alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EERE Information Center

Search Help More Search Options

Printable Version

Refrigerated Beverage Vending Machines Final Rule

Technical Support Document

This report provides the technical analysis and results in support of the information

presented in the final rule for refrigerated beverage vending machines.

The following documents are available as Adobe Acrobat PDFs. Download Adobe

Reader.

Title Page (PDF 14 KB)

Abbreviations and Acronyms (PDF 16 KB)

Chapters

Chapter 1: Introduction (PDF 72 KB)

Chapter 2: Analytical Framework (PDF 160 KB)

Chapter 3: Market and Technology Assessment (PDF 380 KB)

Chapter 4: Screening Analysis (PDF 52 KB)

Chapter 5: Engineering Analysis (PDF 392 KB)

Chapter 6: Markups for Equipment Price Determination (PDF 100 KB)

Chapter 7: Energy Use Characterization (PDF 516 KB)

Chapter 8: Life-Cycle Cost and Payback Period Analysis (PDF 332 KB)

Chapter 9: Trial Standard Levels (PDF 88 KB)

Chapter 10: Shipments Analysis (PDF 132 KB)

Chapter 11: National Impact Analysis (PDF 220 KB)

Chapter 12: Life-Cycle Cost Sub-Group Analysis (PDF 72 KB)

Chapter 13: Manufacturer Impact Analysis (PDF 920 KB)

Chapter 14: Utility Impact Analysis (PDF 324 KB)

Chapter 15: Net National Employment Impact Analysis (PDF 44 KB)

Chapter 16: Environmental Impact Analysis (PDF 172 KB)

Chapter 17: Regulatory Impact Analysis (PDF 64 KB)

Appendices

Appendix A: Instructions for Using the Engineering Analysis Spreadsheet (PDF

228 KB)

Appendix B: Engineering Data (PDF 72 KB)

Appendix C: Detailed Data for Equipment Price Markups (PDF 40 KB)

Appendix D: Typical Meteorological Year (TMY2) Assignments (PDF 1.1 MB)

Appendix E: User Instruction for Life-Cycle Cost Spreadsheet (PDF 48 KB)

Appendix F: Detailed Life-Cycle Cost Output (PDF 2.5 MB)

Appendix G: User Instructions for NIA Spreadsheets (PDF 68 KB)

Appendix H: Detailed National Energy Savings and National Net Present Value

Output (PDF 408 KB)

Appendix I: Estimation of Marginal Heat Rates and Site to Source Conversion

Factors (PDF 160 KB)

Appendix J: Manufacturer Impact Analysis Interview Guide and Government

Regulatory Input Model (PDF 336 KB)

Appendix K: Estimation of Utility and Environmental Results from NEMS-BT

Output (PDF 116 KB)

Contact Information

Charles Llenza

Project Manager

(202) 586-2192

Printable Version

Building Technologies Program Home | EERE Home | U.S. Department of Energy

Webmaster | Web Site Policies | Security & Privacy | USA.gov

Content Last Updated: 08/18/2009

Appliances and Commercial Equipment Standards: Refrigerated Beverag... http://www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/appliance_standards/commercial...

1 of 1 8/31/2009 2:13 PM

EERE-2006-STD-0125 COMMENT 74
#### STATE of Florida, Appellant, v. Kenneth L. EWELL, Appellee.

No. 72-197.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

April 4, 1972.

Appeal dismissed.
He Ao $ poms onl A Lilley form 14h Jhat wut , ad -
ffs wee Arhedale Ayssle,

wa the gar we Phassand right handad and rap)
Me Diilhwl of Cilembea

TF shasials
F ‘ j HR)

Historic census records are maintained and released by the National Archives and Records Administration, not the U.S. Census Bureau.

Visit http://www.archives.gov for more information about publicly available records like the one shown here.
<PAGE>

                                                                    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

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Global Preferred Holdings, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2005 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), the
undersigned hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

      (1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or
15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

      (2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the
Company.

