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

OAR Box 1790 

Prepped by Keeia Richards 

Document Number: 

245) ll-F-35 

Docket Number: 

A-90-37 

Printed 10/31/200812:43:17 PM Sheet 245 of 250 
Would you 

kindly " 

see that 

this gets to 

therfeht 

person? 

P.2 

3T-P-35 

OFFICE OF NANA6EXENT AND BUDGET 

OFFICE OF INFORMATION AND REGULATORY AFFAIRS 

DATE I SENDERi 

TOt 

9t\di • in _» Arl-'FftoLx 

AGENCY: 

FROMI . 

RECIPIENT'S FAX NO.I Z^9)S'//. SSnl 

RECIPIENT TELEPHONE MO.I 

TOTAL NUMBER OF PAGES. INCLUDING COVER SHEETI 

COMMENTS 

G?rpcJ 

TBI *k^Z2 

Slk £J6JLJ*I 

AOEJ INCLUDING COVER SHEETI _ 

i'tyL* StlcA9*-* offamiel fa <J^y^p 6*$' 

j^iLfDtj^Mj 

mr 

M 499*4 

NOTE: I F *fcj DO NOT RECEIVE ALL THE PACES, >LEABE CALL AS SOON 

AS POSSIBLE. ^~T(KX 

VERIFICATION HO.I 302-398-7340 

OZRA FAX MO.i 202-315-7265 

M-
P.3 

NSR Issues " < 

& 

Reinforce positive aspects of WEPCo "causal link" provision (-demand growth 

exclusion" in proposal), using language from 1092 WEPCo preamble, not merely 

referencing the package. 

"The term 'modification* mbant. Any phyo'e*! •hangv In, ©r change In ihe 

method of opwertion of, a stationary source which Increases the amount of 

any air pollutant emitted by such source or which results In the emission of 

any air pollutant not previously emitted." 

"The NSR regulatory previsions require that me physical or operational 

change 'result in' an increase in actual emissions in order to consider that 

Cfiaftgetobd modification. In other words. NSR will not applly unleee EPA 

finds that there is a causal link between the proposed change and any postchange increase in emissions.' 

"... where increased operations are in response to independent factors, such 

as system-wide demand growth, which would have occurred and affeoted 

ten unit's operations even in the absence of the physical or operational 

change, such increases do not result from the change and shall be excluded 

from the projection of future actual emissions," 

"... during a representative baseline perioeMbe plant must ahve been able 

to accommodate the projected demand prowht)physicaliy and legally even 

absent the particular change." 

"Consequently, where projected increased operations are in reposne to an 

Independent factor, such as demand growth, which could have occurred and 

affected the unit's operations during the representative baseline period even 

in the absence of the physical or operational change, the increased 

operations cannot be said to result from thechange and tnerefore may be 

excluded from the projection of the unit's future actual emissions." 

"If efficiency improvements are the predominant cause of the change in 

emissions and demand growth is not, the exclusion does not apply. ... EPA 

declines to create a presumption that every emissions increase that follows 

a change in efficiency is inextricably linked to the efficiency change." 

"Finally, this new provision does not diminish the scope of the coverage of 

EPA's NSR regulations. Rather, it merely incorporates into the eotual-tofuture-actual methodology a requirement of the pre-existing statutory and 

regulatory scheme."
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

GREBEN & ASSOCIATES

1332 ANACAPA STREET, SUITE 110

SANTA BARBARA, CA 93101

TELEPHONE: (805) 963-9090

FACSIMILE: (805) 963-9098

Jan A. Greben, State Bar No. 103464

jan@grebenlaw.com

Danielle De Smeth, State Bar No. 263309

danielle@grebenlaw.com

Attorneys for Plaintiff and Counterdefendant

KFD Enterprises, Inc.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

KFD ENTERPRISES, INC., a California

Corporation dba Norman’s Dry Cleaner,

Plaintiff,

vs.

CITY OF EUREKA,

Defendant.

