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 Labor

###### Employee Benefits Security Administration

      ( print page 51431)    
                    Prohibited Transaction Exemptions and Grant of Individual Exemptions Involving D-11468 and D-11469, The Krispy Kreme Doughnut Corporation Retirement Savings Plan and The Krispy Kreme Profit-Sharing Stock Ownership Plan, 2011-14; D-11634, The United Brotherhood of Carpenters Pension Fund, 2011-15; L-11651 and L-11652, Verizon Communications, Inc. and Cellco Partnership, 2011-16,                     *et al.*

                    In the                     **Federal Register**                     notice document 2011-20342, beginning on page 49788 of the Thursday, August 11, 2011 issue, the prohibited transaction exemption numbers were incorrectly cited. Accordingly, the Department is hereby making the following technical corrections to above referenced grant notices:                

1. On page 49788, in the third column, above the heading “Exemption,” for “The Krispy Kreme Doughnut Corporation Retirement and Savings Plan (the Savings Plan) and the Krispy Kreme Profit-Sharing Stock Ownership Plan the KSOP; together, the Plans)” replace the bracketed text “[Prohibited Transaction Exemption 2011-10;]” with “[Prohibited Transaction Exemption 2011-14;].”

2. On page 49790, in the second column, above the heading “Exemption,” for “The United Brotherhood of Carpenters Pension Fund (the Plan),” replace the bracketed text “[Prohibited Transaction Exemption 2011-11;]” with “[Prohibited Transaction Exemption 2011-15;].” 

3. On page 49790, in the third column, above the heading “Exemption,” for “Verizon Communications, Inc. (Verizon) and Cellco Partnership, doing business as Verizon Wireless (Verizon Wireless; collectively, the Applicants),” replace the bracketed text “[Prohibited Transaction Exemption 2011-12;]” with “[Prohibited Transaction Exemption 2011-16;].”

Signed at Washington, DC, this 12th day of August, 2011.

Ivan L. Strasfeld,

Director of Exemption Determinations, Employee Benefits Security Administration, U.S. Department of Labor.

[FR Doc. 2011-21033 Filed 8-17-11; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4510-29-P
#### § 127.613 Smoking.

In the marine transfer area for LNG, the operator must ensure that no person smokes when there is LNG present.

[CGD 78-038, 53 FR 3376, Feb. 7, 1988, as amended at CGD 88-049, 60 FR 39796, Aug. 3, 1995; USCG-2019-0444, 87 FR 5691, Feb. 2, 2022]
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                                          26,923
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  343,132
<ALLOWANCES>                                     4,890
<INVENTORY>                                     14,800
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               440,789
<PP&E>                                         329,881
<DEPRECIATION>                                 160,042
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,338,731
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          226,637
<BONDS>                                        416,971
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           494
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 1,338,731
<SALES>                                        476,008
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               476,008
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  430,598
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               (4,593)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               5,631
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 44,372
<INCOME-TAX>                                    17,926
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             26,446
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    26,446
<EPS-BASIC>                                        .54
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .50


</TABLE>
#### § 110.83a Cedar Point, Sandusky, Ohio.

The water area enclosed by the break wall beginning at latitude 41°28′13′′ N., longitude 82°40′39′′ W.; thence along the break wall to latitude 41°28′21′′ N., longitude 82°40′53′′ W.; thence along a straight line southwesterly to latitude 41°28′20′′ N., longitude 82°40′55′′ W.; thence along the break wall to latitude 41°28′33′′ N., longitude 82°40′58′′ W.; thence along the shoreline to the point of beginning.

[CGD 79-169, 45 FR 32674, May 19, 1980]
III 

110TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. RES. 609 

Recognizing the need for rapid recapitalization of the KC–135 aerial refueling 

fleet through re-competition of the United States Air Force’s KC–X 

solicitation. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JULY 7, 2008 

Mrs. MURRAY (for herself, Mr. BOND, Mr. ROBERTS, and Mrs. MCCASKILL) 

submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the Committee 

on Armed Services 

RESOLUTION 

Recognizing the need for rapid recapitalization of the KC– 

135 aerial refueling fleet through re-competition of the 

United States Air Force’s KC–X solicitation. 

