alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
§ 780.3 Exemptions discussed in this part. ( a ) The specific exemptions which the Act provides for employment in agriculture and in certain operations more or less closely connected with the agricultural industry are discussed in this part 780. These exemptions differ substantially in their terms, scope, and methods of application. Each of them is therefore separately considered in a subpart of this part which, together with this subpart A, constitutes the official interpretative bulletin of the Department of Labor with respect to that exemption. Exemptions from minimum wages and overtime pay and the subparts in which they are considered include the section 13(a)(6) exemptions for employees on small farms, family members, local hand harvest laborers, migrant hand harvest workers under 16, and range production employees discussed in subpart D of this part, and the section 13(a)(14) exemption for agricultural employees processing shade-grown tobacco discussed in subpart F of this part.
( b ) Exemptions from the overtime pay provisions and the subparts in which these exemptions are discussed include the section 13(b)(12) exemption (agriculture and irrigation) discussed in subpart E of this part, the section 13(b)(13) exemption (agriculture and livestock auction operations) discussed in subpart G of this part, the section 13(b)(14) exemption (country elevators) discussed in subpart H of this part, the section 13(b)(15) exemption (cotton ginning and sugar processing) discussed in subpart I of this part, and the section 13(b)(16) exemption (fruit and vegetable harvest transportation) discussed in subpart J of this part.
( c ) An exemption in section 13(d) of the Act from the minimum wage, overtime pay, and child labor provisions for certain homeworkers making holly and evergreen wreaths is discussed in subpart K of this part.
Meeting Minutes Memorandum

1

TO: EPA Docket No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0895

FROM: Conrad Chin

DATES: November 21, 2012 and November 26, 2012

SUBJECT: Conference Calls with Representatives of the Ferroalloys Production Industry 

I. Introduction:

Steve Fruh chaired a conference call on November 21, 2012 to discuss technical 

implementation issues regarding collecting process fugitive emissions data from the two 

manganese facilities (Eramet and Felman) as part of the Information Collection Request. A 

follow-up call was also chaired by Steve Fruh on November 26, 2012.

II. Participants:

November 21, 2012

Eramet Marietta Inc.: Jeff McKinney

Beveridge & Diamond: Laura McAfee

Jones Day: John Rego

Policy Navigation Group: Troy Hillier

EPA/OAQPS: Steve Fruh, Conrad Chin, Rochelle Boyd, Brian Shrager, Steffan Johnson, 

Colin Boswell

November 26, 2012

Eramet Marietta Inc.: John Willoughby, Jeff McKinney

Felman Production, Inc.: John Konrady

Beveridge & Diamond: Laura McAfee

Jones Day: John Rego

Policy Navigation Group: Troy Hillier

EPA/OAQPS: Steve Fruh, Chuck French, Conrad Chin, Rochelle Boyd, Brian Shrager, 

Colin Boswell
Meeting Minutes Memorandum

2

III. Summary of Discussions:

The purpose of the call was to discuss technical feasibility to collect process fugitive 

emissions data from the two manganese facilities (Eramet and Felman) as part of the 

Information Collection Request. EPA suggested there could be two approaches:

 Set up temporary hooding systems to quantify fugitive emissions from major fugitive 

sources, such as tapping and casting.

 Perform measurements at the roof vents of the building to quantify fugitives escaping the 

building

EPA suggested that the second approach may be more feasible in terms of costs. The industry 

discussed the feasibility and safety issues concerning measurements at the roof vents. They 

also wanted EPA to clarify how EPA intends to use the data collected.

It was agreed that there will be a site visit at Felman to evaluate the technical feasibility of 

such measurements, and Eramet will send observers to participate in the discussions.
#### § 794.117 Effect of franchises and other arrangements.

