F. *Greenwood,*for respondent.

Norton, J.

The record in this case does not show that any exception was taken either to the action of the trial court in overruling plaintiffs’ motion for a new trial or motion in arrest of judgment, and no error appearing *346in the record proper, under the authority of the following cases the judgment must, be and is hereby affirmed. *City of St. Joseph v. Ensworth,*65 Mo. 628; *Case v. Fogg,*46 Mo. 44; *Harrison v. Bartlett, 51 Mo.*170; *Dougherty v. Whitehead,*31 Mo. 255.

All concur.