alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Development of Chemical Precipitation Purchased Equipment Costs: 

Tanks 

 

 

This telephone contact report supports EPA’s development of purchased equipment cost equations for tanks by 

documenting EPA's communication with a vendor regarding purchase costs and information for tanks used in 

the Steam Electric cost model. 
Project No.: 0172.08.029.044 DISTRIBUTION 

Page _1_ of __1_

Project Name: Steam/Cost/Compliance Modeling

TELEPHONE CALL RECORD 

 Outgoing Call

Date: 06/22/2011 Time: 1:45 pm PDT 

Company Name: Fisher Tank Company 

 

Contact Name: Fred Ruinen 

Phone No : (803)-359-4173 ext. 2713 

Name: Kavya Kasturi ERG

GENERAL SUBJECT: Vendor cost request for carbon steel field-built tanks for a chemical precipitation wastewater treatment system. 

 

TOPICS DISCUSSED AND ACTION TAKEN 

On June 22, 2011 at 1:45 pm I contacted Mr. Fred Ruinen. I explained to Mr. Ruinen that we are working 

on conceptual level costing of a chemical precipitation wastewater treatment system to treat FGD (flue gas 

desulfurization) wastewater from steam electric power plants, and as a part of this project we are trying to 

collect cost information on different components or units of a chemical precipitation system. 

I told Mr. Ruinen that we are interested in carbon steel tanks. I requested information such as purchase cost,

cost for ancillary equipments and power consumption (if applicable). Mr. Ruinen stated that they provide only 

field-built tanks. The tank sizes range from 30,000 gal to 10,000,000 gal. The smallest tank is 15-16 feet in 

diameter. Tank height increases in 8 foot increments. A 1,000,000 gal tank would be 60 feet in diameter and 40 

feet tall. Typically, for wastewater treatment, tanks are 16-24 feet tall and have a larger diameter. Mr. Ruinen 

requested I email him our request and questions and he would follow up via email.
IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

OF TEXAS

NO. AP–76,264

EX PARTE JESSE BENAVIDES, Applicant

ON APPLICATION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS

FROM BEXAR COUNTY

MEYERS, J., filed a concurring and dissenting opinion, in which

HERVEY, J., joined.

CONCURRING AND DISSENTING OPINION

The victim in this case, Pennington, delivered an affidavit to Applicant’s attorney

stating that she attended Applicant’s revocation hearing and did not recognize Applicant

as the person who assaulted her. This led Applicant to file the application for writ of

habeas corpus that is before us, in which he claims actual innocence on the basis of

identity. Pennington testified at the habeas hearing and again said that Applicant was not

the man who sexually assaulted her. She also said, for the first time, that she consented to

having sex with the person who drove her home from the auto shop. 

I can see how the majority would deny the application on the identity issue–there is
Benavides–Page 2

credible evidence refuting Pennington’s claim that she did not recognize Applicant,

including testimony from Applicant’s co-worker that Applicant is the one who drove

Pennington home, that Pennington had picked Applicant from a photo lineup, that

Applicant admitted he had taken Pennington home and “might have played around with

her,” and that her inability to recognize Applicant at the revocation hearing was many

years after the alleged assault. 

The issue of consent, however, was not raised in the writ before us because

Pennington’s testimony that she consented did not occur until after the writ was filed. At

the time of the writ hearing, Pennington’s consent officially became newly discovered

evidence. Therefore, Applicant is entitled to file a separate application raising the

consent issue. 

Because consent was not raised in this application for writ of habeas corpus, the

majority should not include this issue in the decision to deny the application. I concur

with the denial of the current application on the identity issue that was raised, but I

disagree with the majority’s consideration of the consent issue since it is newly

discovered evidence that has not yet been raised in an application for writ of habeas

corpus. 

Meyers, J.

Filed: May 26, 2010

Do Not Publish
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.                  

###### National Science Foundation

In accordance with Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463, as amended), the National Science Foundation announces the following meeting:

*Name:*                         Advisory Committee for Biological Sciences (1110).                    

