alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
June 12; 2012 , 

U S Department of Transporta:tion . u<. . 1 ; 

DocketManagerp.entSystern ;:h:·,c··,, ,-,_.,;, ;,·.: ;.·u·:, 11 (> 

1200 NewiJersey Ave., SE ·,.;;·:: , ... ,

1 :.; 11 :iA \ 

West Building Ground Floor, Room Wl2-140. 

Washington, DC 20590 

·~ .. - ... " 

·. ', .t.' 

To whom it may conc~f!l; ! ;-: : ~' ~ < ; • : 

'• 

P 2: OJ 

);, 

! I'' f , '\} • -?~ • 'i .:.! ·,: ,.·. :' . • ' 1 ' 

Lakeshore Aviation, Ll.Gwould like ,to,_seek relief from ~11~ rF!gulato,ry .iequirement for having separate Drug 

Testing programs for our FAR _91.14? Air Tour Operation and, P~rt 13 5 Air Charter Operatioli1 ~s establisheq 

underl4CFRpartll,Sec.ll.61-11.101. · · ' · 

We are a small FBO operation, with less thanlO employees and limited charter and sightseeing operations. Due 

to our small size, duplication of personnel in the two programs, and limited number of management staff to 

oversee such operations, we request permission to combine the two programs, which were required under 49 

CFR part 40 and 14 CFR part 120.117 .. 

,. 

Cu~ently, we have 1 pilot (me) :and-1 mechanic on our Piirt.135 Air Cl).arter Dl}lg Testing Program, and those 

same 2·people, plus 3 other pilots on (wr AirTourDrug Testing Program. Additionally, I am.the only · . . '•• ( . management person in the company (President), and one of only two full-time employees, the other being the 

1,11echanic. I oversee.all business and flight operations, and am the only Air Charter pilot and one of 

aforementioned Air Tour pilots. We do not have any other suitable management personnel to oversee a second 

program. 

i · , ~ ~ ;·! ~ · ,. . , ~ _ , : r • . : : \ 

Combini~g; .. these programs would not adversely public safety, as we fully comply with all drug testing 

requirements: All 5 of us are routinely randomly tested by a consortium in accordance with FAA regulations. It 

-would be difficult to have separate programs with a different management person overseeing each of them, as I 

am the only management person on staff. 

We recently underwent a drug testing inspection, and this request was suggested by the Drug Abatement FAA 

Inspector for a small operation of our size. 

If you have any further questions; please feel free to contact me at your convenience. 

Curt Drumm 

President, Lakeshore Aviation 

1815 Freedom Way 

Manitowoc, WI 54220 

PH: 920-682-0043 ofc 

PH: 920-901-2200 Cell 

FX: 920-482-1651 Fax 

Email: cdrumm@lakeshoreaviation.com
[No. 48664-1-I.

Division One.

December 23, 2002.]

#### Robert Hannah, *Appellant,*v. Marc Chirico, et al., *Respondents.*

Appeal from judgments of the Superior Court for King County, No. 99-2-10599-1, Jeanette R. Burrage and Deborah D. Fleck, JJ., entered November 9 and December 15, 2000, May 11, 2001, and April 14, 2002. *Affirmed*by unpublished opinion per Ellington, J., concurred in by Cox, A.C.J., and Agid, J.
#### In the Matter of the Claim of the Commissioner of Taxation and Finance, Respondent, against Oceanic Service Corporation et al., Appellants. State Industrial Board, Respondent.

Argued September 28, 1937;

decided October 12, 1937.

*563
      *Sydney Weitzer*for appellants.

*John J. Bennett, Jr., Attorney-General (Roy Wiedersum*of counsel), for State Industrial Board, respondent.

Order affirmed, with costs; no opinion.

Concur: Crane, Ch. J., Lehman, O’Brien, Hubbs, Lotjghran, Finch and Rippey, JJ.
#### § 401.7 Labor dispute.

*Labor dispute* includes any controversy concerning terms, tenure, or conditions of employment, or concerning the association or representation of persons in negotiating, fixing, maintaining, changing, or seeking to arrange terms or conditions of employment, regardless of whether the disputants stand in the proximate relation of employer and employee.
(74 South. 1007)

#### PARSONS v. STATE.

(6 Div. 117.)

(Court of Appeals of Alabama.

March 23, 1917.)

Appeal from City Court of Bessemer, J. C. B. Gwin, Judge.

Lee Cowart, of Birmingham, for appellant. W. L. Martin, Atty. Gen., for the State.

BROWN, J.

The record has been carefully examined, and no error appears. Affirmed.
#### LUCIEN S BROWN v KATHERINE B BROWN

Ohio Appeals, 9th Dist, Summit Co

No 1763.

Decided March 14, 1930

Grant, Thomas & Buckingham, Akron, for Lucien Brown.