Whereas aerial refueling tankers are the backbone of the 

worldwide airpower capability of the United States; 

Whereas the United States Air Force fleet of KC–135 aerial 

refueling tankers is aging and needs to be recapitalized; 

and 

Whereas recapitalization of the KC–135 medium-sized aerial 

refueling tanker is the top acquisition priority of the 

United States Air Force: Now, therefore, be it 

1 Resolved, That the Senate— 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with BILLS
2 

•SRES 609 IS 

1 (1) encourages the United States Air Force to 

2 quickly re-compete the KC–X solicitation on the 

3 terms the Government Accountability Office (GAO) 

4 recommended in its June 18, 2008, decision; 

5 (2) recognizes that a rapid, thorough, and fair 

6 re-competition under the terms of the original KC– 

7 X request for proposals is the best way to provide 

8 the United States Air Force with next-generation 

9 aerial refueling tanker capability in a timely manner; 

10 (3) recognizes that the KC–X solicitation is the 

11 first phase of a three-phased strategy for recapital12 izing the tanker fleet, and that the KC–X solicita13 tion should be based on a full and transparent com14 petition to select a single aircraft design; and 

15 (4) supports the recommendation of the Gov16 ernment Accountability Office that ‘‘the Air Force 

17 reopen discussions with the offerors, obtain revised 

18 proposals, re-evaluate the revised proposals, and 

19 make a new source selection decision, consistent with 

20 this decision.’’ 

Æ 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with BILLS
**Exhibit 12.1**

 

SENIOR HOUSING PROPERTIESTRUST

 

Computation of Ratio ofEarnings to Fixed Charges

(dollars in thousands)

 
| ** **                          | ** ** | **Three Months Ended  March 31,** | ** ** | **Year Ended December 31,** | ** ** |
|-------------------------------------|------------|----------------------------------------|------------|----------------------------------|------------|
| ** **                          | ** ** | **2006**                               | ** ** | **2005**                         | ** ** | **2005** | ** ** | **2004** | ** ** | **2003** | ** ** | **2002** | ** ** | **2001** | ** ** |
| ** **                          | ** ** | **(Restated)**                         | ** ** | ** **                       | ** ** | **(Restated)** | ** ** | ** ** | ** ** | ** ** | ** ** | ** ** | ** ** | ** ** | ** ** |
| Earnings:                           |       |                                   |       |                             |       |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |
|   Net income                   |       | $                                      | 10,460     |                             | $          | 13,865 |   | $ | 63,912 |   | $ | 56,742 |   | $ | 45,874 |   | $ | 50,184 |   | $ | 17,018 |   |
|   Fixed charges                |       | 11,371                                 |       | 11,223                           |       | 46,633 |   | 41,836 |   | 37,899 |   | 30,210 |   | 7,334 |   |
|   Adjusted earnings            |       | $                                      | 21,831     |                             | $          | 25,088 |   | $ | 110,545 |   | $ | 98,578 |   | $ | 83,773 |   | $ | 80,394 |   | $ | 24,352 |   |
|                                |       |                                   |       |                             |       |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |
| Fixed charges:                      |       |                                   |       |                             |       |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |
| Interest expense                    |       | $                                      | 11,371     |                             | $          | 11,223 |   | $ | 46,633 |   | $ | 41,836 |   | $ | 37,899 |   | $ | 30,210 |   | $ | 7,334 |   |
| Ratio of  earnings to fixed charges |       | 1.9                                    | x     | 2.2                              | x          | 2.4 | x | 2.4 | x | 2.2 | x | 2.7 | x | 3.3 | x |

 

----
<PAGE>
 
                                                                    EXHIBIT 10-B
  

                                    SUMMARY*
                                       OF
                             AMSOUTH BANCORPORATION
                     SUPPLEMENTAL LONG TERM DISABILITY PLAN

                                        
OBJECTIVE:  The objective of this plan is to help close the gap in disability
insurance coverage for employees who receive incentive compensation above a
certain level by providing 60% income replacement for incentive earnings in
addition to the 60% income replacement for base salary earnings provided by the
AmSouth Bancorporation Group Long Term Disability Plan.

ELIGIBILITY:  To become eligible in a given current year for coverage to become
effective on January 1 of the following year, an employee must meet the
following requirements:

 .  Have gross earning of $50,000 or higher in the preceding year;
 .  Be a participant in a formal incentive plan in the preceding year earning a
   minimum of $6,000 in incentive pay; and
 .  Be a participant in a formal incentive plan in the current year.

COST:  Premiums for participants who are Division Heads or Area Executives and
above will be paid by AmSouth and imputed as income to each participant.  All
other participants will pay one half of the premium through payroll deduction
and AmSouth will pay the other half of the premium. The AmSouth paid portion
will be imputed as income to the participants.