*Date/Time:*                         March 17, 2010; 8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m., March 18, 2010; 8:30 a.m. to 1 p.m.                    

*Place:*                         National Science Foundation, 4201 Wilson Boulevard, Room 555 Stafford II, Arlington, VA.                    

*Type of Meeting:*                         Open.                    

*Contact Person:*                         Chuck Liarakos, National Science Foundation, 4201 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, VA 22230 (703) 292-8400.                    

If you are attending the meeting and need access to the NSF, please contact the individual listed above so your name may be added to the building access list.

*Purpose of Meeting:*                         To provide advice concerning issues related to the oversight, integrity, development and enhancement of NSF's business operations.                    

*Reason for Late Notice:*                         Due to a recent water pipe burst resulting in flood damage to NSF offices and files. This caused staff to experience workload interruption and delay.                    

*Agenda:*

*March 17, 2010*

a.m.: Introductions and Updates,  Presentation and Discussion—2011 Budget Report; Undergraduate Education; Collections; and Dimensions of Biodiversity.

p.m.: Presentation and Discussion—The Future of Biology; Advances in Sequencing Technology; COV Report; Committee Discussion.

*March 18, 2010*

a.m.: Presentation and Discussion—Resources and Facilities Report; COV Report; Innovation Experiments.

p.m.: Discussion—Planning for next meeting; feedback; other business.

Susanne Bolton,

Committee Management Officer.

[FR Doc. 2010-4860 Filed 3-5-10; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7555-01-P
| (logo) NTS NATIONAL

TAX SEARCH, LLC | 130 S. Jefferson, Suite 300

Chicago, IL 60661

312-233-6440 |
|--------------------------------------|--------------------------------------------------------------|

 

 

REPORT ON ASSESSMENT OFCOMPLIANCE WITH APPLICABLE SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION’SREGULATION AB SERVICING CRITERIA

 

 

For the calendar year endingDecember 31, 2016, National Tax Search, LLC has been a Tax Service Vendor for **WellsFargo Bank** (the “Servicer”).

 

National Tax Search, LLC(“NTS”) is responsible for assessing compliance as of December 31,2016 and for the period from January 1, 2016 through December 31, 2016 (the“Reporting Period”) with the servicing criteria set forth in Title17, Section 229.1122(d) of the Code of Federal Regulations (the“CFR”). NTS has used the servicing criteria communicated to NTS bythe Servicer to assess compliance with the applicable servicing criteria. Onlyservicing criteria 1122 (d) (l)(ii), 1122 (d)1(iv), 1122 (d)2(ii), 1122(d)2(v), 1122(d)2(vi), 1122(d)(4)(xi), and 1122(d)(4)(xii) (the“Applicable Servicing Criteria”) are applicable to the activitiesNTS performs with respect to the transactions covered by this report. NTS hasdetermined that the remaining servicing criteria set forth in Item 1122 (d) ofthe SEC Regulation AB are not applicable to the activities it performs withrespect to the transactions covered by this report. The transactions covered bythis report include all tax payments made on behalf of the Servicer usingNTS’s TaxQ system (the “Platform Transactions”).

 

NTS, as a vendor, has assessedits compliance with the Applicable Servicing Criteria for the Reporting Periodand has concluded that NTS has complied, in all material respects, with theApplicable Servicing Criteria as of December 31, 2016 and for the ReportingPeriod with respect to the Platform Transactions taken as a whole.

 

Plante& Moran, PLLC, anindependent registered public accounting firm, has issued an attestation reporton the assessment of compliance with the Applicable Servicing Criteria as ofDecember 31, 2016 and for the Reporting Period as set forth in this assertion.

 

National Tax Search, LLC, asVendor to Servicer

 

 

/s/ Lori D. Eshoo

Lori D. Eshoo, President/CEO 

January 23, 2017
SCAD-10-0000170

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI#I

OFFICE OF DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL, Petitioner,

vs.