Waters, Andress, Hagelbarger, Wise & Maxon, Akron, for Katherine Brown.

Funk, PJ and Pardee, J, concur.

Full Opinion will be published later. Watch Omnibus Index.
#### § 779.414 Types of employment in which this overtime pay exemption may apply.

Section 7(i) was enacted to relieve an employer from the obligation of paying overtime compensation to certain employees of a retail or service establishment paid wholly or in greater part on the basis of commissions. These employees are generally employed in so-called “big ticket” departments and those establishments or parts of establishments where commission methods of payment traditionally have been used, typically those dealing in furniture, bedding and home furnishings, floor covering, draperies, major appliances, musical instruments, radios and television, men's clothing, women's ready to wear, shoes, corsets, home insulation, and various home custom orders. There may be other segments in retailing where the proportionate amount of commission payments would be great enough for employees employed in such segments to come within the exemption. Each such situation will be examined, where exemption is claimed, to make certain the employees treated as exempt from overtime compensation under section 7(i) are properly within the statutory exclusion.
#### § 779.308 Employed within scope of exempt business.

In order to meet the requirement of actual employment “by” the establishment, an employee, whether performing his duties inside or outside the establishment, must be employed by his employer in the work of the exempt establishment itself in activities within the scope of its exempt business. (See *Davis* v. *Goodman Lumber Co.,* 133 F. 2d 52 (CA-4) (holding section 13(a)(2) exemption inapplicable to employees working in manufacturing phase of employer's retail establishment); *Wessling* v. *Carroll Gas Co.,* 266 F. Supp. 795 (N.D. Iowa); *Oliveira* v. *Basteiro,* 18 WH Cases 668 (S.D. Texas). See also, *Northwest Airlines* v. *Jackson,* 185 F. 2d 74 (CA-8); *Walling* v. *Connecticut Co.,* 154 F. 2d 522 (CA-2) certiorari denied, 329 U.S. 667; and *Wabash Radio Corp.* v. *Walling,* 162 F. 2d 391 (CA-6).)
#### § 778.307 Disciplinary deductions.

Where deductions as described in § 778.304(a)(5) are made for disciplinary reasons, the regular rate of an employee is computed before deductions are made, as in the case of deductions of the types in paragraphs (a) (1), (2), and (3) of § 778.304. Thus where disciplinary deductions are made from a piece-worker's earnings, the earnings at piece rates must be totaled and divided by the total hours worked to determine the regular rate before the deduction is applied. In no event may such deductions (or deductions of the type described in § 778.304(a)(2)) reduce the earnings to an average below the applicable minimum wage or cut into any part of the overtime compensation due the employee. For a full discussion of the limits placed on such deductions, see part 531 of this chapter. The principles set forth therein with relation to deductions have no application, however, to situations involving refusal or failure to pay the full amount of wages due. See part 531 of this chapter; also § 778.306. It should be noted that although an employer may penalize an employee for lateness subject to the limitations stated above by deducting a half hour's straight time pay from his wages, for example, for each half hour, or fraction thereof of his lateness, the employer must still count as hours worked all the time actually worked by the employee in determining the amount of overtime compensation due for the workweek.

[46 FR 7314, Jan. 23, 1981]
§ 530.411 Emergency certificate revocation procedures. ( a ) When the Administrator determines that immediate revocation of a homework certificate is necessary to safeguard the payment of minimum wages to homeworkers, a notice of proposed emergency revocation of a certificate shall be sent to the certificate holder pursuant to § 530.402 of this subpart setting forth reasons requiring emergency revocation of the certificate.
( b ) If no request for a hearing pursuant to § 530.403 of this subpart is received within 20 days of the date of receipt of the notice by the certificate holder, the proposed revocation of the certificate shall become final.
( c ) The Office of Administrative Law Judges shall notify the parties, electronically or at their last known address, of the date, time, and place for the hearing, which shall be no more than 60 days from the date of receipt of the request for the hearing. All parties shall be given at least 5 days' notice of such hearing. No requests for postponement shall be granted except for compelling reasons.
( d ) The Administrative Law Judge shall issue a decision pursuant to § 530.406 of this subpart within 30 days after the termination of a proceeding at which evidence was submitted. The decision shall be served on all parties and the Administrative Review Board (“Board”) and shall constitute the final order of the Department of Labor unless the Board determines to review the decision.
( e ) Any party desiring review of the decision of the Administrative Law Judge may petition the Secretary to review the decision of the Administrative Law Judge. To be effective, such petition must be received by the Secretary within 30 days of the date of the decision of the Administrative Law Judge. If the Secretary does not issue a notice accepting a petition for review within 15 days after receipt of a timely filing of the petition, or within 30 days of the date of the decision if no petition is filed, the decision of the Administrative Law Judge shall be deemed the final agency action.
( f ) The Board's decision shall be issued within 60 days of the notice by the Board accepting the submission, and shall be served upon all parties and the Administrative Law Judge. The Board's decision is subject to discretionary review by the Secretary as provided in Secretary's Order 01-2020 (or any successor to that order).
[24 FR 729, Feb. 3, 1959, as amended at 86 FR 1787, Jan. 11, 2021]
On respondent’s motion for reconsideration filed April 2,

reconsideration allowed; decision (111 Or App 664, 825 P2d 299 (1992)) withdrawn; conviction affirmed; remanded for resentencing May 19, 1993

