alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Programmatic FEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan 1355

Appendix J. Maps

The maps in appendix J address management areas and the recreation opportunity spectrum 

(ROS) for the alternatives. Maps of the potential natural vegetation types found on the forests are 

also included.

Appendix J

Programmatic FEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan 1357

Figure 86. Map of management areas, alternative A – Sitgreaves NF
Appendix I

1358 Programmatic FEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan

Figure 87. Map of management areas, alternative A – Apache NF
Appendix J

Programmatic FEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan 1359

Figure 88. Map of management areas, alternative B – Sitgreaves NF
Appendix J

1360 Programmatic FEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan Figure 89. Map of management areas, alternative B – Apache NF
Appendix J

Programmatic FEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan 1361

Figure 90. Map of management areas, alternative C – Sitgreaves NF
Appendix J

1362 Programmatic FEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan Figure 91. Map of management areas, alternative C – Apache NF
Appendices

Programmatic FEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan 1363

Figure 92. Map of management areas, alternative D – Sitgreaves NF
Appendix J

1364 Programmatic FEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan Figure 93. Map of management areas, alternative D – Apache NF
Appendix J

Programmatic FEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan 1365

Figure 94. Map of ROS, alternative A – Sitgreaves NF
Appendix J

1366 Programmatic FEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan Figure 95. Map of ROS, alternative A – Apache NF
Appendices

Programmatic FEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan 1367

Figure 96. Map of ROS, alternative B – Sitgreaves NF
Appendix J

1368 Programmatic FEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan Figure 97. Map of ROS, alternative B – Apache NF
Appendices

Programmatic FEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan 1369

Figure 98. Map of ROS, alternative C – Sitgreaves NF
Appendix J

1370 Programmatic FEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan Figure 99. Map of ROS, alternative C – Apache NF
Appendices

Programmatic FEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan 1371

Figure 100. Map of ROS, alternative D − Sitgreaves NF
Appendix J

1372 Programmatic FEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan Figure 101. Map of ROS, alternative D – Apache NF
Appendices

Programmatic FEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan 1373

Figure 102. Map of PNVTs – Sitgreaves NF
Appendices

1374 Programmatic FEIS for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs Land Management Plan Figure 103. Map of PNVTs 

– Apache NF
Editorial Note on Part 878
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 878 appear at 73 FR 35341, June 23, 2008.

§ 878.3590 Ear prosthesis. ( a ) *Identification.* An ear prosthesis is a silicone rubber solid device intended to be implanted to reconstruct the external ear.
( b ) *Classification.* Class II.
Editorial Note on Part 862
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 862 appear at 73 FR 35341, June 23, 2008.

§ 862.3640 Morphine test system. ( a ) *Identification.* A morphine test system is a device intended to measure morphine, an addictive narcotic pain-relieving drug, and its analogs in serum, urine, and gastric contents. Measurements obtained by this device are used in the diagnosis and treatment of morphine use or overdose and in monitoring levels of morphine and its analogs to ensure appropriate therapy.
( b ) *Classification.* Class II (special controls). A morphine test system is not exempt if it is intended for any use other than employment or insurance testing or is intended for Federal drug testing programs. The device is exempt from the premarket notification procedures in subpart E of part 807 of this chapter subject to the limitations in § 862.9, provided the test system is intended for employment and insurance testing and includes a statement in the labeling that the device is intended solely for use in employment and insurance testing, and does not include devices intended for Federal drug testing programs (*e.g.,* programs run by the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA), the Department of Transportation (DOT), and the U.S. military).
[52 FR 16122, May 1, 1987, as amended at 84 FR 71798, Dec. 30, 2019]
J

~~ tED STq r

~ S UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY z o 

# ~ Q WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460 z 2

0 PROS

~ G
~

\ 

### APR 1 1 20?1

OFFICE OF AIR AND RADIATION J. R. Stroble Director, National TRU Program Carlsbad Field Office Department of Energy P.O. Box 3090 Carlsbad, NM 88221
Dear Mr. Stroble: We received your letter dated Apri18, 2011, requesting the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA's) concurrence on the draft expansion certification memo the Carisbad Field Office (CBFO) plans to issue to the Central Characterization Project (CCP) at the Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL). We concur with the draft expansion certification memo to include containers from Nuclear Fuel Services (NFS) burial trench soils (S4000) in waste stream OR-NFS-CH-SOIL per our approval of March 23, 2011 (See EPA Air pocket No. A-98-49, II-A4-144). In accordance with EPA regulations at 40 CFR 194.8 (69 FR 42571-42583), on August 21, 2008, EPA approved the CH TRU waste characterization program at ORNL (See EPA Air pocket No. A-98-49, II-A4-103). The addition of the NFS waste was made in accordance with that and subsequent EPA approvals. The EPA limitations applicable to the characterization of CH TRU retrievably-stored debris waste are appropriately included in Attachment 4 of the draft expansion certification memo. The waste characterization equipment, procedures and processes mentioned in the ORNL draft expansion certification memo are consistent with EPA's existing approvals at the site. Thank you for providing us with an opportunity to review the draft expansion certification memo for ORNL CCP. If you have any questions or concerns, please contact me at 202-343-9422. Sincerely,



