alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
§ 30.405 After selecting a treating physician, may an employee choose to be treated by another physician instead? ( a ) OWCP will provide the employee with an opportunity to designate a treating physician when it accepts the claim. When the physician originally selected to provide treatment for an occupational illness or a covered illness refers the employee to a specialist for further medical care, the employee need not consult OWCP for approval. In all other instances, however, the employee must submit a written request to OWCP with his or her reasons for desiring a change of physician.
( b ) OWCP will approve the request if it determines that the reasons submitted are credible and supported by probative factual and/or medical evidence, as appropriate. Requests that are often approved include those for transfer of care from a general practitioner to a physician who specializes in treating the occupational illnesses or covered illnesses covered by EEOICPA, or the need for a new physician when an employee has moved.
( c ) OWCP may deny a requested change of physician if it determines that the reasons submitted are not both credible and supported by probative evidence. If a claimant disagrees with such an informal denial, he or she may utilize the adjudicatory process described in subpart D of this part.
[71 FR 78534, Dec. 29, 2006, as amended at 84 FR 3052, Feb. 8, 2019]
§ 6.4 Jurisdictional limits. ( a ) *General.* The regulations in this part apply where: ( 1 ) The industry member induces a retailer to purchase distilled spirits, wine, or malt beverages from such industry member to the exclusion in whole or in part of products sold or offered for sale by other persons in interstate or foreign commerce; and
( 2 ) If: ( i ) The inducement is made in the course of interstate or foreign commerce; or
( ii ) The industry member engages in the practice of using an inducement to such an extent as substantially to restrain or prevent transactions in interstate or foreign commerce in any such products; or
( iii ) The direct effect of the inducement is to prevent, deter, hinder or restrict other persons from selling or offering for sale any such products to such retailer in interstate or foreign commerce.
( b ) *Malt beverages.* In the case of malt beverages, this part applies to transactions between a retailer in any State and a brewer, importer, or wholesaler of malt beverages inside or outside such State only to the extent that the law of such State imposes requirements similar to the requirements of section 105(b) of the Federal Alcohol Administration Act (27 U.S.C. 205(b)), with respect to similar transactions between a retailer in such State and a brewer, importer, or wholesaler or malt beverage in such State, as the case may be.
[T.D. ATF-74, 45 FR 63251, Sept. 23, 1980, as amended by T.D. ATF-364, 60 FR 20421, Apr. 26, 1995]
#### § 1002.311 Is there a statute of limitations in an action under USERRA?

USERRA does not have a statute of limitations, and it expressly precludes the application of any State statute of limitations. At least one court, however, has held that the four-year general Federal statute of limitations, 28 U.S.C. 1658, applies to actions under USERRA. *Rogers* v. *City of San Antonio,* 2003 WL 1566502 (W.D. Texas), *reversed on other grounds,* 392 F.3d 758 (5th Cir. 2004). But see *Akhdary* v. *City of Chattanooga,* 2002 WL 32060140 (E.D. Tenn.). In addition, if an individual unreasonably delays asserting his or her rights, and that unreasonable delay causes prejudice to the employer, the courts have recognized the availability of the equitable doctrine of *laches* to bar a claim under USERRA. Accordingly, individuals asserting rights under USERRA should determine whether the issue of the applicability of the Federal statute of limitations has been resolved and, in any event, act promptly to preserve their rights under USERRA.
Editorial Note on Part 40
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 40 appear by T.D. ATF-460, 66 FR 39094-39096, July 27, 2001; T.D. ATF-464, 66 FR 43479, Aug. 20, 2001; and T.D. TTB-91, 76 FR 5479, Feb. 1, 2011.

§ 40.41 Forms prescribed. ( a ) The appropriate TTB officer is authorized to prescribe all forms required by this part. All of the information called for in each form shall be furnished as indicated by the headings on the form and the instructions on or pertaining to the form. In addition, information called for in each form shall be furnished as required by this part. When a return, form, claim, or other document called for under this part is required by this part, or by the document itself, to be executed under penalties of perjury, it shall be executed under penalties of perjury.
( b ) Forms prescribed by this part are available for printing through the TTB Web site (*http://www.ttb.gov*) or by mailing a request to the Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau, National Revenue Center, 550 Main Street, Room 1516, Cincinnati, OH 45202.
(5 U.S.C. 552(a) (80 Stat. 383, as amended))
[T.D. ATF-92, 46 FR 46921, Sept. 23, 1981, as amended by T.D. ATF-232, 51 FR 28080, Aug. 5, 1986; T.D. ATF-243, 52 FR 43194, Dec. 1, 1986; T.D. ATF-372, 61 FR 20725, May 8, 1996; T.D. TTB-44, 71 FR 16949, Apr. 4, 2006]
### Part G—Alien Clerks and Employees
_______________________________________ __ Michigan Supreme Court 

