alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
IL - M .

h

a _ .. .. i 1

U. S. Department of Energy

Workshop on Standards for

Distribution Transformers

Carl Adams

November 1 , 2000

 EE-RM/STD-00-550 COMMENT 02CC
istribution Transformer Standards Setting Process

1 ov.

-2€]OfJ,

Stakeholder Participation

Determination.

Test Procedure Rulemaking

4'r I^v Standards Rulemaking

916

i I i i I I I

1992 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004

 EE-RM/STD-00-550 COMMENT 02CC
Flow Diagram of Analyses

Distribution Transformer

Energy Conservation Standards

i:r.,tlila I-I("flAn^lrxll.:it

H ^ rutra,l InIcn ,'•. line,

tJark^tiFim, 8eomentatkn

ri ti Teclmet a 00,,g

rlr :aty Desi9^s

Ratty 11 ^•ica Da-ataaa

Simup-iar ModLl°s

Mdrjla(;ultt'

Ltu^I William

C iu uk1111;i

C•.rrrcn.

tJerknt Ptirr.R

Prn . II:t I IIP.rnnlrfl E-"1

FOn14iet

AAariufar: ir rig

Cc 1

ARtims,,iPHnt

Retail I . +.-„

Price •it x{ Inl

Key Inputs Analysis Key Outputs

Engineering

Anaysis

r Screening Am -6

Yarkups T^

I rlrr:ty N'

s

•^

Li 1

------------ {kL'

=l;;

•r.,-^.'.I,Im.' - 7 S6ipn'nnte MalkinalEneryy

Iri-Lts

IJs,llll'If.I,...l Plir;r:%L ! - p I^

Vta-rnaa.

1 dust• a13z.,rt9

!1

NEMS.ER5

rill wrrnr nrci

.-.i •s-a -1igr Cost ' <Natlanal Erergy Eav nos

Lifa-Cy Irr Cne't f9 Araysis

nssol •,u McxI .b

PrcdJc: Ckeaas

% rkat Struuuro

s

Efticencycr=eaigr

or lis, Curnt r& Iio•1s

u I:F,nx4«1.

Ya:.Cb Cw•: Lx,lr,.

NirmijrnPr 1

Subgroup

® i^JILJY..' AmiyO 14,n 1111:e 1 ^ F 11•^,

M rlufecturer Impacl

AiI^ysis

• ^.,x,.,,,,Y .I.I, .s71t

fl ,r Thn'yx,.

•ian'F-714: Y'r Js.

Pu.1I;4%-1 Old HOW ant

I,nhsuy L'I*III Y:nu

r cer..ainy •..ith Jn

Utilty Impacts Utilty Ganeratim

Analysis I.!nn,: • I : Iw Alml.

EnuirunnI ntaI = Emission*ICarI on. NO,, 9o.t

Analysis U team re ossaae

Net allona

EmploFmcnt In•pacts 'Jet Chanoe in Ernob nlent

 EE-RM/STD-00-550 COMMENT 02CC
ANOPR

• Engineering Analysis

• Life-Cycle Cost Analysis

• Preliminary Energy Saving

• Candidate Standard Levels

 EE-RM/STD-00-550 COMMENT 02CC
• Consumer Analysis

• Manufacturer Impact Analysis

• Utility Impacts Analysis

• Environmental Analysis

• Employment Impacts

• Proposed Standards

 EE-RM/STD-00-550 COMMENT 02CC
Transformers Considered

Transformers designed to continuously transfer

electrical energy either single phase or three

phase from a primary distribution circuit to a

secondary distribution circuit, within a secondary

distribution circuit, or to a consumer's service

circuit; limited to transformers with primary

voltage of 480 V to 35 kV, a secondary voltage

of 120 V to 600 V. a frequency of 55-65 Hz, and

a capacity of 10 kVA to 2500 kVA for liquidimmersed transformers or 5 kVA to 2500 kVA

for dry-type transformers.

 EE-RM/STD-00-550 COMMENT 02CC
Final Rule

 EE-RM/STD-00-550 COMMENT 02CC
Product Class

• Parameters of Distinction

• Affects on Efficiency

• Affects on Utility

 EE-RM/STD-00-550 COMMENT 02CC
#### Morton ADLER, Appellant, v. Cecile Frances ADLER, Appellee.

