alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

[PROPOSED] STIPULATED ORDER SETTING TRIAL DATE

AND EXTENDING SPEEDY TRIAL PERIOD

(Denoble, CR 05-5350FDB) - 1

UNITED STATES ATTORNEY

601 UNION STREET, SUITE 5100

SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98101-3903

(206) 553-7970

MAGISTRATE JUDGE ARNOLD

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT TACOMA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ) NO. CR 05-5350FDB

)

Plaintiff, )

) STIPULATED ORDER SETTING

) TRIAL DATE AND

v. ) EXTENDING SPEEDY TRIAL

) PERIOD 

GREGORY MARK DENOBLE, )

)

Defendant. ) )

Upon the stipulation and motion of the parties to set the trial date in this matter

beyond the current speedy trial period and extend the period to September 19, 2005, and

based upon the stipulated and agreed facts set forth in the parties’ motion, the Court finds

that the setting of the trial date on September 19, 2005, as requested by both parties and

the granting of the requested extension of the speedy trial period would serve the ends of

justice and outweigh the best interests of the public and the defendant in a speedy trial;

therefore,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the trial date be scheduled for September 19,

2005. The period of delay between the current speedy trial expiration date and the trial

date of September 19, 2005, is hereby excluded for speedy trial purposes under 18 U.S.C.

§ 3161(h)(8)(A) and (B) for the purpose of computing the time limitations imposed by the

Speedy Trial Act, 18 U.S.C. § 3161-3174.

Case 3:05-cr-05350-BHS Document 20 Filed 05/16/05 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

[PROPOSED] STIPULATED ORDER SETTING TRIAL DATE

AND EXTENDING SPEEDY TRIAL PERIOD

(Denoble, CR 05-5350FDB) - 2

UNITED STATES ATTORNEY

601 UNION STREET, SUITE 5100

SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98101-3903

(206) 553-7970

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the pretrial motions due date will be 

July 18th , 2005.

DONE this 16th day of May, 2005

 s/ J. Kelley Arnold 

J. KELLEY ARNOLD

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Presented by:

/s/ 

MIRIAM SCHWARTZ

Attorney for Defendant

Gregory Mark Denoble

/s/ MICHAEL DION

Assistant United States Attorney

Case 3:05-cr-05350-BHS Document 20 Filed 05/16/05 Page 2 of 2
[if !vml]>[endif]>

[if !vml]>[endif]>

You have reached the FederalDepository Library Program Electronic Collection (FDLP/EC) Archive. Thisarchive assures ongoing access to publications in the FDLP/EC. Access topublications in the archive is available through GPO's suite of cataloging andlocator services, including the Catalog of U.S. Government Publications(CGP).  Archived copies of publications are retrieved in the event thatpublications are no longer available from the original publishing agency site. 
**Title: Agriculturalproductivity growth in the United States: measurement, trends, and drivers**
 
Summary | Report
 
SuDoc Number:A 93.73:189
Item Number:0042-V (online)
CGP systemNumber:000959405
 
August 6, 2018
Appendix E Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR)

Cost-Effective air pollution Controls

Comments

Reference Regulatory Body/Rule SO2 NOx SO2 NOx

BART 100 to 1000 100 to 1000 70 FR 39135BART 281 to 1296 70 FR 39135 Table BART 919 70 FR 39133BART Guidelines dispara

dollars per ton" in cexceed MACT and 

70_FR_25210_CAIR.pdf CAIR 1300 Estimated Margina

BART(proposed rule) 200-1000

BART proposed lisSO2 control, which lb/MMBtu. Droppeflexibility to require bypasses aren't BABART.

BART(proposed rule)

0.2 lb/MMBtu for NRecognizes that soget this level. For tcost vs. visibility va

CAIR(using IPM) 1000 1500CAIR ( 2009 in 1999$) 900 2400CAIR ( 2015 in 1999$) 1800 3000CAIR (depending on Nat'l emissions) 1200 - 3000 1400- 2100

This was modeled Retrofitting Updatinmarginal values.