MARK F. BUCKMAN, Respondent.

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING

(ODC 10-073-8907)

ORDER OF PUBLIC CENSURE

(By: Recktenwald, C.J., Nakayama, Acoba, and Duffy, JJ.,

 and Intermediate Court of Appeals Chief Judge Nakamura,

 assigned by reason of vacancy)

Upon consideration of the Office of Disciplinary

Counsel’s Petition for Issuance of Reciprocal Discipline Notice,

our December 8, 2010 Notice and Order, Assistant Disciplinary

Counsel’s affidavit regarding service of the notice and order,

Respondent Mark F. Buckman’s lack of response thereto, and the

record, it appears Respondent Buckman stipulated to, and the

California State Bar Court imposed a public reproval with

conditions, upon stipulation of misconduct in two cases wherein

Respondent Buckman failed "to pay promptly, as requested by a

client, funds in [his] possession [that] the client was entitled

to receive," and "to maintain the respect due to the courts of

Electronically Filed

Supreme Court

SCAD-10-0000170

09-MAR-2011

09:45 AM
justice and judicial officers." It further appears that such

conduct merits the substantially equivalent discipline of public

censure in this jurisdiction. Therefore,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Respondent Buckman is hereby

publically censured. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Respondent Buckman shall

comply with the stipulated conditions imposed by the California

State Bar Court and shall submit an affidavit of compliance to

this court, under the case number on this order, after all

conditions have been met.

DATED: Honolulu, Hawai#i, March 9, 2011.

/s/ Mark E. Recktenwald

/s/ Paula A. Nakayama

/s/ Simeon R. Acoba, Jr.

/s/ James E. Duffy, Jr.

/s/ Craig H. Nakamura

2
AVS

Quality Management

System

Title: Domestic New Action Worksheet with S8

QPM#

AIR-ANM-030-F7

Date: December 17, 2008

Revision

1

Record of Contacts

FDMS Docket No. FAA_,jp_'_O-:-_O_"_L/_b __

With whom outside the FAA has this proposal been discussed (e.g., ATA, RAA, ALPA, etc.)?

Organization Persof! Contacted Date

Boeing Dan Shonka 3/13/2003

ATA Joe White 4/1 0/2009

UNCONTROLLED COpy WHEN DOWNLOADED

Check the Master list to Verify That This is the :Correcl Revision Before Use
# C_2014303EN.01005201.xml

| 8.9.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 303/52 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.9.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 303/52

---

Action brought on 14 July 2014 — Matratzen Concord v OHIM — Barranco Rodriguez (Matratzen Concord)

(Case T-526/14)

2014/C 303/61

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Matratzen Concord GmbH (Cologne, Germany) (represented by: I. Selting, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

Defendant:

Other parties to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Mariano Barranco Rodriguez and Pablo Barranco Schnitzler (Sant Just Desvern, Spain)

Other parties to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | Annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 9 April 2014 in Case R 1523/2013-1; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 9 April 2014 in Case R 1523/2013-1;

| — | Order the defendant to pay the costs including the costs incurred in the course of the proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the defendant to pay the costs including the costs incurred in the course of the proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for a Community trade mark: the applicant

Applicant for a Community trade mark:

Community trade mark concerned: the word mark ‘Matratzen Concord’ for goods in Classes 10, 20, 24 and 35 — Community trade mark application No 1 0 3 59  404

Community trade mark concerned:

Proprietors of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Mariano Barranco Rodriguez and Pablo Barranco Schnitzler

Proprietors of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings:

Mark or sign cited in opposition: the national word mark ‘MATRATZEN’ for goods in Classes 20 and 35

Mark or sign cited in opposition:

Decision of the Opposition Division: the opposition was upheld in part

Decision of the Opposition Division:

Decision of the Board of Appeal: the appeal was dismissed

Decision of the Board of Appeal:

Pleas in law: Infringement of Articles 8(1), 41(1)(a) and 42(2) of Regulation No 207/2009

Pleas in law:

---
Editorial Note on Part 868
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 868 appear at 73 FR 35341, June 23, 2008.

