alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
- Skip to main content
- About Us
- Contact Us
- FAQs
-  Language Assistance ****   - English
  - español
  - 中文: 繁體版
  - Việt-ngữ
  - 한국어
  - Tagalog
  - Русский

U.S. Department of Education

U.S. Department of Education

            - Student Loans
            - Grants
            - Laws
            - Data

|                                       |
|---------------------------------------|
|                                       | PurposeFunding StatusEligibilityLaws, Regs, & GuidanceApplicant InfoResourcesSurplus PropertiesFAQsPerformanceContacts |  |
| Office of Finance and Operations Home |
|                                       |

### Laws

### Regulations

----

 

 Printable view

## How Do I Find...

          - Student loans, forgiveness
          - Higher Education Rulemaking
          - College accreditation
          - Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA)
          - FERPA
          - FAFSA
          - 1098, tax forms

More >

## Information About...

          - Elevating Teaching
          - Early Learning
          - Engage Every Student
          - Unlocking Career Success
          - Cybersecurity

 

----

*Our mission*

Student Loans
Repaying LoansDefaulted LoansLoan ForgivenessLoan Servicers

Grants & Programs
Apply for Pell GrantsGrants ForecastApply for a Grant

Laws & Guidance
Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA)FERPACivil RightsNew IDEA Website

Data & Research
Education StatisticsPostsecondary Education DataED Data ExpressNation's Report CardWhat Works ClearinghouseOpen Data PlatformCOVID Relief Data

About Us
Contact UsED OfficesJobsPress ReleasesFAQsRecursos en españolBudget, PerformancePrivacy Program

----

          - Notices
          - FOIA
          - Privacy Policy
          - Accessibility
          - Security
          - Information quality
          - Inspector General
          - Whitehouse.gov
          - USA.gov
          - Benefits.gov
          - Regulations.gov
          - vote.gov
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS, EASTERN DIVISION

GERARDO ARANDA, GRANT 

BIRCHMEIER, STEPHEN PARKES, and 

REGINA STONE, on behalf of themselves 

and a class of others similarly situated,

Plaintiffs,

v.

CARIBBEAN CRUISE LINE, INC., 

ECONOMIC STRATEGY GROUP, 

ECONOMIC STRATEGY GROUP, INC., 

ECONOMIC STRATEGY, LLC, THE 

BERKLEY GROUP, INC., and 

VACATION OWNERSHIP MARKETING 

TOURS, INC., 

Defendants.

Case No. 1:12-cv-04069

Honorable Matthew F. Kennelly

CERTIFICATION REGARDING SERVICE OF ORDER TO DAISY EXUM

I hereby certify that on May 7, 2021, I forwarded Daisy Exum the Notice of Electronic 

Filing for Docket No. 908 by email, and I also included a pdf copy of Docket No. 908 as an 

attachment to that email.

Dated: May 7, 2021 Respectfully submitted by:

/s/ Scott Rauscher

Jay Edelson

EDELSON PC

350 North LaSalle Street, 13th Floor

Chicago, Illinois 60654

Telephone: (312) 589-6370

Email: jedelson@edelson.com

Rafey S. Balabanian

Eve-Lynn J. Rapp

EDELSON PC

123 Townsend Street, Suite 100

San Francisco, California 94107

Telephone: (415) 212-9300

Email: rbalabanian@edelson.com

erapp@edelson.com

Case: 1:12-cv-04069 Document #: 909 Filed: 05/07/21 Page 1 of 3 PageID #:51713
2

Scott Rauscher

Michael I. Kanovitz

Jonathan I. Loevy

LOEVY & LOEVY

311 N. Aberdeen, Third Floor

Chicago, Illinois 60607

Telephone: (312) 243-5900

Email: scott@loevy.com

jon@loevy.com

mike@loevy.com

Class Counsel

Case: 1:12-cv-04069 Document #: 909 Filed: 05/07/21 Page 2 of 3 PageID #:51714
3

Certificate of Service

I, Scott Rauscher, hereby certify that I caused the foregoing to be filed via the Court’s 

electronic filing system, and that I caused it to be served on Daisy Exum by email and by USPS 

first class mail at the following address:

Daisy Exum

PO Box 153

Dry Branch, Georgia, 31020

(478) 714-7474

/s/ Scott Rauscher

Case: 1:12-cv-04069 Document #: 909 Filed: 05/07/21 Page 3 of 3 PageID #:51715
# C_2017041EN.01000301.xml

| 8.2.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 41/3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.2.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 41/3

---

Call for proposals under the multiannual work programme for financial assistance in the field of Connecting Europe Facility (CEF) — Transport sector for the period 2014-2020: ‘Blending’ call

(Commission Implementing Decision C(2017) 164 of 20 January 2017)

(2017/C 41/04)

The European Commission, Directorate-General for Mobility and Transport, is hereby launching a call for proposals (CEF-Transport-Blending-2017 (General envelope) in order to award grants in accordance with the priorities and objectives defined in the multiannual work programme for financial assistance in the field of Connecting Europe Facility (CEF) — Transport sector.

The call concerns proposals for projects of common interest combining CEF grants with financing from the European Fund for Strategic Investments, or the European Investment Bank, or National Promotional Banks, or private sector investors, in order to maximise the leverage of private sector involvement and capital in the delivery of projects, while respecting the principle of non-cumulative award. The indicative call budget is EUR 1 billion.

There are two deadlines for the submission of proposals: 14 July 2017 (17:00:00 Brussels time) and 30 November 2017 (17:00:00 Brussels time).

The complete text of the call for proposals is available on:

https://ec.europa.eu/inea/en/connecting-europe-facility/cef-transport/apply-funding/2017-cef-transport-calls-proposals

---
#### 3414.407 Mistakes in bids.
# C_2017070EN.01000101.xml

| 6.3.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 70/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

6.3.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 70/1

---

Last publications of the Court of Justice of the European Union in the Official Journal of the European Union

Official Journal of the European Union

(2017/C 070/01)

Last publication

Last publication

OJ C 63, 27.2.2017

Past publications

Past publications

OJ C 53, 20.2.2017

OJ C 46, 13.2.2017

OJ C 38, 6.2.2017

OJ C 30, 30.1.2017

OJ C 22, 23.1.2017

OJ C 14, 16.1.2017

These texts are available on:

EUR-Lex: http://eur-lex.europa.eu

---
ISSUED: November 16, 2016 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATIONOEPARTMENT Of 

OFFICE OF HEARINGS TRANSPORTAT\ON 

WASHINGTON, DC 3

• \ O 

11" NO~ \ 1 A . 

In The Matter Of: DOCKET OPERA1\0NS 

Docket No. FAA-2014-1116 

Pacific International Skydiving Center 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Case No. 2014WP130012 

Respondent 

SUBPOENA 

TO: Darrel Green 

P.O. Box 511 

Haleiwa, HI 96712 

Pursuant to 14 C.F.R. § 13.205(a)(3), YOU ARE HEREBY COMMANDED to appear and 

testify at a hearing scheduled to begin at the following place, date, and time: 

1. Location: 

2. Date: 

3. Time: 

United States District Court, District of Hawaii 

300 Ala Moana Blvd. 

Honolulu, HI 96850 

December 13, 2016 

9:00 a.m. local time 

This subpoena is issued because the Respondent, Pacific International Skydiving Center, 

filed an application on November 12, 2016 requesting your presence to testify at this hearing. If 

you have any questions about the subpoena, you should contact the Respondent's .counsel at the 

address and telephone number listed below. 

The provisions of 14 C.F.R. § 13.228(b) allow you to file a motion to quash or modify this 

subpoena with the undersigned judge. The applicant shall describe, in detail, the basis for the 

application to quash or modify the subpoena including, but not limited to, a statement that the 

testimony is not relevant to the proceeding or that the subpoena is unreasonable and oppressive. 