#### STATE OF OREGON, *Respondent, v.*HOMERO PRUNEDA GARZA, *Appellant.*

(90CR-0175; CA A67854)

852 P2d 969

Theodore R. Kulongoski, Attorney General, Virginia L. Linder, Solicitor General, and Timothy A. Sylwester, Assistant Attorney General, Salem, for motion.

No appearance *contra.*

Before Warren, Presiding Judge, and Riggs and Edmonds, Judges.

PER CURIAM

Reconsideration allowed; decision of February 26, 1992, withdrawn; conviction affirmed; remanded for resentencing. *State v. Ferrell,*315 Or 213, 843 P2d 939 (1992).
<PAGE>
                                                                  Exhibit 32.1


                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


In connection  with the Quarterly  Report of Pick Ups Plus, Inc. (the "Company")
on Form 10-QSB for the period ending March 31, 2004 as filed with the Securities
and Exchange  Commission on the date hereof (the  "Report"),  I, Merritt Jesson,
Chief Executive Officer of the Company,  certify,  pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section
1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that
to my knowledge:

1)       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
         the Company.


Dated:  May 20, 2004
                                     /s/ Merritt Jesson
                                     --------------------------------
                                     Merritt Jesson
                                     Chief Executive Officer



<PAGE>



                                                                  Exhibit 32.2


                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


In connection  with the Quarterly  Report of Pick Ups Plus, Inc. (the "Company")
on Form 10-QSB for the period ending March 31, 2004 as filed with the Securities
and Exchange  Commission  on the date hereof (the  "Report"),  I, Robert  White,
Chief Financial Officer of the Company,  certify,  pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section
1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that
to my knowledge:

1)       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
         the Company.


Dated:  May 20, 2004


                                          /s/ Robert White
                                          --------------------------------
                                          Robert White
                                          Chief Financial Officer
§ 520.409 When will authority to pay apprentices special minimum wages become effective and what is the special minimum wage rate? ( a ) An apprenticeship program which has been registered with a recognized apprenticeship agency shall constitute a temporary special certificate authorizing the employment of an apprentice at the wages and under the conditions specified in such program until a special certificate is issued or denied. This temporary authorization is, however, conditioned on the requirement that within 90 days from the beginning date of employment of the apprentice, the employer or the apprenticeship committee shall send one copy of each apprenticeship agreement, with evidence of registration, to the appropriate Regional Office of the Wage and Hour Division.
( b ) The wage rate specified by the apprenticeship program becomes the special minimum wage rate that must be paid unless the Administrator issues a certificate modifying the terms and conditions of employment of apprentices at special minimum wages.
III 

110TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. RES. 294 

Designating September 2007 as ‘‘National Bourbon Heritage Month’’. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

AUGUST 2, 2007 

Mr. BUNNING submitted the following resolution; which was considered and 

agreed to 

RESOLUTION 

Designating September 2007 as ‘‘National Bourbon Heritage 

Month’’. 

Whereas Congress declared bourbon as ‘‘America’s Native 

Spirit’’ in 1964, making it the only spirit distinctive to 

the United States; 

Whereas the history of bourbon-making is interwoven with 

the history of the United States, from the first settlers 

of Kentucky in the 1700s, who began the bourbon-making process, to the 2,000 families and farmers distilling 

bourbon in Kentucky by the 1800s; 

Whereas bourbon has been used as a form of currency; 

Whereas generations have continued the heritage and tradition of the bourbon-making process, unchanged from the 

process used by their ancestors centuries before; 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with BILLS

2 

•SRES 294 ATS 

Whereas individual recipes for bourbon call for natural ingredients, utilizing the local Kentucky farming community 

and leading to continued economic development for the 

Commonwealth of Kentucky; 

Whereas generations of people in the United States have 

traveled to Kentucky to experience the family heritage, 

tradition, and deep-rooted legacy that the Commonwealth 

contributes to the United States; 

Whereas each year during September visitors from over 13 

countries attend a Kentucky-inspired commemoration to 

celebrate the history of the Commonwealth, the distilleries, and bourbon; 