# Order

Lansing, Michigan

May 30, 2006 Clifford W. Taylor, Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh Elizabeth A. Weaver 130582 & (21) Marilyn Kelly Maura D. Corrigan Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markman, PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Justices Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 130582 COA: 263178 Kent CC: 02-007277-FH JOHN RUSSELL PARKER, Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the application fo r leave to appeal the January 6, 2006 order of the Court of Appeals is considered, a nd it is DENIED, because the defendant has failed to meet the burden of establishing entitlement to re lief under MCR 6.508(D). The motion for appointment of counsel is DENIED.

d0522 I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

May 30, 2006

Clerk
NO. 12-21-00146-CV

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT

TYLER, TEXAS

RICHARD KIRBY AND JULIE KIRBY, 

APPELLANTS

V.

BENNY FLETCHER,

APPELLEE

§

§

§

APPEAL FROM THE

COUNTY COURT AT LAW

SMITH COUNTY, TEXAS

MEMORANDUM OPINION

PER CURIAM

This appeal is being dismissed for failure to comply with the Texas Rules of Appellate 

Procedure. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3(c).

Appellants, Richard Kirby and Julie Kirby, filed a pro se notice of appeal on August 30, 

2021. That same day, the Clerk of this Court notified Appellant that the notice of appeal failed 

to contain the information specifically required by Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 25.1(d) 

and Section 51.017(a) of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code. See TEX. R. APP. P.

25.1(d) (contents of notice); see also TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE ANN. § 51.017(a) (West 

Supp. 2019) (notice of appeal must be served on each court reporter responsible for preparing 

reporter’s record). The notice warned that, unless Appellant filed a proper notice of appeal on or 

before September 9, the appeal would be referred to the Court for dismissal. Appellants did not 

file a compliant notice of appeal or otherwise respond to this Court’s notice.1

Because Appellants failed, after notice, to comply with Rule 21.5(d) and Section 

51.017(a), the appeal is dismissed. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3(c) (on its own initiative after giving 

1 Pro se litigants are held to the same standards as licensed attorneys and must comply with all applicable 

rules of procedure; otherwise, pro se litigants would benefit from an unfair advantage over parties represented by 

counsel. Muhammed v. Plains Pipeline, L.P., No. 12-16-00189-CV, 2017 WL 2665180, at *2 n.3 (Tex. App.—

Tyler June 21, 2017, no pet.) (mem. op.).
2

ten days’ notice to all parties, appellate court may dismiss appeal if appeal is subject to dismissal 

because appellant failed to comply with a requirement of these rules, a court order, or a notice 

from the clerk requiring a response or other action within a specified time). All pending motions 

are overruled as moot.

Opinion delivered September 22, 2021.

Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Hoyle, J., and Neeley, J.
COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT OF TEXAS

JUDGMENT

SEPTEMBER 22, 2021

NO. 12-21-00146-CV

RICHARD KIRBY AND JULIE KIRBY,

Appellants

V.

BENNY FLETCHER,

Appellee

Appeal from the County Court at Law

of Smith County, Texas (Tr.Ct.No. 73211)

THIS CAUSE came to be heard on the appellate record; and the same being 

considered, it is the opinion of this Court that this appeal should be dismissed.

It is therefore ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED by this Court that the 

appeal be, and the same is, hereby dismissed; and that this decision be certified to the court 

below for observance.

By per curiam opinion. Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Hoyle, J. and Neeley, J.
### §§3961 to 3973. Repealed. Pub. L. 100–297, title II, §2303, Apr. 28, 1988, 102 Stat. 324

Section 3961, Pub. L. 98–377, title II, §201, Aug. 11, 1984, 98 Stat. 1273, related to purpose of subchapter.

Section 3962, Pub. L. 98–377, title II, §202, Aug. 11, 1984, 98 Stat. 1274, defined "junior or community college".

Section 3963, Pub. L. 98–377, title II, §203, Aug. 11, 1984, 98 Stat. 1274; Pub. L. 99–159, title II, §222(a), Nov. 22, 1985, 99 Stat. 897; Pub. L. 100–418, title VI, §6005, Aug. 23, 1988, 102 Stat. 1471, related to program authorized.

