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

Date: August 6, 2010 

Subject: Capital costs for wet scrubber 

From: K. Barnett, EPA 

 M. Laney, RTI 

To: Docket EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0051 

The cost impacts estimated for the May 6, 2009 proposed NESHAP for portland cement 

manufacturing included the cost of wet scrubbers. Costs for wet scrubbers were estimated using 

the cost equations described in the March 10, 2009 Andover Technology Partners memorandum. 

Capital costs were determined to be proportional to the kiln exhaust gas flow rate and, in 2005 

dollars, were expressed by the following algorithm: 

CC(2005) = $8650*DSCFM0.6 (Eq. 1) 

Where: 

CC = capital cost 

DSCFM = dry standard cubic feet per minute 

Note that the costs are a function of the flowrate raised to the 0.6 power, which accounts for 

efficiencies of scale for larger scrubbers. 

In response to comments on the proposal costs, revisions were made to the costs equations for 

wet scrubbers and are described in a February 26, 2010 memorandum by Andover Technology 

Partners. The new capital cost equation expressed as a function of exhaust gas flowrate is as 

follows: 

CC (2005) = $107*DSCFM (Eq. 2) 

Note that this cost algorithm does not include the 0.6 scaling factor because it was considered 

likely that wet scrubbers would be installed primarily on precalciner kilns of a size that would 

make the algorithm a reasonable estimator of capital costs for most kilns that would be retrofitted 

with wet scrubbers. 

To test the effect of the scaling factor on capital costs versus capital costs without scaling, we 

developed an equation for a 1 million tpy kiln with a cost of $22 million based on costs that was 

available for a known scrubber. On this basis, we developed the following algorithm: 

CC = 14398 * DSCFM0.6 (Eq. 3) 
To illustrate the effects, we estimated the costs of various size kilns. For kilns producing clinker 

between about 500,000 tpy and 1,500,000 tpy, the use of capital cost scaling does not make a big 

difference, but beyond those ranges, the differences can be significant. See Table 1. In order to 

account for the distribution in kiln sizes, capital costs were estimated using the capital cost 

scaling equation (Eq. 3) 

Table 1. Comparison of Capital Cost with and without Scaling Factor

Kiln Size  

(TPY)

Kiln Size  

(TPD)

Kiln Gas Flow

(DSCFM)

(69*TPD Clinker)*

Wet Scrubber Capital

Cost, ($)

(107*DSCFM)*

Wet Scrubber Capital

Cost Using Scaling factor

($)  

(14398*DSCFM^0.6)

150,000 457 31,507 3,371,233 7,200,210

500,000 1,522 105,023 11,237,443 14,827,653

750,000 2,283 157,534 16,856,164 18,911,551

1,000,000 3,044 210,046 22,474,886 22,474,519

1,500,000 4,566 315,068 33,712,329 28,664,552

2,000,000 6,088 420,091 44,949,772 34,065,000

*Andover, Wet Scrubber Cost Algorithm, February 26, 2010
STAKEHOLDER ANNOUNCEMENT 

USDA, Private Lenders Expand Financing Options for Rural Water Infrastructure Projects

WASHINGTON, April 3, 2018 – Assistant to the Secretary for Rural Development Anne Hazlett today 

announced that USDA and private lenders are working together to expand financing options for rural water and 

wastewater projects. 

 USDA and rural infrastructure lenders agreed on several changes that will expand the availability of loan 

guarantees through USDA’s Water and Environmental Programs. 

 The parties agreed to:

• Reduce the amount of information and paperwork required with an application for USDA financing;

• Eliminate overlapping underwriting procedures between USDA and private lenders;

• Work more closely together to determine whether federal, private or joint financing is the most costeffective option for rural water infrastructure projects;

• Hold a special session on rural water issues at the National Association of Water Companies’ P3 Water 

Summit in San Diego.

 USDA and the team of private lenders have identified potential financing for more than $100 million in rural 

water and wastewater projects. 

 USDA’s Lender Partnership Focus Group included representatives from Co-bank, the National Cooperative 

Bank, the American Bankers Association, and the National Rural Lenders Association. It also included 

representatives from credit unions and community development financial institutions.