# ~ Edward Feltcorn Center for Waste Management and Regulations

Internet Address (URL) o http://www.epa.gov Recycled/Recyclable o Printed with Vegetable Oil Based Inks on 100% Postconsumer, Process Chlorine Free Recycled Papercc: (Electronic Distribution)

Norma Castaneda, CBFO NTP Court Fesmire, CBFO NTP Martin Navarrete, CBFO QA Dennis Miehls, CBFO QA Raymond Lee, EPA
#### Mark Donahue *v.*Everett Barnes

*Sidney Vogel,*in support of the petition.

Submitted October 20

decided November 6, 1969

The petition by the plaintiff for certification for appeal from the Appellate Division of the Circuit Court is denied.
§ 1.1-2 Limitation on tax. ( a ) *Taxable years ending before January 1, 1971.* For taxable years ending before January 1, 1971, the tax imposed by section 1 (whether by subsection (a) or subsection (b) thereof) shall not exceed 87 percent of the taxable income for the taxable year. For purposes of determining this limitation the tax under section 1 (a) or (b) and the tax at the 87-percent rate shall each be computed before the allowance of any credits against the tax. Where the alternative tax on capital gains is imposed under section 1201(b), the 87-percent limitation shall apply only to the partial tax computed on the taxable income reduced by 50 percent of the excess of net long-term capital gains over net short-term capital losses. Where, for purposes of computations under the income averaging provisions, section 1201(b) is treated as imposing the alternative tax on capital gains computed under section 1304(e)(2), the 87-percent limitation shall apply only to the tax equal to the tax imposed by section 1, reduced by the amount of the tax imposed by section 1 which is attributable to capital gain net income for the computation year.
( b ) *Taxable years beginning after December 31, 1970.* If, for any taxable year beginning after December 31, 1970, an individual has earned taxable income which exceeds his taxable income as defined by section 1348, the tax imposed by section 1, as amended by the Tax Reform Act of 1969, shall not exceed the sum computed under the provisions of section 1348. For imposition of minimum tax for tax preferences see sections 56 through 58.
[T.D. 7117, 36 FR 9397, May 25, 1971]
Exhibit 31.1



CERTIFICATIONS



I, Paul C. Honda, certify that:



1. I have reviewed this report on Form 10-K and all reports
on Form 10-D required to be filed in respect of the period covered by this report on Form 10-K of Honda Auto Receivables 2015-3
Owner Trust (the “Exchange Act periodic reports”);



2. Based on my knowledge, the Exchange Act periodic reports,
taken as a whole, do not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the
statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period
covered by this report;



3. Based on my knowledge, all of the distribution, servicing
and other information required to be provided under Form 10-D for the period covered by this report is included in the Exchange
Act periodic reports;



4. I am responsible for reviewing the activities performed by
the servicer and based on my knowledge and the compliance review conducted in preparing the servicer compliance statement required
in this report under Item 1123 of Regulation AB, and except as disclosed in the Exchange Act periodic reports, the servicer has
fulfilled its obligations under the servicing agreement in all material respects; and



5. All of the reports on assessment of compliance with servicing
criteria for asset-backed securities and their related attestation reports on assessment of compliance with servicing criteria
for asset-backed securities required to be included in this report in accordance with Item 1122 of Regulation AB and Exchange Act
Rules 13a-18 and 15d-18 have been included as an exhibit to this report, except as otherwise disclosed in this report. Any material
instances of noncompliance described in such reports have been disclosed in this report on Form 10-K.



In giving the certifications above, I have
reasonably relied on information provided to me by the following unaffiliated party: MUFG Union Bank, N.A.



