alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EX-10.11



 Exhibit 10.11 

SUMMARY OF NON-EMPLOYEE DIRECTOR COMPENSATION PROGRAM 

Apellis Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (the “Company”) will maintain the following non-employee director compensation program
following the effective date of the registration statement relating to the Company’s initial public offering: 
 Cash
Compensation. Each non-employee director will receive a cash retainer for service on the board of directors (the “Board”) and for service on each committee of which the director is a member. The chairmen of the Board and of each
committee will receive higher retainers for such service. The amounts of the retainers are as follows: 
  

									
	 	  	Member
Annual
Retainer	 	  	Chairman
Annual
Retainer	 
	 Board of Directors
	  	$	35,000	  	  	$	27,500	  
	 Audit Committee
	  	$	8,000	  	  	$	8,000	  
	 Compensation Committee
	  	$	6,000	  	  	$	6,000	  
	 Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee
	  	$	4,000	  	  	$	4,000	  

 These retainers are payable in arrears in four equal quarterly installments on the last day of each quarter,
provided that (i) the amount of such payment shall be prorated for any portion of such quarter during which the director was not serving and (ii) no retainer shall be payable in respect of any period prior to the effective date of the
registration statement relating to the Company’s initial public offering and the first payment after such effective date shall be prorated therefor. 

The Company will also reimburse its non-employee directors for reasonable travel and other expenses incurred in connection with attending
Board and committee meetings. 
 Equity Compensation. Each non-employee director will receive an option to purchase 20,000 shares of
the Company’s common stock upon his or her initial election to the Board. Each of these options will vest over three years in 36 equal monthly installments with the first installment vesting at the end of the one-month period following the
grant date, subject to the non-employee director’s continued service as a director. Further, on January 1st of each year, beginning on January 1, 2016, each non-employee director that has served on the Board for at least six months will
receive an option to purchase 16,000 shares of the Company’s common stock. Each of these options will vest in 12 equal monthly installments, with the first installment vesting at the end of the one-month period following the grant date unless
otherwise provided at the time of grant, subject to the non-employee director’s continued service as a director. 
 All options issued
to the non-employee directors under the Company’s non-employee director compensation program will become exercisable in full upon a change in control of the Company, will be granted at an exercise price per share equal to the fair market value
of the Company’s common stock on the date of grant, and will have a term of ten years.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

F O R T H E SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

WESTERN DIVISION

DONALD PYLES, SUSAN 

SCHROEDER, on behalf of themselves 

and all others similarly situated, 

Plaintiffs, 

v. 

NICOR ENERGY SERVICES COMPANY, 

Defendant. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

 

Case No. 3:18-cv-00152 

ORDER GRANTING JOINT MOTION TO STAY CASE PENDING SETTLEMENT 

 This matter is before the Court on the parties’ Joint Motion to Stay Case Pending 

Settlement. The Court having reviewed the matter hereby GRANTS the motion. This matter is 

hereby STAYED pending the approval of the settlement of this action. The parties are 

ORDERED to notify the Court fourteen days after receiving an order from the Southern District 

of Indiana on final approval of the settlement. 

 The Court would ORDER that a status report be submitted to the Court every 60 days 

until final approval of the settlement. 

Dated: July 5, 2018 *s/Thomas M. Rose 

 _________________________________ 

 Judge, Southern District of Ohio
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

EASTERN DIVISION

MELISSA MCFADDEN,

Case No. 2:18-cv-544

Plaintiff,

Chief Judge Edmund A. Sargus, Jr.

v.

Magistrate Judge Jolson

CITY OF COLUMBUS, 

DEFENDANT’S OBJECTIONS TO 

PLAINTIFF’S PROPOSED CASESPECIFIC JURY INSTRUCTIONS Defendant.