No. 70-415.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Oct. 13, 1970.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
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.                  

###### Federal Reserve System

                    The companies listed in this notice have applied to the Board for approval, pursuant to the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956 (12 U.S.C. 1841*et seq.*) (BHC Act), Regulation Y (12 CFR part 225), and all other applicable statutes and regulations to become a bank holding company and/or to acquire the assets or the ownership of, control of, or the power to vote shares of a bank or bank holding company and all of the banks and nonbanking companies owned by the bank holding company, including the companies listed below.                

The applications listed below, as well as other related filings required by the Board, are available for immediate inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank indicated. The applications will also be available for inspection at the offices of the Board of Governors. Interested persons may express their views in writing on the standards enumerated in the BHC Act (12 U.S.C. 1842(c)). If the proposal also involves the acquisition of a nonbanking company, the review also includes whether the acquisition of the nonbanking company complies with the standards in section 4 of the BHC Act (12 U.S.C. 1843). Unless otherwise noted, nonbanking activities will be conducted throughout the United States.

Unless otherwise noted, comments regarding each of these applications must be received at the Reserve Bank indicated or the offices of the Board of Governors not later than July 5, 2018.

*A. Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City*                     (Dennis Denney, Assistant Vice President) 1 Memorial Drive, Kansas City, Missouri 64198-0001:                

                    1.                     *Midwest Banc Holding Co., Pierce, Nebraska;*                     to acquire up to 100 percent of the voting shares of Redstone Bank, Centennial, Colorado.                

Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, June 6, 2018.

Ann Misback,

Secretary of the Board.

[FR Doc. 2018-12596 Filed 6-11-18; 8:45 am]

 BILLING CODE 6210-01-P
#### In re ESTATE of E. J. CLAY, Deceased. Kathleen BAIRD, Appellant, v. Ora K. CLAY, as Executrix of the Estate of E. J. Clay, Deceased, Appellee.

No. 70-907.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

May 28, 1971.

Appeal dismissed.
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 39 (Thursday, February 27, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 8953]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-4892]



[[Page 8953]]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
[FRL-5695-5]


Acid Rain Program: Notice of Draft Written Exemptions

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice of draft written exemptions.

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

SUMMARY: The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency is issuing draft 
written exemptions from Acid Rain permitting and monitoring 
requirements to 2 utility units at 2 plants in accordance with the Acid 
Rain Program regulations (40 CFR part 72). Because the Agency does not 
anticipate receiving adverse comments, the exemptions are also being 
issued as a direct final action in the notice of written exemptions 
published elsewhere in today's Federal Register.

DATES: Comments on the exemptions proposed by this action must be 
received on or before March 31, 1997 or 30 days after publication of a 
similar notice in a local newspaper.

ADDRESSES: Administrative Records. The administrative record for the 
exemptions, except information protected as confidential, may be viewed 
during normal operating hours at the following location: EPA Region 4, 
100 Alabama St., SW, Atlanta, Georgia. Comments. Send comments to: 
Winston Smith, Director, Air, Pesticides and Toxics Management Division 
(address above).
    Submit comments in duplicate and identify the exemption to which 
the comments apply, the commenter's name, address, and telephone 
number, and the commenter's interest in the matter and affiliation, if 
any, to the owners and operators of the unit covered by the exemption.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: R. Scott Davis, EPA Region 4, (404) 
562-9127.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: If no significant, adverse comments are 
timely received, no further activity is contemplated in relation to 
these draft written exemptions and the exemptions issued as a direct 
final action in the notice of written exemptions published elsewhere in 
today's Federal Register will automatically become final on the date 
specified in that notice. If significant, adverse comments are timely 
received on any exemption, that exemption in the notice of written 
exemptions will be withdrawn. Because the Agency will not institute a 
second comment period on this notice of draft written exemptions, any 
parties interested in commenting should do so during this comment 
period.
    For further information and a detailed description of the 
exemptions, see the information provided in the notice of written 
exemptions elsewhere in today's Federal Register.