Date: June 10, 2016



|/s/ Paul C. Honda                                    | 
|---------------------------------------------------- | 
|Paul C. Honda                                        | 
|Vice President and Assistant Secretary               | 
|American Honda Finance Corporation                   | 
|(senior officer in charge of the servicing function) |
Editorial Note on Part 1
Editorial Note: IRS redesignated the following sections to appear below the undesignated center heading “Regulations Applicable to Certain Bonds Sold Prior to July 8, 1997” and preceding the undesignated center heading “Deductions for Personal Exemptions.” See 62 FR 25507 and 25513, May 9, 1997 for the specific sections involved in the redesignation.

§ 1.408-7 Reports on distributions from individual retirement plans. ( a ) *Requirement of report.* The trustee of an individual retirement account or the issuer of an individual retirement annuity who makes a distribution during any calendar year to an individual from such account or under such annuity shall make a report on Form W-2P (in the case of distributions that are not total distributions) or Form 1099R (in the case of total distributions), and their related transmittal forms, for such year. The return must show the name and address of the person to whom the distribution was made, the aggregate amount of such distribution, and such other information as is required by the forms.
( b ) *Amount subject to this section.* The amounts subject to reporting under paragraph (a) include all amounts distributed or made available to which section 408(d) applies.
( c ) *Time and place for filing.* The report required under this section for any calendar year shall be filed after the close of that year and on or before February 28 of the following year with the appropriate Internal Revenue Service Center.
( d ) *Statement to recipients.* ( 1 ) Each trustee or issuer required to file Form 1099R or Form W-2P under this section shall furnish to the person whose identifying number is (or should be) shown on the forms a copy of the form.
( 2 ) Each statement required by this paragraph to be furnished to recipients shall be furnished to such person after November 30 of the year of the distribution and on or before January 31 of the following year. However, for a distribution after December 31, 2008, the February 15 due date under section 6045 applies to the statement if the statement is furnished in a consolidated reporting statement under section 6045. *See* §§ 1.6045-1(k)(3), 1.6045-2(d)(2), 1.6045-3(e)(2), 1.6045-4(m)(3), and 1.6045-5(a)(3)(ii).
( e ) *Effective date.* This section is effective for calendar years beginning after December 31, 1977.
[T.D. 7714, 45 FR 52798, Aug. 8, 1980, as amended by T.D. 9504, 75 FR 64084, Oct. 18, 2010]
39276.

#### HANSARD v. GEORGIA POWER COMPANY.

Decided March 8, 1962.

*Walter B. Fincher, Joe Salem,*for plaintiff in error.

*Smith, Field, Bingel, Martin & Carr, Richard D. Carr, W. Dent Aeree,*contra.

Feankum, Judge.

E. F. Hansard, an employee of Georgia Power Company, while working for his employer, died as a result of a heart attack. His widow filed a claim for 'compensation under the Workmen’s Compensation Law. Compensation was denied. *Held:*

The mere fact that an employee suffered a fatal heart attack while working for his employer does not, in and of itself, require a finding that the attack was caused by exertion on the part of the employee in the course of his employment. *Hoffman v. National Sur. Corp.,*91 Ga. App. 414 (85 SE2d 784); *Griffeth v. County of Barrow,*92 Ga. App. 698 (89 SE2d 895); *Callaway Mills Co. v. Hurley,*100 Ga. App. 781 (112 SE2d 320), s. c. 104 Ga. App. 811 (123 SE2d 7).

“No rule is more firmly established under the workmen’s compensation law than that stated in *Maryland Casualty Co. v. Hopkins,*71 Ga. App. 175, 177 (30 SE2d 357): ‘The workmen’s compensation act makes the finding of the board upon the facts final and conclusive, and in the absence of fraud such finding cannot be set aside by any court, if there is any competent evidence to support it. [Citations.] The weight and credit to be given to the testimony of the witnesses and also the conflicts in the evidence were matters for determination by the board. [Citations.]’ ” *Wilkins v. Employers Mut. Liab. Ins. Co.,*101 Ga. App. 467 (1) (114 SE2d 216).

There is sufficient evidence to support the finding of the State Board of Workmen’s Compensation that the employee’s duties did not precipitate the heart attack.

The superior court did not err in affirming the award of the State Board of Workmen’s Compensation.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*Nichols, P. J., and Jordan, J., concur.*
tp 

. 
Bon. T. M. Trimble, paga #2 

-lY 

time 

"Xt is our aonstrutition thnt the oontraots cran 

affect those ahlldren in the distrlot at the 

the contra&s are aonsummtsd,* 

Replying, to tha above, we reapeotfully cell,your attention to O~IXI~JXW numbered O-4855 and 0-4855~1. 