Whether a franchise or other contractual arrangement affects the status of the enterprise as “an independently owned and controlled * * * enterprise,” depends upon all the facts including the terms of the agreements and arrangements between the parties as well as the other relationships that have been established. The term “franchise” is not susceptible of precise definition. While it is clear that in every franchise a business surrenders some rights, it is equally clear that every franchise does not necessarily deprive an enterprise of its character as an independently owned and operated business. This matter was the subject of legislative consideration in connection with other provisions of the 1961 amendments to the Act. The Senate Report on the amendments, in discussing the effects of franchises and similar arrangements on the scope of the “enterprise” under section 3(r) of the Act, stated as follows:

There may be a number of different types of arrangements established in such cases. The key in each case may be found in the answer to the question, “Who receives the profits, suffers the losses, sets the wages and working conditions of employees, or otherwise manages the business in those respects which are the common attributes of an independent businessman operating a business for profit?”

---

In all of these cases if it is found on the basis of all the facts and circumstances that the arrangements are so restrictive as to products, prices, profits, or management as to deny the “franchised” establishment the essential prerogative of the ordinary independent businessman, the establishment, the dealer, or concessionaire will be considered an integral part of the related activities of the enterprise which grants the franchise, rights or concession. (S. Rep. 145, 87th Cong., first session, p. 42.)

Thus there may be a number of different types of arrangements established in such cases and the determination as to whether the arrangements have the effect of depriving the enterprise of its independent ownership or control will necessarily depend on all the facts. The fact that the distributor hires and controls the employees engaged in distribution of the product does not establish the requisite independence of the distributor; it is only one factor to be considered (*Wirtz* v. *Lunsford,* 404 F. 2d 693 (C.A. 6).) Ultimately the determination of the precise scope of such arrangements and their effect upon the independent ownership and control of the enterprise under section 7(b)(3), as well as on the question whether such arrangements result in creating a larger enterprise, rests with the courts.
EXHIBIT 32.2


CERTIFICATE OF THE PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER
OF DIOMED HOLDINGS, INC. (REGISTRANT)
PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

          I, David B. Swank, Chief Financial Officer of the Registrant,  certify
to the best of my knowledge and belief pursuant to Section 906 of Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. Section 1350) that:

          (1)     The Quarterly  Report on Form 10-QSB for the period ended June
                  30, 2004,  which this  statement  accompanies,  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  Quarterly  Report on Form
                  10-QSB  fairly  presents,   in  all  material  respects,   the
                  financial   condition   and  result  of   operations   of  the
                  Registrant.


Date:  August 12, 2004                            /s/ DAVID B. SWANK
                                                  --------------------------
                                                  David B. Swank
                                                  Chief Financial Officer
                                                  (Principal Financial Officer)
[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 21 (Tuesday, February 1, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Page 5610]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-2059]


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

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Antitrust Division


Notice Pursuant to the National Cooperative Research and 
Production Act of 1993--Network Centric Operations Industry Consortium, 
Inc.

    Notice is hereby given that, on December 20, 2010, pursuant to 
Section 6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 
1993, 15 U.S.C. 4301 et seq. (``the Act''), Network Centric Operations 
Industry Consortium, Inc. (``NCOIC'') has filed written notifications 
simultaneously with the Attorney General and the Federal Trade 
Commission disclosing changes in its membership. The notifications were 
filed for the purpose of extending the Act's provisions limiting the 
recovery of antitrust plaintiffs to actual damages under specified 
circumstances. Specifically, EAE Systems North America, Inc., 
Rockville, MD; Rockwell Collins, Cedar Rapids, IA; ITT Corporation, 
White Plains, NY; Innovative Concepts, Inc., McLean, VA; Maritime 
Technology Centre R&D Institute, Gdynia, POLAND; Solera Networks, 
Lindon, UT; and Dataline, LLC, McLean, VA, have withdrawn as parties to 
this venture.
    No other changes have been made in either the membership or planned 
activity of the group research project. Membership in this group 
research project remains open, and NCOIC intends to file additional 
written notifications disclosing all changes in membership.
    On November 19, 2004, NCOIC filed its original notification 
pursuant to Section 6(a) of the Act. The Department of Justice 
published a notice in the Federal Register pursuant to Section 6(b) of 
the Act on February 2, 2005 (70 FR 5486).
    The last notification was filed with the Department on September 
23, 2010. A notice was published in the Federal Register pursuant to 
Section 6(b) of the Act on October 25, 2010 (75 FR 65511).