 Interested lenders or entities should contact the nearest Rural Development office; locations may be found at 

https://www.rd.usda.gov/browse-state.

#

USDA is an equal opportunity provider, employer, and lender.
<PAGE>   1
                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.2


               CONSENT OF RYDER SCOTT COMPANY PETROLEUM ENGINEERS


         We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference into the
Registration Statement on Form S-8 (File Number 33-96274) of Tatham Offshore,
Inc. of the use of our report, Estimated Net Reserves and Income Data
Attributable to Certain Leasehold and Royalty Interests of Tatham Offshore,
Inc., dated as of June 30, 1997, and all references to our firm appearing in
this Annual Report on Form 10-K of Tatham Offshore, Inc. for the fiscal year
ended June 30, 1997.




                                                   RYDER SCOTT COMPANY
                                                   PETROLEUM ENGINEERS



Houston, Texas
September 24, 1997
*Pursuant to Local Rule 47.5, the Court has determined that

this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except

under the limited circumstances set forth in Local Rule 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 95-40689

Summary Calendar

 

JOBETH RUSSELL; TERESA BOBB,

Plaintiffs-Appellants,

Cross-Appellees,

versus

DILLARD DEPARTMENT STORES, INC.,

Defendant-Appellee,

Cross-Appellant.

 

Appeal from the United States District Court for the

Eastern District of Texas

(1:95-CV-84)

 

July 29, 1996

Before GARWOOD, WIENER and PARKER, Circuit Judges.*

PER CURIAM:

Jobeth Russell and Teresa Bobb appeal the grant of partial

summary judgment of the federal claims against Dillard Department

Stores, Inc. Dillard Department Stores, Inc., cross-appeals the

remand of the state law claims.
2

We have reviewed the briefs and the record and find no error

in the district court’s determinations on these issues. We affirm

the grant of partial summary judgment and the remand of the state

law claims essentially for the reasons stated by the magistrate

judge and as adopted by the district court. Russell v. Dillard

Department Store, No. 1:95-CV-84 (E.D. Tex. June 5, 1995). There

was no evidence Dillard or its agents or employees acted on the

basis of race; nor was there any abuse of discretion in the remand

of the state law claims.

AFFIRMED
```

[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 249 (Tuesday, December 29, 2015)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 81251]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2015-32507]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Parts 52, 78, and 97

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0500; FRL-9940-57-OAR]
RIN 2060-AS05

Cross-State Air Pollution Rule Update for the 2008 Ozone NAAQS

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule; extension of comment period.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is extending the 
comment period for the proposed rule titled ``Cross-State Air Pollution 
Rule Update for the 2008 Ozone NAAQS'' that was published in the 
Federal Register on December 3, 2015. The proposal provided for a 
public comment period ending January 19, 2016. The EPA received several 
requests from the public to extend this comment period. The EPA is 
extending the comment period to a 60-day public comment period ending 
February 1, 2016.

DATES: The comment period for the proposed rule published December 3, 
2015, at 80 FR 75706, is extended. Comments, identified by docket 
identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0500, must be received on or 
before February 1, 2016.

ADDRESSES: Follow the detailed instructions as provided under ADDRESSES 
in the December 3, 2015 proposal.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. David Risley, Clean Air Markets 
Division, Office of Atmospheric Programs (Mail Code 6204M), 
Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., 
Washington, DC 20460; telephone number: (202) 343-9177; email address: 
Risley.David@epa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This document extends the public comment 
period for the proposed Cross-State Air Pollution Rule Update for the 
2008 Ozone NAAQS (80 FR 75706, December 3, 2015) in order to ensure 
that the public has sufficient time to review and comment on the 
proposal.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Parts 52, 78, and 97

    Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure, 
Air pollution control, Electric power plants, Incorporation by 
reference, Nitrogen oxides, Reporting and record keeping requirements.

    Dated: December 18, 2015.
Sarah Dunham,
Director, Office of Atmospheric Programs.
[FR Doc. 2015-32507 Filed 12-28-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
```
#### § 381.186 Cooperation of States and other jurisdictions in Federal programs.

