alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
### Equipment Standards: Packaged Terminal Air Conditioners and Heat Pumps Energy Conservation Standard Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

Search Help More Search Options

Printable Version 

## Packaged Terminal Air Conditioners and Heat Pumps Energy Conservation Standard Notice of Proposed Rulemaking Technical Support Document DOE prepared the Technical Support Document for the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking stage of its energy conservation standards rulemaking on packaged terminal air conditioners and packaged terminal heat pumps. The following documents are available as Adobe Acrobat PDFs. Download Adobe Reader

. EERE Information Center



### Chapters Chapter 1. Introduction ( PDF 123 KB) Chapter 2. Analytical Plan ( PDF 258 KB) Chapter 3. Market and Technology Assessment ( PDF 427 KB) Chapter 4. Screening Analysis ( PDF 147 KB)



### Page 1 

### EERE-2007-BT-STD-0012 COMMENT 02

### Equipment Standards: Packaged Terminal Air Conditioners and Heat Pumps Energy Conservation Standard Notice of Proposed Rulemaking C h apter 5. Engineering Ana l ysis ( PDF 598 KB) Chapter 6. Markups for Equipment Price Determination ( PDF 293 KB) Chapter 7. Energy Use Characterization ( PDF 428 KB) Chapter 8. Life-Cycle Cost and Payback Period Analysis ( PDF 497 KB) Chapter 9. Trial Standard Levels ( PDF 214 KB) Chapter 10. Shipments Analysis ( PDF 229 KB) Chapter 11. National Impact Analysis ( PDF 304 KB) Chapter 12. Life-Cycle Cost Subgroup Analysis ( PDF 245 KB) Chapter 13. Manufacturer Impact Analysis ( PDF 741 KB) Chapter 14. Utility Impact Analysis ( PDF 300 KB) Chapter 15. Employment Impact Analysis ( PDF 141 KB) Chapter 16. Environmental Impact Analysis ( PDF 249 KB)



### Reports Report 1 Regulatory Impact Analysis ( PDF 266 KB ) 

### Appendices Appendix A Detailed Data for Equipment Price Markups ( PDF 165 KB ) Appendix B Internal Load Schedules and Part-Load Performance Curves for PTACs and PTHPs ( PDF 117 KB ) Appendix C Typical Meteorological (THY2) Assignments ( PDF 3.9 MB) Appendix D User Instructions for Life-Cycle Cost Spreadsheet ( PDF 113 KB ) Appendix E Detailed Life-Cycle Cost Output ( PDF 3.9 MB) Appendix F User Instructions for National Energy Saving and Net Present Value Spreadsheet ( PDF 112 KB ) Appendix G Detailed National Energy Savings and National Net Present Value Output ( PDF 440 KB ) Appendix H Estimation of Marginal Heat Rates and SiteSource Conversion Factors ( PDF 240 KB ) Appendix I Government Regulatory Impact Model ( PDF 174 KB )



### Page 2 

### EERE-2007-BT-STD-0012 COMMENT 02

### Equipment Standards: Packaged Terminal Air Conditioners and Heat Pumps Energy Conservation Standard Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

Building Technologies Program Home | EERE Home| U.S. Department of Energy Webmaster| Web Site Policies| Security & Privacy| USA.gov Content Last Updated: 06/23/2008

Printable Version Appendix J Estimation of Utility and Environmental Results from NEMS-BT Output ( PDF 206 KB )



### Page 3 

### EERE-2007-BT-STD-0012 COMMENT 02
<PAGE>

                                                                   EXHIBIT 10(r)

                                 AMENDMENT TO
                            RESTATED TIDEWATER INC.
                           1997 STOCK INCENTIVE PLAN



     WHEREAS, Tidewater, Inc., a Delaware corporation (the "Company"), restated
the Tidewater Inc. 1997 Stock Incentive Plan (the "Plan") effective October 1,
1999; and

     WHEREAS, the Company wishes to amend the Plan to extend the post-retirement
exercise period of options granted to non-employee directors under the Plan in
1997 and to be granted in the future to non-employee directors under the Plan;

     NOW, THEREFORE, pursuant to the power provided to the Board in Section
9.10.A. of the Plan, Section 8.4 of the Plan entitled "Exercise After
Termination of Board Service" is hereby amended to read in its entirety as
follows:

          In the event an Outside Director ceases to serve on the Board, the
     stock options granted hereunder must be exercised, to the extent otherwise
     exercisable at the time of termination of Board service, within one year
     from termination of Board service; provided, however, that

               (a) In the event of termination of Board service as a result of
          death or disability, the stock options must be exercised within two
          years from the date of termination of Board service;

               (b) As to stock options granted to Outside Directors under the
          Plan on the dates of the annual meetings of stockholders of Tidewater
          held in 1998 and 1999, in the event of termination of Board service as
          a result of retirement on or after reaching age 65, the stock options
          must be exercised within two years from the date of termination of
          Board service;

               (c) As to stock options granted to Outside Directors under the
          Plan on the date of the annual meetings of stockholders of Tidewater
          held in 1997 and in the year 2000 and thereafter, in the event of
          termination of Board service as a result of retirement on or after
          reaching age 65, stock options must be exercised within five years
          from the date of termination of Board service;

     and further provided, that no stock options may be exercised later than 10
     years after the date of grant.
<PAGE>

     This Amendment is executed effective the 9th day of June, 2000.