This Court issued an Order Setting Trial Date and Settlement Conference (“Trial Order”) 

on November 29, 2021. In Section I (1) of the Trial Order regarding Proposed Jury Instructions, 

the Court requested that, “For jury instructions concerning federal law, the Court strongly prefers 

that the parties use the latest edition of Hon. Edward J. Devitt, Hon. Charles B. Blackmar, Michael 

A. Wolff, and Kevin O’Malley, Federal Jury Practice and Instructions (West)”. “For instructions 

concerning Ohio law, the Court strongly prefers that the parties use the latest edition of Ohio Jury 

Instructions (Anderson)” (DOC #56, pg. 6) The Court also welcomed any effort by counsel to 

make the instructions from these sources more direct, understandable, and concise. 

This is an employment discrimination and retaliation case. Plaintiff asserts claims under 

both Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e, et seq. (“Title VII”), and Ohio 

Revised Code § 4112.02. Federal Jury Practice and Instructions (West 6th Ed.) and Ohio Jury 

Instructions (Anderson) contain case specific jury instructions on both Title VII and § 4112.02

claims. Defendant relied on these sources in its proposed case specific jury instructions (DOC 

#68). Defendant’s proposed case specific jury instructions are direct, understandable, and concise. 

Plaintiff’s proposed case specific jury instructions (DOC # 67) are sourced primarily from 

the Third and Seventh Circuit Model Jury Instructions. None of Plaintiff’s proposed instructions 
2

are sourced from Federal Jury Practice and Instructions (West 6th Ed.) or Ohio Jury Instructions

(Anderson) as requested by the Court. Plaintiff’s proposed instructions are indirect, confusing, and 

verbose. 

For these reasons, Defendant requests that the Court reject Plaintiff’s proposed case 

specific jury instructions and adopt Defendant’s proposed case specific jury instructions (DOC 

#68) for use at trial.

Respectfully Submitted,

/s/ Paul M. Bernhart

Westley M. Phillips (0077728)

Susan E. Williams (0073375)

Paul M. Bernhart (0079543)

Assistant City Attorneys

CITY OF COLUMBUS, DEPARTMENT OF LAW

ZACH KLEIN, CITY ATTORNEY

77 North Front Street, Columbus, Ohio 43215

(614) 645-7385 / (614) 645-6949 (fax)

wmphillips@columbus.gov

sewilliams@columbus.gov

pmbernhart@columbus.gov

Attorneys for Defendant

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on May 18, 2022, I electronically filed the foregoing with the Clerk of 

the Court by using this Court’s CM/ECF system, which will send a notice of this electronic filing 

to all counsel of record in this matter.

/s/ Paul M. Bernhart

Paul M. Bernhart (0079543)
EXHIBIT 32.1
 Certification of Chief Executive Officer
Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002
  (1)
    
    the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Registrant, to which this certification is attached
as an exhibit (the Report), fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or section
15(d) of the Exchange Act; and
 (2)
    
    the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the
financial condition and results of operations of the Registrant for the periods covered by the
Report.
 Dated: August 10, 2009
    By:
    /s/ Clinton H. SeversonClinton H. SeversonPresident and Chief Executive Officer
**THE SUPREME COURT OF TEXAS**

**Post Office Box 12248**

**Austin, Texas 78711**

**(512) 463-1312**

January 17, 2006

Mr. Don M. Dean

Underwood Wilson Berry Stein & Johnson

P. O. Box 9158

Amarillo, TX 79105-9158

Ms.  Donna  G.  Davidson

Potts & Reilly, L.L.P.

401 West 15th Street, Suite 850

Austin, TX 78701

RE:Case Number:  06-0025

Court of Appeals Number:  

Trial Court Number:  

Style:IN RE  ANETTE CARLISLE

Dear Counsel:

Today the Supreme Court of Texas delivered the enclosed per curiam opinion in the above-referenced cause.  

