alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 22 (Monday, February 3, 1997)]
[Corrections]
[Page 5074]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: X97-10203]



Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 22 / Monday, February 3, 1997 / 
Corrections

[[Page 5074]]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 63

[AD-FRL-5664-8]
RIN 2060-AE-86


National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for 
Flexible Polyurethane Foam Production

Correction

    In proposed rule document 96-32237 beginning on page 68406 in the 
issue of Friday, December 27, 1996, make the following corrections:


Sec. 63.1292  [Corrected]

    1. On page 68419, in the first column, in Sec. 63.1292, in the 25th 
line from the bottom, ``Hap'' should read ``HAP''.
    2. On the same page, in the second column, in the same section, in 
the sixth line from the bottom, the first ``absorbers'' should read 
``adsorbers''.


Sec. 63.1296  [Corrected]

    3. On page 68420, in the second column, in 
Sec. 63.1296(a)(2)(iii)(B), in the last line, ``applicable'' should 
read ``practicable''.


Sec. 63.1300  [Corrected]

    4. On page 68424, in the first column, in Sec. 63.1300(b), in the 
third line, before ``foam'' insert ``polyurethane''.


Sec. 63.1303  [Corrected]

    5. On the same page, in the second column, in 
Sec. 63.1303(b)(1)(i), in the fifth line, ``and'' should read 
``through''.


Sec. 63.1307  [Corrected]

    6. On page 68428, in the second column, under 
Sec. 63.1307(c)(2)(v), paragraphs (vi), (vii) and (d) were 
inadvertently removed and should read as follows:
    ``(vi) Records of all calibrations for each device used to measure 
the amount of HAP ABA in the storage vessel, conducted in accordance 
with Sec. 63.1303(d)(3).
    (vii) Records to verify that all scales used to measure the amount 
of HAP ABA added to the storage vessel meet the requirements of 
Sec. 63.1303(e)(2). For scales meeting the criteria of 
Sec. 63.1303(e)(2)(i), this documentation shall be in the form of 
written confirmation of the State or local approval. For scales meeting 
the criteria of Sec. 63.1303(e)(2)(ii), this documentation shall be in 
the form of a report provided by the registered scale technician.
    (d) Records for sources with enforceable emission limitations below 
major source levels. Processes exempted from this subpart through a 
federally enforceable emission limitation in accordance with 
Sec. 63.1290(b)(1), and that have notified the Administrator of this 
self-imposed limitation through Sec. 63.1306(c)(9), shall maintain 
records to support the emission estimates provided in the annual 
emission reports, submitted in accordance with Sec. 63.1306(f)(3). 
These emission estimates may be based on inventory records, material 
balance calculations, emission tests, or other engineering analyses.''
BILLING CODE 1505-01-D
% Worker exposure 2 weeks, 5 days/week exposure, 30 days no exposure

% From Occup_Soil Inc for PBPK.xlsx, Mixer/Loader liquid Rochelle rate, Cole Crops

% January 19, 2016

% Cecilia Tan

% Setting model parameters

use human_parameters_MRP

QPC = 62.38; % to get QALV = 16.7 L/min @BW = 69 kg

use preg_female_parameters

BWSW=1;%Set BW to a fixed value

BWST=69;%Set BW to 69 kg

PREG=0;%Not pregnant

DZONE = 1;%Turn dermal exposure on

KDIS = 0.0;%daily dissipation

TSTOP=1392;%Simulation time in hours

% Dermal exposure

SAF=1; % Fraction of skin in contact with chlorpyrifos.

FAD=1; % Fraction of dose available to be absorbed. Values of <1 could be used if pesticide is encapsulated.

DERM =9.97;% dose in ug/kg

D3=5; %DAYS/WEEK

P2=8; %HRS/DAY

S2=0 ;%OFFSET FROM 0 START TIME (EG IF YOU WANT TO MODEL FROM MIDNIGHT, BUT DOSE AT 8 AM)

%W2=28; %28 day exposure

W2=14; %14 day exposure

% Inhalation exposure

CONCMGM=0.000828; % Inhalation concentration mg/m3. Value is largest value reported in monitoring data.

