alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
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.                  

###### Department of the Interior

###### Bureau of Indian Affairs

# AGENCY:

Bureau of Indian Affairs, Interior.

# ACTION:

Notice of Tribal-State Class III Gaming Compact taking effect.

# SUMMARY:

This publishes notice of the Tribal-State Compact between the State of California and the Habematolel Pomo of Upper Lake taking effect.

# DATES:

Effective Date: August 10, 2011.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Paula L. Hart, Director, Office of Indian Gaming, Office of the Deputy Assistant Secretary—Policy and Economic Development, Washington, DC 20240, (202) 219-4066.

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

                    Under Section 11 of the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act of 1988 (IGRA) Public Law 100-497, 25 U.S.C. § 2710, the Secretary of the Interior shall publish in the                     **Federal Register**                     notice of approved Tribal-State compacts for the purpose of engaging in Class III gaming activities on Indian lands. The Compact allows for one gaming facility and authorizes up to 750 gaming devices, any banking or percentage card games, and any devices or games authorized under state law to the state lottery. The Compact, also, authorizes limited annual payments to the State for statewide exclusivity. Finally, the term of the compact is until December 31, 2031. This Compact is considered to have been approved but only to the extent that the Compact is consistent with the provisions of the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act.                

Dated: August 3, 2011.

Jodi Gillette,

Deputy Assistant Secretary—Indian Affairs.

[FR Doc. 2011-20316 Filed 8-9-11; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4310-4N-P
**Final Listing of Questionnaire Files for Steam Electric Rulemaking Record**

**Plant ID 09777**  **Removed from Public**  **(Non-CBI) Docket**  **1 Copyright** 

**Flag 2**  **File Name Description**  09777\09777_HardcopyLog.doc EPA log of hardcopy documents submitted x 09777\09777_Part A.xls Plant submitted survey file x 09777\09777_Part B.xls Plant submitted survey file x 09777\09777_Part C.xls Plant submitted survey file x 09777\09777_Part D.xls Plant submitted survey file x 09777\09777_Part H.xls Plant submitted survey file

09777\Certification Statement Plant ID 09777.pdf Plant certification statement 09777\Supplemental Documents\09777_AES ShadyPoint-MAP-1.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey x 09777\Supplemental Documents\09777_AES ShadyPoint-WB-1.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey x 09777\09777_Checklist.xls EPA Technical Review Checklist Workbook

09777\09777_Completeness_Checklist.xls EPA Completeness Review Checklist 09777\09777_Cover Letter.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey

1Final reviewed survey responses are located in the Steam Electric Technical Questionnaire Database

. 2Copyright documents are available from the docket.
Editorial Note on Part 8
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 8 appear at 61 FR 19985, May 3, 1996.

§ 8.1 Purpose and scope. ( a ) This part contains the rules of practice of the Administrative Review Board when it is exercising its jurisdiction described in paragraph (b) of this section.
( b ) The Board has jurisdiction to hear and decide in its discretion appeals concerning questions of law and fact from final decisions of the Administrator of the Wage and Hour Division or authorized representative, and from decisions of Administrative Law Judges under subparts B, D, and E of part 6 of this title, arising under the Service Contract Act and the Contract Work Hours and Safety Standards Act where the contract is also subject to the Service Contract Act. The Board shall not have jurisdiction to pass on the validity of any portion of the Code of Federal Regulations which has been duly promulgated through notice and comment by the Department of Labor and shall observe the provisions thereof, where pertinent, in its decisions. The jurisdiction of the Board includes: ( 1 ) Wage determinations issued under the Service Contract Act;
( 2 ) Substantial variance proceedings or arm's-length negotiations proceedings pursuant to section 4(c) of the Service Contract Act;
( 3 ) Debarment or other enforcement proceedings;
( 4 ) Proceedings to determine substantial interest of debarred persons or firms;
( 5 ) Decisions of the Wage-Hour Administrator or authorized representative regarding recommendations of a Federal agency for adjustment or waiver of liquidated damages assessed under the Contract Work Hours and Safety Standards Act;
( 6 ) Other final actions of the Wage-Hour Administrator or authorized representative (e.g., additional classification actions and rulings with respect to application of the Act(s), or the regulations, or of wage determinations issued thereunder).
( 7 ) Other matters specifically referred to the Board by the Secretary of Labor.
( c ) In considering the matters within the scope of its jurisdiction the Board shall act as the authorized representative of the Secretary of Labor and shall act as fully and finally as might the Secretary of Labor concerning such matters, except as provided in Secretary's Order 01-2020 (or any successor to that order).
( d ) The Board is an appellate body and shall decide cases properly brought before it on the basis of all relevant matter contained in the entire record before it. Decisions by the Board shall be based upon the preponderance of the evidence before it. It may remand with appropriate instructions any case for the taking of additional evidence and the making of new or modified findings by reason of the additional evidence. However, unless the petition for review cities alleged procedural irregularities in the proceeding below and not the merits of a case, the Board shall not consider a petition for review filed by any party against whom default judgment has been entered pursuant to the provisions of part 6 of this title.
[49 FR 10637, Mar. 21, 1984, as amended at 61 FR 19985, May 3, 1996; 85 FR 13031, Mar. 6, 2020; 85 FR 30616, May 20, 2020]
§ 458.69 Notice of hearing. The Chief Administrative Law Judge shall issue and cause to be served upon each of the parties a notice of hearing. The notice of hearing shall include the following: ( a ) The name and identity of each party and the case number.
( b ) A statement of the authority and jurisdiction under which the hearing is to be held.
( c ) A statement of the time and place of the hearing which shall be not less than fifteen (15) days after service of the notice of hearing.
_________________________________________ 

