alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Editorial Note on Part 142
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 142 appear by CBP Dec. No. 16-26, 81 FR 93019, Dec. 20, 2016.

§ 142.17 One entry summary for multiple entries. ( a ) *Requirements.* Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this section, the Center director may permit the filing of one entry summary for merchandise the subject of separate entries if: ( 1 ) The merchandise has the same country of exportation, and the same country of origin,
( 2 ) The merchandise arrives by land, by the same vessel or by the same air carrier,
( 3 ) The merchandise is consigned to the same consignee,
( 4 ) The time between the date of the first entry and the date of the last entry does not exceed 1 week,
( 5 ) The entry summary document is filed within 10 working days from the date of the first entry, and
( 6 ) Each entry is identified separately by entry number on the entry summary.
( b ) *Merchandise not eligible.* One entry summary shall not be used for multiple entries of the following: ( 1 ) Quota-class merchandise,
( 2 ) Prohibited merchandise,
( 3 ) Merchandise subject to restrictions which require processing and documentation more frequently than on a weekly basis,
( 4 ) Merchandise for which liquidation has been withheld, and
( 5 ) Merchandise classifiable under the same Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States subheading number, to the eight-digit level having different rates of duty for which entries or immediate transportation entries have been filed. However, this provision is not applicable in the following circumstances: ( i ) *Entries.* Entries may be consolidated if the time of entry is: ( A ) Before the date of change in rate of duty, or
( B ) On or after the date of change in rate of duty.
( ii ) *Immediate transportation entries.* Immediate transportation entries may be consolidated if the date of acceptance is: ( A ) Before the date of change in the rate of duty, or
( B ) On or after the date of change in rate of duty.
( c ) *Entry documentation not in proper form.* If an entry summary covering multiple entries refers to entry documentation which is not in proper form, the entry summary and the entry documentation shall be returned for correction.
[T.D. 79-221, 44 FR 46821, Aug. 9, 1979, as amended by T.D. 89-1, 53 FR 51262, Dec. 21, 1988]
[Federal Register Volume 69, Number 206 (Tuesday, October 26, 2004)]
[Notices]
[Page 62440]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 04-23918]



[[Page 62440]]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY


Notice of Cancellation of Environmental Impact Statement for the 
McIntosh Unit 4 Pressurized Circulating Fluidized Bed Demonstration 
Project

AGENCY: Department of Energy.

ACTION: Notice of cancellation of Environmental Impact Statement 
Process.

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

SUMMARY: The Department of Energy (DOE) is canceling the preparation of 
an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for a proposal by the City of 
Lakeland to design, construct, and operate a project known as the 
McIntosh Unit 4 Pressurized Circulating Fluidized Bed Demonstration 
Project in Lakeland, Florida. DOE selected the City of Lakeland's 
proposal for further consideration under DOE's Clean Coal Technology 
Demonstration Program competitive solicitation. The City of Lakeland 
proposed constructing the demonstration project at the site of the 
existing C.D. McIntosh Junior Power Plant along the northeastern shore 
of Lake Parker. The proposed project was intended to demonstrate 
advanced circulating fluidized bed combustion technologies using a 
variety of low and high sulfur coal to produce electricity. DOE 
published a Notice of Intent to prepare an EIS for the proposal in the 
Federal Register on March 26, 1999 (64 FR 14710), and conducted a 
public scoping meeting in the City of Lakeland's City Commission 
Chambers on April 13, 1999. The proposed project has been discontinued. 
As a result, DOE is canceling the EIS process.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION, CONTACT: Lloyd Lorenzi, National Energy 
Technology Laboratory, U.S. Department of Energy, P.O. Box 10940, 
Pittsburgh, PA 15236-0940, telephone (412) 386-6159, or electronic mail 
at <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#c6aaa9b4a3a8bcaf86a8a3b2aae8a2a9a3e8a1a9b0"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="4824273a2d26322108262d3c24662c272d662f273e">[email protected]</span></a>.