Date: November 21, 2005                       /s/  Caryl P. Shepherd
                                              ---------------------------------
                                              Caryl P. Shepherd
                                              Chief Accounting Officer

                                        1
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                         DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                            JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                              DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                     13,436,700
<SECURITIES>                                        0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  11,600
<ALLOWANCES>                                        0
<INVENTORY>                                         0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                           13,448,300
<PP&E>                                      6,324,700
<DEPRECIATION>                              2,437,500
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             22,703,500
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       8,697,100
<BONDS>                                             0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                               0
<PREFERRED>                                         0
<COMMON>                                            0
<OTHER-SE>                                 13,913,400
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>               22,703,500
<SALES>                                             0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            3,328,800
<CGS>                                               0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               1,590,900
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                              147,300
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                    0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                             1,313,100
<INCOME-TAX>                                        0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                         1,313,100
<DISCONTINUED>                                      0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                     0
<CHANGES>                                           0
<NET-INCOME>                                1,313,100
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   24.58
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   24.58


</TABLE>
[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 145 (Friday, July 27, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Page 35611]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2018-16077]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

Foreign-Trade Zones Board

[S-103-2018]


Foreign-Trade Zone 93--Raleigh/Durham, North Carolina; 
Application for Subzone; MAS US Holdings, Inc.; Siler City and 
Asheboro, North Carolina

    An application has been submitted to the Foreign-Trade Zones (FTZ) 
Board by the Triangle J Council of Governments, grantee of FTZ 93, 
requesting subzone status for the facilities of MAS US Holdings, Inc., 
located in Siler City and Asheboro, North Carolina. The application was 
submitted pursuant to the provisions of the Foreign-Trade Zones Act, as 
amended (19 U.S.C. 81a-81u), and the regulations of the FTZ Board (15 
CFR part 400). It was formally docketed on July 23, 2018.
    The proposed subzone would consist of the following sites: Site 1 
(40.4 acres) 1311 Eleventh Street, Siler City, Chatham County; Site 2 
(21.74 acres) 601 East Pritchard Street, Asheboro, Randolph County; 
and, Site 3 (3.46 acres) 162 North Cherry Street, Asheboro, Randolph 
County. No authorization for production activity has been requested at 
this time. The proposed subzone would be subject to the existing 
activation limit of FTZ 93.
    In accordance with the FTZ Board's regulations, Kathleen Boyce of 
the FTZ Staff is designated examiner to review the application and make 
recommendations to the Executive Secretary.
    Public comment is invited from interested parties. Submissions 
shall be addressed to the FTZ Board's Executive Secretary at the 
address below. The closing period for their receipt is September 5, 
2018. Rebuttal comments in response to material submitted during the 
foregoing period may be submitted during the subsequent 15-day period 
to September 20, 2018.
    A copy of the application will be available for public inspection 
at the Office of the Executive Secretary, Foreign-Trade Zones Board, 
Room 21013, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, 
Washington, DC 20230-0002, and in the ``Reading Room'' section of the 
FTZ Board's website, which is accessible via www.trade.gov/ftz.
    For further information, contact Kathleen Boyce at 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#216a4055494d44444f0f634e5842446155534045440f464e57"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="b8f3d9ccd0d4ddddd696fad7c1dbddf8cccad9dcdd96dfd7ce">[email protected]</span></a> or (202) 482-1346.

    Dated: July 23, 2018.
Elizabeth Whiteman,
Acting Executive Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2018-16077 Filed 7-26-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
### I N THE UNI TED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FI F TH CI RCUI T

No. 12-50561

HEATHER CLARK; DAVID CLAXTON; DAVID M. COMPTON, Plaintiffs - Appellants,
v. WILLIAMSON COUNTY, Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. 1:10–CV–00869–LY

Before KING, DAVIS, and ELROD, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * This action for unpaid wages involves a d i spute over t he implementation of the F luctuating Workweek (“FWW”) m ethod for calculating overtime pay. See 29 C.F.R. § 778.114. N amed plaint i f f s H e a t her Clark, David C laxton, David Com p t o n , and 112 other paramedics (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) sued their employer, Williamson County (“the County”), a lleging that it violated t he F air Labor S tandards Act ( “FLSA”), 29 U.S.C. § 201 et s eq. , by f ailing to pay them at l e a s t o n e a n d one-half times their regular rate of p ay f or overtime hours. The district court entered summary judgment f or t h e County, a dopting a magistrate U n i t e d S t a te s C o u rt o f A p p e al s