    Dated: February 14, 1997.
Brian J. McLean,
Director, Acid Rain Division, Office of Atmospheric Programs, Office of 
Air and Radiation.
[FR Doc. 97-4892 Filed 2-26-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
Exhibit 10.25

THIRD AMENDMENT TO

BJ SERVICES COMPANY 2003 INCENTIVE PLAN

WHEREAS, BJ Services Company (the Company) has heretofore adopted the BJ Services Company 2003 Incentive Plan (the Plan);

WHEREAS, the Plan has heretofore been amended by two amendments adopted on July 28, 2005; and December 7, 2006; and

WHEREAS, the Company desires to amend the Plan in certain additional respects;

NOW THEREFORE, the Plan shall be amended as follows, effective as of October 13, 2008:



| | 1. | Paragraph 3(c)(ii) and of Article II shall be amended to read as follows:
| | -- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------

by tendering to the Company shares of Common Stock owned by the person having an aggregate Fair Market Value as of the date of the exercise that is not greater than the full exercise price (and any required
withholding) for the shares with respect to which the Option is being exercised and by paying any remaining amount of the exercise price as provided in (i) above, or
<PAGE>


 
                                  EXHIBIT 11.1

             Statement Regarding Computation of Per Share Earnings
<PAGE>
 
Computation of Earnings Per Share
---------------------------------

The following formula was used to calculate the earnings per share,
Consolidated Statements of Income for the three months ended ended 
March 31, 1997 and 1996, included in this report as Exhibit 13.3


Earnings Per Share

Net Income / 
Weighted average shares of common stock outstanding for the period


                                 Three months ended
                                      March 31,
                                 1997           1996
                               ---------     ----------
Weighted Average
Shares Outstanding               806,107        806,107
 
Net Income                       476,607        374,361
 
Per Share Amount                     .59            .47


No common stock equivalents exist, therefore primary and fully diluted
earnings per share are the same.
#### Lawrence S. Rollin et al., Respondents, v Wm. V. Frankel *&*Co., Inc., et al., Appellants, et al., Defendants.

[737 NYS2d 33]

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Ira Gam*369merman, J.), entered April 26, 2001, which, insofar as appealed from as limited by the briefs, granted, with related relief, plaintiffs’ motion for class certification and certified a class consisting of all non-defendant-related persons who (1) own or owned shares in the subject stock purchased after the shares were extinguished pursuant to a Federal Bankruptcy Court order, (2) reside in New York or New Jersey, and (3) did not purchase to cover short sales and did not obtain full reimbursement from brokers, and which denied defendant Frankel’s cross motion for summary judgment, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

A finding of “preemption of State law by Federal statute or regulation is not favored,” and movant herein did not present grounds to overcome this judicial disinclination *(cf., Matter of Brenner [Nomura Sec. Intl.],*228 AD2d 67, 70, *lv dismissed*90 NY2d 921). As the motion court ruled in a prior order from which no appeal was taken denying dismissal pursuant to CPLR 3211 in part, this is a suit over whether or not the subject stock actually existed on the relevant dates. Accordingly, preemption by the federal scheme for the regulation of securities is not applicable, since this is not a suit about a practice issue expressly regulated by the SEC *(cf., Guice v Charles Schwab & Co.,*89 NY2d 31, 41-47, *cert denied*520 US 1118).

The motion court’s decision to grant class certification was a proper exercise of discretion *(see, e.g., Jim & Phil’s Family Pharm. v Aetna U.S. Healthcare, 271*AD2d 281, 282). The representative plaintiffs have a relationship with counsel that is unremarkable given the community in which they live *(cf., Tanzer v Turbodyne Corp.,*68 AD2d 614, 621), both representative plaintiffs have an adequate understanding of the case *(see, Brandon v Chefetz,*106 AD2d 162, 170), and to the extent that there are possible doubts about any of the other relevant factors *(see,*CPLR 901 [a]), those doubts were properly resolved in favor of class certification *(see, Pruitt v Rockefeller Ctr. Props.,*167 AD2d 14, 21). We have considered the remaining arguments presented by both appellants and find them unavailing. Concur — Williams, J.P., Mazzarelli, Rosenberger, Wallach and Lerner, JJ.
[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 115 (Thursday, June 14, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Page 27801]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2018-12744]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

POSTAL SERVICE


Product Change--Priority Mail Negotiated Service Agreement

AGENCY: Postal Service<SUP>TM</SUP>.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Postal Service gives notice of filing a request with the 
Postal Regulatory Commission to add a domestic shipping services 
contract to the list of Negotiated Service Agreements in the Mail 
Classification Schedule's Competitive Products List.