Under the “Talmadge-Aiken Act” of September 28, 1962 (7 U.S.C. 450), the Administrator is authorized under stated conditions to utilize employees and facilities of any State in carrying out Federal functions under the Poultry Products Inspection Act. A cooperative program for this purpose is called a Federal-State program. Under paragraph (a) of section 5 of the Poultry Products Inspection Act, the Administrator is also authorized to conduct examinations, investigations, and inspections under the Act through any officer or employee of any State or territory or the District of Columbia commissioned by him for such purpose.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5


<S>                                            <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                        3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                   SEP-30-1999
<CASH>                                               9,825
<SECURITIES>                                             0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        4,926
<ALLOWANCES>                                             0
<INVENTORY>                                              0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                    14,976
<PP&E>                                             460,105
<DEPRECIATION>                                      30,596
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                     453,817
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                              126,688
<BONDS>                                            105,263
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                    0
<PREFERRED>                                         37,500
<COMMON>                                               178
<OTHER-SE>                                         183,237
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                       453,817
<SALES>                                             69,945
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                    70,941
<CGS>                                                    0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                       45,441
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                         0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                         0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  10,349
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                     23,212
<INCOME-TAX>                                             0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                 23,212
<DISCONTINUED>                                           0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                          0
<CHANGES>                                                0
<NET-INCOME>                                        20,391
<EPS-BASIC>                                         1.23
<EPS-DILUTED>                                         1.23




</TABLE>
§ 54.4 Application by owners for indemnity payments. ( a ) Normally, an application for indemnification will be initiated by a State or APHIS representative who is working with the owner of a flock that has already been determined to be an infected flock or source flock, or that is already under a State movement restriction. In such cases, the flock owner will confirm information about the flock's eligibility for indemnity that is contained in the application submitted by the State or APHIS representative. However, the owner of any flock may apply directly to receive indemnification by submitting to the Administrator a written request containing the following information: ( 1 ) Name, address, and social security number of the flock owner;
( 2 ) Number and breed(s) of animals in the flock, including a current inventory;
( 3 ) Location of flock premises;
( 4 ) Reasons the owner believes animals in his or her flock may be eligible for indemnification, including any diagnosis of scrapie made for animals in the flock; any signs of scrapie observed in the flock by the owner; and any movement of animals into the flock from flocks infected with or exposed to scrapie;
( 5 ) A copy of the registration papers issued in the name of the owner for any registered animals in the flock (registration papers are not required for the payment of indemnity for animals that are not registered); and
( 6 ) Signed release letters addressed to any sheep or goat registry associations that maintain records of the owner's sheep or goats requesting the associations to release to APHIS all records maintained by the association on sheep or goats currently or formerly owned by the applicant.
( b ) APHIS will evaluate each application to determine whether the owner's flock contains animals eligible for indemnity in accordance with § 54.3.
(Approved by the Office of Management and Budget under control number 0579-0101) [66 FR 43982, Aug. 21, 2001, as amended at 84 FR 11182, Mar. 25, 2019]
§ 329.3 Notification of detention to the owner of the article or livestock detained, or the owner's agent, and person having custody. ( a ) When any article or livestock is detained under this part, an authorized representative of the Secretary shall: ( 1 ) Orally notify the immediate custodian of the article or livestock detained, and
( 2 ) Promptly furnish a copy of a completed “Notice of Detention” (FSIS Form 8080-1) to the immediate custodian of the detained article or livestock.
( b ) If the owner of the detained article or livestock, or the owner's agent, is not the immediate custodian at the time of detention and if the owner, or owner's agent, can be ascertained and notified, an authorized representative of the Secretary shall furnish a copy of the completed “Notice of Detention” to the owner or the owner's agent. Such copy shall be served, as soon as possible, by delivering the notification to the owner, or the owner's agent, or by certifying and mailing the notification to the owner, or the owner's agent, at his or her last known residence or principal office or place of business.
[55 FR 47842, Nov. 16, 1990]
# C_2010246EN.01004303.xml

| 11.9.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 246/43 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.9.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 246/43

---

Action brought on 9 July 2010 — Hecq v Commission

(Case F-56/10)

()

2010/C 246/77

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Applicant: André Hecq (Chaumont-Gistoux, Belgium) (represented by: L. Vogel, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Commission

Defendant:

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Subject-matter and description of the proceedings

Annulment of the Commission’s decision refusing the full reimbursement of certain medical fees and expenses.