A motion to quash or modify the subpoena will stay the effect of the subpoena pending a 

decision by the undersigned judge on the motion. 

Pursuant to 14 C.F.R. § 13.229, you are entitled to the same fees and mileage expenses as are 
paid to witnesses appearing in the courts of the United States. These fees shall be paid by the 

Respondent, the party at whose request you have been subpoenaed. 

If you fail or refuse to comply with this subpoena, a party may, in accordance with 14 C.F.R 

§ 13 .228( c), apply to the local federal district court to seek judicial enforcement of the subpoena. 

Subpoena issued at the request of: 

Robert L. Feldman, Respondent's Counsel 

8900 SW 1 07th Avenue, Suite 203 

Miami, FL 33176 

TEL: 305-598-4841 

FAX: 305-598-4842 

Docket No. FAA-2014-1116 

DOUGLAS M. RA WALD 

Administrative Law Judge 

Subpoena, page 2
#### Didar SINGH, Petitioner, v. Alberto R. GONZALES, Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 04-70300.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Sept. 7, 2007.

*1129George T. Heridis, Esq., Zeena Batliwal-la, Rai & Associates, PC, San Francisco, CA, for Petitioner.

Ronald E. LeFevre, Chief Counsel, Office of the District Counsel Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Anh-Thu P. Mai, Esq., Anthony W. Nor-wood, Esq., U.S. Department of Justice Civil Div./Office of Immigration Lit., Washington, DC, for Respondent.

Before: HAWKINS and MARSHA S. BERZON, Circuit Judges, and ROSLYN O. SILVER,* District Judge.

The Honorable Roslyn O. Silver, United States District Judge for the District of Arizona, sitting by designation.

ORDER

The Petitioner’s Motion for Costs and Fees under the Equal Access to Justice Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2412(d) (“EAJA”), is GRANTED.

1. The Court notes that Respondent’s primary argument — that only litigation positions of the Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”) before this Court, and not decisions of Immigration Judges (“Us”) and the Bureau of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”), are pertinent with regard to whether the government’s position in this case was substantially justified — was squarely rejected by this Court in *Thangaraja v. Gonzales,*428 F.3d 870, 873 (9th Cir.2005) (“We reject this contention, which completely lacks justification. Pursuant to the EAJA, the BIA and IJ decisions we review are as much the ‘position of the United States’ as is the DHS’ litigation position.”).

It is the responsibility of the Department of Justice and its lawyers to be aware when its positions have been rejected by the court. While it is acceptable to make a rejected argument for purposes of preserving it for en banc or Supreme Court consideration while acknowledging that it has been rejected by the court, it is not acceptable to repeat an argument already rejected without acknowledging the case that rejected it, particularly where it is the Department of Justice itself that was involved in earlier case. Another such repetition of this same argument in this court will be considered sanctionable behavior.

2. Considering the BIA’s position as well as the arguments made in this court, the Government’s position in this action was not substantially justified. *See*
      *1130
      *Singh v. Gonzales,*209 Fed.Appx. 703, 704-05 (9th Cir.2006). Because Petitioner was the prevailing party in this action and the fees requested are consistent with the statute and reasonable, *see id.*at 705, attorney’s fees and costs are awarded to Petitioner in the amount of $3807.04.
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 17-30873

PAM MILETELLO, 

 Plaintiff - Appellant

v.

