alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Author: SAIC and TetraTech

Date Created: Received from SAIC on 8/16/10 Date Modified: 3/31/2011 Purpose: File contains CT cost formulas for STQ facilities.

File Contents: Worksheet Contents CCRS Avg & Plume Abate Cost Notes

Input Files: External data used in calculations/analysis: None

FileInfo 1 of 3Created by SAIC

Costs are based on "Average Difficulty" closed cycle cooling retrofit adjusted to include plume abatement costs for 25% of facilities Plume abatement adjustment is applied as an average increase for all plants rather than being asigned to specific facilities. These cost factors correspond with Power Plant Compliance Costs dated 8-6-2010

Notes 2 of 3

### Formulas for Estimating IPM Model Facility Costs With Plume Abatement for 25%

Cost Basis is Design Intake Flow (DIF) 

### Average Difficulty with 25% Plume Abatement

Costs and Generating Output Reduction Equation Constant (2009) Units Capital Cost (CC) CC = DIF(gpm) x Constant $293 Dollars Fixed O&M Cost (OMF) OMF = DIF(gpm) x Constant $1.52 Dollars Variable O&M - Chemicals (OMC) OMC= DIF(gpm) x Constant $1.25 Dollars Variable O&M - Pump & Fan Power (OMV) OMV= DIF(gpm) x Constant 0.0000245 MW Energy Penalty -Heat Rate (EP) Non-nuclear EP=MWS x Constant 0.015 MW Energy Penalty -Heat Rate (EP) Nuclear EP=MWS x Constant 0.025MW MWS = Total facility steam generating capacity Assume EPRI Costs are in 2007 Dollars - Costs adjusted to 2009 Dollars using ENR February 2009 CCI (8532.75)

Estimation of DIF Where No DIF Data Exists Equation ConstantUnits Design Intake Flow (DIF) DIF = MWS x Constant 707 gpm

Net Construction Downtime Fuel Type Net Downtime (Weeks) Nuclear 28 Non-nuclear 4
Technology Service life Facility Type Years All Facilities 30

CCRS Avg & Plume Abate Cost 3 of 3
- 1 - Alexander Van der Bellen Managing Director and

Associate General Counsel

Delta Air Lines, Inc.

1212 New York Avenue NW Washington, DC 20005

202.842.4184

sascha.vanderbellen@delta.com

February 24, 2010

Dennis DeVany Chief, EAS and Domestic Analysis Division U.S. Department of Transportation 1200 New Jersey Ave, SE Washington, DC 20590

Re: Joint Notice of Mesaba and Pinnacle Regarding EAS service at Columbia, MO

Docket OST-2006-23931

Dear Mr. DeVany:

On behalf of Mesaba Aviation, Inc. d/b/a Delta Connection, and Pinnacle Airlines, Inc. d/b/a Delta Connection we respectfully notify the Department of the change in EAS operating carrier at Columbia, Missouri.

Effective February 11, 2010, Pinnacle began operating 1 of 3 roundtrips in the Columbia, Missouri – Memphis market with 50-seat CRJ equipment. The remaining 2 roundtrips continue to be operated by Mesaba, the carrier selected to provide service using Saab 340 aircraft in Order 2008-5-2. Effective April 6, 2010, Pinnacle will operate all three of Columbia’s roundtrips to Memphis utilizing 50-seat CRJ equipment.

The community is very pleased with the enhanced Delta Connection regional jet service provided by Pinnacle. In light of the change in operating carriers, we respectfully request that Pinnacle and/or Mesaba be compensated for providing Essential Air Service at Columbia at the agreed contract rate. We anticipate that Pinnacle will continue to provide this service on a going forward basis. Columbia has responded well to Delta Connection service, and the need for additional capacity together with the retirement of Saab 340 aircraft from Mesaba’s fleet prompted the change in operating carriers. Mesaba and Pinnacle both concur in the submission

of this letter.

Thank you for your consideration and assistance in this matter.