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Tribunal should:

| — | annul the decision adopted on 20 October 2009 by the Brussels settlements office of the Sickness Insurance Fund, in the form of a breakdown of expenses No 171, refusing the applicant full reimbursement for four consultations with a general practitioner, on 17 February, 2 April, 23 April and 11 May 2009, two consultations with a specialist, on 6 April and 15 June 2009, and two purchases of medicines prescribed by the psychiatrist Vandenborre, on 22 June and 22 September 2009; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decision adopted on 20 October 2009 by the Brussels settlements office of the Sickness Insurance Fund, in the form of a breakdown of expenses No 171, refusing the applicant full reimbursement for four consultations with a general practitioner, on 17 February, 2 April, 23 April and 11 May 2009, two consultations with a specialist, on 6 April and 15 June 2009, and two purchases of medicines prescribed by the psychiatrist Vandenborre, on 22 June and 22 September 2009;

| — | annul, so far as necessary, the decision adopted by the appointing authority on 13 April 2010 in so far as it rejects the applicant’s complaint brought on 20 January 2010 against the decision of 20 October 2009; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul, so far as necessary, the decision adopted by the appointing authority on 13 April 2010 in so far as it rejects the applicant’s complaint brought on 20 January 2010 against the decision of 20 October 2009;

| — | order the European Commission to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the European Commission to pay the costs.

---
EXHIBIT 32.1
 Written Statement of Chief Executive Officer Pursuant to Section 906 of the 
Sarbanes-Oxley Act
of 2002
  (a)
    
    the Form 10-Q Report of the Company for the quarter ended March 31, 2011 filed on the date
hereof with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report) fully complies with the
requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
 (b)
    
    information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial
condition and results of operations of the Company.
 /s/ JOHANN  DREYERJohann DreyerChief Executive Officer
(Principal Executive Officer)
[if !vml]>[endif]>
[if !vml]>[endif]>
You havereached the Federal Depository Library Program Electronic Collection (FDLP/EC)Archive. This archive assures ongoing access to publications in the FDLP/EC.Access to publications in the archive is available through GPO's suite of catalogingand locator services, including the Catalog of U.S. GovernmentPublications.  Archived copies of publications are retrieved in the eventthat publications are no longer available from the original publishing agencysite. (Historical purposes)
**Title:****Income,earnings, and poverty data from the American community survey**** 
SuDocNumber:C3.304:
ItemNumber:0146-A-05(online)
CGPSystem Number: 000649026
 
2005
2006
2007**
# CA2006317EN.01000501.xml

| 23.12.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CA 317/5 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.12.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CA 317/5

---

RESERVE LIST

RESERVE LIST

OPEN COMPETITION EPSO/AST/8/05

OPEN COMPETITION EPSO/AST/8/05

ASSISTANTS (AST 3) IN THE FIELD OF PROOFREADING

ASSISTANTS (AST 3) IN THE FIELD OF PROOFREADING

(Bulgarian language)

(2006/C 317 A/03)

| AVRAMOVA | Svetla |
| --- | --- |
| DEMANGE | Roumiana |
| DIMITROVA | Irina |
| DINEV | Sava |
| DOBREVA | Katerina |
| DOMUSCHIEVA | Veneta |
| GOSPODINOV | Dancho |
| HRISTOVA | Tanya |
| IVANOVA | Emiliya |
| IVANOVA | Marina |
| KAPRALOVA | Nedka |
| MAKARINOV | Sergei |
| MILKOVA | Tanya |
| MILUSHEVA | Boryana |
| RANGELOVA | Rumyana |
| SABEV | Svetoslav |
| STEFANOVA | Penka |
| STOYANOVA | Galina |
| STRATIEVA | Daniela |
| TELKEDJIYSKA | Tatiana |
| TZONOVA | Margarita |
| VALTCHEV | Boian |
| YANKOVA | Anamaria |