D3IN=5; %DAYS/WEEK

P2IN=8; %HRS/DAY

S2IN=0 ;%OFFSET FROM 0 START TIME (EG IF YOU WANT TO MODEL FROM MIDNIGHT, BUT DOSE AT 8 AM)

%W2IN=28; %28 day exposure

W2IN=14; %14 day exposure

prepare @clear@all

start @NoCallback

simall = [_time _rbcce _urinetcpy _cv*350.6];%conc unit = ug/L

%save simall @file='mixer_liquid_cole_rochelle_01192016' @format=ascii

save simall @file='mixer_liquid_cole_rochelle_01212016' @format=ascii
8726 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 31 / Wednesday, February 15, 1995 / Notices

[FR Doc. 95–3729 Filed 2–14–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4210–62–C
AMERICASH PAWN SHOP, INC., et al., Appellant(s)/Petitioner(s), v. Abdelkarim J. GHUNAIM, et al., Appellee(s)/Respondent(s),

CASE NO.: 3D17-1832

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

FEBRUARY 19, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Dismissed.
Anthony Maurice CREWS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 1D18-0097

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

March 27, 2018 Rehearing Denied June 19, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

AFFIRMED.
OFFICE OF AIR AND RADIATION

David Moody, PhD, Manager Carlsbad Field Office U.S. Department of Energy P.O. Box 3090 Carlsbad, NM 88221

Dear Dr. Moody:

On July 29, 2008, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) conducted a follow-up inspection at Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL) regarding the events that led to the empiacement at the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP) of a drum (# LAS817174) of transuranic (TRU) waste with an open non-conformanee report (NCR). On July 30, 2008 EPA notified, in writing, that we concurred with DOE's decision to resume shipments from LANL with an exception of two waste streams. Based on further evaluation, EPA now concurs with full resumption of shipments from LANL in accordanee with the scope of their existing approval.

During the inspection, EPA inspectors evaluated the failures that led to the certification and disposal of a drum with an open NCR. The failure of the NCR tag and the ability of the CCP Data Center to select drums with open NCRs were the primary causes based on EPA's evaluation. EPA then evaluated corrective actions taken by DOE and found the changes to be adequate and appropriate. Subsequent to this inspection CBFO/Central Characterization Project (CCP) held a conference calULive ?Vleeting to demonstrate further changes to the CCP Data Center database and EPA found them to be appropriate and adequate.

If you have any questions regarding this issue, please contact Tom Peake at (202) 343-9765.

Enclosure

InternetAddress('JRL)® http:lJwww.epa.gov Recycied(Recyc3abfe ® PrMetl with Vegetable O:! Sasetl Inhs on 100%Postconsumer. Process Chlorine Pree Recycled Papercc: Electronic Distribution Frank Marcinowski, DOE/EM Alton Harris, DOE/EM Juan Reyes, EPA/HQ Casey Gadbury, DOE/CBFO D. K. Ploetz, CBFO/CCP Dave Haar, CBFO/CCP Ava Holland, DOElCBFO George Basabilvazo, DOE/CBFO Russ Patterson. DOEICBFO Susan Stiger, LANL/LASO George Rael, LANL/LASO Jerry O'I,eary, LANL-CCP Sue Peterman, LANL-CCP Steve "Lappe, NMED James Bearzi, NMED Nick Stone, EPA Region 6 EPA Docket
Page 1 of 3

UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

MIAMI DIVISION

In Re:

JOSE GAFAS,

CASE NO.: 21-11561-RAM

Debtor. CHAPTER 13

______________________________/

OBJECTION TO CHAPTER 13 PLAN

Franklin Credit Management Corporation, as servicer for Wilmington Savings Fund 

Society, FSB, not in its individual capacity but solely as certificate trustee of Bosco Credit II Trust 

Series 2010-1 (“Creditor”), by and through its undersigned attorney, objects to the Chapter 13 Plan 

(the “Plan”) (Document No. 15) filed by the Debtor, and states as grounds therefore:

1. Creditor holds the Promissory Note and Mortgage secured by the real property 

known as 7750 Southwest 146th Road, Miami, FL 33183 (the “Property”). The Mortgage is 

recorded in Official Records Book 23144, Page 0916, of the Public Records of Miami-Dade 

County, Florida (the “Mortgage”).