    Issued in Morgantown, WV, on this 15th day of September, 2004.
Ralph Carabetta,
Deputy Director, National Energy Technology Laboratory.
[FR Doc. 04-23918 Filed 10-25-04; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6450-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
NRC NEWS

U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

Office of Public Affairs Telephone: 301/415-8200

Washington, DC 20555-001 E-mail: opa@nrc.gov

Web Site: http://www.nrc.gov/OPA

No. 00-129 August 29, 2000

NOTE TO EDITORS:

NRC EXTENDS DEADLINE TO SUBMIT NOMINATIONS FOR

ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON REACTOR SAFEGUARDS

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) has extended its deadline to October 16 for

accepting applications of qualified candidates seeking appointment to two vacancies on its Advisory

Committee on Reactor Safeguards (ACRS).

The ACRS was established by Congress to provide the NRC with independent expert advice on

matters related to licensing and the safety of existing and proposed nuclear power plants.

A resumé describing the educational and professional background of the candidate, including

any special accomplishments, professional references, current address and telephone number should be

provided. Criteria used to evaluate candidates include education and experience, demonstrated skills in

nuclear safety matters, and the ability to solve problems. Candidates must be citizens of the U.S. All

candidates will receive careful consideration. An indication of the candidate’s ability and willingness

to devote the time required (approximately 60-100 days per year) should also be provided. Copies of

resumés of nominees should be sent to the Office of Human Resources, ATTN: Robin Avent, U.S.

Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, D.C., 20555-0001.

###
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

April 18, 2019

No. 04-18-00889-CR & 04-18-00890-CR

Sergio MARTINEZ,

Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas,

Appellee

From the 290th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2015CR10879 & 2015CR0880

Honorable Melisa C. Skinner, Judge Presiding

ORDER

Appellant’s brief was due March 29, 2019, but was not filed. This court notified 

appellant’s counsel, Jerry Valdez Jr., of the deficiency on April 3, 2019. See TEX. R. APP. P.

38.8(b)(2). Counsel did not respond to our notice and no brief has been filed. 

We therefore ORDER Jerry Valdez Jr. to file the appellant’s brief in this court on or 

before May 20, 2019. If the brief is not filed on or before the date ordered, we will abate this 

appeal and remand the case to the trial court for a hearing to determine whether appellant or his 

counsel has abandoned the appeal. Moreover, if counsel fails to file appellant’s brief or an 

extension by the date ordered, he may be ordered to appear and show cause why he should not be 

held in contempt of this court or otherwise sanctioned. 

We order the clerk of this court to serve this order on Jerry Valdez Jr. by first class 

United States mail and by certified mail, return receipt requested, with delivery restricted to 

addressee only, or give other personal notice of this order with proof of delivery. 

_________________________________

Beth Watkins, Justice
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said 

court on this 18th day of April, 2019.

___________________________________

KEITH E. HOTTLE,

Clerk of Court
Exhibit 10.9

                             Secured Promissory Note

$35,000                                                          January 4, 1999

      FOR VALUE RECEIVED, Charles E. Coppa ("Maker"), promises to pay to the
order GreenMan Technologies, Inc.(the "Payee" or "the holder of this Note"), or
registered assigns, the principal amount of Thirty Five Thousand Dollars
($35,000), in such coin or currency of the United States of America, as shall be
legal tender for the payment of public or private debts, together with interest
at a rate equal to 8.5% per annum.

1. Payment

      The principal balance and all accrued but unpaid interest shall be due and
payable on January 4, 2002.

2. Prepayment

      This Note may be prepaid, without premium or penalty, in whole or in part,
at any time or from time to time at the option of the Maker, by paying to the
Payee an amount equal to then outstanding principal balance together with
interest accrued thereon through the date of prepayment.

3. Security

      The Maker's obligations hereunder shall be secured by 121,951 shares of
GreenMan Technologies, Inc. common stock owned by the Maker which shall be
pledged to the Payee as collateral until such time as this Note is extinguished.

      IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this Note has been executed and delivered on the date
specified above by Charles E. Coppa.


                              By: ______________________________________
                                  Charles E. Coppa
###### Editorial Note on Part 173

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 173 appear by CBP Dec. No. 16-26, 81 FR 93024, Dec. 20, 2016.

#### § 173.4a Refund of excess duties, fees, charges, or exaction paid prior to liquidation.

Pursuant to section 520(a)(4), Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (19 U.S.C. 1520(a)(4)), whenever an importer of record declares or it is ascertained that excess duties, fees, charges, or exactions have been deposited or paid, the Center director may, prior to liquidation of an entry or reconciliation, take appropriate action to refund the deposit or payment of excess duties, fees, charges, or exactions.

[CBP Dec. No. 16-25, 81 FR 89381, Dec. 12, 2016]
#### § 190.5 Guantanamo Bay, insular possessions, trust territories.

Guantanamo Bay Naval Station is considered foreign territory for drawback purposes and, accordingly, drawback may be permitted on articles shipped there from the customs territory of the United States. Drawback is not allowed, except on claims made under 19 U.S.C. 1313(j)(1), on articles shipped from the customs territory of the United States to the U.S. Virgin Islands, American Samoa, Wake Island, Midway Islands, Kingman Reef, Guam, Canton Island, Enderbury Island, Johnston Island, or Palmyra Island. *See* 19 U.S.C. 1313(y). Puerto Rico, which is part of the customs territory of the United States, is not considered foreign territory for drawback purposes and, accordingly, drawback may not be permitted on articles shipped there from elsewhere in the customs territory of the United States.
NRC NEWS

 UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

 OFFICE OF PUBLIC AFFAIRS, REGION II

61 Forsyth Street SW, Atlanta GA 30303

Web Site: www.nrc.gov

No. II-02-010 March 13, 2002

CONTACT: Ken Clark (404)562-4416 E-mail: opa2@nrc.gov

Roger Hannah (404)562-4417 

 

NRC TO MEET WITH DUKE ENERGY OFFICIALS TO DISCUSS

SAFETY PERFORMANCE AT CATAWBA NUCLEAR POWER PLANT

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff will meet with Duke Energy officials on

Wednesday, March 20, to discuss the results of NRC's annual assessment of safety performance at the

Catawba nuclear power plant.

The meeting will be held at 10:00 a.m. in the Rock Hill City Council Chambers, 155 Johnston

Street in Rock Hill. The public is invited to observe the meeting, and NRC officials will be available

before the meeting is adjourned to answer any questions.

A letter sent from the NRCís Regional Administrator to Duke Energy, which addresses plant

safety performance during the previous year and forms the basis of the meeting discussion, is available

from Region II Public Affairs or on the NRC web site at

www.nrc.gov/NRR/OVERSIGHT/ASSESS/LETTERS/cat_2001q4.pdf

Current information for the two units at the Catawba plant is available at

www.nrc.gov/NRR/OVERSIGHT/ASSESS/CAT1/cat1_chart.html

and www.nrc.gov/NRR/OVERSIGHT/ASSESS/CAT2/cat2_chart.html

###
### §74a. Transferred

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section 74a was editorially reclassified as section 5101 of this title.
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that

this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except

under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

December 12, 2006

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 05-60568

Conference Calendar

PERCY BOULDIN, JR.,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

CONSTAR PLASTIC, INC., also known as Constar Plastic, Inc.,

Defendant-Appellee.