Sincerely,

Alexander Van der Bellen

cc: mayor@gocolumbiamo.com
KAF@GoColumbiaMo.com John Spanjers, President, Mesaba Phil Trenary, President, Pinnacle
ANNUAL STATEMENT AS TO COMPLIANCE

COMM 2016-DC2

The undersigned, David Co, a Director of Deutsche Bank Trust
Company Americas, as the Certificate Administrator (a “Certifying Servicer”) under the Pooling and Servicing Agreement,
dated as of March 1, 2016 (the “Agreement”), by and among, Deutsche Mortgage & Asset Receiving Corporation, as Depositor,
Wells Fargo Bank, National Association, as Master Servicer, CWCapital Asset Management LLC, as Special
Servicer, Wilmington Trust, National Association, as Trustee, Deutsche Bank Trust Company Americas, as Certificate Administrator, Paying
Agent and Custodian, and Park Bridge Lender Services LLC, as Operating Advisor, and Park Bridge Lender Services LLC, as Asset Representations Reviewer here by certifies in accordance with Section 10.11 of the Agreement:



| | A) | A review of such Certifying Servicer’s activities from January 1, 2017 to December 31, 2017 (the “reporting period”)
and of such Certifying Servicer’s performance under the Agreement has been made under such officer’s supervision and
| | -- | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

| | B) | That, as to the best of such officer’s knowledge, based on such review, such Certifying Servicer has fulfilled all its
obligations under the Agreement, in all material respects throughout the reporting period.
| | -- | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



DEUTSCHE BANK TRUST COMPANY AMERICAS

as Certificate Administrator





BY: David Co

Title: Director

Date: March 1, 2018
No. 48065.

#### Protest 92655-K of Hudson Shipping Co., Inc. (New York).

'Opinion by

Tilson, J.

. An examination of the papers disclosed no reason to warrant disturbing the collector’s decision, which was held presumptively correct. On the authority of Abstract 15400 the protest was dismissed.
THE STATE OF TEXAS

M A N D A T E

*********************************************

TO THE 114TH DISTRICT COURT OF SMITH COUNTY, GREETING:

Before our Court of Appeals for the 12th Court of Appeals District of Texas, on the 7th

day of January, 2015, the cause upon appeal to revise or reverse your judgment between

RICHARD BRYAN DYKES, Appellant

NO. 12-14-00351-CR; Trial Court No. 114-1137-13

By per curiam opinion.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

was determined; and therein our said Court made its order in these words:

“THIS CAUSE came to be heard on the appellate record; and the same being considered, 

it is the opinion of this court that this court is without jurisdiction of the appeal, and that the 

appeal should be dismissed.

It is therefore ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED by this court that this appeal be, 

and the same is, hereby dismissed for want of jurisdiction; and that this decision be certified to 

the court below for observance.”

WHEREAS, WE COMMAND YOU to observe the order of our said Court of Appeals 

for the Twelfth Court of Appeals District of Texas in this behalf, and in all things have it duly 

recognized, obeyed, and executed.

WITNESS, THE HONORABLE JAMES T. WORTHEN, Chief Justice of our Court 

of Appeals for the Twelfth Court of Appeals District, with the Seal thereof affixed, at the City of 

Tyler, this the 11th day of March, 2015.

CATHY S. LUSK, CLERK

By: _______________________________

Chief Deputy Clerk
Charles Jordan Jr. 

Mayor 

Lane Rodgers C.M. 

Airport Director 

GREENVILLE MID DELTA AIRPORT 

CITY COUNCIL 

Tommy L Benson, Ward I 

Lois Hawkins, Ward 2 

Carolyn Weathers, Ward 3 

Betty J. Watkins, Ward 4 

Ann HoLlowell, Ward 5 

Errick D. Simmons, Ward 6 

166'

11 5'h Ave. Suite 300 • Greenville, Mississippi 38701 • Telephone: 662-334-3121 • Facsimile: 66t"3:35-8757 

May4, 2012 

Mr. Dennis DeVany 

Chief, Essential Air Service Division 

Office of Aviation Analysis 

Department of Transportation 

1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, 

Washington, D.C. 20590 

Reference; DOT-OST-2008-0209, 2001-10685, 2009-0305,2000-7856 

Greenville, MS, Laurel/Hattiesburg, MS, Tupelo, MS and Muscle Shoals, AL EAS 

Dear Mr. DeVany, 

The Mid Delta Regional Airport Committee in Greenville, Mississippi wishes to lend its support to the proposal of 

Silver Airways to provide essential air service at the Mid Delta Regional Airport in Greenville, Mississippi as 

replacement for current Delta Air Lines service. 

Local air service that provides an effective connection to the national and international air transportation system is 

critical to the economic wellbeing of Greenville, Mississippi, as well as, the Delta tri-state region and surrounding 

communities. Our Citizens rely on our local air service for both business and leisure travel. 

