alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 20 (Monday, January 31, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Page 5354]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-2077]


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

DEFENSE NUCLEAR FACILITIES SAFETY BOARD


Public Availability of Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board FY 
2010 Service Contract Inventory

AGENCY: Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board (Board).

ACTION: Notice of public availability of FY 2010 Service Contract 
Inventories.

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

SUMMARY: In accordance with Section 743 of Division C of the 
Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2010 (Pub. L. 111-117), the Board is 
publishing this notice to advise the public of the availability of the 
FY 2010 Service Contract inventory. This inventory provides information 
on service contract actions over $25,000 made in FY 2010. The 
information is organized by function to show how contracted resources 
are distributed throughout the agency. The inventory has been developed 
in accordance with guidance issued on November 5, 2010 by the Office of 
Management and Budget's Office of Federal Procurement Policy (OFPP). 
OFPP's guidance is available at http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/procurement/memo/service-contract-inventories-guidance-11052010.pdf. The Board has posted its inventory and a summary 
of the inventory on the Board's homepage at the following link: http://www.dnfsb.gov/pub_docs/index.php.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Questions regarding the service 
contract inventory should be directed to Mark Welch at 202-694-7043 or 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#cea3afbca5b98eaaa0a8bdace0a9a1b8"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="d1bcb0a3baa691b5bfb7a2b3ffb6bea7">[email protected]</span></a>.

    Dated: January 25, 2011.
Debra Richardson,
Deputy General Manager, Office of the General Manager.
[FR Doc. 2011-2077 Filed 1-28-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3670-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
TICK SEGERBLOM SENATOR District No. 3

DISTRICT OFFICE: 700 South Third Street Las Vegas. Nevada 89101-6703 Office: (702) 388-9600 Fax No.: (702) 385-2909 Emmt:**rsegerblom~lvcoxmall.com**

# ~tate 

# nf**Neua~a**

# ~enate

The Honorable Anthony R. Foxx Secretary ofTransportation U.S. Department of Transportation 1200 New Jersey Avenue Southeast Washington, D.C. 20590 Dear Mr. Secretary: April 28, 2015 LEGISLATIVE BUILDING : 401 South Carson Street Carson C1ty, Nevada 89701-4747 Office: (775) 684-1422 or (775) 684-1400 Fax No.: (775) 684-6522 Ema1t: nck.Segcrbtoml(!)sen.state.nv.us www.teg.state.nv.us

As the State Senator representing Nevada's Third Senate District, with one of the world's busiest airports, McCarran International Airport, right next door, I am acutely aware of the benefits Open Skies policy has brought my constituents, the Las Vegas Metropolitan Area, and the United States as a whole. Open Skies encouraged healthy competition between airlines, increased air'travel, and helped invigorate the economy. I am writing, however,

_ to express my deep concern over three government-owned airlines from the Persian
_ Gulf states who are threatening to upset this balance by taking advantage of Open Skies and receiving tens of billions of dollars of illegitimate financial support from their host governments. Over the last ten years, the three Gulf carriers, Emirates, Etihad Airways, and Qatar Airways, have collectively been given at least $42 billion in subsidies and other unfair benefits from Qatar and the United Arab Emirates (UAE) in violation of Open Skies policy. Without action by the U.S
. , this uneven playing field will continue to force U.S. carriers to shut down previously profitable international routes. This will result in substantial losses of good , well-paying, American jobs in the many industries that support aviation
. I strongly support competition among airlines, but it is has to be fair. The actions by Qatar and the UAE have distorted the market and given the three Gulf carriers a massive advantage over their competitors. Therefore, as provided by the Open Skies agreements, I am requesting that the U.S
. government open consultations with Qatar and the UAE to ·address these developments and seek a freeze on new capacity from the Gulf carriers to the U.S
. while the negotiations ·go forward
.