Patricia A. Brink,
Director of Civil Enforcement, Antitrust Division.
[FR Doc. 2011-2059 Filed 1-31-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410-11-M
#### The State v. Phelps, *Appellant.*

Murder. An instruction that if the defendant maliciously shot and killed deceased with a rifle, the law presumes the killing to be murder in the second degree unless it is shown to have been justifiable on the ground of self-defense or within some other degree of homicide, *Held,*error.

*320
      *Appeal from Osage Circuit*Court.—IIon. A. J. Seay, Judge.

Reversed.

*Belch & Silver*for appellant.

*D. H. McIntyre,*Attorney General, for the State.

Per Curiam.

The defendant was indicted for murder in the first degree for the killing of one William Jett, and was convicted of murder in the second degree. The court instructed the jury that if the defendant maliciously shot and killed Wm. Jett on the 7th day of February, 1873, with a rifle-gun, the law presumes such killing to be murder in the second degree, unless it appears from the evidence such killing was justifiable on the ground of self-defense, or within some other degree of homicide. This instruction is not in harmony with the decisions of this court'in *State v. Curtis,*70 Mo. 594; *State v. Harris,*73 Mo. 287, and *State v. Robinson,*73 Mo. 306, and the judgment of the circuit court will, therefore, be reversed and the cause remanded.
NASA LogoNTRSNTRS - NASA Technical Reports ServerSearchmore_vertCollectionsAboutNewsHelpLogin Back to ResultsA Cryogenic GaAs PHEMT/ Ferroelectric Ku-Band Tunable OscillatorA Ku-band tunable oscillator operated at and below 77 K is described. The oscillator is based on two separate technologies: a 0.25 mm GaAs pseudomorphic high electron mobility transistor (PHEMT) circuit optimized for cryogenic operation, and a gold microstrip ring resonator patterned on a thin ferroelectric (SrTiO3) film which was laser ablated onto a LaAlO3 substrate. A tuning range of up to 3% of the center frequency was achieved by applying dc bias between the ring resonator and ground plane. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first tunable oscillator based on a thin film ferroelectric structure demonstrated in the microwave frequency range. The design methodology of the oscillator and the performance characteristics of the tunable resonator are described.Document ID19980174905Acquisition SourceLegacy CDMSDocument TypeReprint (Version printed in journal)AuthorsRomanofsky, Robert R.*(NASA Lewis Research Center Cleveland, OH United States)*Miranda, Felix A.*(NASA Lewis Research Center Cleveland, OH United States)*VanKeuls, Fred W.*(National Academy of Sciences - National Research Council Cleveland, OH United States)*Date AcquiredSeptember 6, 2013Publication DateApril 1, 1998Subject CategoryElectronics And Electrical EngineeringReport/Patent NumberE-11113NASA/TM-1998-206967NAS 1.15:206967Meeting InformationMeeting: European Workshop: Low Temperature ElectronicsLocation: TuscanyCountry: ItalyStart Date: June 24, 1998End Date: June 26, 1998Sponsors:Milan Univ.,Electron Devices SocietyFunding Number(s)PROJECT: RTOP 632-50-5DDistribution LimitsPublicCopyrightWork of the US Gov. Public Use Permitted.Available DownloadsNameType19980174905.pdfSTIcloud_downloadcontent_copyvisibilityRelated RecordsThere are no records associated with this record.visibility_offNo Preview Available
 No Fear Act | Freedom of Information Act | Office of the Inspector General | Agency Financial ReportsNASA Web Privacy Policy and Important Notices | NASA Guidelines for Quality of InformationDisclaimers, Copyright, Terms of Use | Accessibility | NASA OCIO | USA.gov | NASA.govContact Us | Site MapSTI LogoNASA Official: JoAnne R. Calhoun Site Curator: STI Compliance and Distribution Services Last Modified: September 12, 2024
<PAGE>
 