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

Appeals from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Mississippi

USDC No. 3:04-CV-305

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

Before KING, WIENER, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Percy Bouldin, Jr., moves this court for leave to proceed in

forma pauperis (IFP) on appeal following the grant of summary

judgment in favor of Constar Plastic, Inc. (Constar). We

construe Bouldin’s motion as a challenge to the determination

that the appeal is not taken in good faith. See Baugh v. Taylor,

117 F.3d 197, 202 (5th Cir. 1997).

Bouldin’s motion addresses only his asserted indigent status

and does not challenge the dismissal of his complaint as barred

by the statute of limitations. Failure to identify an error in
No. 05-60568

-2-

the district court’s analysis is the same as if the appellant had

not appealed the judgment. Brinkmann v. Dallas County Deputy

Sheriff Abner, 813 F.2d 744, 748 (5th Cir. 1987). Although pro

se briefs are liberally construed, even pro se litigants must

brief arguments in order to preserve them. Yohey v. Collins,

985 F.2d 222, 225 (5th Cir. 1993).

Bouldin has not shown that the determination that his appeal

would not be taken in good faith was incorrect. Bouldin’s appeal

is without arguable merit and is frivolous. See Howard v. King,

707 F.2d 215, 220 (5th Cir. 1983). Accordingly, Bouldin’s

request for IFP status is denied, and his appeal is dismissed. 

See id.; 5TH CIR. R. 42.2. Constar’s motion to dismiss the appeal

is denied. 

MOTIONS DENIED; APPEAL DISMISSED.
§ 210.35 Prehearing conferences. ( a ) *When appropriate.* The administrative law judge in any investigation may direct counsel or other representatives for all parties to meet with him for one or more conferences to consider any or all of the following: ( 1 ) Simplification and clarification of the issues;
( 2 ) Negotiation, compromise, or settlement of the case, in whole or in part;
( 3 ) Scope of the hearing;
( 4 ) Necessity or desirability of amendments to pleadings subject, however, to the provisions of § 210.14 (b) and (c);
( 5 ) Stipulations and admissions of either fact or the content and authenticity of documents;
( 6 ) Expedition in the discovery and presentation of evidence including, but not limited to, restriction of the number of expert, economic, or technical witnesses; and
( 7 ) Such other matters as may aid in the orderly and expeditious disposition of the investigation including disclosure of the names of witnesses and the exchange of documents or other physical exhibits that will be introduced in evidence in the course of the hearing.
( b ) *Subpoenas.* Prehearing conferences may be convened for the purpose of accepting returns on subpoenas duces tecum issued pursuant to § 210.32(a)(3).
( c ) *Reporting.* In the discretion of the administrative law judge, prehearing conferences may or may not be stenographically reported and may or may not be public.
( d ) *Order.* The administrative law judge may enter in the record an order that recites the results of the conference. Such order shall include the administrative law judge's rulings upon matters considered at the conference, together with appropriate direction to the parties. The administrative law judge's order shall control the subsequent course of the hearing, unless the administrative law judge modifies the order.
[59 FR 39039, Aug. 1, 1994, as amended at 73 FR 38324, July 7, 2008]
###### Editorial Note on Part 142

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 142 appear by CBP Dec. No. 16-26, 81 FR 93019, Dec. 20, 2016.

#### § 142.51 Changing election of entry or immediate delivery.

An applicant who has already received a C-4 Code and wishes to change the election chosen on his Line Release application as to whether the release should be considered an entry or an immediate delivery must submit a letter requesting such change to the port director where the C-4 Code is used. This letter must include the C-4 Code to be changed and the date the change is to be effective. If the requested change is for a temporary time period, the letter shall include the date the releases are to return to the release type originally requested. Applications that fail to state the effective dates of the changes requested will be returned to the applicant.
October 3, 2002

MEMORANDUM TO: Chairman Meserve

Commissioner Dicus

Commissioner Diaz

Commissioner McGaffigan

Commissioner Merrifield

FROM: William D. Travers /RA/

Executive Director for Operations

SUBJECT: MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING BETWEEN THE U.S.

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY AND THE U.S. NUCLEAR

REGULATORY COMMISSION

In accordance with the September 10, 2002, Staff Requirements Memorandum (SRM) on

SECY-02-0110, attached is the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) signed by the

Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in duplicate. The MOU is

consistent with the direction to the staff in the SRM. The EPA did not insert a footnote in the

Table attached to the MOU, however, the NRC staff is incorporating the information in guidance

to implement the MOU.