R M R MECHANICAL, INCORPORATED; SANDRA BELLGARD 

MILETELLO, 

 Defendants - Appellees

Appeal from the United States District Court 

for the Western District of Louisiana

USDC No. 3:16-CV-1623

Before REAVLEY, GRAVES, and COSTA, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

“This Court must examine the basis of its jurisdiction, on its own motion, 

if necessary.” Mosley v. Cozby, 813 F.2d 659, 660 (5th Cir. 1987). “Federal 

appellate courts have jurisdiction over appeals only from (1) a final decision 

under 28 U.S.C. § 1291; (2) a decision that is deemed final due to 

jurisprudential exception or that has been properly certified as final pursuant 

 

* 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

August 7, 2018

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 17-30873 Document: 00514589974 Page: 1 Date Filed: 08/07/2018
No. 17-30873

2

to FED. R. CIV. P. 54(b); and (3) interlocutory orders that fall into specific 

classes, 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a), or that have been properly certified for appeal by 

the district court, 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b).” Askanase v. Livingwell, Inc., 981 F.2d 

807, 809–10 (5th Cir. 1993).

The Appellant, Pam Miletello, purports to invoke this court’s jurisdiction 

under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, which grants the federal courts of appeals jurisdiction 

over “all final decisions of the district courts of the United States.” A final 

decision requires the district court to either dispose of all parties and all claims

or otherwise expressly permit an appeal under Rule 54(b). Charles v. Atkins, 

826 F.3d 841, 842 (5th Cir. 2016).

In her complaint, Pam Miletello named three defendants: RMR 

Mechanical, Inc., Sandra B. Miletello, and The Succession of Gerald Miletello. 

The district court dismissed Pam’s claims against The Succession of Gerald 

Miletello and Sandra B. Miletello. However, Pam’s claims against RMR

remain, and the district court has not expressly permitted appeal under Rule 

54(b). Accordingly, we do not have jurisdiction. The appeal is DISMISSED.

 Case: 17-30873 Document: 00514589974 Page: 2 Date Filed: 08/07/2018
247.270-2 Technical provisions. ( a ) Because conditions vary at different ports, and sometimes within the same port, it is not practical to develop standard technical provisions covering all phases of stevedoring operations.
( b ) When including rail car, truck, or intermodal equipment loading and unloading, or other dock and terminal work under a stevedoring contract, include these requirements as separate items of work.
[65 FR 50144, Aug. 17, 2000. Redesignated at 75 FR 51417, Aug. 20, 2010]
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA SECOND DISTRICT MICHAEL R. WILSON, as Personal ) Representative of the Estate of ) BRENDA L. GWIN, deceased, ) ) Appellant, ) ) v. ) Case No. 2D17-5133 ) PINNACLE HEALTH FACILITIES, ) XXIII, LP, ) ) Appellee. ) ___________________________________) Opinion filed October 12, 2018. Appeal from the Circuit Court for Sarasota County; Andrea McHugh, Judge. Tracy Raffles Gunn of Gunn Appellate Practice, P.A., Tampa, for Appellant. Donna J. Fudge and Caitlin E. Kramer of Fudge Broadwater, P.A., St. Petersburg, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Michael R. Wilson, as Personal Representative of the Estate of Brenda L. Gwin, appeals an order that stayed the Estate's wrongful death lawsuit against Pinnacle Health Facilities, XXIII, LP (Pinnacle), and that compelled arbitration of their dispute. On appeal, the Estate argues that because Pinnacle neglected to demonstrate that Mr.- 2 -

Wilson possessed the apparent authority to bind Ms. Gwin to Pinnacle's arbitration agreement, the trial court erred by compelling arbitration. After careful review, we agree and reverse the trial court's order staying the Estate's lawsuit and referring the case to arbitration. See Stalley v. Transitional Hosps. Corp. of Tampa, 44 So. 3d 627, 633 (Fla. 2d DCA 2010) (reversing the trial court's order compelling arbitration because the record failed to demonstrate that the signatory of an arbitration agreement possessed the apparent authority to sign that arbitration agreement on behalf of the principal).

Reversed and remanded for further proceedings in accordance with this opinion.