F i f t h C i rc u i t 

### F I L E D Aug ust 16, 2013 Ly l e W . Cay ce Clerk

* Purs uant to 5 T H C I R

. R. 47. 5, the court has determ ined that this op inion s hould not be p ublis hed and is not p reced ent excep t und er the lim ited circum s tances s et forth in 5 T H C I R

. R. 47. 5. 4. Case: 12-50561 Document: 00512344068 Page: 1 Date Filed: 08/16/2013No. 12-50561

judge’s report and recommendation concluding that the County’s pay m e n t scheme complied with t he FLSA under the FWW m ethod. Plaintiffs timely filed

a notice of appeal a nd contend that t he County’s compensation system was not a valid FWW system. We review de novo the district court’s grant o f summary judgment. Am. Int’l Specialty Lines Ins. Co . v . R entech Steel LLC, 6 20 F.3d 558, 562 (5th Cir. 2010) (citing Am. Int’l Specialty Lines Ins. C o. v. Canal Indem. Co. , 352 F.3d 254, 259–60 ( 5th Cir. 2003)). Plaintiffs “bear[] t h e b u r d en of proving that the [County] failed to prop e r l y a d m i nister the FWW method.” Samson v. Apollo Res., Inc. , 242 F.3d 629, 636 (5th Cir. 2001) (citing Cash v. Conn Appliances, Inc. , 2 F. Supp. 2d 884, 896 (E.D. Tex. 1997)). The magistrate judge determined that P l a i n t i ffs could not meet this burden. T he district court agreed w ith t h i s decision, concluding that the m agistrate judge’s “application of the l a w a nd legal analysis in support of his conclusions [was] sufficient a n d appropriate.” We agree. After reviewing the briefs a nd r e l e v a n t l a w, examining pertinent portions of t he record, and hearing oral argument, we conclude that the County is entitled to summary judgment. AFFIRMED.

2 Case: 12-50561 Document: 00512344068 Page: 2 Date Filed: 08/16/2013
II 

113TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 1402 

To repeal the Federal estate and gift taxes. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JULY 31, 2013 

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

to the Committee on Finance 

A BILL 

To repeal the Federal estate and gift taxes. 

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 ‘‘Death Tax Repeal 

5 Act’’. 

6 SEC. 2. REPEAL OF ESTATE AND GIFT TAXES. 

7 (a) IN GENERAL.—Subtitle B of the Internal Rev8 enue Code of 1986 (relating to estate, gift, and genera9 tion-skipping taxes) is hereby repealed. 

10 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The repeal made by sub11 section (a) shall apply to estates of decedents dying, gifts 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 1402 IS

1 made, and generation-skipping transfers made after the 

2 date of the enactment of this Act. 

Æ 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with BILLS
#### Carmen A. CIARAMELLO, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 70-154.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

March 8, 1971.

Appeal from Court of Record, Brevard County; Joe A. Cowart, Jr., Judge.