Kammer_EPA_Decision.doc Kammer Decision over 1000 over 1000LADCO_MidwestRPO_Boiler Analysis.pdf LADCO/Midwest RPO 1240 to 3822 607 to 4493MANE-VU_BART_Control_Assessment.pdf MANE-VU 200-500 200-1500Bowers_vs_SWAPCA.txt Bowers vs SWAPCA 300 300 1000 1000

954-1134 was rulefor SO2. This did cSections XVII to XI

WRAP 3000EPA - Referenced by Wrap

References EPA-6<$500/ton, Moderaover $3000/ton

WRAP_Trading_program_methodology.pdf

Avg. Expected Values ($/ton) Limiting/Marginal values ($/ton)

MidwestRPO_rept_referencing_CAIR.pdfFR_Notice_5MAY04_Proposed_Rule.pdfFR_Notice_6JULY05_Final_Rule.pdf

Y:\23\00 MN Taconite BART (2006)\Facility BART Reports\HTC\Appendix E - Table of Costs_per_ton.xls
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

 ORDER

Page - 1

HONORABLE RONALD B. LEIGHTON

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT TACOMA

L. FLETCHER,

 Plaintiff,

v.

WASHINGTON STATE DEPARTMENT

OF SOCIAL AND HEALTH SERVICES;

SPECIAL COMMITMENT CENTER,

Defendants.

Case No. C05-5733 RBL

ORDER

THIS MATTER comes on before the above-entitled Court upon Defendants’ Motion to Strike

Amended Complaint [Dkt. #25].

Having considered the entirety of the records and file herein, the Court rules as follows:

On April 6, 2006 plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint. Defendant moves to strike the Amended

Complaint because plaintiff failed to seek permission of the Court to file the Amended Complaint and because

the Amended Complaint seeks to add a new party defendant. Plaintiff has failed to respond in opposition to

this motion. Ordinarily, plaintiff’s failure to respond would be grounds for the granting of the motion, see

CR7(b)(2), Local Rules W.D. Wash.; however, because leave to amend a complaint should be “freely given”,

Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a), the Court will DENY defendant’s motion to strike. Defendants shall be given twenty

days from entry of this Order in which to file an Answer to the Amended Complaint. 

Case 3:05-cv-05733-RBL Document 31 Filed 05/31/06 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

 ORDER

Page - 2

IT IS SO ORDERED.

The Clerk shall send uncertified copies of this order to all counsel of record, and to any party appearing

pro se.

Dated this 31st day of May, 2006.

ARONALD B. LEIGHTON

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:05-cv-05733-RBL Document 31 Filed 05/31/06 Page 2 of 2
Exhibit








Exhibit 4.1


Abercrombie & Fitch Co.
6301 Fitch Path
New Albany, Ohio 43054
(614) 283-6500


April 2, 2018 




United States Securities and Exchange Commission
100 F Street, NE
Washington, D.C. 20549


Re:     Abercrombie & Fitch Co.
Commission File Number: 001-12107
Annual Report on Form 10-K for the Fiscal Year Ended February 3, 2018 


Ladies and Gentlemen:


Abercrombie & Fitch Co., a Delaware corporation (“A&F”), is today filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “SEC”) the Annual Report on Form 10-K of A&F for the fiscal year ended February 3, 2018 (“A&F’s Fiscal 2017 Form 10-K”).


Neither (i) A&F nor (ii) any of A&F’s consolidated subsidiaries has outstanding any instrument or agreement with respect to its long-term debt, other than those filed or incorporated by reference as an exhibit to A&F’s Fiscal 2017 Form 10-K, under which the total amount of long-term debt authorized exceeds 10% of the total assets of A&F and A&F’s subsidiaries on a consolidated basis. In accordance with the provisions of Item 601(b)(4)(iii) of SEC Regulation S-K, A&F hereby agrees to furnish to the SEC, upon request, a copy of each instrument or agreement defining (i) the rights of holders of long-term debt of A&F or (ii) the rights of holders of long-term debt of a consolidated subsidiary of A&F, in each case which is not being filed or incorporated by reference as an exhibit to A&F’s Fiscal 2017 Form 10-K.


	
			
	 
	 
	Very truly yours,

	 
	 
	 

	 
	 
	ABERCROMBIE & FITCH CO.

	 
	 
	 

	 
	 
	/s/ Scott Lipesky

	 
	 
	Scott Lipesky
Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
(Principal Financial Officer, Principal Accounting Officer and Authorized Officer)
Case No. 8,842.

#### MACKAY v. CENTRAL R. R. OF NEW JERSEY.

[See 4 Fed. 617.]
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE

FIRST DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT HOUSTON

ORDER

Appellate case name: Specialty Associates of West Houston, PLLC v. Ola Adams, M.D.

Appellate case number: 01-21-00092-CV

Trial court case number: 1158722

Trial court: County Civil Court at Law No. 3 of Harris County

Appellee Ola Adams’s motion for rehearing is denied.

It is so ORDERED.