### KHOUZAM, SALARIO, and BADALAMENTI , JJ., Concur.
# C_2017157EN.01000301.xml

| 19.5.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 157/3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.5.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 157/3

---

Euro exchange rates (1)

1

18 May 2017

(2017/C 157/05)

1 euro =

1 euro =

| | Currency | Exchange rate |
| --- | --- | --- |
| USD | US dollar | 1,1129 |
| JPY | Japanese yen | 123,05 |
| DKK | Danish krone | 7,4414 |
| GBP | Pound sterling | 0,85363 |
| SEK | Swedish krona | 9,7655 |
| CHF | Swiss franc | 1,0874 |
| ISK | Iceland króna | |
| NOK | Norwegian krone | 9,4113 |
| BGN | Bulgarian lev | 1,9558 |
| CZK | Czech koruna | 26,632 |
| HUF | Hungarian forint | 310,69 |
| PLN | Polish zloty | 4,2232 |
| RON | Romanian leu | 4,5683 |
| TRY | Turkish lira | 4,0461 |
| AUD | Australian dollar | 1,4957 |
| CAD | Canadian dollar | 1,5183 |
| HKD | Hong Kong dollar | 8,6615 |
| NZD | New Zealand dollar | 1,6057 |
| SGD | Singapore dollar | 1,5491 |
| KRW | South Korean won | 1 260,82 |
| ZAR | South African rand | 15,0561 |
| CNY | Chinese yuan renminbi | 7,6698 |
| HRK | Croatian kuna | 7,4540 |
| IDR | Indonesian rupiah | 14 986,31 |
| MYR | Malaysian ringgit | 4,8273 |
| PHP | Philippine peso | 55,648 |
| RUB | Russian rouble | 64,5335 |
| THB | Thai baht | 38,389 |
| BRL | Brazilian real | 3,4888 |
| MXN | Mexican peso | 21,2750 |
| INR | Indian rupee | 72,3908 |

Currency

Exchange rate

USD

US dollar

1,1129

JPY

Japanese yen

123,05

DKK

Danish krone

7,4414

GBP

Pound sterling

0,85363

SEK

Swedish krona

9,7655

CHF

Swiss franc

1,0874

ISK

Iceland króna

NOK

Norwegian krone

9,4113

BGN

Bulgarian lev

1,9558

CZK

Czech koruna

26,632

HUF

Hungarian forint

310,69

PLN

Polish zloty

4,2232

RON

Romanian leu

4,5683

TRY

Turkish lira

4,0461

AUD

Australian dollar

1,4957

CAD

Canadian dollar

1,5183

HKD

Hong Kong dollar

8,6615

NZD

New Zealand dollar

1,6057

SGD

Singapore dollar

1,5491

KRW

South Korean won

1 260,82

ZAR

South African rand

15,0561

CNY

Chinese yuan renminbi

7,6698

HRK

Croatian kuna

7,4540

IDR

Indonesian rupiah

14 986,31

MYR

Malaysian ringgit

4,8273

PHP

Philippine peso

55,648

RUB

Russian rouble

64,5335

THB

Thai baht

38,389

BRL

Brazilian real

3,4888

MXN

Mexican peso

21,2750

INR

Indian rupee

72,3908

---

(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.

1

Source

---
#### Art-Lloyd Metal Products Corp. et al., Appellants, v Benjamin Kaufman et al., Defendants, and Peter R. Newman et al., Respondents. (Action No. 1.) Allied Equimet Corporation, Appellant, v Art-Lloyd Metal Products Corp. et al., Respondents, et al., Defendant. (Action No. 2.)