Appeal dismissed.
Oklahoma

38-10
‘Table 4.-POPULATION IN INCORPORATED AND UNINCORPORATED PLACES ACCORDING TO SIZE: 1960
Incorporated Unincorporated Incorporated Unincorporated
All places places places Size of place and urban-rural All places places. places
Size of place and urban-rural Folassification
classification Num-| Poputaton | Ni" | Population Nuzm-| population Nam-| Population | Nu=-| Population | NU [Population
Toul 1,684,¢80 | 542 | 1,680,989 2 3,691 In urbanized areas—Con.
ols 3 23,466 3 23,466 | vee
000,000 or more jig | "2 a ane a 1 4,897 1 4,897
Buin to sh. sas,338 | 2 | 285,928) on i zoe} i 23292
100,000 to 254 eee iy} 1 67 7 2 3, 645 2 3,645
61,697 1 61,697 % "
ame ai me) i) Bs : es ee
30,000 to 20.000 10,04 | rom “ 3 a) 5 ah
5 rege | 26 , ss
0 to 108 oa | se | bane 2,330
2000 c0 2.5. 37839 | 17 Ee tee Other usban territory Live | 6r,e03 | 7 | e703 |
Troon to 2000 32,79 | 30 34 | 25:000 to 50,000. Je] aes |e] as8,a23 |
1,0 10 1,500 43,010 | 38 | i268 14262 | 20,000 to 25,000- }o6| Be 6] 134120 | 2)
Siaito 1090. eT 10,000 to 20,000- c] 5) razeo] 9 | az2,080 | 2
) to 50H) ra 530 ine 5,000 to 10,000. “| 3 155,499 23 155,499 |
Under 20M z . 2,500 to 5,000. ‘| % 2,351 | 35 uis;2a1.
rhanived ates [a 79,580 |e -
In eshanized - cor 252,257 | 442 251,096 1
Spe 985,938 | 2 36 35,547 | 16 35,547 | oe
= a tee | ne | wan] 2 | aaa |
saeeen Ie eer | 3. | izes} 33) eojaze | A
i 36,088 | 21 a5 | cars| 95] 08,475 |
oo - uo} 43802 | ao | aaysee | ot
: 3 77,38 ao} i256 | 0 | aase | OE

Table §.-POPULATION OF INCORPORATED PLACES OF 10,000 OR MORE FROM EARLIEST CENSUS TO 1960
[Figures for 1907 are derived from a special census of Oklahoma and Indian Territory, taken as of July 1, 1907, by order of the President. Minus sign (—) denotes decrease]
Increase over pre~ Increase over pre- Increase over pre:
Tecoperatd nace | population | SSE SE "pds ear ae Trans gear | Population —
‘Number | Percent. Number | Percent Number | Percent
44,247 z0,008 | 4,604 aim} 0
5 isises | 6s -ue | c9.7
2533 2 Baa 3,722.6
ies 2363 | 4,500 i ve
i 3)63 986
308 Zan | 1,313, os
Seer Tie a
2,451 we 4 ow
21225 Base | AL
38 10,467 ab) aa
8793 20,54 sass | 134.0
Pipes 30,027 33380 30.4
ant 7463 ve ese
* 7534
3350
20,184 28 2,969
173290 3 4,520
16.886 713 25,892
wa ie oe
128 ee sons oe
sa au Be)
° a. 10,078 694 7
8,759 9,384 1,647 4,957
957
Tae | ts 306
Tan | 4089 3308
21,893 3,383 | 3,098 ,
35,228 205 ae £999
16,267 aia2e
Pod 5,370 : ve
yan
6,281 aa
698 38,859 2,842
425 3e0n7 | 7,936
aeoai | 1,682 o4os | 23.17
36,359 | 9,823 wisn | 13623
12,342 ieiane | 2777 Tas | 490
e708 Bins | 10,355 2509 | 9219
280 ews a 3300] 34a
2022 Taso | era
485 20,087 1,438 182.7
4,866 61, 697 7 wee
wi ea 34,757
wos 28 Baan
a 3,920 ?
10,179 ~l4l 8,930 80,749
10,320} 7,11 1,788 cCRC
3,208 a 5,562 084
7,862 eee 27030
17,49 “2.6 5,886
12,934 | 10,430 | aa6.5 17,878 a2 oe
pee enon mers Wa Saf 290% veeeceescssecene| 325452 .

1s,
South MeMlester consolidated with Medlester n 1907;

combined population 4,125 in 1900.
MEMORANDUM

To : File

From : Marc Thomas Subject : Meeting with Used Oil Representatives

Date : October 5, 2010

On September 16, 2010, EPA met with representatives from the used oil community to discuss their comments regarding how used oil (specifica lly used oil that is considered “off-spec”) is characterized in the proposed ru le, “Identification of Non-Haza rdous Secondary Materials that are Solid Wastes.” Representatives of the Us ed Oil Management Association (UOMA), NORA,

the National Automobile Dealers Associati on (NADA), EnergyLogic, URS Corp., and Clean

Burn were in attendance and discussed how the characterization of off-spec used oil as a solid waste would impact their industry. EPA asked clarifying questions regarding the information presented.