Section 3964, Pub. L. 98–377, title II, §204, Aug. 11, 1984, 98 Stat. 1274; Pub. L. 99–159, title II, §223, Nov. 22, 1985, 99 Stat. 897, related to allotment to States.

Section 3965, Pub. L. 98–377, title II, §205, Aug. 11, 1984, 98 Stat. 1275; Pub. L. 99–159, title II, §222(b), Nov. 22, 1985, 99 Stat. 897, related to in-State apportionment.

Section 3966, Pub. L. 98–377, title II, §206, Aug. 11, 1984, 98 Stat. 1275; Pub. L. 99–159, title II, §224, Nov. 22, 1985, 99 Stat. 898, related to elementary and secondary education programs.

Section 3967, Pub. L. 98–377, title II, §207, Aug. 11, 1984, 98 Stat. 1277; Pub. L. 99–159, title II, §225, Nov. 22, 1985, 99 Stat. 899, related to higher education programs.

Section 3968, Pub. L. 98–377, title II, §208, Aug. 11, 1984, 98 Stat. 1278; Pub. L. 99–159, title II, §226, Nov. 22, 1985, 99 Stat. 899, related to State assessments of mathematics, science, foreign languages, and computer learning.

Section 3969, Pub. L. 98–377, title II, §209, Aug. 11, 1984, 98 Stat. 1279; Pub. L. 99–159, title II, §227, Nov. 22, 1985, 99 Stat. 899, related to State applications.

Section 3970, Pub. L. 98–377, title II, §210, Aug. 11, 1984, 98 Stat. 1280; Pub. L. 99–159, title II, §228, Nov. 22, 1985, 99 Stat. 900, related to local educational agency assessments.

Section 3971, Pub. L. 98–377, title II, §211, Aug. 11, 1984, 98 Stat. 1281; Pub. L. 99–159, title II, §228A, Nov. 22, 1985, 99 Stat. 900, related to participation of children and teachers from private nonprofit schools.

Section 3972, Pub. L. 98–377, title II, §212, Aug. 11, 1984, 98 Stat. 1281; Pub. L. 99–159, title II, §229, Nov. 22, 1985, 99 Stat. 900, related to Secretary's discretionary fund for programs of national significance.

Section 3973, Pub. L. 98–377, title II, §213, Aug. 11, 1984, 98 Stat. 1282; Pub. L. 99–159, title II, §230, Nov. 22, 1985, 99 Stat. 900, related to payments.

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

#### Effective Date of Repeal

Repeal effective July 1, 1988, see section 6303 of Pub. L. 100–297, set out as an Effective Date of 1988 Amendment note under section 1071 of this title.
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

29

30

31

DAY HIGH

 9,036

 8,496

 8,835

 8,153

 8,369

 9,369

 10,782

 10,856

 10,698

 11,318

 11,743

 11,990

 12,130

 12,244

 12,251

 11,492

 11,308

 11,072

 10,786

 10,517

 12,227

 13,250

 14,019

 13,038

 13,817

 14,421

 14,648

 14,757

 14,086

 12,914

 12,302

 2,544

 2,580

 3,086

 3,100

 2,862

 3,229

 3,244

 3,496

 2,966

 2,980

 2,707

 3,292

 3,856

 4,214

 4,443

 4,359

 4,726

 5,039

 5,247

 5,361

 5,319

 5,733

 5,718

 4,940

 5,248

 5,543

 5,798

 6,097

 6,039

 5,638

 5,245

 5,680

 5,545

 5,891

 5,861

 5,235

 5,330

 5,897

 6,226

 6,508

 6,726

 6,882

 7,428

 7,834

 7,990

 7,810

 7,637

 7,722

 8,035

 8,080

 7,649

 7,753

 8,471

 8,854

 8,724

 8,935

 9,487

 9,928

 10,115

 9,890

 9,144

 8,802

LOW MEAN

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

U.S. BUREAU OF RECLAMATION-CENTRAL VALLEY PROJECT-CALIFORNIA

AUGUST 2000 WATER QUALITY REPORT RUN DATE: September 5, 2000

ELECTRICAL CONDUCTIVITY, UMHOS 

Comments:

0 reading indicates that the station was out of service.