§ 868.5280 Breathing tube support. ( a ) *Identification.* A breathing tube support is a device that is intended to support and anchor a patient's breathing tube(s).
( b ) *Classification.* Class I (general controls). The device is exempt from the premarket notification procedures in subpart E of part 807 of this chapter subject to the limitations in § 868.9.
[47 FR 31142, July 16, 1982, as amended at 54 FR 25048, June 12, 1989; 66 FR 38794, July 25, 2001]
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 47 (Thursday, March 11, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Page 11560]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-5073]


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

JUDICIAL CONFERENCE OF THE UNITED STATES


Meeting of the Judicial Conference Advisory Committee on Rules of 
Evidence

AGENCY: Judicial Conference of the United States Advisory Committee on 
Rules of Evidence.

ACTION: Notice of open meeting.

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

SUMMARY: The Advisory Committee on Rules of Evidence will hold a two-
day meeting. The meeting will be open to public observation but not 
participation.

DATES: April 22-23, 2010.

TIME: 8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m.

ADDRESSES: Empire Hotel, 44 W 63rd Street, New York, NY 10023.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John K. Rabiej, Chief, Rules Committee 
Support Office, Administrative Office of the United States Courts, 
Washington, DC 20544, telephone (202) 502-1820.

    Dated: March 4, 2010.
John K. Rabiej,
Chief, Rules Committee Support Office.
[FR Doc. 2010-5073 Filed 3-10-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 2210-55-M
# C_2014261EN.01002501.xml

| 11.8.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 261/25 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.8.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 261/25

---

Action brought on 7 May 2014 — Bankia/OHIM — Banco ActivoBank (Portugal) (Bankia)

(Case T-323/14)

2014/C 261/48

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Bankia, SA (Valencia, Spain) (represented by: F. De Barba, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Banco ActivoBank (Portugal), SA (Lisboa, Portugal)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | Annul the decision of the Second Chamber of the Board of Appeal of 14 February 2014 in cases R 649/2013-2 and R 744/2013-2, so that the Community trade mark application no1 0 1 25  284‘BANKIA’ be granted for all the goods and services; |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the decision of the Second Chamber of the Board of Appeal of 14 February 2014 in cases R 649/2013-2 and R 744/2013-2, so that the Community trade mark application no1 0 1 25  284‘BANKIA’ be granted for all the goods and services;

o

| — | Condemn the opponent and/or the OHIM to pay the costs incurred by the applicant/appellant in connection with this appeal. |
| --- | --- |

—

Condemn the opponent and/or the OHIM to pay the costs incurred by the applicant/appellant in connection with this appeal.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for a Community trade mark: The applicant

Applicant for a Community trade mark:

Community trade mark concerned: The figurative mark containing the word element ‘Bankia’ for goods and services in Classes 9, 16, 35, 36, 38, 41 and 45 — Community trade mark application no1 0 1 25  284

Community trade mark concerned:

o

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Banco ActivoBank (Portugal), SA

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings:

Mark or sign cited in opposition: The national word mark ‘BANKY’ for services in Class 36

Mark or sign cited in opposition:

Decision of the Opposition Division: The opposition was partially upheld

Decision of the Opposition Division:

Decision of the Board of Appeal: The appeal of BANKIA S.A. was dismissed and the appeal of Banco ActivoBank (Portugal), SA partially upheld, rejecting the contested trade mark for a wider range of services

Decision of the Board of Appeal:

Pleas in law: Infringement of Art. 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009

Pleas in law:

---
#### § 82.1330 D&C Red No. 30.

The color additive D&C Red No. 30 shall conform in identity and specifications to the requirements of § 74.1330 (a)(1) and (b) of this chapter.