The list of meeting attendees is attached as At tachment A. A copy of UOMA’s comments that were distributed at the meeting is attached as Attachment B. A copy of a follow-up email from UOMA to EPA clarifying some of their comments is attached as Attachment C.

Attachments
#### CITY OF BRADENTON, Appellant, v. KANSAS CITY ATHLETICS, DIVISION OF CHARLES O. FINLEY AND COMPANY, Inc., an Illinois corporation doing business in the State of Florida, Appellees.

No. 71-220.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Dec. 8, 1971.

Rehearing Denied Jan. 19, 1972.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
### FILED U.S. COURT OF APPEALS ELEVENTH CIRCUIT 10/30/98 THOMAS K. KAHN CLERK [PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________ No. 97-5146 Non-Argument Calendar

________________________ D. C. Docket No. 96-8027-CR-DTKH UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus TRAVIS HORTON, Defendant-Appellant.

________________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida

_________________________ (October 30, 1998) Before TJOFLAT, EDMONDSON and BLACK, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: Appellant Travis Horton appeals hi s 126-month sentence for possession with intent to distribute crack cocaine, in vi olation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1). Appellant contends that the district court erred by including his prior conviction for simple assault in his criminal history calculation. Appellant argues that his simple assault conviction is similar to convictions for disorderly conduct, disturbing the peace, hi ndering or failing to obey a police officer, and resisting arrest, all of which, under U.S .S.G. § 4A1.2(c)(1), are not included in a1 U.S.S.G. § 4A1.2(c) provides in part: Sentences for all felony offenses are count ed. Sentences for misdemeanor and petty offenses are counted, except as follows: (1) Sentences for the following prior offe nses and offenses similar to them, by whatever name they are known, are counted only if (A) the sentence was a term of probation of at least one year or a term of imprisonment of at least thirty days, or (B) the prior offense was similar to an instant offense:

. . . Disorderly conduct or disturbing the peace

. . . Hindering or failure to obey a police officer

. . . Resisting arrest

. . . . 2 defendant's criminal history calculation. 1 Appellant's argument is without merit; assault is not similar to the offenses listed in U.S.S.G. § 4A1.2(c)(1). See United States v. Elmore , 108 F.3d 23, 26-27 (3d Cir.) (assa ult not similar to disorderly conduct), cert. denied, __U.S. __, 118 S. Ct. 110 (1997); United States v. Russell , 913 F.2d 1288, 1294 (8th Cir. 1990) (a ffirming district court's inclusion of convictions for assault and criminal damage to property in criminal history calculation; court stated that appellant “submitted no authority for the proposition that assault and criminal damage to property is akin to disorderly conduct or disturbing the peace”); see also United States v. Norman , 129 F.3d 1393, 1401 & n.12 (10th Cir. 1997) (stating it would be an absurd result to exclude a ssault from the criminal history calculation pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 4A1.2(c)(1)); United States v. Kemp , 938 F.2d 1020, 1023 (9th Cir. 1991) (stating that “the crime of ' domestic violence' under Arizona law includes3 both disorderly conduct, which is excluded by the explicit language of the Guidelines, and assault, which is in cluded” (footnote omitted)); United States v. Hoelscher , 914 F.2d 1527, 1537 (8th Cir. 1990) (court noted that assault is not similar to offenses set out in U.S.S.G. § 4A1.2(c)(1) and (2)). Wetherefore affirm the judgment entered by the district court. AFFIRMED.
II 

113TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 1026 

To assist survivors of stroke in returning to work. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MAY 22, 2013 

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

the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions 

A BILL 

To assist survivors of stroke in returning to work. 

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 ‘‘Return to Work Act 

5 of 2013’’. 

6 SEC. 2. ASSISTING STROKE SURVIVORS IN RETURNING TO 

7 WORK. 

8 The Secretary of Labor, acting through the Job Ac9 commodation Network, may promote awareness and as10 sistance among employers to enable survivors of stroke to 

11 return to work. 

Æ 


pwalker on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with BILLS