PORT CHICAGO TOP IN SUISUN BAY
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

29

30

31

DAY HIGH

 6,706

 5,656

 5,204

 4,266

 3,684

 3,683

 3,845

 3,651

 3,943

 4,136

 3,578

 15,054

 19,867

 19,854

 18,265

 18,165

 18,135

 16,259

 14,851

 15,752

 16,654

 17,610

 18,447

 18,947

 19,046

 20,132

 19,815

 19,759

 19,449

 19,304

 19,089

 2,612

 2,342

 2,235

 2,026

 1,971

 1,533

 1,958

 2,045

 1,869

 1,740

 2,046

 1,804

 7,384

 7,500

 7,863

 8,155

 8,218

 8,191

 7,440

 7,379

 7,551

 7,358

 7,062

 7,052

 7,069

 6,854

 6,772

 7,678

 7,433

 8,720

 8,768

 4,287

 3,817

 3,601

 3,155

 2,899

 2,714

 2,784

 2,808

 2,783

 2,822

 2,822

 7,773

 12,966

 12,823

 12,677

 13,267

 13,073

 12,311

 11,312

 10,995

 11,270

 11,239

 11,654

 11,874

 12,075

 12,143

 12,150

 12,664

 12,982

 13,801

 13,556

LOW MEAN

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

U.S. BUREAU OF RECLAMATION-CENTRAL VALLEY PROJECT-CALIFORNIA

AUGUST 2008 WATER QUALITY REPORT RUN DATE: September 2, 2008

ELECTRICAL CONDUCTIVITY, UMHOS 

Comments:

0 reading indicates that the station was out of service.

PITTSBURG BOTTOM ON THE SACRAMENTO RIVER
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

29

30

31

DAY HIGH

 4,432

 4,488

 4,967

 5,698

 8,402

 7,943

 4,867

 6,103

 6,130

 6,650

 8,342

 7,717

 10,422

 11,001

 8,516

 8,316

 6,257

 3,804

 1,200

 624

 455

 438

 422

 537

 475

 532

 703

 1,688

 525

 324

 773

 695

 586

 560

 735

 839

 1,131

 881

 1,074

 1,134

 1,096

 1,728

 1,574

 2,698

 1,653

 1,693

 1,619

 613

 558

 430

 315

 304

 287

 273

 260

 249

 250

 243

 245

 218

 230

 230

 1,797

 1,630

 1,868

 2,224

 3,400

 3,575

 2,342

 2,634

 2,844

 3,162

 3,894

 3,688

 5,041

 5,098

 4,153

 4,082

 3,199

 1,716

 659

 428

 374

 327

 299

 308

 291

 297

 315

 435

 296

 257

 319

LOW MEAN

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

U.S. BUREAU OF RECLAMATION-CENTRAL VALLEY PROJECT-CALIFORNIA

MARCH 2012 WATER QUALITY REPORT RUN DATE: May 18, 2012

ELECTRICAL CONDUCTIVITY, UMHOS 

Comments:

0 reading indicates that the station was out of service.

PITTSBURG BOTTOM ON THE SACRAMENTO RIVER
### §§114 to 114d–1. Repealed. Pub. L. 107–171, title X, §10418(a)(8), (9), May 13, 2002, 116 Stat. 508

Section 114, act May 29, 1884, ch. 60, §3, 23 Stat. 32, related to regulations for suppression of diseases and cooperation of States and Territories.

Section 114a, act May 29, 1884, ch. 60, §11, as added Sept. 21, 1944, ch. 412, title I, §101(a), 58 Stat. 734; amended Oct. 30, 1951, ch. 637, §1, 65 Stat. 693; Aug. 8, 1953, ch. 381, 67 Stat. 493; Aug. 3, 1956, ch. 950, §2, 70 Stat. 1032; Pub. L. 87–518, §7, July 2, 1962, 76 Stat. 131; Pub. L. 101–624, title XXV, §2509(c)(2), Nov. 28, 1990, 104 Stat. 4071, related to control and eradication of diseases, cooperation of States and farmers' associations, purchase and destruction of diseased animals, and defined "State" for statutory purposes.

A prior section 11 of act May 29, 1884, required annual reports to Congress concerning the suppression of contagious diseases among domestic animals, and was classified to section 560 of former Title 5, prior to repeal by act May 29, 1928, ch. 901, §1, 45 Stat. 993.

Section 114a–1, act May 29, 1884, ch. 60, §13, as added Oct. 30, 1951, ch. 637, §2, 65 Stat. 693, related to interstate movement of domestic animals reacting to tests for brucellosis, immediate slaughter, and rules and regulations.