* There is no formal plan document
- 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 > A Study of a Change From 8 to 6 Hours of Work

              																	United States. Women's Bureau					 and 	Best, Ethel L. (Ethel Lombard). 						*A Study of a Change From 8 to 6 Hours of Work : Women's Bureau Bulletin, No. 105*,												Washington: 								Govt. Print. Off., 										1933,									https://fraser.stlouisfed.org/title/5406,			accessed on September 25, 2024.						    

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

          -                              @FedFRASER 
          - ** Contact Us
          -  **  What's New  
          -  **  Inside FRASER
#### § 515.9 Agreements and approved plans.

Agreements and approved plans incorporated therein may be amended upon the consent of the parties thereto.
#### § 780.130 Performance “by a farmer” generally.

Among other things, a practice must be performed by a farmer or on a farm in order to come within the secondary portion of the definition of “agriculture.” No precise lines can be drawn which will serve to delimit the term “farmer” in all cases. Essentially, however, the term is an occupational title and the employer must be engaged in activities of a type and to the extent that the person ordinarily regarded as a “farmer” is engaged in order to qualify for the title. If this test is met, it is immaterial for what purpose he engages in farming or whether farming is his sole occupation. Thus, an employer's status as a “farmer” is not altered by the fact that his only purpose is to obtain products useful to him in a non-farming enterprise which he conducts. For example, an employer engaged in raising nursery stock is a “farmer” for purposes of section 3(f) even though his purpose is to supply goods for a separate establishment where he engages in the retail distribution of nursery products. The term “farmer” as used in section 3(f) is not confined to individual persons. Thus an association, a partnership, or a corporation which engages in actual farming operations may be a “farmer” (see *Mitchell* v. *Budd,* 350 U.S. 473). This is so even where it operates “what might be called the agricultural analogue of the modern industrial assembly line” (*Maneja* v. *Waialua,* 349 U.S. 254).
Argued and submitted November 18, 1992,

affirmed February 17, 1993

#### In the Matter of the Compensation of Esther C. Albertson, Claimant. Esther C. ALBERTSON, *Petitioner, v.*ASTORIA SEAFOOD CORPORATION and Liberty Northwest Insurance Corporation, *Respondents.*

(91-04143; CA A74705)

846 P2d 1208

Jan H. Faber, Astoria, argued the cause for petitioner. With him on the brief was Patrick Lavis, P.C., Astoria.

Alexander D. Libmann, Portland, argued the cause for respondents. With him on the brief was James D. McVittie, Portland.

*187Before Rossman, Presiding Judge, and De Muniz and Leeson,* Judges.

ROSSMAN, P. J.

*

 Leeson, J., *vice*Buttler, J., retired.

*188ROSSMAN, P. J.

Claimant seeks review of an order of the Workers’ Compensation Board holding that it does not have jurisdiction to consider claimant’s request for the assessment of a penalty for employer’s unreasonable request for a suspension of benefits for temporary total disability.

On February 12,1991, employer applied to the Director of the Department of Insurance and Finance, through the Compliance Division, for a suspension of claimant’s benefits for temporary total disability, on the ground that claimant had failed to attend a scheduled independent medical examination. ORS 656.325(1); OAR 436-60-095. Claimant, in turn, requested that the Director impose sanctions and assess attorney fees against employer for acting in bad faith in requesting the suspension. On February 25,1991, the Director denied the suspension of benefits. As to claimant’s request for sanctions, the Director said that he had “no statutory authority for imposing such sanctions.”

Claimant could have requested review of the Director’s decision under ORS chapter 183. ORS 656.262(10)(a). Instead, she requested a hearing, seeking a penalty and attorney fees under ORS 656.262(10)(a), which provides:

> “If the insurer or self-insured employer unreasonably delays or unreasonably refuses to pay compensation, or unreasonably delays acceptance or denial of a claim, the insurer or self-insured employer shall be liable for an additional amount v. to 25 percent of the amounts then due. Notwithstanding any other provision of this chapter, the director shall have exclusive jurisdiction over proceedings regarding solely the assessment and payment of the additional amount described in this subsection. The entire additional amount shall be paid to the worker if the worker is not represented by an attorney. If the worker is represented by an attorney, the worker shall be paid one-half the additional amount and the worker’s attorney shall receive one-half the additional amount in lieu of an attorney fee. The director’s action and review thereof shall be subject to ORS 183.310 to 183.550 and such other procedural rules as the director may prescribe.”