                                    TIDEWATER INC.



                                    By:  s/Cliffe F. Laborde
                                         ---------------------
                                         Cliffe F. Laborde
                                         Senior Vice President, Secretary
                                         and General Counsel

                                       2
##### 



Exhibit 31.2
 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
RULE 13a-14(a)/15d-14(a),
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 302
OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
  1.
    
    I have reviewed this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of United America Indemnity, Ltd.;2.
    
    Based on my knowledge, this Quarterly 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 Quarterly Report;3.
    
    Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in
this Quarterly 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 Quarterly Report;4.
    
    The registrants other certifying officers 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)) and internal control over financial reporting (as defined in Exchange Act Rules
13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f)) 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 Quarterly Report is being prepared;b)
    
    Designed such internal control over financial reporting, or caused such internal
control over financial reporting to be designed under our supervision, to provide
reasonable assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting and the
preparation of financial statements for external purposes in accordance with generally
accepted accounting principles;c)
    
    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
Quarterly Report based on such evaluation; andd)
    
    Disclosed in this Quarterly 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
registrants internal control over financial reporting; and
  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; andb)
    
    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.
  /s/ Kevin L. TateKevin L. TateChief Financial Officer
EXHIBIT 34.1





ATTESTATION REPORT ON ASSESSMENT OF COMPLIANCE WITH


SERVICING CRITERIA FOR ASSET-BACKED SECURITIES





REPORT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM





To the Board of Directors and Shareholders


Entergy Arkansas, Inc.


Little Rock, Arkansas





We have examined management's assertion, included in the accompanying Report on Assessment of Compliance with Servicing Criteria For Asset-Backed Securities, that Entergy Arkansas, Inc. (the "Company") complied with the servicing criteria set forth in Item 1122(d) of the Securities and Exchange Commission's Regulation AB applicable for Entergy Arkansas Restoration Funding, LLC’s Senior Secured Storm Recovery Bonds (the “Securities”) as of and for the year ended December 31, 2014, excluding criteria 1122(d)(1)(ii), (1)(iii), (1)(iv), (2)(iii), (2)(vi), (4)(iii), (4)(v), (4)(ix), (4)(x), (4)(xi), (4)(xii), (4)(xiii), and (4)(xv), which management has determined are not applicable to the activities performed by the Company with respect to the Securities.  Management is responsible for the Company's compliance with the servicing criteria.  Our responsibility is to express an opinion on management's assertion about the Company's compliance with the servicing criteria based on our examination.





Our examination was conducted in accordance with the standards of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States), and, accordingly, included examining, on a test basis, evidence about the Company's compliance with the applicable servicing criteria, including tests on a sample basis of the servicing activities related to the Securities, determining whether the Company performed those selected activities in compliance with the servicing criteria during the specified period, and performing such other procedures as we considered necessary in the circumstances.  Further, an examination is not designed to detect noncompliance arising from errors that may have occurred prior to the period specified above that may have affected the balances or amounts calculated or reported by the Company during the period covered by this report.  We believe that our examination provides a reasonable basis for our opinion.  Our examination does not provide a legal determination on the Company's compliance with the servicing criteria.





In our opinion, management's assertion that the Company complied with the aforementioned applicable servicing criteria as of and for the year ended December 31, 2014 for Entergy Arkansas Restoration Funding, LLC’s Senior Secured Storm Recovery Bonds is fairly stated, in all material respects.








/s/ Deloitte & Touche LLP








New Orleans, Louisiana


March 27, 2015
Reap. Dec. 10197.

#### Frasers *v.*United States,

reappraisement 275968-A, etc.

Re-appraisements abandoned January 30, 1962. Entered at New York, N.Y. (Not published.) Motion by plaintiff.
**AO 450 (Rev. 5/85) Judgment in a Civil Case

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

JUDGMENT IN CIVIL CASE 

Larry L. Shafer, :

Plaintiff, :

v. : Case No. 2:10-cv-1181

Commissioner of Social Security, : JUDGE ALGENON L. MARBLEY

 Magistrate Judge Kemp

 Defendant. :

[] Jury Verdict. This action came before the Court for a trial by jury. The issues have been

tried and the jury has rendered its verdict.