### S10-150504-V14

. . .**~** ' • t: te John F
. Kerry

## S~ly, Tick Segerblom Nevada State Senator8tate nf Neualla 8cnate TICK SEGERBLOM

Senator 700 South Th i rd Street Las Vegas, NV 89101-6703



# s 10-150504-014 THE HONORABLE ANTHONY R. FOXX SECRETARY OF TRANSPORTATION Hasler 04/2812C15**11~1:t•1.i**

## WI =I

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 1200 NEW JERSEY AVENUE SOUTHEAST WASHINGTON, D.C. 20590**10 ST**  -CLASS MAIL 

# $00.482 . Z IP 89701**o~** 10126020.56



### 1, 

### t 11 ,

### nl•JIIII11 1 1JIJ11 , 1,1. 1, 11,

### 11 1 

### J•IIuJ 11 , Jtl

### •I ,J,, 11 1 , 1Jj,
[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 159 (Wednesday, August 17, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 51118-51119]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-20837]


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

 SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION

[Emergence Capital Partners SBIC, L.P. License No. 09/79-0454]


Notice Seeking Exemption Under Section 312 of the Small Business 
Investment Act, Conflicts of Interest

    Notice is hereby given that Emergence Capital Partners SBIC, L.P., 
160 Bovet Road, Suite 300, San Mateo, CA 94402, a Federal Licensee 
under the Small Business Investment Act of 1958, as amended (``the 
Act''), in connection with the financing of a small concern, has sought 
an exemption under Section 312 of the Act and Section 107.730, 
Financings which Constitute Conflicts of Interest of the Small Business 
Administration (``SBA'') Rules and Regulations (13 CFR 107.730). 
Emergence Capital Partners SBIC, L.P. proposes to provide bridge 
financing to TouchCommerce, Inc., 30501 Agoura Road, Suite 203, Agoura 
Hills, CA 91301. The financing is contemplated for working capital and 
general operating purposes.
    The financing is brought within the purview of Sec.  107.730(a)(1) 
of the Regulations because Emergence Capital Partners, L.P. and 
Emergence Capital Associates, L.P., Associates of Emergence Capital 
Partners SBIC, L.P., own more than ten percent of TouchCommerce, Inc. 
Therefore, TouchCommerce, Inc. is considered an Associate of Emergence 
Capital Partners SBIC, L.P. and this transaction is considered 
Financing an Associate, requiring SBA's prior approval.
    Notice is hereby given that any interested person may submit 
written comments on the transaction within 15 days of the date of this 
publication to the Associate Administrator for Investment, U.S. Small 
Business Administration, 409 Third Street, SW., Washington, DC 20416.


[[Page 51119]]


     July 18, 2011.
Sean J. Greene,
Associate Administrator for Investment.
[FR Doc. 2011-20837 Filed 8-16-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8025-01-M
#### § 785.1 Introductory statement.

Section 6 of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 (29 U.S.C. 206) requires that each employee, not specifically exempted, who is engaged in commerce, or in the production of goods for commerce, or who is employed in an enterprise engaged in commerce, or in the production of goods for commerce receive a specified minimum wage. Section 7 of the Act (29 U.S.C. 207) provides that persons may not be employed for more than a stated number of hours a week without receiving at least one and one-half times their regular rate of pay for the overtime hours. The amount of money an employee should receive cannot be determined without knowing the number of hours worked. This part discusses the principles involved in determining what constitutes working time. It also seeks to apply these principles to situations that frequently arise. It cannot include every possible situation. No inference should be drawn from the fact that a subject or an illustration is omitted. If doubt arises inquiries should be sent to the Administrator of the Wage and Hour Division, U.S. Department of Labor, Washington, DC 20210, or to any area or Regional Office of the Division.

[35 FR 15289, Oct. 1, 1970]
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 Visualant, Incorporated on Form 10-Q for
the period ended March 31, 2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Bradley E. Sparks, Chief
Executive Officer, President and Director 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  and  belief:





(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.









/s/
Bradley E. Sparks


Bradley
E. Sparks


Chief
Executive Officer, President and Director








Date:  May
19, 2009
#### § 4907.149 Program accessibility: Discrimination prohibited.

Except as otherwise provided in § 4907.150, no qualified handicapped person shall, because the agency's facilities are inaccessible to or unusable by handicapped persons, be denied the benefits of, be excluded from participation in, or otherwise be subjected to discrimination under any program or activity conducted by the agency.
EXHIBIT 21.1

GENCOR INDUSTRIES, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES

SUBSIDIARIES OF THE REGISTRANT

All of the operating subsidiaries of Gencor Industries, Inc., a Delaware Corporation, listed below are included in the Consolidated Financial Statements:



|                               |  |                            |  |                             
|------------------------------ |  | -------------------------- |  | ----------------------------
|                               |  | State in WhichIncorporated |  | Country in WhichIncorporated
|                               |  |                           
|General Combustion Corporation |  | Florida                    |  |                             
|                               |  |                           
|General Combustion Limited     |  |                            |  | England                     
|                               |  |                           
|Bituma-Stor, Inc.              |  | Iowa                       |  |                             
|                               |  |                           
|Bituma Corporation             |  | Washington                 |  |                             
|                               |  |                           
|Equipment Services Group, Inc. |  | Florida                    |  |                             
|                               |  |                           
|Gencor International Limited   |  |                            |  | British Virgin Islands      



75
#### § 783.3 Significance of official interpretations.