Whereas people who enjoy bourbon should do so responsibly 

and in moderation; and 

Whereas members of the beverage alcohol industry should 

continue efforts to promote responsible consumption and 

to eliminate drunk driving and underage drinking: Now, 

therefore, be it 

1 Resolved, That the Senate— 

2 (1) designates September 2007 as ‘‘National 

3 Bourbon Heritage Month’’; 

4 (2) recognizes bourbon as ‘‘America’s Native 

5 Spirit’’ and reinforces its heritage and tradition and 

6 its place in the history of the United States; and 

7 (3) recognizes the contributions of the Com8 monwealth of Kentucky to the culture of the United 

9 States. 

Æ 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with BILLS
----

Action brought on 11 June 2004 by the Italian Republic against the Commission of the European Communities

(Case T-239/04)

(2004/C 217/53)

Language of the case: Italian

An action against the European Commission was brought before the Court of First Instance of the European Communities on 11 June 2004 by the Italian Republic, represented by State Advocate Danilo del Gaizo.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

Pleas in law and main arguments

This action is directed against Commission Decision C(2004)930 fin of 30 March 2004 relating to Proceeding No C62/2003 (ex NN 7/2003) declaring incompatible with the common market State aid in respect of urgent measures concerning employment to which Italy gave effect in the Decree-Law of 14 February 2003 converted into Law No 81 of 17 April 2003. In particular the Commission found that the aid measure at issue confers a financial benefit on persons acquiring undertakings in financial difficulties, which are subject to extraordinary administration, have at least 1000 employees and prior to 30 April 2003 entered into a collective agreement with the Ministry of Labour for approval of the transfer of workers, as well as for undertakings in financial difficulty subject to extraordinary administration having at least 1 000 employees and subject to transfer.

In support of its claims the applicant State maintains that:

----

(1)  OJ 2002 L 331, p. 3.

----
§ 29.10 Hearings for deregistration. ( a ) Within 10 days of receipt of a request for a hearing, the Administrator of the Office of Apprenticeship must contact the Department's Office of Administrative Law Judges to request the designation of an Administrative Law Judge to preside over the hearing. The Administrative Law Judge shall give reasonable notice of such hearing to the appropriate sponsor. Such notice will include: ( 1 ) A reasonable time and place of hearing;
( 2 ) A statement of the provisions of this part pursuant to which the hearing is to be held; and
( 3 ) A concise statement of the matters pursuant to which the action forming the basis of the hearing is proposed to be taken.
( b ) The procedures contained in 29 CFR part 18 will apply to the disposition of the request for hearing except that: ( 1 ) The Administrative Law Judge will receive, and make part of the record, documentary evidence offered by any party and accepted at the hearing. Copies thereof will be made available by the party submitting the documentary evidence to any party to the hearing upon request.
( 2 ) Technical rules of evidence will not apply to hearings conducted pursuant to this part, but rules or principles designed to assure production of the most credible evidence available and to subject testimony to test by cross-examination will be applied, where reasonably necessary, by the Administrative Law Judge conducting the hearing. The Administrative Law Judge may exclude irrelevant, immaterial, or unduly repetitious evidence.
( c ) The Administrative Law Judge should issue a written decision within 90 days of the close of the hearing record. The Administrative Law Judge's decision constitutes final agency action unless, within 15 days from receipt of the decision, a party dissatisfied with the decision files a petition for review with the Administrative Review Board in accordance with 29 CFR part 26, specifically identifying the procedure, fact, law, or policy to which exception is taken. Any exception not specifically urged is deemed to have been waived. A copy of the petition for review must be served on the opposing party at the same time in accordance with 29 CFR part 26. Thereafter, the decision of the Administrative Law Judge remains final agency action unless the Administrative Review Board, within 30 days of the filing of the petition for review, notifies the parties that it has accepted the case for review. The Administrative Review Board may set a briefing schedule or decide the matter on the record. The Administrative Review Board must issue a decision in any case it accepts for review within 180 days of the close of the record. If a decision is not so issued, the Administrative Law Judge's decision constitutes final agency action.
[73 FR 64425, Oct. 29, 2008, as amended at 85 FR 13033, Mar. 6, 2020; 85 FR 14387, Mar. 11, 2020; 85 FR 30619, May 20, 2020; 86 FR 1783, Jan. 11, 2021; 87 FR 58287, Sept. 26, 2022]
- 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 > Health and Insurance Plans Under Collective Bargaining : Major Medical Expense Benefits, Fall 1960

              																	United States. Bureau of Labor Statistics. 						*Health and Insurance Plans Under Collective Bargaining : Major Medical Expense Benefits, Fall 1960 : Bulletin of the United States Bureau of Labor Statistics, No. 1293*,												Washington, D.C: 								G.P.O., 										May 1961,									https://fraser.stlouisfed.org/title/4562,			accessed on September 25, 2024.						    

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

          -                              @FedFRASER 
          - ** Contact Us
          -  **  What's New  
          -  **  Inside FRASER