 

 

___________________________________ 

 

 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court 

Lansing, Michigan 

April 23, 2007 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

Michael F. Cavanagh 

133580 (25) Elizabeth A. Weaver 

Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

Robert P. Young, Jr. 

FRED HARTER, #99591 Stephen J. Markman,

 Justices 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

v SC: 133580 

 CoA: 273278 

DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS 

Defendant-Appellee. 

On order of the Chief Justice, the motion to waive fees is considered and it 

is DENIED because MCL 600.2963 requires that a prisoner pursuing a civil action be 

liable for filing fees. 

Within 21 days of the certification of this order, plaintiff shall pay to the 

Clerk of the Court the initial partial filing fee of $11.00, shall submit a copy of this order 

with the payment, and shall refile the copy of the pleadings which is being returned 

with this order. Failure to comply with this order shall result in the appeal not being 

filed in this Court. 

If plaintiff timely files the partial fee and refiles the pleadings, monthly 

payments shall be made to the Department of Corrections in an amount of 50 percent of 

the deposits made to plaintiff’s account until the payments equal the balance due of 

$364.00. This amount shall then be remitted to this Court.

 Pursuant to MCL 600.2963(8) plaintiff shall not file further appeals in this 

Court until the entry fee in this case is paid in full. 

The Clerk of the Court shall furnish two copies of this order to plaintiff and 

return plaintiff’s pleadings with this order. 

jm 

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

April 23, 2007 

Clerk
#### § 452.77 Permissible use of union funds.

Certain uses of union funds are considered permissible under section 401(g). For example, a court ruled that money of a subordinate union may be contributed to a committee formed to challenge the results of a national union election under title IV when such contributions are properly authorized by the members in an effort to pursue election remedies both within and outside the union. In holding such activity to be outside the prohibitions of section 401(g), although the committee was formed by defeated candidates and their supporters, the court stated that “* * * It does not promote the candidacy of any person if an election is declared invalid by a court under title IV's procedure despite the fact that in the rerun election the candidates may be identical. Neither the winner nor the loser of the disputed election gains votes by the setting aside of the election. Such action is not a vote-getting device but merely returns the parties to their pre-election status; it does not place any candidate into office.”[39]

[38 FR 18324, July 9, 1973, as amended at 63 FR 33780, June 19, 1998]

###### Footnotes -
  452.77

[39] *Retail Clerks Union, Local 648* v. *Retail Clerks International Association,* 299 F.Supp. 1012, 1024 (D.D.C. 1969).
#### § 779.505 “Oppressive child labor” defined.

Section 3(1) of the Act defines oppressive child labor as follows:

“Oppressive child labor” means a condition of employment under which (1) any employee under the age of 16 years is employed by an employer (other than a parent or a person standing in place of a parent employing his own child or a child in his custody under the age of 16 years in an occupation other than manufacturing or mining or an occupation found by the Secretary of Labor to be particularly hazardous for the employment of children between the ages of 16 and 18 years or detrimental to their health or well-being) in any occupation, or (2) any employee between the ages of 16 and 18 years is employed by an employer in any occupation which the Secretary of Labor shall find and by order declare to be particularly hazardous for the employment of children between such ages or detrimental to their health or well-being; but oppressive child labor shall not be deemed to exist by virtue of the employment in any occupation of any person with respect to whom the employer shall have on file an unexpired certificate issued and held pursuant to regulations of the Secretary of Labor certifying that such person is above the oppressive child labor age. The Secretary of Labor shall provide by regulation or by order that the employment of employees between the ages of 14 and 16 years in occupations other than manufacturing and mining shall not be deemed to constitute oppressive child labor if and to the extent that the Secretary of Labor determines that such employment is confined to periods which will not interfere with their schooling and to conditions which will not interfere with their health and well-being.
§ 778.327 Temporary or sporadic reduction in schedule. ( a ) The problem of reduction in the workweek is somewhat different where a temporary reduction is involved. Reductions for the period of a dead or slow season follow the rules announced above. However, reduction on a more temporary or sporadic basis presents a different problem. It is obvious that as a matter of simple arithmetic an employer might adopt a series of different rates for the same work, varying inversely with the number of overtime hours worked in such a way that the employee would earn no more than his straight time rate no matter how many hours he worked. If he set the rate at $6 per hour for all workweeks in which the employee worked 40 hours or less, approximately $5.93 per hour for workweeks of 41 hours, approximately $5.86 for workweeks of 42 hours, approximately $5.45 for workweeks of 50 hours, and so on, the employee would always receive (for straight time and overtime at these “rates”) $6 an hour regardless of the number of overtime hours worked. This is an obvious bookkeeping device designed to avoid the payment of overtime compensation and is not in accord with the law. See *Walling* v. *Green Head Bit & Supply Co.,* 138 F. 2d 453. The regular rate of pay of this employee for overtime purposes is, obviously, the rate he earns in the normal nonovertime week—in this case, $6 per hour.
( b ) The situation is different in degree but not in principle where employees who have been at a bona fide $6 rate usually working 50 hours and taking home $330 as total straight time and overtime pay for the week are, during occasional weeks, cut back to 42 hours. If the employer raises their rate to $7.65 for such weeks so that their total compensation is $328.95 for a 42-hour week the question may properly be asked, when they return to the 50-hour week, whether the $6 rate is really their regular rate. Are they putting in 8 additional hours of work for that extra $1.05 or is their “regular” rate really now $7.65 an hour since this is what they earn in the short workweek? It seems clear that where different rates are paid from week to week for the same work and where the difference is justified by no factor other than the number of hours worked by the individual employee—the longer he works the lower the rate—the device is evasive and the rate actually paid in the shorter or nonovertime week is his regular rate for overtime purposes in all weeks.
[46 FR 7317, Jan. 23, 1981; 46 FR 33516, June 30, 1981]
§ 511.14 Procedure for receiving evidence. ( a ) All testimony shall be given under oath or affirmation. Any party shall have the right to appear in person, by counsel, or by other specified representative. Misconduct at any hearing shall be grounds for summary exclusion from the hearing. The committee shall limit the testimony of any witness where appropriate to prevent the hearing from becoming unduly prolonged. The refusal of a witness to answer any question which has been ruled to be proper shall, in the discretion of the committee, be ground for striking all testimony given by the witness on related matters.
( b ) Unless otherwise directed by the committee, witnesses shall be called in the following order: The committee economist qualified to testify concerning the content and preparation of the economic report, other witnesses called by the Department of Labor, witnesses called by the parties, other witnesses. Unless otherwise directed by the committee, all witnesses other than those called by the parties shall be examined in the following order: By committee counsel, by committee economist, by committee members, by the parties or their representatives. Witnesses called by the parties shall be examined first by the party calling them or by the party's specified representative, and then in the order herein indicated for all other witnesses. Redirect examination may be permitted at the discretion of the committee. Rebuttal evidence may be offered in the order and manner in this section provided for other evidence. To the extent not specified in this section, the order for calling and examining witnesses shall be specified by the chairperson of the committee or subcommittee.
[21 FR 7669, Oct. 6, 1956, as amended at 55 FR 53299, Dec. 28, 1990]
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1999
<CASH>                                       2,036,000
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                               11,860,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                 10,744,000
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            40,502,000
<PP&E>                                      14,325,000
<DEPRECIATION>                               5,687,000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             171,413,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       31,898,000
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                      4,000
<COMMON>                                       126,000
<OTHER-SE>                                 100,016,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>               171,413,000
<SALES>                                     20,952,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            20,952,000
<CGS>                                       17,456,000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               17,456,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             1,645,000
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             434,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              1,764,000
<INCOME-TAX>                                   741,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          1,023,000
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 1,023,000
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.08
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.07
        

</TABLE>
#### § 780.201 Meaning of “forestry or lumbering operations.”

