alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
North Dakota 111d Questions for One-on-One Call with EPA

 How were state goals calculated (primarily the demand side energy efficiency block)?

 How is re-dispatch of generation addressed in the plan?

 How is renewable energy addressed in the plan: in-state and out-of-state renewable energy?

 How is new NGCC addressed in the plan?

 How are mass based caps calculated?

 EPA guidance that is needed: How credit is calculated for demand-side energy efficiency, renewable 

and lower emitting electricity, and transmission efficiency projects.

 EM&V Plans? How these projects are monitored and made federally enforceable.

 Timing of Plan Submittal – With the almost certain litigation, a lot of time may be wasted on a plan if 

work starts before the ligation ends.

 Clarity - Who gets credit for renewable energy in a state?

 NSR Applicability – EPA needs to assure sources those projects undertaken solely to comply with 

111(d), or increased dispatch of lower emitting units, will not trigger NSR or 111(b) requirements.

 Flexibility 

 To have utility specific regional plans? 

 Mass and rate in the same state plan for different utilities? 

 Will EPA truly give flexibility (State deference)?

 North Dakota has significant wind capacity. However, much of North Dakota-based renewable wind 

generation capacity has been contracted to out-of-state utilities. Under the Proposed Rule, does 

North Dakota or the other state(s) with the renewable power contract get to take credit for the 

wind capacity in their state CO2 rate calculation? Will EPA recalculate the state emission rate 

limitation if the credit is given to another state?

 EPA’s Proposed Rule makes energy efficiency one of the building blocks for a state’s BSER. What if 

the North Dakota Public Service Commission (NDPSC) conducts a specific analysis of North Dakota’s 

circumstances compared to EPA’s general analysis in the Proposed Rule as to what EPA considers to 

be realistically achievable? Will EPA recalculate the state emission rate limitation to reflect the 

NDPSC energy efficiency savings in lieu of EPA’s analysis?

 EPA’s Proposed Rule makes renewable energy another building block for a state’s BSER. What if the 

North Dakota legislature or the NDPSC has a fundamentally different and more North Dakotaspecific analysis than EPA’s analysis used in the proposal? Will EPA recalculate the state emission 

rate limitation to reflect the NDPSC renewable energy outlook or state RPS standard in lieu of their 

outlook?

 If North Dakota is unable to develop its CPP SIP, pass it through public comment, obtain any needed 

state law changes from the North Dakota legislature (e.g. cap & trade authority) and obtain EPA 

approval of a CPP SIP within the short time frame EPA has set forth in the Proposed Rule, would EPA 

adopt/enforce a federal plan? How would EPA develop this plan? Would the EPA plan contain unitspecific emission rate limitations? Given the state rate is dependent upon utilization rates of all 

affected sources, how would EPA assure compliance?
UNITED 

STATES 

DISTRICT 

COURT

For the Northern District of California

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

UNITED 

STATES 

DISTRICT 

COURT

U

For the Northern District of California

NITED 

STATES 

DISTRICT 

COURT

For the Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

Northern District of California

ELLEN PALMER,

Plaintiff,

v.

SANTA ROSA MEMORIAL HOSPITAL

Defendant.

_____________________________________/

No. C 08-3385 JSW (MEJ)

ORDER RE: LETTERS SUBMITTED

BY COUNCIL

The Court is in receipt of two letters, one sent to the Court by Defendant, and a response by

Plaintiff. Accordingly, the Court will disregard the March 25, 2010 letter. This matter has been

submitted. No further briefing is required. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 1, 2010

_______________________________

Maria-Elena James 

Chief United States Magistrate Judge 

Case 3:08-cv-03385-JSW Document 63 Filed 04/01/10 Page 1 of 1
Exhibit
32.2





Section
1350 Certification of Principal Financial Officer





CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO


18
U.S.C. SECTION 1350,


AS
ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906


OF
THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





In
connection with the Quarterly Report of INX Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q
for the period ended June 30, 2009 (the “Report”), as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, I, Brian Fontana, Vice President and
Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as
adopted pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:





1. The
Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and





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





By:
              /s/ BRIAN
      FONTANABrian
      Fontana, Vice Presidentand
      Chief Financial Officer











August
14, 2009
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION FROM THE FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS OF THE CLOROX COMPANY FOR THE FISCAL QUARTER ENDED MARCH 31, 1997,
AS PRESENTED IN THE CLOROX COMPANY'S FORM 10-Q FILED FOR SUCH PERIOD, AND IS
QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<RESTATED> 
<MULTIPLIER> 1000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1997
<CASH>                                           67804
<SECURITIES>                                     45928
<RECEIVABLES>                                   400825
<ALLOWANCES>                                      1521
<INVENTORY>                                     201220
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                758640
<PP&E>                                         1048322
<DEPRECIATION>                                  473900
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 2882473
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           682494
<BONDS>                                         907570
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         55422
<OTHER-SE>                                      969444
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   2882473
<SALES>                                        1770197
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               1770197
<CGS>                                           780849
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  1441729
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                (2356)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               39247
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 291577
<INCOME-TAX>                                    116532
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             175045
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    175045
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     1.69
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.66
        

</TABLE>
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

v.

BRADLEY MINING COMPANY,

et al.,

Defendants.

NO. C08-3968 TEH

ORDER REGARDING

MATTERS RAISED AT

FEBRUARY 1, 2010 CASE

MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE

This matter came on for Case Management Conference (“CMC”) on Monday,

February 1, 2010, at 1:30pm. Loren Remsberg appeared by telephone, and Robert Mullaney,

Rochelle Russell, and Larry Bradfish appeared in person, on behalf of Plaintiff the United

States of America (“Plaintiff”). Jon Wactor and Michael Roberts appeared in person on

behalf of Defendants Bradley Mining Company (“Bradley Mining”) and Frederick Bradley, 

as Trustee of the Worthen Bradley Family Trust (“Bradley Trust”) (collectively

“Defendants”).

After the Court expressed concern with what appeared to be unusual delay in this

litigation, the parties explained that the delay was due in part to issues related to the Elem

Tribe, a non-party whose interests could be substantially affected by the outcome of this

action. The parties and the Elem Tribe reached a settlement in principle in March 2009,

which provided for the transfer of real property from the Bradley Trust to the Elem Tribe. 

However, the presence of hazardous substances on the property and other issues have

complicated the land transfer. Plaintiff continues to negotiate with the Elem Tribe regarding

the land transfer and the settlement of its claims.

In an attempt to move beyond the present stalemate, the Court hereby enters the

following orders:

Case 3:08-cv-03968-TEH Document 45 Filed 02/04/10 Page 1 of 2
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

2

1. Unless the transfer of land from Defendant Bradley Trust to the Elem Tribe is fully

completed within 90 days from the date of this Order, Plaintiff shall file, no later than

May 24, 2010, a motion to join the Elem Tribe as a necessary party. The motion shall

be noticed for hearing on June 28, 2010. Unless the parties stipulate to the contrary,

the local rules of this Court shall control the dates for filing responses and replies.

2. This Order is without prejudice to the filing by Defendants of a motion to enforce an

agreement, or any other relief they deem appropriate.

3. The parties are reminded that this matter has been scheduled for further CMC on

Monday, May 3, 2010, at 1:30pm. A joint case management statement shall be filed

at least seven calendar days prior to the conference.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: 02/04/10 

THELTON E. HENDERSON, JUDGE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

Case 3:08-cv-03968-TEH Document 45 Filed 02/04/10 Page 2 of 2
#### Nellie Groves, Respondent, v. S. Wander & Sons’ Chemical Company, Inc., Appellant.