We agree with the Board that the only matter involved in this dispute is the assessment of apenalty under ORS 656.262(10) *189and the related attorney fee. *See Oliver v. Norstar,*116 Or App 333, 840 P2d 1382 (1992). The Board had no jurisdiction to consider the matter.

Affirmed.
```

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. Res. 577 Agreed to Senate (ATS)]

110th CONGRESS
  2d Session
S. RES. 577

 To express the sense of the Senate regarding the use of gasoline and 
            other fuels by Federal departments and agencies.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                              May 22, 2008

 Mr. Warner (for himself, Mr. Bingaman, Mr. Gregg, Mr. Chambliss, Ms. 
Snowe, Mr. Carper, Mr. Burr, Mr. Sununu, Ms. Murkowski, Mr. Alexander, 
    Mr. Isakson, Mr. Reid, and Mr. Dorgan) submitted the following 
             resolution; which was considered and agreed to

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
 To express the sense of the Senate regarding the use of gasoline and 
            other fuels by Federal departments and agencies.

Whereas each day, as Americans contend with rising gasoline prices, personal 
        stories reflect the ways in which--

    (1) family budgets are suffering; and

    (2) the cost of gasoline is impacting the way Americans cope with that 
serious problem in family and work environments;

Whereas, as a consequence of economic pressures, Americans are finding ways to 
        reduce consumption of gasoline, such as--

    (1) driving less frequently;

    (2) altering daily routines; and

    (3) even changing family vacation plans;

Whereas those conservation efforts bring hardships but save funds that can be 
        redirected to meet essential family needs;
Whereas, just as individuals are reducing energy consumption, the Federal 
        Government, including Congress, should take steps to conserve energy;
Whereas a Government-wide initiative to conserve energy would send a signal to 
        Americans that the Federal Government--

    (1) recognizes the burdens imposed by unprecedented energy costs; and

    (2) will participate in activities to reduce energy consumption; and

Whereas an overall reduction of gasoline consumption by the Federal Government 
        by even a few percentage points would send a strong signal that, as a 
        nation, the United States is joining to conserve energy: Now, therefore, 
        be it
    Resolved, That it is the sense of the Senate that the President 
should require all Federal departments and agencies to take initiatives 
to reduce daily consumption of gasoline and other fuels by the 
departments and agencies.
                                 <all>
```
Editorial Note on Part 117
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 117 appear by USCG-1998-3799, 63 FR 35529, June 30, 1998.

§ 117.217 Norwalk River. ( a ) The draw of the Washington Street S136 Bridge, mile 0.0, at Norwalk, shall operate as follows: ( 1 ) The draw shall open on signal; except that, from 7 a.m. to 8:45 a.m., 11:45 a.m. to 1:15 p.m., and 4 p.m. to 6 p.m., Monday through Friday, except holidays, the draw need not be opened for the passage of vessels that draw less than 14 feet of water.
( 2 ) The draw need not open for the passage of vessel traffic, from 10 a.m. to 12 p.m., on the first Saturday in December, to facilitate the running of the annual Norwalk River Fun Run. Should inclement weather force the postponement of the race the above bridge closure shall be implemented the next day, the first Sunday after the first Saturday in December, from 10 a.m. to 12 p.m.
( 3 ) The bridge opening signal is three short blasts. Vessels drawing 14 feet of water or more shall add one prolonged blast after the three short blasts.
( b ) The draw of the Metro-North “WALK” Bridge, mile 0.1, at Norwalk, shall operate as follows: ( 1 ) The draw shall open on signal between 4:30 a.m. and 9 p.m. after at least a two hour advance notice is given; except that, from 5:45 a.m. through 9:45 a.m. and from 4 p.m. through 8 p.m., Monday through Friday excluding holidays, the draw need not open for the passage of vessel traffic unless an emergency exists.
( 2 ) From 9 p.m. through 4:30 a.m. the draw shall open on signal after at least a four hour advance notice is given.
( 3 ) A delay in opening the draw not to exceed 10 minutes may occur when a train scheduled to cross the bridge without stopping has entered the drawbridge lock.
( 4 ) Requests for bridge openings may be made by calling the bridge via marine radio VHF FM Channel 13 or the telephone number posted at the bridge.
[CGD 82-025, 49 FR 17452, Apr. 24, 1984, as amended by CGD3 85-42, 50 FR 26711, June 28, 1985; CGD01-07-019, 72 FR 51180, Sept. 6, 2007; USCG-2014-1057, 81 FR 45022, July 12, 2016]