Article 2696 reads aa r0li0ws; 

"Any ohlld lavifullg enrolleb in any diatriat 

ar independent dlstrlot, nay by ordar of the 

county auperlntendent,~ ba ~rsnaierred to the enrollmant or any other dietrlot dp indepandant 

diatriat in the aanm county upon a written eppliaation of the parent m guardian cc person 

having lawful aontrol ot'auoh child, filed with. 

the oountg aupar%ntendant pravidea that any 

district or independent al atrlot bafng diasatiaiied tith ang tranater.mado b the aountg superintsndent mrey appeal irerm su ag eotion to 6ho 

aountg boa& o? truatees~af aala oounty who ahall 

have tbs right to anal WI oanaal tha transfer 

allowed bs the aaunty saparlntwiuaat. 

Wpoa the aerbizioaOion of the transfer OS any 

ahild, tiom one dAetriat%a annothar dlatriat, 

ale aallay superint4ILuent or the oauaty la whx 3 

the ehlld resides at th4 tlmo of t&e tranafar, tha 

StateD4pritnwmtof Eduoatlcm 8hall authoeiasthe 

state !hwustarer to p4y ma? aima* 

appmtlolaasat, in iaa4pona4a~ dist x 

the pksr ~8qita 

ata 4f tl*o 

huadrad (400) or nmre fwholemtia pspulatien, to tha 

tUniiriat to whiah suah ahlld lo tnnsfarza&j aad in 

8ll other dietriats, be aouaty superlattmdoats, to 

b"r i 

id b k&n to the rsapeatiire dZstriats to rhiah 

ma ahil rem ax-a trenafarm4~ prmia4u, a0 trmsrer ahall bs aado attar August let, Aat8 X905, 

263; Aats 1935, I&h Lag&, pI I+@, ~Ca,- 201, sad,' , 

p-*. 

~hildmn tranafarW,out of a dlstriat cicm to A ust 

1 are no longer on the sehola5tio anrollmaat of their ii homa ifIb 

trlate, but ara on the aarol.ke8it of the reoelvlng dldtrhli, 

and are not inaludea in a transfar e6?ntraat made Chekwaftar; 

and your question is 80 83aawerea~i 

VerF auly youra 

ATT- crsIQsB& OF TgKAR 

AwRom OCTI 4, 1943 By /a/ C. F. Gibson 

#rover 9al.lars Aesiataat 

FYI! ASICTANT A’YPORNEY Gm, AFTROm CPI19Ia3 COMBITTEE, By
**NEW JERSEY DEPARTME NT OF TRANSPORTATION**  **RETROFIT SWITCH YARD LOCOMOTIVES, STATEWIDE RACM Analysis** 

Michael Baker Jr., Inc. Locomotives - 1 **Control Measure:** Retrofit Switch Yard Locomotives (SYL) **Description:** Both 2 - stroke and 4 - stroke switch yard locomotives in a total of 10 switch yards throughout the ozone nonattainment area and 9 yards in the PM 2.5 nonattainment area will utilize retro fit and idle reduction equipment to reduce emissions from 5 engines per yard. **Documentation:**  Current operable switch yard locations found at: www.conrail.com/freight.htm  U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, “Guidance for Quantifying and Using Long Duration Switch Yard Locomotive Idling Emission Reductions in State Implementation Plans,” Office of Transportation and Air Quality, January, 2004.  U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, “Case Study: Chicago L ocomotive Idle Reduction Project,” Office of Air and Radiation, March, 2004.  Department of Energy, Energy Information Administration (EIA), Retail Gasoline Prices: http://www.eia.doe.gov/oil_gas/petroleum/data_publications/wrgp/mogas_home_page.html **Inputs/A ssumptions:**   SYL operates 90% of the days out of the year, or 329 days. The industry average is 92%  SYL idles 10 hours per day, 3,000 hours annually.  Al l idle hours can be impacted by idle reduction technology.  There are 10 counties in the ozone nonattainment area with at least one yard.  There are 9 counties in the PM2.5 nonattainment area with at least one yard.  Each yard will retrofit 5 engines: 3, 4 - stroke and 2, 2 - stroke.  The current documentation does not include any guidance on calculating VOC or SO2 emissions or benefits.  The cost of the idle reduction technology is spread over the assumed life of 6 years.  Retrofit technology for each SYL is assumed to cost $30,000.  Gasoline cost = $2.40/gallon  The average SYL consumes 0.8 gallons of fuel per hour of idling.  Emission factors: 2 - Stroke (g/hr) 4 - Stroke