2. Debtor filed for relief under Title 11 of the United States Code on February 18, 

2021.

3. The estimated total debt owed to Creditor as of the date of the Petition was 

$135,863.01 

4. The loan matured on March 1, 2020; thus, Creditor’s full payoff must be accounted 

for in the Plan.

5. The Plan fails to address Creditor’s secured interest in the Property.

Case 21-11561-RAM Doc 21 Filed 03/09/21 Page 1 of 3
 

Page 2 of 3

6. Debtor’s income appears to be grossly inadequate to continue to support the secured 

assets he claims, when also accounting for the outstanding amounts owed to Creditor.

7. The Plan is not a feasible Plan designed to cure the Debtor’s default, nor does the 

Plan adequately protect creditor.

8. Creditor reserves the right to supplement this objection in the future.

Quinn Legal, P.A.

19321 US Hwy 19 N, Suite 512

Clearwater, FL 33764

Phone: 727-474-9603

Fax: 727-474-9583

eservice@quinnlegal.com

kmiller@quinnlegal.com

By: _/s/ Erin M. Rose Quinn___________

Erin M. Rose Quinn, Esq.

Florida Bar Number 64446

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing Objection to Chapter 

13 Plan was provided by electronic and/or standard first class mail this 9th day of March, 2021 to 

the parties on the below service list.

Quinn Legal, P.A.

19321 US Hwy 19 N, Suite 512

Clearwater, FL 33764

Phone: 727-474-9603

Fax: 727-474-9583

eservice@quinnlegal.com

kmiller@quinnlegal.com

By: _/s/ Erin M. Rose Quinn___________

Erin M. Rose Quinn, Esq.

Florida Bar Number 64446

Case 21-11561-RAM Doc 21 Filed 03/09/21 Page 2 of 3
 

Page 3 of 3

SERVICE LIST

Jose Gafas

7750 Southwest 146th Road

Miami, FL 33183

Timothy S. Kingcade, Esq.

Kingcade, Garcia & McMaken, P.A.

1370 Coral Way

Miami, FL 33145

scanner@miamibankruptcy.com

Nancy K. Neidich, Trustee

P.O. Box 279806

Miramar FL 33027

Office of the U.S. Trustee

51 SW 1st Ave., Suite 1204

Miami, FL 33130

Case 21-11561-RAM Doc 21 Filed 03/09/21 Page 3 of 3
[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 74 (Friday, April 17, 1998)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 19195]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: X98-10417]


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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Surface Transportation Board

49 CFR Part 1002


Fees

CFR Correction

    In title 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations, parts 1000 to 1199, 
revised as of October 1, 1997, on page 18, in the first column 
immediately following the table in Sec. 1002.2(f), paragraph (g) was 
inadvertently removed. The omitted text should read as follows:

Sec. 1002.2  Filing fees.

* * * * *
    (g) Returned check policy. (1) If a check submitted to the Board 
for a filing or service fee is dishonored by a bank or financial 
institution on which it is drawn, the Board will notify the person who 
submitted the check that:
    (i) All work will be suspended on the filing or proceeding, other 
than a tariff filing, until the check is made good;
    (ii) A returned check charge of $6.00 and any bank charges incurred 
by the Board as a result of the dishonored check must be submitted with 
the filing fee which is outstanding; and
    (iii) If payment is not made within the time specified by the 
Board, the proceeding will be dismissed or the filing may be rejected.
    (2) If a person repeatedly submits dishonored checks to the Board 
for filing fees, the Board may notify the person that all future filing 
fees must be submitted in the form of a certified or cashier's check or 
a money order.