Case No. CV-08-4571 MMC

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED]

ORDER TO CONTINUE THE CITY OF

EUREKA’S MOTION TO COMPEL 

KFD ENTERPRISES, INC.’S 

FURTHER WRITTEN RESPONSES 

AND PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS

HEARING 

AND RELATED COUNTERCLAIMS 

AND THIRD PARTY CLAIMS

Plaintiff and Counterdefendant KFD Enterprises, Inc. (“KFD”) and Defendant and

Counterclaimant City of Eureka (“Eureka”), hereby stipulate to extend the motion hearing date

for Eureka’s motion to compel, currently set for September 8, 2010 at 9:30 a.m., to September

15, 2010 at 9:30 a.m. or at such other time that is convenient to the Court.

The parties reach this stipulation because counsel for KFD is conflicted on September 8,

2010 due to previously scheduled matters. The parties have not previously requested a

continuance on this hearing, and the granting of a continuance of this hearing by the Court will

1

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER CONTINUING EUREKA’S MOTION TO COMPEL HEARING

Case No. CV-08-4571 MMC

Case3:08-cv-04571-MMC Document296 Filed08/16/10 Page1 of 2 Case 3:08-cv-04571-SC Document 301 Filed 08/23/10 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

not effect or alter the course of the litigation, or prejudice any other party of this action. 

Further, briefing deadlines will not change and will be based on the original hearing date

of September 8, 2010.

Dated: August 16, 2010 GREBEN & ASSOCIATES

 /s/ Danielle De Smeth 

JAN A. GREBEN

DANIELLE DE SMETH

Attorneys for Plaintiff and Counterdefendant

KFD Enterprises, Inc.

Dated: August 16, 2010 DAVIDOVITZ & BENNETT LLP

 /s/ Charles Bolcom 

MORIS DAVISOVITZ

CHARLES BOLCOM

Attorneys for Defendant and Counterclaimant

City of Eureka

PURSUANT TO STIPULATION, IT IS SO ORDERED that the hearing date

scheduled for September 8, 2010 be vacated, and is continued until:

___ September 15, 2010 at 9:30 a.m.; or

___ _________________, 2010 at _______ a.m./p.m.

Dated: _______________________________

HONORABLE JAMES LARSON

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER CONTINUING EUREKA’S MOTION TO COMPEL HEARING

Case No. CV-08-4571 MMC

Case3:08-cv-04571-MMC Document296 Filed08/16/10 Page2 of 2 Case 3:08-cv-04571-SC Document 301 Filed 08/23/10 Page 2 of 2
(No. 51731.

#### LELAND ZAVADIL, Appellant, v. THE INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION *et al.*(Schultz Lithographing Co., Appellee).

*Opinion filed November 21, 1979.*

Thomas D. Allison, Lynn A. Goldstein and Her old L. Rifken, of Chicago (Cotton, Watt, Jones, King Bowlus, of counsel), for appellant.

Musschoot, Womack *8c*Galich, of Chicago (Arthur R. Musschoot, James W. Womack and Andrew A. Galich, of counsel), for appellee.

MR. JUSTICE CLARK

delivered the opinion of the court:

This is a workmen’s compensation case. The issue, once again, is whether or not the decision of the Industrial Commission, confirmed by the circuit court of Cook County, was against the manifest weight of the evidence. The answer, once again, is it wasn’t. Leland Zavadil was employed by Schultz Lithographing Co. as a pressman when he slipped on some oil while walking on the catwalk of a press, about four and a half feet above the floor. He *445fell to the floor, landing on his feet, but immediately dropped to his knees. As he fell, the small or lower portion of his back struck the metal catwalk. The arbitrator awarded Zavadil $100.90 per week for 12 weeks for temporary total incapacity for work, and $80.90 per week for 100 weeks for the permanent and complete loss of use of both legs to the extent of 25% each. Both parties appealed. The Commission, after hearing additional testimony, affirmed the arbitrator with this modification: $80.90 per week for 60 weeks for permanent and complete loss of the use of his legs to the extent of 15% each. On Zavadil’s appeal, the circuit court confirmed.