                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.1

The Board of Directors
Mercury General Corporation



     We consent to incorporation by reference in the registration statement No.
333-01583 on Form S-8 of Mercury General Corporation of our report dated
February 21, 1997, relating to the consolidated balance sheets of Mercury
General Corporation and subsidiaries as of December 31, 1996 and 1995, and the
related consolidated statements of income, shareholders' equity, and cash flows
and related schedules for each of the years in the three-year period ended
December 31, 1996, which reports appear in the December 31, 1996 annual report
on Form 10-K of Mercury General Corporation



                                                   KPMG PEAT MARWICK LLP



Los Angeles, California
March 17, 1997
§ 70.54 Employee Benefits Security Administration. ( a ) The annual financial reports (Form 5500) and attachments/schedules as filed by employee benefit plans under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) are in the custody of the Employee Benefits Security Administration (EBSA) at the address indicated in paragraph (b) of this section, and the right to inspect and copy such reports, as authorized under ERISA, at the fees set forth in this part, may be exercised at such office.
( b ) The mailing address for the documents described in this section is: U.S. Department of Labor, Employee Benefits Security Administration, Public Documents Room, 200 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20210.
§ 789.2 “ * * * in reliance on written assurance from the producer * * *.” In order for a purchaser to be protected under these provisions of the Act, he must acquire the goods “in reliance on written assurance * * *.” The written assurance specified in section 15(a)(1) is one from the “producer” and in section 12(a) it is one from the “producer, manufacturer or dealer.” Since the acquisition of the goods by the purchaser must be “in reliance” upon such written assurance it is obvious that the Act contemplates a written assurance given to the purchaser as a part of the transaction by which the goods are acquired and on which he can rely at the time of their acquisition. Thus, where the purchaser does not receive a written assurance at the time he acquires particular goods, he cannot be said to have acquired the goods “in reliance on” the specified written assurance merely because the producer later furnishes an assurance that all goods which the purchaser has previously acquired from him were produced in compliance with the Fair Labor Standards Act. The assurances described in the Act are assurances in writing “from” the producer or “from” the producer, manufacturer, or dealer, as the case may be. It is therefore clear that the following procedures will not amount to “written assurance from the producer” within the meaning of the Act: ( a ) The purchaser stamps his purchase order with the statement that the order is valid only for goods produced in compliance with the requirements of the Fair Labor Standards Act. No written statement concerning the production of the goods is made to the purchaser by the producer. The producer ships the goods which the purchaser has ordered.
( b ) The purchaser stamps the above statement on his purchase order and in addition notifies the producer that shipment of the goods so ordered will be construed by the purchaser as a guarantee by the producer that the goods were produced in compliance with the Act. The producer ships the goods to the purchaser.
In neither of these situations can the purchase order be deemed to contain a written assurance from the producer to the purchaser. A statement concerning the circumstances under which the order will be valid is sent to the producer, but no written instrument at all is given the purchaser by the producer. Although, in these situations, the shipment of the goods by the producer may establish a contractual relationship between the parties, the conditions of the statute are not satisfied because there is in neither situation any written assurance from the producer to the purchaser that the goods were produced in compliance with applicable provisions of the Act referred to in sections 12(a) and 15(a)(1).
#### § 94.655 Individual.

*Individual* means a natural person.
<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 Patron Systems, Inc. for the period
ended September 30, 2003 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Patrick J. Allin, Chief Executive Officer and
Acting 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 the best of 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 result of operations of
         the Company.