DATES: Date of required notice: June 14, 2018.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Elizabeth Reed, 202-268-3179.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The United States Postal Service[supreg] 
hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on 
June 8, 2018, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a USPS 
Request to Add Priority Mail Contract 440 to Competitive Product List. 
Documents are available at www.prc.gov, Docket Nos. MC2018-163, CP2018-
234.

Elizabeth Reed,
Attorney, Corporate and Postal Business Law.
[FR Doc. 2018-12744 Filed 6-13-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 7710-12-P
| Area Code/County                     | Count |
|--------------------------------------|-------|
| 803  South Carolina                  | 14698 |
| 843  South Carolina                  | 13558 |
| 854  South Carolina                  | 28    |
| 864  South Carolina                  | 12761 |
| Abbeville South Carolina             | 142   |
| Aiken South Carolina                 | 2496  |
| Allendale South Carolina             | 11    |
| Anderson South Carolina              | 1573  |
| Bamberg South Carolina               | 118   |
| Barnwell South Carolina              | 86    |
| Beaufort South Carolina              | 2454  |
| Berkeley South Carolina              | 1614  |
| Calhoun South Carolina               | 60    |
| Charleston South Carolina            | 4759  |
| Cherokee South Carolina              | 227   |
| Chester South Carolina               | 128   |
| Chesterfield South Carolina          | 228   |
| Clarendon South Carolina             | 188   |
| Colleton South Carolina              | 204   |
| Darlington South Carolina            | 588   |
| Dillon South Carolina                | 117   |
| Dorchester South Carolina            | 2087  |
| Edgefield South Carolina             | 252   |
| Fairfield South Carolina             | 231   |
| Florence South Carolina              | 1087  |
| Georgetown South Carolina            | 674   |
| Greenville South Carolina            | 8031  |
| Greenwood South Carolina             | 804   |
| Hampton South Carolina               | 72    |
| Horry South Carolina                 | 5881  |
| Jasper South Carolina                | 482   |
| Kershaw South Carolina               | 1127  |
| Lancaster South Carolina             | 781   |
| Laurens South Carolina               | 1257  |
| Lee South Carolina                   | 45    |
| Lexington South Carolina             | 4133  |
| Marion South Carolina                | 155   |
| Marlboro South Carolina              | 102   |
| McCormick South Carolina             | 104   |
| Newberry South Carolina              | 290   |
| No Zip Code Reported, South Carolina | 301   |
| Oconee South Carolina                | 946   |
| Orangeburg South Carolina            | 477   |
| Pickens South Carolina               | 1644  |
| Richland South Carolina              | 4419  |
| Saluda South Carolina                | 39    |
| Spartanburg South Carolina           | 3499  |
| Sumter South Carolina                | 627   |
| Union South Carolina                 | 55    |
| Williamsburg South Carolina          | 198   |
| York South Carolina                  | 3782  |
April 7, 2011

To Whom it May Concern:

The use of private aviation, namely private jets, in the lifesaving work of flying transplant teams is an

invaluable tool responsible for the saving of lives.  Every year thousands of individuals die because they

were not able to get their organ needs met in time.  Often, these cases are cases that we have no

control over.  However, there are times that limitations due to crew logistics, duty time, flight time and

airport access have played a role in the inability to perform a mission.

Transplant Transportation Services provides air and ground logistical support to many of the nation’s

leading transplant centers.  Among the providers we use, Chrysler Aviation has played a critical role in

the transportation of organs throughout the United States.  Often times, these aircraft and crews will

depart their home base of operations and we will request that they pick up a medical team that could be

as far as an hour away.  From that point, the team is flown to the donor hospital, the organs are

procured, and the crew flies the team back to meet an ambulance, sedan or local law enforcement

vehicles that rush the organ to the operating room. The timing is so critical in these cases, that

recipients are being prepped for the receipt of their new “gift” while the airplane is still in the air.