A recitation of the conflicting medical testimony here would serve no useful purpose. Its resolution was within the particular purview of the Commission. *(Puckett v. Industrial Com.*(1979), 77 Ill. 2d 321.) We note Zavadil’s argument that Dr. Philip Epstein’s testimony — Zavadil’s condition is caused by a mental disorder resulting from his accident and injury at work — was uncontroverted and that therefore the Commission’s failure to find permanent disability on this basis was against the manifest weight of the evidence. This contention was clearly rejected in *Sosniak v. Industrial Com.*(1967), 37 Ill. 2d 81, 83-84, where a doctor testified for the claimant that the latter had a psychiatric problem causally linked to the injury at work. The employer offered no rebuttal evidence on the psychiatric problem. This court found that the Commission had resolved the substantial conflict in medical testimony in favor of the claimant, as here, but concluded that the Commission’s rejection of “another aspect of the claim, to which only one witness testified, does not mean that its finding must be held to be against the manifest weight of the evidence.” 37 Ill. 2d 81, 84.

Our review of the record prescribes affirmance of the judgment of the circuit court.

*Judgment affirmed.*
### §6803. Development of electric utility rate design proposals by Secretary; contents; submission to Congress; supporting analysis

(a) The Secretary shall develop proposals to improve electric utility rate design. Such proposals shall be designed to encourage energy conservation, minimize the need for new electrical generating capacity, and minimize costs of electric energy to consumers, and shall include (but not be limited to) proposals which provide for the development and implementation of—

(1) load management techniques which are cost effective;

(2) rates which reflect marginal cost of service, or time of use of service, or both;

(3) ratemaking policies which discourage inefficient use of fuel and encourage economical purchases of fuel; and

(4) rates (or other regulatory policies) which encourage electric utility system reliability and reliability of major items of electric utility equipment.

(b) The proposals prepared under subsection (a) shall be transmitted to each House of Congress not later than 6 months after August 14, 1976, for review and for such further action as the Congress may direct by law. Such proposals shall be accompanied by an analysis of—

(1) the projected savings (if any) in consumption of petroleum products, natural gas, electric energy, and other energy resources,

(2) the reduction (if any) in the need for new electrical generating capacity, and of the demand for capital by the electric utility industry, and

(3) changes (if any) in the cost of electric energy to consumers,

which are likely to result from the implementation nationally of each of the proposals transmitted under this subsection.

(Pub. L. 94–385, title II, §203, Aug. 14, 1976, 90 Stat. 1143; Pub. L. 95–617, title I, §143, Nov. 9, 1978, 92 Stat. 3134.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Amendments

1978—Subsec. (a). Pub. L. 95–617 substituted "Secretary" for "Administrator", meaning Administrator of the Federal Energy Administration.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
                   Appendix A to Item 601(c) of Regulation S-B
                      Commercial and Industrial Companies
                          Article 5 of Regulation S-X
</LEGEND>
<CIK>                         0001020657
<NAME>                        Advanced Optics Electronics, Inc.
<MULTIPLIER>                                         1
<CURRENCY>                                         USD

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-mos
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                             DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                                JUL-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                  SEP-30-1999
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                        $347,240
<SECURITIES>                                   $67,571
<RECEIVABLES>                                  $67,494
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                    $41,324
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            $1,035,204
<PP&E>                                        $262,755
<DEPRECIATION>                              ($102,691)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              $1,934,191
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          $61,014
<BONDS>                                       $465,509
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                    $1,407,668
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                $1,934,191
<SALES>                                       $261,375
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                              $261,375
<CGS>                                       $1,142,245
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               $1,142,245
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                              $277,820
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                          ($225,115)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                           ($1,221,710)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                       ($1,158,690)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                    ($63,020)
<NET-INCOME>                              ($1,221,710)
<EPS-BASIC>                                    (0.038)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0



</TABLE>
If this opinion indicates that it is “FOR PUBLICATION,” it is subject to 

revision until final publication in the Michigan Appeals Reports.