Sincerely,

Andrew Weber, Clerk

by Claudia Jenks, Chief Deputy Clerk

Enclosures

**Case No. 06-0025Page 1**
1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

WESTERN DIVISION AT DAYTON

CRAIG A. THOMPSON,

Petitioner, : Case No. 3:18-cv-117

- vs - District Judge Thomas M. Rose

Magistrate Judge Michael R. Merz

CHAE HARRIS, Warden,

 Warren Correctional Institution

:

Respondent.

ORDER

This habeas corpus case is before the Court on Petitioner’s Motion to the Court (ECF No.

84).

Respecting Petitioner’s request for clarification as to how to refer to trial court docket 

sheets in his reply, it will be sufficient to include the name of the trial court and its case number 

with a reference to the portions of the docket Petitioner wishes the Court to consider (by filing 

date, docket number and title where possible.)

Because Petitioner avers he does not have a copy of Defense Exhibit B from trial, 

Respondent is ordered to obtain and file with this Court, not later than July 1, 2020, an 

authenticated copy of that exhibit, serving a copy on Petitioner at the time of filing.

June 22, 2020.

s/ Michael R. Merz

 United States Magistrate Judge

Case: 3:18-cv-00117-TMR-MRM Doc #: 85 Filed: 06/22/20 Page: 1 of 2 PAGEID #: 3063
2

Case: 3:18-cv-00117-TMR-MRM Doc #: 85 Filed: 06/22/20 Page: 2 of 2 PAGEID #: 3064
COURT OF APPEALS

SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH

NO. 02-10-00178-CV

ALLEGHENY CASUALTY, 

DEFENDANT-SURETY

APPELLANT

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS APPELLEE

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

FROM THE 371ST DISTRICT COURT OF TARRANT COUNTY

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

MEMORANDUM OPINION1 AND JUDGMENT

----------

Appellant filed a timely notice of appeal from the trial court=s March 1, 2010

“Final Judgment.” The trial court subsequently granted appellant=s motion for 

new trial on June 4, 2010, while it still had plenary jurisdiction over the case. See

Tex. R. Civ. P. 329b(e).

On June 9, 2010, we informed the parties that it appeared the trial court=s 

granting of the motion for new trial rendered this appeal moot. We stated that the 

appeal would be dismissed as moot unless, on or before June 21, 2010, any 

 

1See Tex. R. App. P. 47.4.
party desiring to continue the appeal filed a response showing grounds for 

continuing the appeal. Neither party filed a response.

Accordingly, on this court=s own motion, we dismiss the appeal as moot. 

See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(a), 43.2(f).

PER CURIAM

PANEL: MCCOY, J.; LIVINGSTON, C.J.; and MEIER, J. 

DELIVERED: July 8, 2010
Exhibit 32

CERTIFICATIONS 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 filing of the Annual
Report of Headwaters Incorporated (the Company) on Form 10-K for the year ended September 30, 2009 (the Report), we, Kirk A. Benson, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, and Steven G. Stewart, Chief Financial Officer
of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

(i) The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

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



|                                         
|-----------------------------------------
|/s/ Kirk A. Benson                       
|Kirk A. Benson                           
|Chief Executive Officer November 20, 2009
|                                         
|/s/ Steven G. Stewart                    
|Steven G. Stewart                        
|Chief Financial Officer                  
|November 20, 2009
#### Collins et al vs. Underwood,

Married "Women. *Contracts of.*

The contract of a married woman, unless for the benefit of herself or her separate estate, cannot be enforced against her estate.

APPEAL from *Phillips*Circuit Court.

Hon. J. N. Cypert, Circuit Judge.

Palmer, for Appellee.

Harrison", J.:

The plaintiffs in this case as administrators of Charles Collins, deceased, sought to subject the property of the defendant, which she held as separate estate during her coverture, to the payment of a note executed by her jointly with her late husband, Q. K. Underwood, to the plaintiffs intestate for $264.41, dated the 13th day of August, 1874.

The complaint alleged that the note was given in settlement of an account for the board and tuition of their daughter, and that it was the intention of defendant, in the- execution of the note, to make the same a charge upon her separate estate.