[] Decision by Court. This action came to trial or hearing before the Court. The issues have

been tried or heard and a decision has been rendered.

[X] Decision by Court. This action was decided by the Court without a trial or hearing.

IT IS ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that pursuant to the

February 3, 2012 Opinion Order, the Court ADOPTED the

Report and Recommendation, OVERRULED the objections,

OVERRULED the Plaintiff's statement of specific errors. This

case is dismissed. The Clerk is directed to enter judgment in

favor of the defendant.

Date: February 3, 2012 James Bonini, Clerk

 s/Betty L. Clark 

 Betty L. Clark/Deputy Clerk

Case: 2:10-cv-01181-ALM-TPK Doc #: 20 Filed: 02/03/12 Page: 1 of 1 PAGEID #: <pageID>
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 69 (Wednesday, April 11, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Page 18246]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-6623]


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

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

[Report No. 2810]


Petitions for Reconsideration of Action in Rulemaking Proceeding

April 2, 2007.
    Petitions for Reconsideration have been filed in the Commission's 
Rulemaking proceeding listed in this Public Notice and published 
pursuant to 47 CFR 1.429(e). The full text of these documents is 
available for viewing and copying in Room CY-B402, 445 12th Street, 
SW., Washington, DC or may be purchased from the Commission's copy 
contractor, Best Copy and Printing, Inc. (BCPI) (1-800-378-3160). 
Oppositions to these petitions must be filed by April 26, 2007. See 
Section 1.4(b)(1) of the Commission's rules (47 CFR 1.4(b)(1)). Replies 
to an opposition must be filed within 10 days after the time for filing 
oppositions have expired.
    Subject: In the Matter of Amendment of Part 97 of the Commission's 
Rules To Implement WRC-03 Regulations Applicable to Requirements for 
Operator Licenses in the Amateur Radio Service (WT Docket No. 05-235).
    Number of Petitions Filed: 2.

Marlene H. Dortch,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E7-6623 Filed 4-10-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-P
### Michigan Supreme Court Lansing, Michigan

Marilyn Kelly,
Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanag h

Maura D. Corriga n Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markma n Diane M. Hathawa y A lton Thomas Davis,
J ustices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

_______________________________________ __ Clerk September 9, 2010

0830 

# Order

September 9, 2010

141108

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 141108 COA: 295970 Berrien CC: 05-402149-FC TIMOTHY LOFTON, JR., Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the application fo r leave to appeal the March 31, 2010 order of the Court of Appeals is considered, a nd it is DENIED, because the defendant has

failed to meet the burden of establishi ng entitlement to relief under MCR 6.508(D).
C OURT OF A PPEALS FOR THE

F IRST D ISTRICT OF T EXAS AT H OUSTON

O RDER

Appellate case name: Jenny Day and Guillermo Moreno v. Classic Autoplex

Appellate case number: 01

- 19

- 00744

- CV

Tri al court case number: 17

- CV

- 0081

Trial court: 212th District Court of Galveston County

Appellants, Jenny Day and Guillermo Moreno , have filed a motion for rehearing.

We grant appellants’ request for rehearing, withdraw our opinion and judgment issued

o n December 31, 2019 , and reins tate this case on the Court’s active do cket.

We ORDER appe llants, within 30 days of the date of this order , to provide

written evidence that they have paid

, or made arrangements to pay for the preparation of

the reporter’s rec ord. 1 See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 35.3(b)(3), 37.3(c). Unless they timely an d

ad equately respond, this Court may require appellants to file a brief and can consider and

decide those issues or points that do not require a reporter’s record for a decision. See

T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 37.3.

No extensions of time for providing proof of payme nt for the reporter’s record will

be granted , absent extraordinary circumstances.

It is so ORDERED.

Judge’s signature:

___________ /s/ Julie Countiss

__________ Acting for the Court

Date: February 13, 2020

1 There a re tw o court reporters involved in this case, Ada Christy and Jennifer Hall.
REGULATORY EVALUATION

Directorate Identifier: 2011-NM-141-AD

Executive Order 12866:

Could the AD be considered a “significant regulatory action”?

YES ( ) explain NO (X)

DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures:

Is the AD significant?

YES ( ) explain NO (X)

Regulatory Flexibility Act:

Will the AD have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities?

YES ( ) explain NO (X)

Intrastate Aviation in Alaska:

This AD could affect intrastate aviation in Alaska. Is it appropriate to include specific 

requirements for aircraft operated in Alaska, where aviation might be the only mode of 

transportation?