The Silver Airways proposals offer us a modem 34-seat turboprop aircraft and flights to Atlanta, which is not only the 

largest hub airport in the world but also a popular business and leisure travel destination from Greenville, MS in its 

own right. 

We believe the Silver air service proposals represent the best option for retaining our local air service long term and 

building up traffic so that government subsidies can eventually be reduced or eliminated. 

We urge the Department of Transportation to award Silver Airways the designation to provide Greenville, MS the Mid 

Delta Regional Airport essential air service. 

With Warm Regards, 

Lane Rodgers C.M. 

Airport Director 

Mid Delta Regional Airport
AO 450 (Rev. 5/85) Judgment in a Civil Case

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

Eastern Division 

ROBERT F. STEARNES-TAYLOR,

Plaintiff/Petitioner,

JUDGMENT IN A CIVIL CASE

vs.

 CASE NO. C2-11-218

THE STATE OF OHIO, JUDGE EDMUND A. SARGUS, JR.

MAGISTRATE JUDGE E. A. PRESTON DEAVERS

Defendant/Respondent.

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. A decision has been rendered by the Court without a hearing or

trial.

Pursuant to the Order filed October 7, 2011, JUDGMENT is hereby entered

DISMISSING this case.

Date: October 7, 2011 JAMES BONINI, CLERK

/S/ Andy F. Quisumbing 

(By) Andy F. Quisumbing

 Courtroom Deputy Clerk

Case: 2:11-cv-00218-EAS-EPD Doc #: 28 Filed: 10/07/11 Page: 1 of 1 PAGEID #: <pageID>
# C_2016343EN.01000602.xml

| 19.9.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 343/6 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.9.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 343/6

---

Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 21 July 2016 — European Commission v Romania

(Case C-104/15) (1)

1

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Environmental protection - Directive 2006/21/EC - Waste management - Mining - Tailing ponds - Dust re-emission - Fine airborn dust particles - Pollution - Human health - Obligatory preventative measures - Articles 4 and 13 - Finding of infringement)

(2016/C 343/08)

Language of the case: Romanian

Parties

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: L. Nicolae, E. Sanfrutos Cano and D. Loma-Osorio Lerena, acting as Agents)

Applicant:

Defendant: Romania (represented by: R. H. Radu, E. Gane, A. Buzoianu and R. Haţieganu, acting as Agents)

Defendant:

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1) | Declares that, by failing to adopt appropriate measures to prevent dust rising from the Boșneag pond — extension, Romania failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 4 and Article 13(2) of Directive 2006/21/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 March 2006 on the management of waste from extractive industries and amending Directive 2004/35/EC. |
| --- | --- |

1)

Declares that, by failing to adopt appropriate measures to prevent dust rising from the Boșneag pond — extension, Romania failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 4 and Article 13(2) of Directive 2006/21/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 March 2006 on the management of waste from extractive industries and amending Directive 2004/35/EC.

| 2. | Orders Romania to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Romania to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 146, 4.5.2015.

1

---
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 81 (Friday, April 27, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Pages 21073-21074]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-8034]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

Internal Revenue Service


Open Meeting of the Taxpayer Advocacy Panel Area 7 (Including the 
States of Alaska, California, Hawaii, and Nevada) Committee

AGENCY: Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.

ACTION: Notice.

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

[[Page 21074]]

SUMMARY: An open meeting of the Area 7 Committee of the Taxpayer 
Advocacy Panel will be conducted (via teleconference). The Taxpayer 
Advocacy Panel (TAP) is soliciting public comments, ideas, and 
suggestions on improving customer service at the Internal Revenue 
Service. The TAP will use citizen input to make recommendations to the 
Internal Revenue Service.

DATES: The meeting will be held Wednesday, May 16, 2007.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Janice Spinks at 1-888-912-1227, or 
206-220-6096.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice is hereby given pursuant to Section 
10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. App. (1988) 
that an open meeting of the Taxpayer Advocacy Panel Area 7 Committee 
will be held Wednesday, May 16, 2007 from 2 p.m. Pacific Time to 3:30 
p.m. Pacific Time via a telephone conference call. The public is 
invited to make oral comments. Individual comments will be limited to 5 
minutes. If you would like to have the TAP consider a written 
statement, please call 1-888-912-1227 or 206-220-6096, or write to 
Janice Spinks, TAP Office, 915 2nd Avenue, MS W-406, Seattle, WA 98174 
or you can contact us at www.improveirs.org. Due to limited conference 
lines, notification of intent to participate in the telephone 
conference call meeting must be made with Janice Spinks. Miss Spinks 
can be reached at 1-888-912-1227 or 206-220-6096.
    The agenda will include the following: Various IRS issues.