Attachment: As stated.

cc: SECY

OCA

OGC

OPA

CFO

CONTACT: Patricia A. Santiago, NMSS/DWM

301-415-7269
October 3, 2002

MEMORANDUM TO: Chairman Meserve

Commissioner Dicus

Commissioner Diaz

Commissioner McGaffigan

Commissioner Merrifield

FROM: William D. Travers /RA/

Executive Director for Operations

SUBJECT: MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING BETWEEN THE U.S.

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY AND THE U.S. NUCLEAR

REGULATORY COMMISSION

In accordance with the September 10, 2002, Staff Requirements Memorandum (SRM) on

SECY-02-0110, attached is the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) signed by the

Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in duplicate. The MOU is

consistent with the direction to the staff in the SRM. The EPA did not insert a footnote in the

Table attached to the MOU, however, the NRC staff is incorporating the information in guidance

to implement the MOU.

Attachment: As stated.

cc: SECY OCA OGC OPA CFO

CONTACT: Patricia A. Santiago, NMSS/DWM

301-415-7269

DISTRIBUTION: 

File Center NMSS r/f NMSS DO r/f DWM r/f EDO r/f B. Reamer

DOCUMENT NAME: S:\DWM\EPAB\PAS\note1.wpd

ML022740765 PKG NO: ML 022840392 *SEE PREVIOUS CONCURRENCE

OFC DWM DWM NMSS DEDMRS EDO

NAME P. Santiago J. Greeves M. Federline C. Paperiello W. Travers

DATE 10/01/02 10/01/02 10/02/02 10/ 02/02 10/ 03/02

OFFICIAL RECORD COPY
LEGEND

DAY (X) = DAY YOU DETERMINE THAT LEAK RATE CANNOT BE BROUGHT BELOW

TRIGGER RATE WITHIN 30 DAYS

DAY (Y) = DAY NORMAL OPERATING CHARACTERISTICS OR

CONDITIONS ACHIEVED AFTER 2nd REPAIR ATTEMPT

DAY (Z) = DAY 2nd REPAIR ATTEMPT COMPLETED

DAY (W) = DAY YOU DISCOVER THE NEED TO CHANGE THE TIME LINE

DAY (V) = DAY 1ST REPAIR COMPLETED

L/R = LEAK REPAIR

T/R = TRIGGER RATE

S/D = SHUTDOWN

Day 0

LEAK DISCOVERED

ABOVE TRIGGER

RATE

Day (X)

DET. L/R CANNOT

BE RED.<T/R IN

30 DAYS

NECESSARY

CRITICAL PARTS

NOT AVAIL.

SCHEDULE

REPAIRS

TO BE COMPLETED

BY DAY (V)

COMPLETE REPAIR

- 1st ATTEMPT

BY DAY (V)

DAY (V)

COMPLETE &

DOCUMENT INITIAL

VERIFICATION

TEST

DAY (Y)

NORMAL

OPERATION

CONDITIONS

ACHIEVED

(Y) + 30 Days

COMPLETE

FOLLOW-UP

VERIFIC.

 TEST

Day (W)

DISCOVERY TIME

LINE CHANGES

DAY (W) + 30

NOTIFY EPA

30 days

LOCAL STATE FED

REGULS. REPAIRS

IMPOSS

 DAY (X) PLUS 30 days

NOTIFY EPA IF MORE

TIME IS REQUIRED

30 Days

COMPLETE

REPAIRS

- 1st. ATTEMPT

WITHIN 30 DAYS

COMPLETE

VERIFICATION

TESTING

120 Days

COMPLETE PROCESS

SHUTDOWN CORRECT

LEAK

Box #1 Box #2

Box #3

Box #4

Box #5

Box #6

Box #7

Box #8

Box #9

Box #10 Box #11

Box #12 Box #13 Box #14 Box #15
* Box #17 has three options (see Module F)

* Box #17 and Box #35 reference the retrofit/retirement section and timeline (see Module F)

(Optional)

NOTIFY EPA

VERIF.