(g/hr) APU

(g/hr) NOx 800 620 71 PM2.5 26 32 5.7 **Results:** Ozone Analysis – Daily Benefits (tpd ) in New Jersey:

**Benefits (Reductions)**  **Ozone Non -** **At tainment A**  **rea NY**  **- NJ**  **- CT**  **PA -**  **NJ -**  **MD -**  **DE VOC (Tons/Day** **)** NA NA **NOx (Tons/Day** **)** 0.17 0.17**NEW JERSEY DEPARTME NT OF TRANSPORTATION**  **RETROFIT SWITCH YARD LOCOMOTIVES, STATEWIDE RACM Analysis** 

Michael Baker Jr., Inc. Locomotives - 2 PM 2.5 Analysis – Annual Benefits (tpy) in New Jersey:

**Benefits (Reductions)**  **PM 2.5**  **Non -** **At tainment A**  **rea NY**  **- NJ**  **- C**  **T PA** **- NJ**  **- DE**  **NOx (Tons/Year)** 61.61 30.80 **PM2.5 (Tons/Year)** 2.37 1.19 **SO 2**  **(Tons/Year)** NA NA Cost Benefit Results:

**Nonattainment A rea**  **Ozone ($/tpd) VOC**  **NOx** NY- NJ - CT NA $ (585) PA- NJ - MD - DE NA $ (585) Statewide NA $ (585 ) **Nonattainment A rea**  **PM2.5 ($/tpy )**  **NOx PM2.5**  **SO2** NY- NJ - CT $ (370) $ (9,616) NA PA- NJ - DE $ (370) $ (9,616) NA Statewide $ (370) $ (9,616) NA * Parentheses denote a cost savings.
§ 1.1451-2 Exemptions from withholding under section 1451. ( a ) *Claiming personal exemptions.* Withholding under § 1.1451-1 from interest on bonds or other obligations of corporations issued before January 1, 1934, and containing a tax-free covenant shall not be required if there is filed with the withholding agent when presenting coupons for payment, or not later than February 1 of the following year, an ownership certificate on Form 1000 stating: ( 1 ) In the case of a citizen or resident of the United States, that his taxable income does not exceed his deductions for personal exemptions allowed under section 151; or
( 2 ) In the case of an estate or trust the fiduciary of which is a citizen or resident of the United States, that its taxable income does not exceed the deduction for the personal exemption allowed under section 642(b).
( b ) *Claiming residence in United States.* To claim residence in the United States for purposes of section 1451, see § 1.1441-5.
( c ) *Other exemptions.* The exemptions allowed by paragraphs (d) and (h) of § 1.1441-4 shall also apply for purposes of section 1451.
[T.D. 6500, 25 FR 12077, Nov. 26, 1960, as amended by T.D. 6908, 31 FR 16774, Dec. 31, 1966]
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING

MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

OF FLORIDA

SECOND DISTRICT

KRISTEN L. BELLANT, )

)

Appellant, )

)

v. ) Case No. 2D17-2013

)

GEORGE M. BELLANT, )

)

Appellee. )

________________________________ )

Opinion filed March 16, 2018.

Appeal from the Circuit Court for Manatee

County; Edward Nicholas, Judge.

Melton H. Little and James M. Horne, Jr., 

of Kallins, Little & Delagado, Palmetto,

for Appellant.

Peter J. Mackey and Drew F. Chesanek of

Mackey Law Group, P.A., Bradenton, for

Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

LaROSE, C.J., and NORTHCUTT and BADALAMENTI, JJ., Concur.
#### State of Connecticut *v.*Yvonne Stanley

It appearing that the state has failed to defend with proper diligence against the appeal of the defendant from the judgment of the Appellate Division of the Circuit Court affirming the judgment of the Circuit Court in the tenth circuit finding the defendant guilty as charged, it is, under Practice Book § 696, ordered by the Supreme Court, suo motu, that the judgments of the trial court and the *626Appellate Division are set aside and the case is remanded to the Circuit Court in the tenth circuit with direction to render judgment that the defendant is not guilty and ordering that she be discharged.

*Michael A. RaJcosky,*assistant prosecuting attorney, for the appellee (state).

*Joseph D. Harbaugh,*special public defender, for the appellant (defendant).

Argued February 4

decided February 5, 1969
<PAGE>

EXHIBIT 32.1

                            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 Annual Report of Evergreen Solar, Inc. (the "Company") on
Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2004 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Richard M. Feldt,
Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, that to my knowledge:

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

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

/s/ Richard M. Feldt
----------------------------
Richard M. Feldt
Chief Executive Officer
March 10, 2005