BILLING CODE 1505-01-D
Jerome Julius Brown, Sr., 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

Judge Krystal Quinn Alves, 

Defendant. 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) Civil Action No. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

--------------------------------) 

MEMORANDUM OPINION 

FILED 

DEC <~ 8 2009 

Clerk, U.S. District and 

Bankruptcy Courts 

09 2329 

Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, has filed a complaint and an application to proceed in forma 

pauperis. The application will be granted, and the complaint dismissed. 

Complaints filed by pro se litigants are held to less stringent standards than are formal 

pleadings drafted by lawyers. See Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972). Nonetheless,pro 

se plaintiffs must comply with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Jarrell v. Tisch, 656 F. 

Supp. 237, 239 (D.D.C. 1987). Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure states the 

minimum requirements for complaints. Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a). Rule 8(a) requires that a complaint 

contain a short and plain statement of the grounds upon which federal jurisdiction rests, a short 

and plain statement showing that the plaintiff is entitled to relief, and a demand for judgment for 

the relief sought. The minimum requirements Rule 8 imposes are designed to provide defendants 

with sufficient notice of the claim or claims being asserted in order to allow defendants to 

prepare a responsive answer and an adequate defense, and to determine whether the doctrine of 

res judicata applies. Brown v. Califano, 75 F.R.D. 497, 498 (D.D.C. 1977). Further, compliance 

3 
with Rule 8(a)'s requirements should provide a court with sufficient information to determine 

whether it has jurisdiction over the claims. 

The complaint indicates that the plaintiff, who appears to be a resident of Maryland, is 

suing a defendant who is a Maryland state judge. The complaint does not make clear what 

claims plaintiff is pursuing and does not provide sufficient notice to the defendant of the claims 

so that she may prepare a proper defense. In addition, the complaint does not provide sufficient 

information to determine that jurisdiction exists to hear any of the claims plaintiff intends, as it 

appears that the plaintiff means to sue a judge in her judicial capacity. Accordingly, the 

complaint will be dismissed for failure to comply with the requirements of Rule 8. 

Plaintiff is advised that if he persists in filing such complaints this Court may restrict his 

ability to proceed in forma pauperis. 

A separate order accompanies this memorandum opi 

United States District Judge
Dave BROWN, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 5D17-3222

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

Decision filed May 15, 2018 Rehearing Denied July 3, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

AFFIRMED.
Exhibit 15.2



CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRMS

We
  consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statement No. 333-141109
  on Form S-8 of Veolia Environnement of our reports dated April 18, 2011, relating
  to the consolidated statements of financial position of Veolia Environnement
  and subsidiaries as of December 31, 2010, 2009 and 2008, and the related
  consolidated income statements, consolidated statements of comprehensive income,
  consolidated cash-flows statements and consolidated statements of changes in
  equity for each of the years in the three-year period ended December 31, 2010
  and the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting as of December
  31, 2010, appearing in this Annual Report on Form 20-F of Veolia Environnement
  and subsidiaries for the year ended December 31, 2010.



Paris
  La Défense and Neuilly-sur-Seine, April 18, 2011.



|KPMG AUDIT
A division of KPMG SA | ERNST & YOUNG et Autres
|-------------------------------- | -----------------------
|                                 |                        
|Jay Nirsimloo                    | Baudouin Griton
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR. 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 5 TH C IR. R. 47.5.4. 

### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 07-51276 Conference Calendar UNITED STATES OF AMERICA Plaintiff-Appellee v. TROY DAVID CAMPEAU Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. 5:06-CR-370-ALL Before HIGGINBOTHAM, STEWART, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Appealing the Judgment in a Criminal Case, Troy David Campeau presents arguments that he concedes are foreclosed by United States v. Rawls, 85 F.3d 240, 242-44 (5th Cir. 1996), which rejected a Commerce Clause challenge to the felon-in-possession-of-a-firearm statute, 18 U.S.C. § 922(g). Se e United States v. Daugherty, 264 F.3d 513, 51 8 (5th Cir. 2001). The Government’s United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit 

### F I L E D August 6, 2008 Charles R. Fulbruge III ClerkNo. 07-51276

2 motion for summary affirmance is GRANTED, and thejudgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing was served through ECF on the debtor’s attorney or by U.S. First Class 

pre-paid Mail on the pro se debtor on the same day filed with the Court.