Judge’s signature: /s/ Richard Hightower

Acting for the Court

Panel consists of Chief Justice Radack and Justices Goodman and Hightower.

Date: September 22, 2022
EX-4.3





 Exhibit 4.3 

SOHU.COM LIMITED 

Incorporated under the laws of the Cayman Islands 
  

			
	Certificate No.	  	Shares
	xxx	  	xxx

 Share capital is US$76,400.00 made up of 76,400,000 Shares divided into 

(a) 75,400,000 Ordinary Shares of a par value of US$0.001 each; and 

(b) 1,000,000 Preferred Shares of a par value of US$0.001 each 

THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT
                                         
                    is the registered holder of
                                
 Ordinary Shares in the above-named Company subject to the Memorandum and Articles of Association thereof. 
 EXECUTED on behalf of the said
Company on the                  day of                    2018 by:

 DIRECTOR     ___________________________________
No. 62249.

#### Plumrose, Inc., and Gehrig Hoban & Co., Inc. *v.*United States,

protests 296282-K and 296283-K.

Protests abandoned June 17, 1958. (Not published.) (Initial No. 145957-K.) Plaintiffs’ application for rehearing granted.
Exhibit 10.1







 


AMENDMENT NO. 3 TO


 


LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY AGREEMENT OF

JERNIGAN CAPITAL OPERATING COMPANY, LLC


 


AMENDMENT TO DESIGNATION OF TERMS OF


7.00% SERIES B CUMULATIVE REDEEMABLE
PERPETUAL PREFERRED UNITS


 


March 29, 2018


 


WHEREAS, pursuant to
Article XIV of the Limited Liability Company Agreement (the “Operating Agreement”) of Jernigan Capital Operating
Company, LLC, the Managing Member hereby amends the Operating Agreement as follows in connection with Amendment No. 1 to the Articles
Supplementary of the Managing Member designating the terms of the 7.00% cumulative redeemable perpetual preferred stock, $0.01
par value per share (the “Series B Preferred Stock”), of the Managing Member and the issuance to the Managing
Member of units designated as “7.00% Series B Cumulative Redeemable Preferred Units” (the “Series B Preferred
Units”) in exchange for the contribution by the Managing Member of the net proceeds from the issuance and sale of the
Series B Preferred Stock.


  


		1.	Defined Terms. Capitalized terms used herein and not otherwise defined shall have the meanings
given to such terms in the Operating Agreement.



 


		2.	Amendment to Designation of Terms of Series B Preferred Units. Section 1 of Exhibit H
to the Operating Agreement is hereby amended and restated in its entirety to read as follows:



 


“(1)       Designation and Number.
A series of Preferred Units, designated as the “7.00% Series B Preferred Units,” hereby is established. The number
of Series B Preferred Units shall be 3,750,000.”


 


		3.	Except as modified herein, all terms and conditions of the Operating Agreement shall remain in
full force and effect, which terms and conditions the Managing Member hereby ratifies and confirms.



 


[Signature Page Follows]


 




     

     


    

 


 


IN WITNESS WHEREOF,
the undersigned has executed and agrees to be bound by this Amendment as of the date first written above.


 





	 	MANAGING MEMBER:
	 	 
	 	JERNIGAN CAPITAL, INC., a Maryland corporation
	 	 	 
	 	By:	/s/ John A. Good
	 	Name:	John A. Good
	 	Title: 	President and Chief Operating Officer 




 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 





Signature Page to Amendment No. 3 to
the Limited Liability Company Agreement of Jernigan Capital Operating Company, LLC
[if !vml]>[endif]>

[if !vml]>[endif]>

You have reached the FederalDepository Library Program Electronic Collection (FDLP/EC) Archive. Thisarchive assures ongoing access to publications in the FDLP/EC. Access topublications in the archive is available through GPO's suite of cataloging andlocator services, including the Catalog of U.S. Government Publications(CGP).  Archived copies of publications are retrieved in the event thatpublications are no longer available from the original publishing agency site. 
**Title: Oilshale of the Rocky Mountain region**
 
Report | Plates: 0816
 
SuDoc Number:I 19.3:729
Item Number:0620 (online)
CGP systemNumber: 000958492
 
July 31, 2018
1 

 2 

 3 

 4 

 5 

 6 

 7 

 8 

 9 

 10 

 11 

 12 

 13 

 14 

 15 

 16 

 17 

 18 

 19 

 20 

 21 

 22 

 23

 24 

 25 

 26 

 27 

Proposed Order Extending Time and 

Revising Briefing Schedule 

 Crandall, O'Neill & McReary, PS 

 Attorneys at Law 

 1447 - 3rd Ave. Suite A / PO Box 336 

 Longview, WA 98632 

 (360) 425-4470 Fax - (360) 425-4477 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 