Unfortunately, there are instances where unforeseen delays take place in the donor operating room

while the organs are being procured.  These can range from OR delays due to other trauma cases

arriving in the hospital, the need to stabilize the donor, family goodbyes and recipient preparation.  

These delays, which are unforeseen, can impact the amount of time that a crew is standing by at the

airport.    There have been instances where, because of duty limitations, we’ve had to further delay the

procedures in order to swap crews, or call in another airplane.  This is an incredible financial burden on

the system, not to mention the potential risks associated with any delay surrounding the transplantation

of an organ to a sick or dying recipient.

As of this very moment, there are 72,257 active donors awaiting organs.  The list of those waiting now

exceeds 110,000.  In January 2011 there were 2,406 successful transplants.  Not all of these by air, but the

majority of those organs flew from one point to another with a caring crew and skilled physicians on board

and aircraft.  We are proud to be a part of that cause.

We would respectfully request that consideration be given to a limited exemption to the duty time

requirements for life saving missions that, without such an exemption, could jeopardize the life of a recipient.  

Safety in the skies is paramount, and can never be compromised.  It is our belief that with a very controlled

exemption, we can save the lives of more people without compromising air safety.

Respectfully,

Scott M Pritchard

President

Transplant Transportation Services, Inc.
#### Robert E. RAGEN, Appellant, v. A. F. BARONE, Appellee.

No. 71-97.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Sept. 21, 1971.

Fred A. Jones, Jr., Miami, for appellant.

Courshon & Berk, Miami Beach, for appellee.

Before SWANN, C. J., and PEARSON and BARKDULL, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

The appellant who was the defendant below appeals a final judgment entered in an action upon a promissory note signed by the appellant. The point presented on appeal urges that the appellee-plaintiff “failed to carry his burden of proof by showing that he was entitled to judgment by the greater weight of the evidence.” We have reviewed the record in the light of the point presented and find the evidence sufficient. See Bodzo v. Harbour Associates, Ltd., Fla.App.1969, 219 So.2d 67.

Affirmed.
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY WASHINGTON , D C
. 20460 

# JUL 11 2011
OFFICE OF AIR AND RADIAIIQi
. Mr. Darrell Dorsey Manager ofElectric Production and Supply Kansas City Board ofPublic Utilities 540 Minnesota Avenue Kansas City, Kansas 66101 Dear Mr. Dorsey: Thank you for your letter ofJune 8, 2011, requesting an extension ofthe public comment period for the proposed "National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants from Coal- and Oil-fired Electric Utility Steam Generating Units and Standards ofPerformance for Fossil-Fuel-Fired Electric Utility, Industrial-Commercial-Institutional, and Small Industrial-Commercial-Institutional Steam Generating Units" (the Mercury and Air Toxics Standards rule), which was published in the 

### Federal Register on May 3, 2011. The proposal identified a public comment period of 60 days; that period would have ended on July 5, 2011. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, however, recently announced an extension ofthe comment period by 30 days to August 4. While we are extending the comment period, we are not seeking to extend the November 16,2011, deadline for signature of the final rule, and remain committed to meeting that deadline. The 30-day extension will provide the public with a 140-day period to review the proposal. As you know, interested parties were aware ofthe posting on March 16, 2011, ofthe signed proposal on the EPA's website (http://wwvv.epa.gov/ttnJatw/utility/utilitypg.html). along with much ofthe pertinent supporting documentation (including the analyses used in establishing the proposed emission limits and the technical support documents). The proposal was published a little over six weeks later, on May 3, marking the beginning ofthe formal public comment period. This will provide the public with approximately 140 days to review and provide written comments on the proposed rule and supporting documents. It will also provide at least 60 days for other documentation that was not posted on the website until after the proposed rule was signed. Due to the substantive issues specific to this rulemaking, this comment period is significantly longer than statutorily required. Again, thank you for your letter. We look forward to the timely receipt ofyour comments.

Intern et Address (UR L) • h"p.llvyww.eps gov Recyc ledlRecyc lable • Pnnted w.lth Vegetabl e 01 1 Based Inks on 100 % Poslconsumer Process ChlOrine Free Recyded Paper