AVRAMOVA

Svetla

DEMANGE

Roumiana

DIMITROVA

Irina

DINEV

Sava

DOBREVA

Katerina

DOMUSCHIEVA

Veneta

GOSPODINOV

Dancho

HRISTOVA

Tanya

IVANOVA

Emiliya

IVANOVA

Marina

KAPRALOVA

Nedka

MAKARINOV

Sergei

MILKOVA

Tanya

MILUSHEVA

Boryana

RANGELOVA

Rumyana

SABEV

Svetoslav

STEFANOVA

Penka

STOYANOVA

Galina

STRATIEVA

Daniela

TELKEDJIYSKA

Tatiana

TZONOVA

Margarita

VALTCHEV

Boian

YANKOVA

Anamaria

---
-  Home 
-  Pipeline Field Operations 
-  Drug and Alcohol 

# In This Section

                      -  Field Operations Overview 
                      -  Effort Allocation                          -  Overview 
                        -  Federal Effort 
                        -  State Effort 
                      -  Drug and Alcohol                          -  Overview 
                        -  Drug and Alcohol Inspection Forms 
                        -  Drug and Alcohol Regulations 
                        -  Guidance 
                        -  Management Information System (MIS) 
                      -  Investigations 

## Related Links

                  -                                          CY 2017 Pipeline Minimum Random Drug Testing Rate                   

## Contact Us

Office of Pipeline Safety
U.S. Department of Transportation, Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration1200 New Jersey Avenue, SEWashington, DC20590United States

**Email:**phmsa.pipelinesafety@dot.gov**Phone:**202-366-4595****Fax:**202-366-4566****Business Hours:**9:00am-5:00pm ET, M-F

If you are deaf, hard of hearing, or have a speech disability, please dial 7-1-1 to access telecommunications relay services.

# Guidance

*Guidance for operators and contractors who are required to manage and implement drug and alcohol testing programs:*

DOT 'Medical' Marijuana Notice

DOT 'Recreational' Marijuana Notice

Random Drug Testing Selection Guidance

The CY 2022 Pipeline Minimum Random Drug Testing Rate is 50 percent.
#### § 557.15 Outside containers of foreign products; marking and labeling; application of official inspection legend.

The requirements in 9 CFR 327.15 governing the marking and labeling of outside containers of meat and meat food products apply also with respect to fish and fish products.
II

106TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. 1102

To guarantee the right of individuals to receive full social security benefits

under title II of the Social Security Act in full with an accurate annual

cost-of-living adjustment.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

MAY 24, 1999

Mr. GRAMS introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred

to the Committee on Finance

A BILL

To guarantee the right of individuals to receive full social

security benefits under title II of the Social Security

Act in full with an accurate annual cost-of-living adjustment.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Social Security Bene5 fits Guarantee Act of 1999’’.
2

•S 1102 IS

1 SEC. 2. GUARANTEE OF FULL SOCIAL SECURITY BENEFITS

2 WITH ACCURATE ANNUAL COST-OF-LIVING

3 ADJUSTMENT.

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—Not later than 90 days after the

5 date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary of the Treas6 ury shall issue to each individual who, as of such date,

7 is receiving benefits under title II of the Social Security

8 Act (42 U.S.C. 401 et seq.) and, thereafter, to each indi9 vidual who applies for such benefits, a certificate rep10 resenting a legally enforceable guarantee—

11 (1) of the monthly amount of benefits that the

12 individual will receive under that title, as determined

13 on the date of the issuance of the certificate; and

14 (2) that the benefits will be adjusted not less

15 frequently than annually on the basis of an accurate

16 determination of the increase in the cost-of-living of

17 the individual.

18 (b) ENTITLEMENT.—Any certificate issued under the

19 authority of this section constitutes budget authority in

20 advance of appropriations Acts and represents the obliga21 tion of the Federal Government to provide for the payment

22 to the individual to whom the certificate is issued benefits

23 under title II of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 401

24 et seq.) in the amounts set forth in the certificate and

25 adjusted thereafter as described in subsection (a)(2).

Æ