AT TACOMA 

TOM WILSON, ) 

 ) 

 Plaintiff, ) Case No. C05-5734FDB 

 ) 

 vs. ) ORDER EXTENDING 

 ) TIME AND REVISING BREIFING 

JO ANNE B. BARNHART, ) SCHEDULE 

Commissioner of Social Security, ) 

 ) 

 Defendant. ) 

____________________________________) 

 THIS MATTER coming before the Court on the stipulation of the parties 

hereto, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the briefing schedule in this matter be 

revised as follows: 

 Plaintiff’s Opening Brief to be filed on or before: April 4, 2006 

 Defendant’s Answering Brief to be filed on or before: May 2, 2006 

 Plaintiff’s Reply Brief to be filed on or before: May 26, 2006 

 Dated this 28th day of March, 2006. 

 _/s/ J. Kelley Arnold_______________ 

 United States Magistrate Judge 

Presented by: Approved for Entry: 

/s/ Tom O’Neill /s/ Brian Kipnis (per phone approval)

TOM O’NEILL WSB #9363 BRIAN KIPNIS 

Of Attorneys for Plaintiff Assistant United States Attorney 

Case 3:05-cv-05734-FDB Document 11 Filed 03/28/06 Page 1 of 2
 1 

 2 

 3 

 4 

 5 

 6 

 7 

 8 

 9 

 10 

 11 

 12 

 13 

 14 

 15 

 16 

 17 

 18 

 19 

 20 

 21 

 22 

 23

 24 

 25 

 26 

 27 

Proposed Order Extending Time and 

Revising Briefing Schedule 

 Crandall, O'Neill & McReary, PS 

 Attorneys at Law 

 1447 - 3rd Ave. Suite A / PO Box 336 

 Longview, WA 98632 

 (360) 425-4470 Fax - (360) 425-4477 

Case 3:05-cv-05734-FDB Document 11 Filed 03/28/06 Page 2 of 2
Regulatory Evaluation

Docket No. FAA-2012-0596 Directorate Identifier: 2011-NM-245-AD

If you make changes to the values in the table below, you must ensure the totals update 

accordingly. If they do not, click (or Tab) into and then out of the changed cell.

Estimated Costs:

Action

(e.g., Inspection, 

replacement)

Do not include oncondition costs here

Costs per Product (e.g., aircraft, engine, 

propeller, appliance)

Work-hours

(include 

access, testing, 

and close-up)

Labor 

cost 

(@$85/h

our)

Parts Cost Total Costs 

(labor + 

parts)

Number of 

U.S. 

Registered

Products

Total Cost 

for U.S. Fleet

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

The known number of products in compliance:

Total Costs of compliance for U.S. fleet: $ 0

Costs covered under warranty (if known) $

On-Condition Costs:

Action

(e.g., Inspection, 

replacement)

Work-hours

(include access, 

testing, and closeup)

Labor cost 

(@$85/hour)

Parts Cost Cost per Product

$ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00

Special considerations for Economic Analysis (Use this field to explain anything in the Estimated 

Costs table that was assumed or might not be obvious. This field can also be used to explain warranty costs):
Executive Order 12866:

Could the AD be considered a “significant regulatory action”?

YES* NO 

*Explanation: 

DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures:

Is the AD significant? 

YES* NO 

*Explanation: 

Regulatory Flexibility Act:

Will the AD have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities? Explain

for either a Yes or No answer.

YES NO 

Explanation: 

Intrastate Aviation in Alaska:

This AD could affect intrastate aviation in Alaska. Is it appropriate to include specific requirements 

for aircraft operated in Alaska where aviation might be the only mode of transportation?

YES NO 

Explanation:
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 ORDER

Hon. Robert S. Lasnik

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, )

) NO. CR06-041RSL

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) ORDER DENYING MOTION TO

) MODIFY SPECIAL CONDITIONS 

RICHARD ALLEN FABEL, ) OF SUPERVISION RE: RON

) ARNONE

Defendant. ) 

_________________________________)

THIS MATTER comes before the Court on defendant’s motion to modify special

conditions of supervision regarding Ron Arnone (Dkt. # 1004). Upon reviewing the submissions

of the parties, the Court hereby DENIES defendant’s motion. The Court is willing, upon

defendant’s re-noted motion, to revisit the issue after defendant has complied with all conditions

of his supervised release for a period of one year. 