    Dated: April 20, 2007.
John Fay,
Acting Director, Taxpayer Advocacy Panel.
 [FR Doc. E7-8034 Filed 4-26-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4830-01-P
High Production Volume Information System (HPVIS) | High Production Volume (HPV) Challenge | OPPT | US EPA

http://iaspub.epa.gov/hpvis/ServSubmissionPrint[6/15/2011 11:04:52 AM]

You are here: EPA Home Prevention, Pesticides & Toxic Substances Pollution Prevention & Toxics High

Production Volume (HPV) Challenge High Production Volume Information System (HPVIS) Submission Report

High Production Volume Information

System (HPVIS)

Contact Us Search: All EPA This Area

Submission Report

Submission Information

Submission ID :

25419429

Submission Name : 68909182 - Pyridinium, 1-phenylmethyl-, Et Me derivs.,

chlorides

AR Number : 

Chemical Information

CAS Number : 68909-

18-2

Ninth Collective Index Name : Pyridinium, 1-(phenylmethyl)-, Et Me derivs.,

chlorides

Submitter Information

Submitter's Name : Orphan

Address : 

City : 

State : VA

ZIP/Postal Code: 

Country: 

Type of Submitter : Company

Technical Point of Contact Information

Technical Point of Contact : 

Title : 

Phone Number : 

Fax Number : 

E-Mail Address : 

Additional Technical Point of Contact Information

Technical Point of Contact : 

Title : 

Phone Number : 

Fax Number : 

E-Mail Address : 

Sponsor Information

Sponsor's Name : Orphan Chemical

Address : 

City : 

State : VA

ZIP/Postal Code : 

Country : US

Phone Number : 

Share
High Production Volume Information System (HPVIS) | High Production Volume (HPV) Challenge | OPPT | US EPA

http://iaspub.epa.gov/hpvis/ServSubmissionPrint[6/15/2011 11:04:52 AM]

EPA Home Privacy and Security Notice Contact Us

http://iaspub.epa.gov/hpvis/ServSubmissionPrint

Print As-Is

Last updated on Wednesday, June 15, 2011

Fax Number : 

E-Mail Address : 

Type of Sponsor : Company

Technical Point of Contact Information

Technical Point of Contact : 

Title : 

Phone Number : 

Fax Number : 

E-Mail Address :
# C_2017239EN.01000601.xml

| 24.7.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 239/6 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

24.7.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 239/6

---

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 17 May 2017 — European Union Intellectual Property Office v Deluxe Entertainment Services Group Inc.

(Case C-437/15 P) (1)

1

((Appeal - EU trade mark - Figurative mark containing the word element ‘deluxe’ - Refusal of registration by the examiner))

(2017/C 239/07)

Language of the case: Spanish

Parties

Parties

Appellant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: S. Palmero Cabezas, Agent)

Appellant:

Other party to the proceedings: Deluxe Entertainment Services Group Inc. (represented by: L. Gellman, advocate, and M. Esteve Sanz, abogada)

Other party to the proceedings:

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Sets aside the judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 4 June 2015, Deluxe Laboratories v OHIM (deluxe) (T-222/14, not published, EU:T:2015:364); |
| --- | --- |

1.

Sets aside the judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 4 June 2015, Deluxe Laboratories v OHIM (deluxe) (T-222/14, not published, EU:T:2015:364);

| 2. | Refers the case back to the General Court of the European Union; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Refers the case back to the General Court of the European Union;

| 3. | Reserves the costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Reserves the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 346, 19.10.2015.

1

---
# C_2008308EN.01S00301.xml

| 3.12.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 308/s3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.12.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 308/s3

---

NOTE TO THE READER

NOTE TO THE READER

The institutions have decided no longer to quote in their texts the last amendment to cited acts.

Unless otherwise indicated, references to acts in the texts published here are to the version of those acts currently in force.

---
Before the Second Division,

March 3, 1943

No. 48072.