Submitted by:

NANCY K. NEIDICH, ESQ, STANDING CHAPTER 13 TRUSTEE

P.O. BOX 279806, MIRAMAR, FL 33027, (954) 443-4402

RE: RICARDO HERNANDEZ CASE NUMBER: 20-14645-AJC

TRUSTEE'S NOTICE OF DEFICIENCY FOR CONFIRMATION AND RECOMMENDATION

The Trustee reviewed this case and found the following deficiencies remain unresolved from the Trustee’s letter 

requesting documents and prior deficiencies and thus objects as follows (If this case is dismissed, this 

deficiency is an objection to reinstatement until all documents are received or all issues are addressed): 

WRITTEN RESPONSE TO ISSUES RAISED AND/OR DOCUMENTS REQUESTED MUST BE 

RECEIVED BY 5PM AT LEAST FIFTEEN DAYS (NOT INCLUDING HOLIDAYS) PRIOR TO THE 

CONFIRMATION HEARING TO AVOID DISMISSAL. Please note: documents that were not timely 

filed/received by the trustee may not be considered as there is not sufficient time for an additional review of this 

case. Call the Trustee's case administration department prior to “re-sending” documents. The Trustee 

reserves the right to raise additional objections UNTIL all documents are timely provided to the Trustee and

reviewed for possible issues raised and additional documents needed. 

The debtor or debtor’s attorney must appear at the confirmation hearing even if they pre-hear with the 

Trustee. The debtor may be dismissed for failure to fund the plan if they are delinquent in payments. 

The Court may dismiss this case if no one appears to represent the debtor at the confirmation hearing.

IMPORTANT NOTICE: IF THE DEBTOR(S) OBJECTS TO THE TRUSTEE'S RECOMMENDATION, THE 

DEBTOR'S ATTORNEY MUST CONTACT THE TRUSTEE'S OFFICE AND SPEAK TO AN ATTORNEY 

BEFORE 2PM THE LAST BUSINESS DAY PRIOR TO THE CONFIRMATION HEARING TO SEEK A 

RESOLUTION OR THE RECOMMENDATION WILL BE DEEMED UNCONTESTED BY THE DEBTOR. 

===============================================================================

Recommendation for August 25, 2020 hearing. All amendments and documents for the August 25, 2020 

hearing were due as of August 7, 2020. (Call the Trustee's case administration department prior to "resending" documents)

1AP served 6/9

If Counsel for the Debtor(s) appears at confirmation, confirms service and agrees on the record:

Continue to 9/15:

Due on or before 5pm on 8/31: 1) Motion to Determine TBE (ECF No. 24) remains unresolved-upload order 

pursuant to hearing on July 28, 2020, 2) Tools listed on attachment to POC No. 10 not included in schedulesAmend Schedule B, 3) Amend plan to provide for Chapter 7 test of $4,899.00(includes tax refund), 4) 

Information on sale listed on SOFA 18. 

Remains unresolved from prior deficiency

Due by 5 pm on 8/27 or DISMISS, if received Cont to 9/15: 1) Object or Conform to POC No. 10