In her answer she denied that she had, in making the note, intended to create a charge, or that it was a charge upon her estate.

*266The proof was that the daughter of the defendant and her said late husband, had been a pupil in the State Female College, at Memphis, of which Dr. Collins the plaintiff’s intestate, was president, the fall session of 1873, and the spring session of 1874. Her board and tuition not being paid, Dr. Collins wrote several times to her father asking payment, who replied giving excuses and promising payment.

The defendant was present at the commencement exercises-in June, 1874, at which time her daughter graduated, and remained several days at Dr. Collins’ house, and whilst there, expressed much mortification because her daughter’s bills had not been paid, and saying that she had some time before given her husband the money with which to pay them, but that he applied it to other purposes. Before leaving she paid a part-of the account, and as she said, out of her own means.

Dr. Collins, afterwards, went to Helena to see the defendant’s husband about the account, and it was settled by the execution of the note. Underwood was insolvent, which fact was known to Dr. Collins when he took the note, but he knew the defendant had separate property, out of which she led him him to believe, she would pay the note ; and he looked to her for payment.

The court upon the hearing, refused the relief prayed, and dismissed the complaint for want of equity.

The plaintiffs appealed.

It was held in the case'of *Stillwell and wife*v. *Adams et*al. *ex’rs,*29 Ark., 346, that .a married woman cannot create a charge upon her separate estate, except by a contract in relation to it, or .for her personal *benefit;*and the doctrine was approved in *Henry*v. *Blackburn,*32 Ark., 445.

There is no evidence that the note was given for the benefit of either the defendant or her estate; but it plainly appears, that it was given in the satisfaction or settlement of her *267husband’s debt, whose duty it was to provide for the support and education of his children.

The decree is affirmed.
Exhibit 10.49



 Exhibit 10.49 
 Summary Translation of Purchase Agreement 
 Buyer: Southwest Oil Gas Company of SINOPEC 
 Supplier: Jining ENI Energy Technology Co., Ltd. 
 Contract Number: GX2008-710

 Signing place: Urumchi 
 Signing date: 17th December, 2008 
 Total sum: RMB1,880,000 (tax not included), with tax: RMB2,199,600 
 Product: Rotate acid-rock testing system , one second
hand IBMR400laptop, laser printer HP1215 
 ENI has not yet collected full payment or issued an invoice but has recognized this amount as income for 2008.
1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

WESTERN DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

: 

Plaintiff,

: 

v. Case No. 3:18cr97 

: 

NATHAN LEE JARVIS, JUDGE WALTER H. RICE

: 

Defendant.

______________________________________________________________________________ 

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT FURLOUGH FOR LIMITED PURPOSE 

_____________________________________________________________________________ 

It is the order of this Court that Defendant be furloughed from the Montgomery County 

Jail at 9:00 a.m. on Thursday, June 11, 2020 to be picked up by his cousins, Stephanie and Charlie 

Swango, whose phone numbers are 937-397-5506 and 937-409-2360, respectively. Defendant is 

to be taken directly to his appointment which is scheduled for 9:30 a.m. on June 11, 2020 at Bloom 

Family Eye Surgeons, One Children’s Place, Dayton, Ohio 45404.

Defendant is to be immediately returned to the Montgomery County Jail after his 

appointment, not later than 12:00 p.m. on June 11, 2020. It is the request of this Court that the 

personnel at the Montgomery County Jail do all in their power to facilitate the carrying out of 

this Order. 

June 10, 2020 

WALTER H. RICE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Copies to:

Counsel of record

U.S. Marshal Office 

Montgomery County Jail 

(tp - per Judge Rice authorization after 

his review)

Case: 3:18-cr-00097-WHR Doc #: 37 Filed: 06/10/20 Page: 1 of 1 PAGEID #: 104
**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 Annual Report of Universal Health Realty Income Trust (the “Trust”) on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31,2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Alan B. Miller, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Trust, hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to§ 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of my knowledge: 

 

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

 

(ii) the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations ofthe Trust at the end of, and for the period covered by, the Report. 