Judgment and order affirmed, with costs. All concur, except De Angelis, J., who dissents and votes for reversal and dismissal of the complaint.
### §§290cc to 290cc–12. Repealed. Pub. L. 102–321, title I, §§117, 120(b)(3), 123(c), July 10, 1992, 106 Stat. 348, 358, 363

Section 290cc, act July 1, 1944, ch. 373, title V, §515, formerly Pub. L. 92–255, title V, §503, as added Pub. L. 94–237, §13(a), Mar. 19, 1976, 90 Stat. 248; amended Pub. L. 95–461, §2(c), Oct. 14, 1978, 92 Stat. 1268; Pub. L. 96–181, §12, Jan. 2, 1980, 93 Stat. 1315; Pub. L. 97–35, title IX, §972(a), (b), Aug. 13, 1981, 95 Stat. 597; renumbered §515 of act July 1, 1944, and amended Apr. 26, 1983, Pub. L. 98–24, §2(b)(11), 97 Stat. 180; Oct. 19, 1984, Pub. L. 98–509, title II, §§205(a)(2), 206(c)(2), 207(b), 98 Stat. 2361–2363; Oct. 27, 1986, Pub. L. 99–570, title IV, §4009, 100 Stat. 3207–115; Nov. 18, 1988, Pub. L. 100–690, title II, §2058(a)(3), 102 Stat. 4214, related to encouraging drug abuse research.

Section 290cc–1, act July 1, 1944, ch. 373, title V, §516, as added Oct. 19, 1984, Pub. L. 98–509, title II, §206(b), 98 Stat. 2362; amended Nov. 18, 1988, Pub. L. 100–690, title II, §2058(a)(4), 102 Stat. 4214, related to drug abuse demonstration projects.

Section 290cc–2, act July 1, 1944, ch. 373, title V, §517, as added Oct. 19, 1984, Pub. L. 98–509, title II, §207(b), 98 Stat. 2363; amended Oct. 27, 1986, Pub. L. 99–570, title IV, §4010(b), 100 Stat. 3207–115; Nov. 18, 1988, Pub. L. 100–690, title II, §2056(b), 102 Stat. 4211; Aug. 15, 1990, Pub. L. 101–374, §3(a), 104 Stat. 457, authorized appropriations for drug abuse research.

Section 290cc–11, act July 1, 1944, ch. 373, title V, §518, formerly §519, as added Nov. 18, 1988, Pub. L. 100–690, title II, §2057(3), 102 Stat. 4212; renumbered §518, Aug. 16, 1989, Pub. L. 101–93, §3(e)(1)(A), 103 Stat. 610, related to establishment of a mental health research program.

Section 290cc–12, act July 1, 1944, ch. 373, title V, §519, formerly §520, as added Nov. 18, 1988, Pub. L. 100–690, title II, §2057(3), 102 Stat. 4212; renumbered §519, Aug. 16, 1989, Pub. L. 101–93, §3(e)(1)(A), 103 Stat. 610, related to National Mental Health Education Program.

#### **Statutory Notes and Related Subsidiaries**

#### Effective Date of Repeal

Repeal effective Oct. 1, 1992, with provision for programs providing financial assistance, see section 801(c), (d) of Pub. L. 102–321, set out as an Effective Date of 1992 Amendment note under section 236 of this title.
No: III-16-021 August 17, 2016

CONTACT: Viktoria Mitlyng 630-829-9662

 Prema Chandrathil 630-829-9663

NRC to Hold Open House to Discuss Agency’s Assessment of

D.C. Cook Nuclear Power Plant

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission will hold an open house on August 22 to discuss the 

agency’s annual review of safety performance at the D.C. Cook nuclear power plant. The two-unit plant 

is operated by Indiana Michigan Power Company and is located in Bridgman, Mich., about 13 miles 

south of Benton Harbor.

The public will be able to talk with NRC staff members and ask questions about the plant’s 

2015 performance and the agency’s oversight of the facility. The open house, which will also include 

informational posters, is scheduled for 6-7:30 p.m. EDT at the Maud Preston Palenske Memorial 

Library, Downstairs Meeting Room, 500 Market St., in St. Joseph.