#### Protests 983651-G, etc., of A. D. Cohen Co., Inc. (New York).

Opinion by

Tilson, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel and on the authority of *United States*v. *Armand Schwab*(30 C. C. P. A. 72, C. A. D. 218) certain of the hemp hats in question were held dutiable under paragraph 1504 (b) (1) as claimed.
Exhibit 4.5


 


CERTIFICATE OF CORPORATE DOMESTICATION

OF ARCLIGHT CLEAN TRANSITION CORP. II


 


Pursuant to Section
388

of the General Corporation Law of the State of Delaware (the “DGCL”)


 


ArcLight Clean Transition
Corp. II, presently a Cayman Islands exempted company limited by shares (the “Company”), DOES HEREBY CERTIFY:


 


1. The
Company was first incorporated on January 13, 2021 under the laws of the Cayman Islands.


 


2. The
name of the Company immediately prior to the filing of this Certificate of Corporate Domestication with the Secretary of State of the
State of Delaware in accordance with Section 388 of the DGCL was ArcLight Clean Transition Corp. II.


 


3. The
name of the Company as set forth in the Certificate of Incorporation being filed with the Secretary of State of the State of Delaware
in accordance with Section 388(b) of the DGCL is “Opal Fuels Inc.”


 


4. The
jurisdiction that constituted the seat, siege social, or principal place of business or central administration of the Company, or any
other equivalent thereto under applicable law, immediately prior to the filing of this Certificate of Corporate Domestication in accordance
with the provisions of Section 388 of the DGCL was the Cayman Islands.


 


5. The
domestication has been approved in the manner provided for by the document, instrument, agreement or other writing, as the case may be,
governing the internal affairs of the Company and the conduct of its business or by applicable non-Delaware law, as appropriate.


 


The corporate domestication
of the Company shall be effective upon the filing of this Certificate of Corporate Domestication and the Certificate of Incorporation
in accordance with Section 388 of the DGCL and with the Secretary of State of Delaware.


 


[Signature
page follows]


 






    


     


    

 





IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Company
has caused this Certificate to be executed by its duly authorized officer on this           day of           , 2022.


 



	 	ARCLIGHT CLEAN TRANSITION CORP. II, a Cayman Islands exempted company limited by shares
	 	 
	 	By:	 
	 	 	Name: 	John F. Erhard 
	 	 	Title:	President and Chief Executive Officer
EPS Molders - EPA Meeting Regarding HBeD . January 6, 2011 @2pm 

EPA East/Conn. Wing Room 4355XX 

Sign-In Sheet 

I NAME -____-..J-IA_F_F~L~IA"ION i TEL. NUMBER I EMAIL 

! I EP.~ OPJ'7 ftlfl'7> ~·S66- os-'S-­ . 

: ~. 7~ - TCL-Jf' IS(~ (-'--,t-(,~\d:i~~(~-+--':;C=':j-";:;:"'1.(!-=-~~~--=_=-_~-=-l~_-~:_~..:-::....!...:::~~_~::.......::..~::-",-£..l:::_y":_~::_'--: 

'r--ArvYJRevJ FJITY7..f,---+_B_It.~s.f__--+-----..:-___-I--__..!..-!-~_l 

!-:lCt.(; ~<::./l Morr;'...:.....1-4--'-'-------.,;:.......:..-.-'-----+------'-~ =..x:LLJAh.1~~.......r.IItMJ..lli.~~ 

I'a~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 

r-~-I~~ ~~h_~__~_~~~____~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 

-b,uY' 

--------~---
No. 49838.

#### Protest 107820-K of Samuel Dunkel & Co., Inc. (New York).

Opinion by

Walker, J.

At the trial it was stipulated that the merchandise and issue involved are the same as those in *Dunkel*v. *United States*(13 Cust. Ct. 223, C. D. 899), which record was incorporated herein. In accordance therewith the protest was sustained.
Before the First Division,

June 13, 1945

No. 50247.

#### Protests 107467-K, etc., of Gardel Industries (Ogdensburg and New York).

Opinion by

Oliver, P. J.

At the trial plaintiff’s witness testified in detail ms *271to the use of the molds in making plaster of paris figures and toys. He further testified that the molds are used solely in connection with the manufacture of figures and toys made by his firm and that they were never sold as molds. On the record it was held that plaintiff had established a *prima facie*case and that the making of the figures in the molds required special skill which could not ordinarily be done by children. The claim at 25 percent under paragraph 1537 (b) was therefore sustained.