-1-

S T A T E O F M I C H I G A N

C O U R T O F A P P E A L S

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

UNPUBLISHED

March 12, 2020

v No. 345742

Bay Circuit Court

JAMES EDWARD JONES, LC No. 18-010043-FH

Defendant-Appellant.

Before: CAMERON, P.J., and SHAPIRO and LETICA, JJ.

SHAPIRO, J. (concurring).

I concur in the result only.

/s/ Douglas B. Shapiro
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

For the Northern District of California

 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CHRISTOPHER ELDEN WHITE,

Plaintiff,

v.

DR. JOHN KASAWA, primary

care physician; et al., 

Defendants. /

No. C 08-3781 SI (pr)

JUDGMENT

Judgment is now entered in defendants' favor and against plaintiff.

IT IS SO ORDERED AND ADJUDGED.

Dated: March 17, 2010 _______________________

 SUSAN ILLSTON

United States District Judge

Case 3:08-cv-03781-SI Document 33 Filed 03/17/10 Page 1 of 1
#### Sarah Lombardo, Respondent, v. John Mancuso, Appellant.

Judgment unanimously affirmed, with costs. (Appeal from judgment of Chautauqua Trial Term for plaintiff in a negligence action.) Present — Williams, P. J., Bastow, Goldman, McClusky and Henry, JJ.
Alaska Air Fuel, Inc.

900 Cope Industrial W ay ● Palm er, Alaska 99645 (907) 317 - 5368 ● alan@alaskaairfuel.net June 11, 2015 Re: Petition for exemption To W hom It May Concern: Alaska Air Fuel, Inc. requests an exemption from 14 CFR §§91.313(a) and (c) to the extent necessary to conduct training in Restricted Category Aircraft. Alaska Air Fuel, Inc. operates a fleet of two (2) restricted category aircraft hauling various types of fuel to provide the citizens of Alaska with heating, automotive fuel, and aviation fuel. Werequest that th is exemption allow all pilots and DPE employed (including contract employment) by Alaska Air Fuel, Inc. to conduct training in our restricted category aircraft. The training would include initial type ratings and/ or recurrent training as outlined in FAR P art 61. This exemption would benefit the public as a whole because our operations are critical to the well being of the residents and tourists of Alaska as well as assisting in the currency and proficiency of the flight crew to operate the aircraft in a much safer capacity. This exemption would not adversely affect safety because it would allow for us to complete training in the aircraft which there are no simulators for. Training has been proven as an effective way of reducing accidents and in cidents i n aviation. The aircraft we request exemption with are: 1.) 1944 [M cDonnell] Douglas C54E - DC

- Tail Number: N96358

- Serial Number: 27284

- Type Certificate Data Sheet: A- 762 2.) 1947 [McDonnell] Douglas C54D - DC

- Tail Number: N3054V

- Serial Number: 10547

- Type Certificate Data Sheet: A- 762Alaska Air Fuel, Inc.

900 Cope Industrial W ay ● Palm er, Alaska 99645 (907) 317 - 5368 ● alan@alaskaairfuel.net **Summary :**  Weare re questing an exemption from 14CFR § §91.313 (a) and (c) that would not allow us to be able to conduct the training that has proven to be effective in our operations. This training helps reduce the risk of an emergency which could potentially harm persons or property if it were not done . Training the crewmembers who operate these aircraft to a level of competency so that they are aware of situation s which require operator input is not imperative This is a time - critical request for exemption and would be prudent if this was granted as soon as possible. Sincerely, 

# Alan Cruce Alan Cruce Director of Operations Alaska Air Fuel, Inc.
June 26, 2007 

UBE SCIENTIFIC ANALYSIS LABORATORY, INC. 




1 
2 
3 
4 
5 
6 
7
#### § 1000.220 What are the requirements for the IHP?