This part contains the official interpretations of the Department of Labor pertaining to the provisions of section 6(b)(2) and the exemptions provided in sections 13(a)(14) and 13(b)(6) of the Act. It is intended that the positions stated concerning the Act will serve as “a practical guide to employers and employees as to how the office representing the public interest in its enforcement will seek to apply it” (*Skidmore* v. *Swift,* 323 U.S. 134). The Secretary of Labor and the Administrator will follow these interpretations in the performance of their duties under the Act, unless and until they are otherwise directed by authoritative decisions of the courts or conclude upon re-examination of an interpretation that it is incorrect. The interpretations contained herein may be relied upon in accordance with section 10 of the Portal-to-Portal Act (29 U.S.C. 251-262), so long as they remain effective and are not modified, amended, rescinded, or determined by judicial authority to be incorrect.
**EXHIBIT 31.2**
 
 **302 CERTIFICATION**
 
 I, L.J. McLaughlin, certify that:
 
 1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of Longview Fibre Company;
 
 2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;
 
 3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;
 
 4. The registrant's other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:
 
 (a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;
 
 (b) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and
 
 (c) disclosed in this report any change in the registrant's internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant's most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant's fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect the control over financial reporting; and
 
 5. The registrant's other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant's auditors and the audit committee of the registrant's board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):
 
 (a) all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant's ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and
 
 (b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrant's internal control over financial reporting.
 
 
 
 L. J. McLAUGHLIN1/13/05
 L. J. McLAUGHLIN,
 Senior Vice President-Finance, Secretary and Treasurer
#### Hunt v. Bullington.

(Decided June 11, 1915.)

Appeal from Boyd- Circuit Court.

Appeal and Error — Harmless Error — Instructions—Punitive Damages. — A judgment will not be reversed for error in giving an instruction on punitive damages, where it is clear from the evidence and the size of the verdict that punitive damages were not allowed.

WILLIS & DAVIS for appellant.

WATT M. PRICHARD and R. S. DINKLE for appellee.

Opinion *of*the 'Cojjrt by

William Eogers Clay, Commissioner

Affirming.

In this-action for damages for assault and battery by plaintiff, D. W. Bullington, against the defendant, George Hunt, there was a verdict and judgment in favor of the plaintiff for $212.98. The defendant appeals.

*385Briefly stated, the facts are . these: Plaintiff was -a conductor on a street car running from Ashland to Huntington. During the month of November, 1909, defendant boarded the car at Ashland and paid his.fare to Catlettsburg. At Clyffeside a large crowd boarded the ear. The conductor then went through the car for the purpose of collecting the fares. Though defendant had paid his fare, plaintiff asked him for the fare the second time. Defendant replied that he had paid it. Whereupon plaintiff said: “All right.” Defendant said: “If it ain’t all right, I’ll make it all right.” Other words passed between them and defendant then struck plaintiff on'the side of his face, knocking him senseless. When plaintiff, regained consciousness he was on the floor of the car. His face was badly bruised and his nose broken. Plaintiff could not work for about two weeks thereafter and suffered a great deal for several months. According to the evidence for the defendant, plaintiff disputed his word when he told plaintiff that he had paid his fare. Defendant admonished plaintiff not to dispute his word. Thereupon plaintiff put his hand in his pocket. Plaintiff claims, that he was putting his money in his pocket. Defendant says that he thought plaintiff was reaching for a weapon and he thereupon hit plaintiff three licks with his fist.