The term “forestry or lumbering operations” refers to the cultivation and management of forests, the felling and trimming of timber, the cutting, hauling, and transportation of timber, logs, pulpwood, cordwood, lumber, and like products, the sawing of logs into lumber or the conversion of logs into ties, posts, and similar products, and similar operations. It also includes the piling, stacking, and storing of all such products. The gathering of wild plants and of wild or planted Christmas trees are included. (See the related discussion in §§ 780.205 through 780.209 and in part 788 of this chapter which considers the section 13(a)(13) exemption for forestry or logging operations in which not more than eight employees are employed.) “Wood working” as such is not included in “forestry” or “lumbering” operations. The manufacture of charcoal under modern methods is neither a “forestry” nor “lumbering” operation and cannot be regarded as “agriculture.”

[74 FR 26014, May 29, 2009]
(75 South. 1007)

#### TOWN OF ONEONTA v. FLOWERS.

(6 Div. 265.)

(Court of Appeals of Alabama.

April 19, 1917.)

Appeal from. Circuit Court, Blount County; James B. Blackwood, Judge.

O. A. Steele, of Oneonta; for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Appeal dismissed for want of pi’osecution.
#### § 780.217 Forestry activities.

Operations in a forest tree nursery such as seeding new beds and growing and transplanting forest seedlings are not farming operations. For such operations to fall within sec. 3(f), they must qualify under the second part of the definition dealing with incidental practices. *See* § 780.201.

[73 FR 77239, Dec. 18, 2008. Redesignated at 74 FR 26015, May 29, 2009]

###### Effective Date Note

#### Effective Date Note:

At 74 FR 26015, May 29, 2009, § 780.208 was redesignated as § 780.217 and newly designated § 780.217 was suspended, effective June 29, 2009.
#### § 783.37 Enforcement policy for non-seaman's work.

In the enforcement of the Act, an employee will be regarded as “employed as a seaman” if his work as a whole meets the test stated in § 783.31, even though during the workweek he performs some work of a nature other than that which characterizes the service of a seaman, if such nonseaman's work is not substantial in amount. For enforcement purposes, the Administrator's position is that such differing work is “substantial” if it occupies more than 20 percent of the time worked by the employee during the workweek.
#### § 779.212 Enterprise must consist of related activities performed for a “common business purpose.”

The related activities described in section 3(r) as included in the statutory enterprise are those performed for a “common business purpose.” (See the comprehensive discussion in 29 CFR part 776.) The term “common business purpose” as used in the definition does not have a narrow concept and is not intended to be limited to a single business establishment or a single type of business. As pointed out above, retailing, wholesaling and manufacturing may, under certain circumstances be engaged in for a “common business purpose.” (See § 779.209.) An example was also cited where retailing and construction were performed for a common business purpose. (See § 779.206.) On the other hand, it is clear that even a single individual or corporation may perform activities for different business purposes. (See § 779.211.) Thus the reports of the House of Representatives cite, as an example of this, the case of a single company which owns several retail apparel stores and is also engaged in the lumbering business. It concludes that these activities are not part of a single enterprise. (H. Rept. 75, 87th Cong.,1st Sess., p. 7 and H. Rept. 1366, 89th Cong. 2d Sess., p. 9.)
Opinion issued June 18 , 2013

In The 

## Court of Appeals For The 

## First District of Texas

———————————— NO. 01
- 13
- 00429
- CR

——————————— HORTENSE ROSE WILLIAMS, Appellant

V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 184th District Court

Harris County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 1381841

MEMORANDUM OPINION Appellant, Hortense Rose Williams, has filed a motion to dismiss the appeal. The motion to dismiss complies with Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 42.2 (a) , and w e have not issued a decision in the appeal

. See T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 42.2(a).2

Williams has also filed a motion to expedite the issuance of our mandate. The motion establishes good cause for early issuance of the mandate, to enable Williams to begin serving her term of community supervision. See T EX
. R. A PP
. P

. 18.1(c). Accordingly, we grant Williams’s motions, dismiss the appeal , and direct the Clerk to issue the mandate within 10 days of the date of this opinion

. See T EX
. R.
A PP
. P. 18.1, 43.2(f). We dismiss any pending motions as moot. PER CURIAM Panel consists of Justices Jennings, Brown, and Huddle

. Do not publish. T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 47.2( b).