YES ( ) explain NO (X)
##### 



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
  (a)
    
    The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934; and(b)
    
    The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the
financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
 /s/ Nathaniel F. Bradley IVNathaniel F. Bradley IVChief Executive OfficerAugust 1, 2005/s/ Mark A. RedmanMark A. RedmanChief Financial OfficerAugust 1, 2005
I 

118TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 8819 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide for a credit against 

tax, or refund of tax, for certain Federal insurance taxes for employees 

who are members of religious faiths which oppose participation in such 

insurance. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JUNE 25, 2024 

Mr. BALDERSON (for himself, Mr. SMUCKER, and Mr. MILLER of Ohio) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Ways 

and Means 

A BILL 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide 

for a credit against tax, or refund of tax, for certain 

Federal insurance taxes for employees who are members 

of religious faiths which oppose participation in such 

insurance. 

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 ‘‘Religious Exemptions 

5 for Social Security and Healthcare Taxes Act’’. 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
2 

•HR 8819 IH

1 SEC. 2. CREDIT OR REFUND OF CERTAIN FEDERAL INSUR2 ANCE TAXES FOR MEMBERS OF CERTAIN RE3 LIGIOUS FAITHS. 

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 6413 of the Internal Rev5 enue Code of 1986 is amended by adding at the end the 

6 following new subsection: 

7 ‘‘(e) CREDIT OR REFUNDS OF CERTAIN FEDERAL IN8 SURANCE TAXES FOR MEMBERS OF CERTAIN RELIGIOUS

9 FAITHS.— 

10 ‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—An employee who receives 

11 wages with respect to which the tax imposed by sec12 tion 3101 is deducted during a taxable year for 

13 which an authorization granted under this sub14 section applies shall be entitled (subject to the provi15 sions of section 31(b)) to a credit or refund of the 

16 amount of tax so deducted. 

17 ‘‘(2) AUTHORIZATION FOR CREDIT OR RE18 FUND.—Any individual may file an application for 

19 authorization under this subsection if he is an indi20 vidual described in the first sentence of section 

21 1402(g)(1). Rules similar to the rules of 1402(g)(1) 

22 shall apply to the granting of such authorization and 

23 rules similar to section 1402(g)(2) shall apply with 

24 respect to the period for which such authorization is 

25 in effect.’’. 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
3 

•HR 8819 IH

1 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by 

2 this section shall apply with respect to taxable years begin3 ning after the date of the enactment of this Act. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 18-7084

DARRYL BOYNES, JR.,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

JOE COAKLEY,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia, 

at Martinsburg. Gina M. Groh, Chief District Judge. (3:17-cv-00079-GMG)

Submitted: January 22, 2019 Decided: January 25, 2019

Before MOTZ, KEENAN, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Darryl Boynes, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Darryl Boynes, Jr., a federal prisoner, appeals the district court’s order accepting 

the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on Boynes’ 28 U.S.C. 

§ 2241 (2012) petition. On appeal, we confine our review to the issues raised in the 

Appellant’s brief. See 4th Cir. R. 34(b). Because Boynes’ informal brief does not 

challenge the basis for the district court’s disposition, Boynes has forfeited appellate 

review of the court’s order. See Jackson v. Lightsey, 775 F.3d 170, 177 (4th Cir. 2014)

(“The informal brief is an important document; under Fourth Circuit rules, our review is 

limited to issues preserved in that brief.”). Accordingly, although we grant leave to 

proceed in forma pauperis, we affirm the district court’s judgment. We dispense with 

oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the 

materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
**AO 450 (Rev. 5/85) Judgment in a Civil Case

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

JUDGMENT IN CIVIL CASE 

AMERICAN PREMIUM INVESTMENTS, :

LLC., :

:

Plaintiff, :

: Case No. C2-11-CV-167

v. :

: JUDGE ALGENON L. MARBLEY

MIDWEST REAL ESTATE :

CONSULTANTS, LLC., et al., :

 : Magistrate Judge Terrence P.

Kemp

Defendants. :

[] Jury Verdict. This action came before the Court for a trial by jury. The issues have been

tried and the jury has rendered its verdict.

[] Decision by Court. This action came to trial or hearing before the Court. The issues have

been tried or heard and a decision has been rendered.

[X] Decision by Court. This action was decided by the Court without a trial or hearing.

IT IS ORDERED AND ADJUDGED That pursuant to the

September 27, 2011 Order, the Court GRANTED the Plaintiff’s

Motion for Default Judgment. Judgment is entered against

Defendant Midwest Real Estate Consultants, L.L.C. in the

amount of $206,119.72.

Date: September 27, 2011 James Bonini, Clerk

 s/Betty L. Clark 

 Betty L. Clark/Deputy Clerk

Case: 2:11-cv-00167-ALM-TPK Doc #: 17 Filed: 09/27/11 Page: 1 of 1 PAGEID #: <pageID>