TEST RESULTS

120 Days

2ND REPAIR -

PROCESS S/D

REQUIRED

COMPLETE REPAIR

2nd. ATTEMPT

Day (Z)

COMPLETE 2ND

INITIAL VERIF.

TEST

30 Days

NOTIFY EPA 2nd.

VERIFICATION

TEST SUCCESSFUL

CANCEL RETROFIT

OR RETIREMENT

SYS. OPER. BELOW

TRIGGER RATE

EXECUTE RETROFIT/

RETIRE TIMELINE*

NORMAL OPERATION

CONDITIONS

ACHIEVED

(Z) + 30 Days

CONDUCT 2nd

FOLLOW-UP

VERIF. TEST

(MUST) 30 Days

DEVELOP RETROFIT

RETIRE. PLAN

VERIFICATION

TEST FAILED*

(Optional)

SEEK EPA

APPROVAL OF

PARAMETERS

120 Days

EPA APPROVES

PARAMETERS

180 Days

DETERMINE LEAK

RATE IS BELOW

TRIGGER RATE

30 Days

NOTIFY EPA LEAK

RATE BELOW

TRIGGER RATE

30 Days

NOTIFY EPA OF

SUCCESSFUL

VERIFICATION

(Z) +30 Days

NOTIFY EPA

RESULTS

2ND VER. TEST

30 Days

NOTIFY EPA 2nd.

VERIFICATION TEST

UNSUCCESSFUL

30 Days

NOTIFY EPA OF

2ND REPAIR

ATTEMPT

PASS VERIFICATION

TEST

Box #16

Box #17

Box #19

Box #20

Box #21

Box #22

Box #23

Box #24

Box #25

Box #26

Box #27

Box #28

Box #29

Box #30

Box #31 Box #32

Box #33

Box #34

Box #35

Box #36 Box #37

E - 7
* Box #17 has three options (see Module F)

* Box #17 and Box #35 reference the retrofit/retirement section and timeline (see Module F)

Regulatory Timeline For Leak Repair
NRC NEWS

 U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

 OFFICE OF PUBLIC AFFAIRS, REGION III

 801 Warrenville Road

 Lisle, IL 60532

 Web Site: http://www.nrc.gov/OPA

No. III-01-040 July 24, 2001

CONTACT: Jan Strasma (630)829-9663/e-mail: rjs2@nrc.gov

Pam Alloway-Mueller (630)829-9662/e-mail: pla@nrc.gov

NRC NAMES NEW SENIOR RESIDENT INSPECTOR

AT QUAD CITIES NUCLEAR POWER PLANT

Nuclear Regulatory Commission officials in Lisle, Illinois, have announced the assignment of

Karla Stoedter as the agencyís Senior Resident Inspector at the Quad Cities Nuclear Power Station

near Cordova, Illinois. The plant is operated by Exelon Generating Company.

Stoedter replaces Chris Miller who has been the Senior Resident Inspector at the plant since

1994. Miller has accepted an operator licensing position in the agencyís Lisle, Illinois, regional office. 

Stoedter, who began her duties at the Quad Cities plant July 16, joined the NRC as a reactor

engineering intern in July 1991. She was a resident inspector at the Clinton Nuclear Power Station

near Clinton, Illinois, from 1995 until 2000 when she became a reactor engineer in the regional office.

A native of the Quad Cities area, Stoedter earned a bachelorís degree in nuclear engineering

from the University of Illinois-Urbana/Champaign, and a masterís degree in business administration

from Eastern Illinois University. She and her husband, Gary, live in Port Byron, Illinois.

Stoedter joins Resident Inspector John Adams at Quad Cities. They can be reached at the plant

at (309) 654-2227.

# # #