The IHP requirements are set forth in section 102(b) of NAHASDA. In addition, §§ 1000.56, 1000.108, 1000.120, 1000.134, 1000.142, 1000.238, 1000.302, and 1000.328 require or permit additional items to be set forth in the IHP for HUD determinations required by those sections. Recipients are only required to provide IHPs that contain these elements in a form prescribed by HUD. If a TDHE is submitting a single IHP that covers two or more Indian tribes, the IHP must contain a separate certification in accordance with section 102(d) of NAHASDA and IHP Tables for each Indian tribe when requested by such Indian tribes. However, Indian tribes are encouraged to perform comprehensive housing needs assessments and develop comprehensive IHPs and not limit their planning process to only those housing efforts funded by NAHASDA. An IHP should be locally driven.

[77 FR 71526, Dec. 3, 2012]
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

Long Haul, Inc.,

Plaintiff,

 v.

Regents of the University of California,

Defendant. /

No. CV09-00168 JSW 

ORDER SCHEDULING TRIAL AND

PRETRIAL MATTERS

Following the Case Management Conference, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Case

Management Statement is adopted, except as expressly modified by this Order. It is further

ORDERED that:

A. DATES

Jury Trial Date: 5/16/2011, at 8:00 a.m., 2 week estimate

Pretrial Conference: Monday, 4/25/2011, at 2:00 p.m. 

Last Day to Hear Dispositive Motions: Friday, 2/11/2011, 9:00 a.m.**

Last Day for Expert Discovery: 11/15/2010

Close of Non-expert Discovery: 9/15/2010 

**if filing cross-motions, counsel shall adhere to the briefing schedule set by the Court at the

January 22, 2010 Initial Case Management Conference (see minutes at Docket #:79)

B. DISCOVERY

The parties are reminded that a failure voluntarily to disclose information pursuant to

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(a) or to supplement disclosures or discovery responses

pursuant to Rule 26(e) may result in exclusionary sanctions. Thirty days prior to the close of

non-expert discovery, lead counsel for each party shall serve and file a certification that all

supplementation has been completed.

Case 3:09-cv-00168-JSW Document 80 Filed 01/25/10 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

C. PROCEDURE FOR AMENDING THIS ORDER

No provision of this order may be changed except by written order of this court upon its

own motion or upon motion of one or more parties made pursuant to Civil. L. R. 7-1 or 7-1-(b)

without a showing of very good cause. If the modification sought is an extension of a deadline

contained herein, the motion must be brought before expiration of that deadline. The parties

may not modify the pretrial schedule by stipulation. A conflict with a court date set after the

date of this order does not constitute good cause. The parties are advised that if they stipulate to

a change in the discovery schedule, they do so at their own risk. The only discovery schedule

that the Court will enforce is the one set in this order. Additionally, briefing schedules that are

specifically set by the court may not be altered by stipulation; rather the parties must obtain

leave of Court.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 25, 2010 

JEFFREY S. WHITE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:09-cv-00168-JSW Document 80 Filed 01/25/10 Page 2 of 2
Exhibit 35.1

AMERICAN HONDA FINANCE CORPORATION

ANNUAL COMPLIANCE CERTIFICATE

PURSUANT TO SECTION 3.11(a) OF THE 

SALE AND SERVICING AGREEMENT AND

ITEM 1123 OF REGULATION AB

I, Paul C. Honda, do hereby certify that I am the Vice President and Assistant Secretary of American Honda Finance Corporation, a California corporation (the “Company”), and further certify on behalf of the Company in its capacity as servicer (the “Servicer” and “Sponsor”) under the Sale and Servicing Agreement (the “Agreement”) dated as of November 26, 2019 among the Servicer and Sponsor, American Honda Receivables LLC, as Seller, and Honda Auto Receivables 2019-4 Owner Trust, as follows:

|   | (i) | A review of the activities of the Servicer during the reporting period ended March 31, 2020, and of its performance under the Agreement has been made under my supervision. |
|--------|-----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   | (ii) | To the best of my knowledge, based on such review, the Servicer has fulfilled all of its obligations under the Agreement throughout such period in all material respects. |
|--------|------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this 29th day of May, 2020.

 

|   | /s/ Paul C. Honda                                    |
|--------|------------------------------------------------------|
|   | Paul C. Honda                                        |  |
|   | Vice President and Assistant Secretary               |  |
|   | (senior officer in charge of the servicing function) |  |