Case 20-14645-AJC Doc 36 Filed 08/19/20 Page 1 of 1
## Breadcrumb

-  Publications 
-  Articles 

#           Oxidation of pyrite in an anoxic atmosphere      

      January 1, 1987    

Pyrite (FeS2) inclusions in coal, when heated in an oxygen deficient atmosphere (approximately 1% oxygen), become coated with magnetic Fe3O4 due to oxidation. Most of the FeS2 can thus be removed from the coal by magnetic separation to reduce the sulphur concentration. The oxidation products have been studied in greater detail by measuring the SO2 and O2 in the effluent gas during the heating process and by performing further magnetic measurements. At 582 K, the pyrite surface was oxidized to FeSO4. Significant oxidation of FeSO4 and FeS2 to Fe3O4 was observed starting at 677 K. At about 681 K, the Fe3O4 is further oxidized to α-Fe2O3. At 681 K, under isothermal conditions, the oxidation is impeded by the α-Fe2O3 formed on the surfaces of the grains. If the temperature is rapidly increased, the oxygen penetrates the α-Fe2O3 veneer to the FeS2 core of the pyrite grains and oxidizes essentially the whole pyrite mass to Fe3O4 before α-Fe2O3 can be formed.

## Citation Information
EXHIBIT 32.2





WRITTEN STATEMENT


PURSUANT TO


18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350





In connection with Annual Report of New Dragon Asia Corp. and its subsidiaries (the “Company”) on Form 10-K for the period ended December 25, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), the undersigned, Peter Mak, Chief Financial Officer of the Company certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:





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





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





Dated:  April 8, 2011
By:
/s/ Ling WangName:
Ling WangTitle:
Chief Accounting Officer
Edwin Herera SANCHEZ, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 5D18-336

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

Decision filed June 19, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

AFFIRMED.
IN THE UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT

TO THE CLERK:

The undersigned attorneys for: 

a creditor of the above referenced debtor.

Pursuant to the provisions of the Bankruptcy Code and Bankruptcy Rule 2002:

served with all notices given or required to be given in the case as follows:

In re:

 Debtor(s)

) Chapter: 

)

) REQUEST FOR SPECIAL NOTICE

) Case Number: 

) [No Hearing Required]

 

 Bass & Associates, P.C.

 3936 E. Ft. Lowell Road, Suite #200

 Tucson, AZ 85712

 By: /s/ Patti H. Bass (AZ 016849)

 Attorneys for Creditor

 

 3936 E Ft Lowell Rd Suite 200

 Tucson, AZ 85712-1083

 (520) 577-1544

 ecf@bass-associates.com

Respectfully submitted,

Bass & Associates, P.C.

 Accordingly, the undersigned attorney further requests that the foregoing

name and address be added to the Master Mailing List.

For the SOUTHERN DISTRICT of FLORIDA

MIAMI DIVISION

UNITED CONSUMER FINANCIAL SVCS

Merchant Name:RAINBOW CLEANING SYSTEM

REQUEST IS HEREBY MADE that UNITED CONSUMER FINANCIAL SVCS be given and

Stanley Pacheco

 Chapter: 13

 Case Number: 21-10746-LMI

 Assigned to the Honorable:

 

 REQUEST FOR SPECIAL NOTICE

 [NO Hearing Required]

 UNITED CONSUMER FINANCIAL SVCS

 UNITED CONSUMER FINANCIAL SVCS

Dated: 02/11/21

Account Number: ****6036

Case 21-10746-LMI Doc 15 Filed 02/17/21 Page 1 of 1
Plant Assemblage Toxicity Index

Assessment Period Selection Issues – Cosm Data

g

/

L

A

t

r

a

zin

e

)

1000

10000

1

Test Duration (days)

5 10 20 50 100 200

A

v

e

r

a

g

e

(



g

/

L

A

t

r

a

zin

e

)

1

10

100
Plant Assemblage Toxicity Index

Assessment Period Selection Issues – Cosm Data

g

/

L

A

t

r

a

zin

e

)

1000

10000

2

Test Duration (days)

5 10 20 50 100 200

A

v

e

r

a

g

e

(



g

/

L

A

t

r

a

zin

e

)

1

10

100
Plant Assemblage Toxicity Index

Assessment Period Selection Issues – Cosm Data

g

/

L

A

t

r

a

zin

e

)

1000

10000

3

Test Duration (days)

5 10 20 50 100 200

A

v

e

r

a

g

e

(



g

/

L

A

t

r

a

zin

e

)

1

10

100