“NRC inspectors who work at the plant and NRC staff from our regional office in Lisle, Ill., are 

looking forward to speaking with members of the public about the performance of the D.C. Cook plant 

and other topics related to nuclear safety that are of interest to the community,” said NRC Region III 

Administrator Cynthia D. Pederson. “We hold such meetings near the plant every year to discuss how 

we ensure the plant operates safely and foster an open dialogue with the public.”

The NRC concluded that, overall D.C. Cook operated safely in 2015. All performance 

indicators and inspection findings for the plant were “green” or very low safety significance. As a 

result, the plant will continue to receive the NRC’s normal level of oversight during 2016. 

The NRC issued three traditional enforcement violations of very low safety significance, one for 

making a staffing change without prior NRC approval and two for not justifying changes via a written 

evaluation. The NRC will conduct an inspection to follow-up on these violations.

Normal inspections are typically performed by the two NRC Resident Inspectors assigned to the 

plant. Reviews are also performed at the site by specialists from the Region III Office in Lisle, Ill., and 

from the agency’s headquarters in Rockville, Md. Among the areas of performance the NRC will

inspect this year are activities associated with radiological safety, equipment designs and emergency 

preparedness.

The NRC’s 2015 assessment letter and current performance information for Unit 1 and Unit 2

are available on the NRC website.
Revision to Amendment to Exemption 16613

SIMCOM Aviation Training submits this re vision to our original amendment to Exemption number 16613

citing regulation §91.1713 (b)(3)(ii) as the pertinent rule from which we seek exemption.
Editorial Note on Part 217
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 217 appear at 68 FR 51362, Aug. 26, 2003.

§ 217.13 Employment criteria. ( a ) A recipient may not make use of any employment test or other selection criterion that screens out or tends to screen out handicapped persons or any class of handicapped persons unless: ( 1 ) The test score or other selection criterion, as used by the recipient, is shown to be job-related for the position in question, and
( 2 ) alternative job-related tests or criteria that do not screen out or tend to screen out as many handicapped persons are not shown by the Administrator to be available.
( b ) A recipient shall select and administer tests concerning employment so as best to ensure that, when administered to an applicant or employee who has a handicap that impairs sensory, manual, or speaking skills, the test results accurately reflect the applicant's or employee's job skills, aptitude, or whatever other factor the test purports to measure, rather than reflecting the applicant's or employee's impaired sensory, manual or speaking skills (except where those skills are the factors that the test purports to measure).
### §291j–4. Payment of interest on guaranteed loans

(a) Subject to the provisions of subsection (b), in the case of a guarantee of any loan to a nonprofit private agency under this part with respect to a hospital or other medical facility, the Secretary shall pay, to the holder of such loan and for and on behalf of such hospital or other medical facility amounts sufficient to reduce by 3 per centum per annum the net effective interest rate otherwise payable on such loan. Each holder of a loan, to a nonprofit private agency, which is guaranteed under this part shall have a contractual right to receive from the United States interest payments required by the preceding sentence.

(b) Contracts to make the payments provided for in this section shall not carry an aggregate amount greater than such amount as may be provided in appropriations Acts.

(July 1, 1944, ch. 373, title VI, §624, as added Pub. L. 91–296, title II, §201, June 30, 1970, 84 Stat. 347.)
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA No. DA 23
- 0143 STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellee, v. BENJAMIN EUGENE COLE JR.,

Defendant and Appellant .

**ORDER** Upon consideration of Appellant’s motion for extension of time, and good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellant is granted an extension of time to and including September 8 , 2023 , within which to prepare, file, and serve Appellant’s opening brief on appeal.