In consolidated actions, *inter alia,*to recover damages for fraud (Action No. 1) and for breach of contract (Action No. 2), the appeals are from so much of an interlocutory judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County, entered August 31, 1977, as (1) dismissed the complaint in Action No. 2, (2) dismissed most causes of action in Action No. 1 and (3) determined that a certain down payment belonged to Allied Equimet Corporation. Interlocutory judgment affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements. The record unequivocally establishes that the trial court’s conclusion, that neither party had established its case by a preponderance of the credible evidence, is correct. Titone, J. P., Suozzi, Gulotta and Martuscello, JJ., concur.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE Northern District of Illinois − CM/ECF LIVE, Ver 5.0.3

Eastern Division

Skidmore, Owings & Merrill LLP

Plaintiff,

v. Case No.: 1:12−cv−05252

Honorable Marvin E. Aspen

Jay Marshall Strabala

Defendant.

NOTIFICATION OF DOCKET ENTRY

This docket entry was made by the Clerk on Friday, August 10, 2012:

 MINUTE entry before Honorable Geraldine Soat Brown: This matter having been

referred to Magistrate Judge Geraldine Soat Brown for a settlement conference, an initial

status hearing is hereby set before Magistrate Judge Brown on 8/29/12 at 9:00 a.m. in

Courtroom 1812 for the purpose of setting a date for the settlement conference. Counsel

for parties shall review Judge Brown's Standing Order for Settlement Conference before

appearing for the initial status hearing. See www.ilnd.uscourts.gov/JUDGE BROWN.

Mailed notice. (psm, )

ATTENTION: This notice is being sent pursuant to Rule 77(d) of the Federal Rules of

Civil Procedure or Rule 49(c) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. It was

generated by CM/ECF, the automated docketing system used to maintain the civil and

criminal dockets of this District. If a minute order or other document is enclosed, please

refer to it for additional information.

For scheduled events, motion practices, recent opinions and other information, visit our

web site at www.ilnd.uscourts.gov.

Case: 1:12-cv-05252 Document #: 58 Filed: 08/10/12 Page 1 of 1 PageID #:860
118TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. CON. RES. 57 

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION 

1 Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate 

2 concurring), That it is the sense of Congress that— 

3 (1) the State of Israel is not a racist or apart4 heid state; 

5 (2) Congress rejects all forms of antisemitism 

6 and xenophobia; and 
2 

•HCON 57 EH 

1 (3) the United States will always be a staunch 

2 partner and supporter of Israel. 

Passed the House of Representatives July 18, 2023. 

Attest: 

Clerk. 

118TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. CON. RES. 57 

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION 

Expressing the sense of Congress supporting the 

State of Israel.
Exhibit 32.2



CERTIFICATE PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



The undersigned, Paul R. Flanders, Chief Financial Officer of Carrols Corporation (the Company), hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
§1350, as adopted pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



| | (1) | The Companys Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended April 2, 2005, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Annual
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 Quarterly Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
| | --- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                                                      
|------------------------------------------------------
|/s/    PAUL R. FLANDERS                               
|Paul R. Flanders                                      
|Vice President  Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer

July 29, 2005
From:Schaffner, Karen S. <ksschaffner@rti.org>

Sent:Monday, June 08, 2009 2:23 PM

To:'warren.dean@siemens.com'

Subject:NOx Chapters: Siemens TDL NH3 slip

Good Afternoon, Mr. Dean: Thank you very much for the information on Siemens TDL ammonia

monitoring system you shared today. I have included a summary of our discussion below and

hopefully I understood you clearly. Please feel free to correct me or expand on. Thank you,

Karen Schaffner

The Siemens TDL for ammonia monitoring is in place at approximately 90 to 100 full-scale coalfired units in the U.S. Facilities measure NH3 slip concentration after the SCR (and SNCR) and

before the air heater. Some facilities measure at up to 3 points in the duct between the SCR and

AH (for example, at 10 foot distances) to account for or eliminate any stratification. The Siemens

TDL unit has a capital cost of approximately $40,000 for one point of measurement;

measurement at three points could be up to $70,000 for capital cost.

Karen Schaffner

Air Quality Engineering Group

RTI International

3040 Cornwallis Rd (800 Park, C311)

Research Triangle Park, NC 27709

phone: (919) 316 3740

fax: (919) 541 7155