/s/ Patrick J. Allin
-------------------------------
Patrick J. Allin
Chief Executive Officer and
Acting Chief Financial Officer
[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 22 (Wednesday, February 2, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Page 5826]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-2078]


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

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Antitrust Division


Notice Pursuant to the National Cooperative Research and 
Production Act of 1993--Advanced Media Workflow Association, Inc.

    Notice is hereby given that, on January 6, 2011, pursuant to 
Section 6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 
1993, 15 U.S.C. 4301 et seq. (``the Act''), Advanced Media Workflow 
Association, Inc. has filed written notifications simultaneously with 
the Attorney General and the Federal Trade Commission disclosing 
changes in its membership. The notifications were filed for the purpose 
of extending the Act's provisions limiting the recovery of antitrust 
plaintiffs to actual damages under specified circumstances. 
Specifically, Front Porch Digital, Louisville, CO; MBC Group, Dubai, 
UNITED ARAB EMIRATES; TOSHIBA, Wayne, NJ; Tom Adamich (individual 
member), New Philadelphia, OH; Robert Gummesson, London, UNITED 
KINGDOM; Isak Jonsson (individual member), Sollentuna, SWEDEN; George 
Luff (individual member), Berkhamsted, UNITED KINGDOM; and Salvador 
Villa Vidaller, Madrid, SPAIN, have been added as parties to this 
venture.
    Also, 3T Technology, Taipei City, TAIWAN; Blue Order Technologies, 
Kaiserslautern, GERMANY; Harmonic, Inc., Sunnyvale, CA; Integrated 
Media Technologies, Hollywood, CA; Open Text Media Group, Reading, 
Berkshire, UNITED KINGDOM; Signiant, Burlington, MA; Richard Eversley 
(individual member), Lakewood, CO; and Michael Karagosian (individual 
member), Calabasas, CA, have withdrawn as parties to this venture.
    No other changes have been made in either the membership or planned 
activity of the group research project. Membership in this group 
research project remains open, and Advanced Media Workflow Association, 
Inc. intends to file additional written notifications disclosing all 
changes in membership.
    On March 28, 2000, Advanced Media Workflow Association, Inc. filed 
its original notification pursuant to Section 6(a) of the Act. The 
Department of Justice published a notice in the Federal Register 
pursuant to Section 6(b) of the Act on June 29, 2000 (65 FR 40127).
    The last notification was filed with the Department on September 
23, 2010. A notice was published in the Federal Register pursuant to 
Section 6(b) of the Act on October 26, 2010 (75 FR 65656).

Patricia A. Brink,
Director of Civil Enforcement, Antitrust Division.
[FR Doc. 2011-2078 Filed 2-1-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410-11-M
<PAGE>

                                 EXHIBIT 23(b)

                                              April 1, 2002

Securities and Exchange Commission
450 5th Street, NW
Washington, D.C. 20549

   Pursuant to Securities and Exchange Commission Release No.s 33-8070,
34-45590, 35-27503, 39-2395; IA-2018; IC-25464; FR-62; File No S7-03-02, this
letter is to confirm that Cybex International, Inc. has received assurance from
its independent public accountants, Arthur Andersen LLP (Arthur Andersen), that
Arthur Andersen's audit of our consolidated financial statements as of December
31, 2001 and for the year then ended (the Audit) was subject to Arthur
Andersen's quality control system for the U.S. accounting and auditing practice
to provide reasonable assurance that the engagement was conducted in compliance
with professional standards, that there was appropriate continuity of Arthur
Andersen personnel working on the Audit and availability of national office
consultation. Availability of personnel at foreign affiliates of Arthur
Andersen is not relevant to the Audit.

                                              Very truly yours,
                                              CYBEX INTERNATIONAL, INC.

                                              By:  /s/ Arthur W. Hicks, Jr.
                                                -------------------------------
                                                 Arthur W. Hicks, Jr.,
                                                 Acting Chief Financial Officer