 

 

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to the Trust and will be retained and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff uponrequest.
Case: 1:18-mj-00283-KLL Doc #: 3 Filed: 05/23/18 Page: 1 of 2 PAGEID #: 8
Case: 1:18-mj-00283-KLL Doc #: 3 Filed: 05/23/18 Page: 2 of 2 PAGEID #: 9
### Re g ulator y Ev a l u a t i on Docket No. FAA - 

### ZO C (...-] - 

## 0 7 

# 5 .5

- A D 

## Zo Jt-f-AtM-0 <j Q-A-D J(yo 11111 okC' clu1117, es to 

### th e ,·a/ues i n //1e 

### tuhle helo, r . you 11111 s 1 en .rnre 

### //w tot a ls 11w )a w 

### occ:u r cli11gly ( l D ir ecto ra te ldenti 

### ft e r : 1/ie y 

### d o nut , 

### dic k ( or ' fi,h J int o u11d lh1!11 0111 

### < ?/

th e du111g<1d cdf . E s tima te d Costs : Action Cos t s p er Prod uct (e . g. , a ir craft , eng in e, pro peller, app lian ce ) (e.g. , In spec tion , Wor k- hours L ab or Pans Cost T o t a l Co st s N umber of To ta l Cost re p lace m en t ) ( i ncl ude cost ( la bo r + U.S . for U.S . Fleet Do 1101 i11 c/ 11 de 0 11- co11di1 i o11 c:osls he r e access, t es ting, (@$ 8 5/ h p arts ) R e gi s ter ed an

d c lose- up) o ur) Prod ucts 

### Ins p ect i o n for m o t o r op er ated 1. 0 

## ..... ' } $0 2, 1 4 0 

### valve ac t uato r s ,J j 

### ~nl.., .. 

## At'\-- (ij,r**~** 5JMYMI"' 

### ' ,,,,\A,{..,. 

# ' ( ) /1 

## · t-o 

# x~ I 

## v;::..... \ ' , )./"(.**~** 

# - /' .-, 

## 1 .N


## ~ ' " 

### ( l), KVv / 

## r '

- r ~ V' 

## ....., 

# ...
: ; ' ' ' 11



# .. T h e kn ow n nu mbe r of p rod u cts i n c ompl iance : T o t a l Cos ts of c om pl ia nce for U . S . fleet: $181.900 Cost s covere d und e r war r anty (if ! mow n ) $ On - C o nd it io n Cos t s :

## ~ Action Work-ho urs Labor cost Part s Cos t Cost per Product ( e . g. , Inspcction , (incl ude access, ( @£85 / hour) res ti ng, a n d close- replace m ent) up ) 

### Rep l ace - 39 M O Y 4 . 0 $ 5 ,500 

### act u ato r s

### Specia l considerations for Econom i c A n alys is (Use this.f7e/d t o ex plain an y thin g in th e Es1 i111 a t ed Costs t ab l e that was ass u med or mi ght 1 10 1 be obvious. This fi e ld can al so be used to ex pfain wa rrant y c o sts): 

### Execut iv e Order 12866: .ffl't.l. 

### Cou l d th e AD be c o n si dered a "s ignifi ca nt r eg ula tory action"?~
* Ex planation: DOT Regulato1-y Policies and Procedures:**~** 

### Is the AD s ign ifi cant? · ~ 

## * Explanation: Regulatory Flexibility Act: Y ES*D NO~

YES*D NO~ 

### Will th e AD have a significant eco nomic impact on a s ubstan ti al numb e r o f sma ll e ntit ies? Exp lain for e ith er a Yes or No a n swer. ' ~ · YES 0 NO~ 