[47 FR 22511, May 25, 1982]
Editorial Note on Part 882
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 882 appear at 73 FR 35341, June 23, 2008.

§ 882.1790 Ocular plethysmograph. ( a ) *Identification.* An ocular plethysmograph is a device used to measure or detect volume changes in the eye produced by pulsations of the artery, to diagnose carotid artery occlusive disease (restrictions on blood flow in the carotid artery).
( b ) *Classification.* Class III (premarket approval).
( c ) Date PMA or notice of completion of PDP is required. A PMA or notice of completion of a PDP is required to be filed with the Food and Drug Administration on or before September 21, 2004, for any ocular plethysmograph that was in commercial distribution before May 28, 1976. Any other ocular plethysmograph shall have an approved PMA or declared completed PDP in effect before being placed in commercial distribution.
[44 FR 51730, Sept. 4, 1979, as amended at 52 FR 17739, May 11, 1987; 69 FR 34920, June 23, 2004]
EXHIBIT 4.11


                              CERTIFICATE OF TRUST
                                       OF
                       HARLEYSVILLE GROUP CAPITAL TRUST II

         This Certificate of Trust of Harleysville Group Capital Trust II (the
"Trust"), dated as of April 7, 2003, is being duly executed and filed by the
undersigned, as trustees, to form a statutory trust under the Delaware Statutory
Trust Act (12 Del. C. ss. 3801, et seq.).

         1. Name. The name of the statutory trust formed hereby is "Harleysville
Group Capital Trust II".

         2. Delaware Trustee. The name and business address of the trustee of
the Trust with its principal place of business in the State of Delaware is
Wilmington Trust Company, Rodney Square North 1100 North Market Street,
Wilmington, Delaware 19890-1600.

         3. Effective Date. This Certificate of Trust shall be effective upon
filing with the Secretary of State of the State of Delaware.


<PAGE>




         IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned, being the trustees of the Trust,
have executed this Certificate of Trust as of the date first above written.

                                           WILMINGTON TRUST COMPANY,
                                           not in its individual
                                           capacity, but solely as
                                           Property Trustee


                                           By:  /s/ Kathleen A. Pedelini
                                           ------------------------------------
                                           Name: Kathleen A. Pedelini
                                           Title:   Financial Services Officer


                                           WILMINGTON TRUST COMPANY, not in its
                                           individual capacity, but solely as
                                           Delaware Trustee


                                           By:  /s/ Kathleen A. Pedelini
                                           ------------------------------------
                                           Name: Kathleen A. Pedelini
                                           Title:   Financial Services Officer
Editorial Note on Part 570
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part appear at 88 FR 45066, July 14, 2023.

§ 570.17 Exemption for investigational use and procedure for obtaining authorization to market edible products from experimental animals. A food additive or food containing a food additive intended for investigational use by qualified experts shall be exempt from the requirements of section 409 of the act under the following conditions: ( a ) If intended for investigational use in vitro or in laboratory research animals, it bears a label which states prominently, in addition to the other information required by the act, the warning: *Caution.* Contains a new food additive for investigational use only in laboratory research animals or for tests in vitro. Not for use in humans.
( b ) If intended for use in animals other than laboratory research animals and if the edible products of the animals are to be marketed as food, permission for the marketing of the edible products as food has been requested by the sponsor, and authorization has been granted by the Food and Drug Administration in accordance with § 511.1 of this chapter or by the Department of Agriculture in accordance with 9 CFR 309.17, and it bears a label which states prominently, in addition to the other information required by the act, the warning: *Caution.* Contains a new food additive for use only in investigational animals. Not for use in humans. Edible products of investigational animals are not to be used for food unless authorization has been granted by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration or by the U.S. Department of Agriculture.
( c ) If intended for nonclinical laboratory studies in food-producing animals, the study is conducted in compliance with the regulations set forth in part 58 of this chapter.
[41 FR 38644, Sept. 10, 1976, as amended at 43 FR 60023, Dec. 22, 1978]