It is insisted that the trial court erred in giving an instruction on punitive damages and that the instruction given was not in proper form. Whether this be true or not, we deem it unnecessary to determine. The evidence shows that plaintiff’s nose was broken and that he suffered for several months from his injuries. The jury fixed his damages at only $212.98. It is our rule not to reverse a judgment for- error in giving an instruction on punitive damages, where it is clear from the evidence and the size of the verdict that no punitive damages were allowed-. Manifestly, the damages allowed in this case were no more than sufficient to compensate plaintiff for the actual injuries which he received. It is clear, therefore, that no punitive damages were allowed. Under these circumstances, the judgment will not be reversed, -even though the court erred in giving an instruction on punitive damages. St. Bernard Mining Company v. Ashby, 164 Ky., 416; C. & O. Ry. Co. v. Conley, 124 S. W., 865.

Judgment affirmed.
§ 553.22 “FLSA compensatory time” and “FLSA compensatory time off”. ( a ) Compensatory time and compensatory time off are interchangeable terms under the FLSA. Compensatory time off is paid time off the job which is earned and accrued by an employee in lieu of immediate cash payment for employment in excess of the statutory hours for which overtime compensation is required by section 7 of the FLSA.
( b ) The Act requires that compensatory time under section 7(o) be earned at a rate not less than one and one-half hours for each hour of employment for which overtime compensation is required by section 7 of the FLSA. Thus, the 480-hour limit on accrued compensatory time represents not more than 320 hours of actual overtime worked, and the 240-hour limit represents not more than 160 hours of actual overtime worked.
( c ) The 480- and 240-hour limits on accrued compensatory time only apply to overtime hours worked after April 15, 1986. Compensatory time which an employee has accrued prior to April 15, 1986, is not subject to the overtime requirements of the FLSA and need not be aggregated with compensatory time accrued after that date.
§ 779.337 Requirements of exemption summarized. ( a ) An establishment which is a “retail or service establishment” within the Act's statutory definition of that term (See discussion in §§ 779.312 to 779.336) must, to qualify as an exempt retail or service establishment under section 13(a)(2) of the Act (See § 779.301), meet both of the following tests: ( 1 ) More than 50 percent of the retail or service establishment's total annual dollar volume of sales must be derived from sales of goods or services (or both) which are made within the State in which the establishment is located; and
( 2 ) Either: ( i ) The retail or service establishment must not be in an enterprise of the type described in section 3(s), or
( ii ) If the retail or service establishment is in an enterprise of the type described in 3(s), it has an annual volume of sales (exclusive of excise taxes at the retail level which are separately stated) of less than $250,000.
( b ) The language of the statute in section 13(a)(2) expressly excludes from the exemption an establishment or employee engaged in laundering, cleaning, or repairing clothing or fabrics or an establishment engaged in the operation of a hospital, institution, or school described in section 3(s)(4) of the Act. No exemption for these is provided under this section even if the establishment meets the tests set forth in paragraph (a) of this section. (See § 779.338(b).) With respect to laundering and drycleaning establishments, which Congress found to lack a retail concept (See § 779.317) and had provided with a separate exemption in former section 13(a)(3) of the Act, repealed by the 1966 amendments, this exclusion simply clarifies the congressional intent to cover employees in such work under section 3(s)(2) of the present Act and to make sure that no exemption under 13(a)(2) will be construed so as to defeat the purpose of repealing the prior special exemption.
#### § 780.7 Reliance on interpretations.

The interpretations of the law contained in this part are official interpretations which may be relied upon as provided in section 10 of the Portal-to-Portal Act of 1947. In addition, the Supreme Court has recognized that such interpretations of this Act “provide a practical guide to employers and employees as to how the office representing the public interest in its enforcement will seek to apply it” and “constitute a body of experience and informed judgment to which courts and litigants may properly resort for guidance.” Further, as stated by the Court: “Good administration of the Act and good judicial administration alike require that the standards of public enforcement and those for determining private rights shall be at variance only where justified by very good reasons.” (*Skidmore* v. *Swift,* 323 U.S. 134). Some of the interpretations in this part are interpretations of exemption provisions as they appeared in the original Act before amendment in 1949, 1961, and 1966, which have remained unchanged because they are consistent with the amendments. These interpretations may be said to have congressional sanction because “When Congress amended the Act in 1949 it provided that pre-1949 rulings and interpretations by the Administrator should remain in effect unless inconsistent with the statute as amended. 63 Stat. 920.” (*Mitchell* v. *Kentucky Finance Co.,* 359 U.S. 290; accord, *Maneja* v. *Waialua,* 349 U.S. 254.)