DATED this 10th day of May, 2010.

A

Robert S. Lasnik

United States District Judge

Case 2:06-cr-00041-RSL Document 1009 Filed 05/10/10 Page 1 of 1
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

ORDER DENYING MOTIONS TO

DISMISS RACKETEERING ACT THREE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

AT SEATTLE

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff,

v.

RICHARD ALLEN FABEL,

Defendant.

Case No. CR06-041L

ORDER DENYING MOTIONS TO

DISMISS RACKETEERING ACT

THREE

This matter comes before the Court on Defendant Fabel’s “Motion to Dismiss

Racketeering Act 3 From Count 1 of the Third Superseding Indictment” (Dkt. #225) and

“Motion to Dismiss Racketeering Act 3” (Dkt. #271). The Government has indicated that it

intends to remove Racketeering Act Three from the set of charges that will be contained in the

Fourth Superseding Indictment, which it plans to file prior to December 7, 2006. As such, the

Court does not believe it is necessary to address the question of dismissal at this time. 

Defendant’s motions to dismiss (Dkt. #225) (Dkt. #271) are DENIED.

 DATED this 29th day of November, 2006

A

Robert S. Lasnik

United States District Judge

Case 2:06-cr-00041-RSL Document 306 Filed 11/29/06 Page 1 of 1
Definition of resinated wood and resinated trim:

Resinated wood means wood products (containing resin binders and adhesives) 

derived fromproduced by primary and secondary wood products manufacturing. 

Resinated wood includes residues from the manufacture and use of resinated wood, 

including materials and comprised of such items as board trim, sander dust, and panel 

trim, and off-specification resinated wood products.

Suggested changes to March 2011 NHSM definitions.

 Clarifies the spectrum of resinated materials currently used as fuels throughout 

the wood product manufacturing process

 Includes definition of resinated wood trim to include broad class of materials 

produced at wood product mills.
Motion Granted; Appeal Dismissed and Memorandum Opinion filed April 1 ,

2021.

In The



## Fourteenth Court of Appeals

NO. 14

- 21

- 00109

- CV

IN THE INTEREST OF B.A.S. AND G.R.S., MINOR CHILDREN

On Appeal from the 306th District Court Gal veston County, Texas Tri a l Court Cause No. 20

- FD

- 2488

MEMORANDUM OPINION This is an appeal from a n order signed February 12, 2021. On March 8, 2021, appellant s filed a motion to dismiss the appeal. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.1. The motion is granted.

We dismiss the appeal

.
P ER CURIAM

Panel c onsists of Chief Jus tice Christopher and Justices Spain and Wilson.
!"# Control $%&#'()(*(+,-



# !"!#$#%!&'(&#%#)*+&,#)(')$"%-# '../01& 23451&(20/5/67

89/5:/;<&=>? #.)-/0/,# (@A&BCD3@;6E&,1A/@:&#;:/;<? #!12#+.3#'((0 . >261& #,&F10@31G&/;15/</F51? #45675895:#'/3#'((0# >261& #,&*1;1A261:? #;<=<>7#'-3#'((0#

(20/5/67 ??@A5#4186B5#C1A@B@72 .'+,#!1@D#47:557 EF1:B%7753#$E#'/''-# (20/5/67&'H;1A 4186B5# GD5: .H((#I5>7#;J5D<5 EF1:B%7753#$E#'/''- HHH*HHH*HHHH# ,A/32A7&-@;6206&.@A&6E/G&(20/5/67 K1D5#48@7F .H((#I5>7#;J5D<5 EF1:B%7753#$E#'/''- HHH*HHH*HHHH L>8@7FML>8@7F&A%8#

+12A&89/56? #'(((# *A@GG&(5@@A&"A12&I.6 C J? #H+3'+'#

#;1A<7&,1A.@A32;01&)26/;< ' #N.*.((O#/H#

/61&#;1A<7&KG1& 9332A7 L PB5A7:@A@72#*#Q:@R#S<:AF1>5NT"7<O# '3'//3--(## $17<:1B#Q1>#NT"7<O , .3.)'300)## I%71B#PD5:=2#NT"7<O +3,H.3-))##

#;1A<7&=;61;G/67 M 4@75#NT"7<U?7 '

U2:O )H## 4%<:A5#NT"7<U?7 '