Electronically signed by: Mike McGrath Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

August 2 2023

08/02/2023

Case Number: DA 23-0143
AMENDMENT


EXHIBIT 4.6 







AMENDMENT

TO THE

PROMISSORY NOTE DATED DECEMBER 5, 2005

TO HARMEL S. RAYAT







AMENDMENT dated January 18, 2006 (the “Note Amendment”) to that certain Promissory Note dated December 5, 2005 (the “Note”), issued by Hepalife Technologies, Inc., a Florida corporation (the “Company”), to Harmel S. Rayat, in the original principal amount of Two Hundred Thousand Dollars ($200,000), the original executed copy of which is attached hereto.




1.

Amendment to Note.  In accordance with the terms and provisions of Section 4(a) of the Note, the Note is hereby amended as follows:




(a)  By deleting section 1 thereof and substituting the following in lieu thereof:




1.  Payment.  (a)  The Outstanding Principal balance of the Note, together with accrued and unpaid interest thereon shall be paid by the Company to the Holder, at the address as provided to the Company by the Holder in writing, in lawful money of the United States of America upon the earlier to occur of:




(1)  The occurrence of an Event of Default (as defined in Section 2 of the Note), which occurrence shall be deemed written demand by the holder for payment of the note; or




(2)  The Company’s receipt of written demand for payment from the Holder.




(b)  Interest shall accrue with respect to the unpaid principal amount of the loan from the date of this Note until such principal is paid at a rate of eight and one-half percent (8.50%) per annum (computed on the basis of a 365-day year).




(c)  Company shall have the right at any time and without penalty to prepay, in whole or in part, the principal outstanding and/or the interest accrued hereunder.”




2.

Balance of provisions of Note to Remain Unchanged and in Force and Effect.  Except as amended by Section 1 of this Note Amendment, all of the other terms and provisions of the Note remain unchanged and in full force and effect.




3.

Binding Effect; Assigns.  This Note Amendment and all of the provisions hereof shall be binding upon and inure to the benefit of the Holder, his successors and assigns.




4.

Governing Law.  This Note Amendment and the validity, interpretation and performance of the terms and provisions hereof shall be governed by, and construed in accordance with, the internal laws of the State of Florida, without regard to the principles of conflicts of laws.




5.

Headings.  The headings used in this Note Amendment are for convenience of  reference only and shall not be construed to affect the meaning or construction of any of the provisions hereof.











6.

Entire Amendment.  This Note Amendment constitutes the entire amendment of the Note, and supersedes all prior agreements and undertakings, both written and oral, between the Company and the Holder with respect to such specific subject matter.




IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Company has caused this Note Amendment to be executed this 18th day of January, 2006.







Hepalife Technologies, Inc.




By

/s/ Arian Soheili

Name:

Arian Soheili

Title:

Secretary and Treasurer
### Regulatory Evaluation

Docket No. FAA

- 

### 2012

- 0946 Directorate Identifier: 

### 2012

- CE

- 037

- 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 a nd then out of the changed cell

.

**Estimated Costs:**

Action (e.g., Inspection, replacement) Do not include on

condition costs here Costs per **Product** (e.g., aircraft, engine,

propeller, appliance) Work

- hours (include access, testing, and close

- up) Labor

c ost (@$8 5 /h our) Parts Cost Total Costs (labor + parts) Number of

**U.S. Registered**  **Products** Total Cost

for U.S. Fleet



### Inspection 2.0 $ 170.00 $0 $ 170.00 

### 3 $ 510.00 $ 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: $ 510 

### Costs covered under warranty ( if known ) $

**On**

**- Condition Costs:** 
Action (e.g., Inspection, replacement) Work

- hours

(include access, testing, and close

up) Labor cost

(@$8 5/hour) Parts Cost Cost per Product



### Repair 2.0 $ 170.00 

### $400 $ 570.00 $ 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 regul atory 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? E xplain for

eit her 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 tra nsportation?

YES * NO



### * Explanation 

### :
#### Max Finesmith, Appellant, v. Nettie Finesmith, Respondent.

Motion to stay the order of the Special Term is dismissed as academic. Nolan, P. J., Beldoek, Ughetta, Kleinfeld and Christ, JJ., concur.