### Explana ti on : 

### Th e AD will not hav e a significant economic effect on any e ntity. Intrastate Aviation in A la ska: 

### T his AD cou l d affect intras tat e av iat i on in A laska. ls it appropriate to include s p eci fi c requirem e nts for aircraft operated in Alaska whe r e aviation might b e 

### the o n ly mode of tra nspo r tat ion? ~ - Y ES* 

## 0 NO~ 

### *Ex pl anation :
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

EASTERN DIVISION

:

CHARLES FAUGHT, : CASE NO. 2:18-CV-00665

:

Plaintiff, : JUDGE MICHAEL H. WATSON 

: 

 v. : MAGISTRATE JUDGE ELIZABETH P.

: DEAVERS

CENTRAL OHIO TRANSIT, :

AUTHORITY, :

: STIPULATION OF DISMISSAL

Defendant. :

:

The parties, by and through their undersigned counsel, hereby stipulate that the abovecaptioned matter is hereby dismissed with prejudice, each party to bear its own attorneys’ fees, 

expenses, and costs. 

Respectfully submitted,

/s/ Peter G. Friedmann 

Peter G. Friedmann, Esq. (0089293)

(Pete@thefriedmannfirm.com)

The Friedmann Firm LLC

1457 S. High Street

Columbus, OH 43207

614-610-9756 (Phone)

614-737-9812 (Fax)

Attorney for Plaintiff

/s/ Leigh Anne Benedic

Leigh Anne Benedic (0082120)

Porter Wright Morris & Arthur LLP

41 South High Street – Suite 3100

Columbus, OH 43215

Telephone: (614) 227-2000

Fax: (614) 227-2100

lbenedic@porterwright.com

Attorney for Defendant

Case: 2:18-cv-00665-MHW-EPD Doc #: 16 Filed: 07/03/19 Page: 1 of 2 PAGEID #: 52
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

This is to certify that on this 3rd day of July, 2019, a copy of the foregoing Stipulation of 

Dismissal was filed electronically. Notice of this filing will be sent to all parties by operation of 

the Court’s electronic filing system. Parties may access this filing through the Court’s system.

By: /s/ Peter G. Friedmann 

Peter G. Friedmann (0089293)

Case: 2:18-cv-00665-MHW-EPD Doc #: 16 Filed: 07/03/19 Page: 2 of 2 PAGEID #: 53
## Draft Proposal CB-25

This concept has been developed by the DOE Building Energy Codes Program (BECP) as a possible code

change proposal to the Commercial provisions of the 2012 International Energy Conservation Code

(IECC). Interested parties are asked to submit any and all comments on DOE's initial concepts and draft

code change proposals. For instructions on submitting comments, visit:

www.energycodes.gov/development/ commercial/codes/iecc/concepts/



## Reference ASHRAE 183 for Thermal Load Calculations (CB-25)

Objective: Simplify the language requiring heating and cooling load calculations to simply reference

ASHRAE 183.

Suggested Code Change Proposal

Revise Section C403.2.1 as follows:

C403.2.1 Calculation of heating and cooling loads. Design loads associated with heating, ventilating

and air conditioning of the building shall be determined in accordance with the procedures described in

ANSI/AHRAE/ACCA Standard 183 or by an approved equivalent computational procedure using the

design parameters specified in Section 3 . The design loads shall account for the building envelope,

lighting, ventilation and occupancy loads based on the project design. Heating and cooling loads shall be

adjusted to account for load reductions that are achie ved where energy recovery systems are utilized in

the HVAC system in accordance with the AS HRAE HVAC Systems and Equipment Handbook.

Alternatively, design loads shall be determined by an ap proved equivalent computational procedure using

the design parameters specified in Section 3

.

Reason: Simplification and clarification. ASHRAE 183 provides the relevant details on how to calculate

the loads. The “loads” are specified as associated with HVAC.

Cost Impact: There is no cost impact associated with this proposed change.