U2:O .))##

#3/GG/@;G #N91>5R#%D#>@75#5D5:=2#<>5O Q:55DF%<>5#Q1>#P8@>>@%D>#N!7E ' 5U251:O ,(0##

#5106A/0&>/G6A/F96/@;&K6/5/67 V<T5#PD5:=2#E1:%B@D1>3#WWE#

%26/@;25&"N1A2<1&-@342A/G@; $17@%D1B#;J5:1=5#4@75#PXY .('## $17@%D1B#;J5:1=5#4%<:A5#PXY ').# Z#V@??5:5DA5#?:%8#$17@%D1B#;J5:1=5#4%<:A5#PXY *+)Z## "<@BR@D=#I265 ??@A5## S:%?5>>@%D1B#PD=@D55:#47186 4@=D17<:5[#\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\

"1>5R#%D#7F5#A%DR@7@%D>#%9>5:J5R#17#7F5 7@85#%?#82#J@>@7#7%#7F@>#9<@BR@D=3#Y#A5:7@?2#7F17 7F5#@D?%:817@%D#A%D71@D5R#G@7F@D#7F@> >717585D7#@>#1AA<:175#1DR#@D#1AA%:R1DA5

G@7F#7F5#SP#Q<@R5&

$116G&=;:9G6A7& 62;:2A:G O &.@A&=;:@@A&#;N/A@;31;625 -@;:/6/@;G? ]5D7@B17@%D#?%:#;AA56719B5#YDR%%:#;@:#^<1B@72 +1G& ;AA56719B5#IF5:81B#PDJ@:%D85D71B#E%DR@7@%D> +1G& ;R5_<175#YBB<8@D17@%D +1G& ,A@.1GG/@;25&#;</;11A W@A5D>5#$<895:[#(((('(+ 47175[#$E K%FD#V%5 ++#E%<D7:2#W1D5 EF1:B%7753#$E#'/''- HHH*HHH*--//#

$%75>[# .&#;66B@A17@%D#?%:#7F5#P$P`Qa#4I;`#8<>7#95#><98@775 R#7%#PS;#G@7F@D#,#8%D7F>#%?#7F5#S5:@%R#PDR@D=#R175& #;G1:R#%?#7F5#P$P`Qa#4I;`#@>#D%7#?@D1B#<D7@B#166:%J 1B#@>#:5A5@J5R#?:%8#PS;& '&#IF5#PS;#PD5:=2#S5:?%:81DA5#`17@D=#@>#91>5R#%D#7% 71B#>%<:A5#5D5:=2&#;#:17@D=#%?#-H#@>#7F5#8@D@8<8#7% #95#5B@=@9B5#?%:#7F5#P$P`Qa#4I;`& +&#]1B<5>#:56:5>5D7#5D5:=2#A%D><867@%D3#1DD<1B@b5R# 7%#1#.'*8%D7F#65:@%R& ,&#$17<:1B#Q1>#J1B<5>#@D#<D@7>#%?#J%B<85#N5&=&#A<9@ A#?557O#1:5#A%DJ5:75R#7%#T"7<#G@7F#1RL<>785D7>#81R5 #?%:#5B5J17@%D#91>5R#%D#C1A@B@72#b@6#A%R5& H&#]1B<5>#:56:5>5D7#5D5:=2#@D75D>@723#1DD<1B@b5R#7% #1#.'*8%D7F#65:@%R& )&#"1>5R#%D#!557@D=#;4c`;P#471DR1:R#)'#?%:#J5D7@B17 @%D#?%:#1AA56719B5#@DR%%:#1@:#_<1B@723#;4c`;P#471DR 1:R#HH#?%:#7F5:81B#A%8?%:73#1DR#YP4$;#W@=F7@D=#c1DR 9%%T#?%:#B@=F7@D=#_<1B@72&

U.

address. The public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 1 hour per response. Send comments on the Agency's need for this information, the accuracy of the provided burden estimates, and any suggested methods for minimizing respondent burden, including through the use of automated collection techniques to the Director, Collection Strategies Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (2822T), 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW, Washington, D.C. 20460. Include the OMB control number in any correspondence. Do not send the complete d form to this address.

PS;#C%:8#H0((*.) !A20P/;<&%93F1A?& #,CQQRQSCTQQQBQLTBOC
The reference “Fluidized Bed Combustion. Simeon Oka, CRC Press, September 2003, pp. 527-528,” is 

available online at 

http://books.google.com/books?id=_GnPuRvcCokC&printsec=frontcover#v=onepage&q&f=false