Section 114b, act Feb. 28, 1947, ch. 8, §1, 61 Stat. 7; Pub. L. 89–521, §1, July 27, 1966, 80 Stat. 330; Pub. L. 92–152, §1, Nov. 5, 1971, 85 Stat. 418; Pub. L. 94–231, §3, Mar. 15, 1976, 90 Stat. 216; Pub. L. 101–255, §1(1), Mar. 15, 1990, 104 Stat. 114; Pub. L. 101–624, title XXV, §2505, Nov. 28, 1990, 104 Stat. 4068, related to cooperation in animal disease control.

Section 114c, act Feb. 28, 1947, ch. 8, §2, 61 Stat. 7; Aug. 3, 1956, ch. 950, §3, 70 Stat. 1033; Pub. L. 92–152, §2, Nov. 5, 1971, 85 Stat. 419; Pub. L. 101–255, §1(2), Mar. 15, 1990, 104 Stat. 114, related to use of funds.

Section 114d, act Feb. 28, 1947, ch. 8, §3, as added Pub. L. 101–255, §1(3), Mar. 15, 1990, 104 Stat. 114, related to sale of sterile screwworms.

A prior section 114d, act Feb. 28, 1947, ch. 8, §3, 61 Stat. 8, related to reports by Secretary of Agriculture to Congress with respect to activities carried on under sections 114b and 114c of this title, prior to repeal by Pub. L. 86–533, §1(20), June 29, 1960, 74 Stat. 249.

Section 114d–1, act Feb. 28, 1947, ch. 8, §5, as added Pub. L. 89–521, §2, July 27, 1966, 80 Stat. 330; amended Pub. L. 101–255, §1(5), Mar. 15, 1990, 104 Stat. 114, related to cooperation with public and private entities.

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

#### Short Title

Section 6 of act Feb. 28, 1947, ch. 8, as added by Pub. L. 101–255, §1(6), Mar. 15, 1990, 104 Stat. 114, provided that the act Feb. 28, 1947, ch. 8, which enacted sections 114b to 114d–1 of this title and provisions set out as a note under former section 114b of this title, could be referred to as the "Animal Disease Control Cooperation Act of 1947".
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

29

30

31

DAY HIGH

 27,189

 24,566

 22,286

 19,919

 20,147

 19,770

 18,392

 15,686

 10,848

 13,409

 11,359

 13,545

 20,598

 20,597

 20,079

 18,112

 21,797

 20,009

 21,529

 23,499

 25,395

 26,060

 26,541

 24,900

 24,914

 25,169

 23,408

 22,542

 23,806

 22,397

 22,349

 17,164

 14,364

 12,732

 10,404

 9,017

 7,641

 5,143

 3,399

 3,015

 4,091

 3,997

 5,723

 8,233

 7,700

 7,585

 7,860

 6,557

 9,143

 10,797

 11,135

 10,311

 10,727

 11,256

 10,569

 11,817

 13,268

 12,096

 12,153

 13,422

 13,184

 12,625

 22,851

 20,296

 17,663

 15,521

 14,346

 13,322

 11,114

 8,793

 7,804

 9,093

 8,186

 9,298

 13,825

 14,347

 13,258

 12,864

 13,232

 14,323

 15,407

 16,043

 17,673

 18,240

 17,966

 17,943

 19,060

 19,433

 18,783

 18,391

 18,545

 18,628

 18,532

LOW MEAN

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

U.S. BUREAU OF RECLAMATION-CENTRAL VALLEY PROJECT-CALIFORNIA

MARCH 2014 WATER QUALITY REPORT RUN DATE: June 6, 2014

ELECTRICAL CONDUCTIVITY, UMHOS 

Comments:

0 reading indicates that the station was out of service.

PORT CHICAGO TOP IN SUISUN BAY
RE: Response to OMB Comments on CO NAAQS 

Rosalina Rodriguez to: Kymn, Christine J. 08/08/2011 01:28 PM

Cc: Sherry Russell, Margaret Morrison

Christine, we are proceeding to schedule the meeting for 9-10am tomorrow morning. Margaret will call 

you with the call-in number. Is this a wrap up meeting and could you give me an idea of the specifics to 

be discussed? It's the full interagency panel, right? Thanks.

RR

919-541-5298 

"Kymn, Christine J." Hi Rosalina, Thanks again to EPA for sending... 08/08/2011 11:53:15 AM

From: "Kymn, Christine J." <Christine_J._Kymn@omb.eop.gov>

To: Rosalina Rodriguez/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA

Cc: Lydia Wegman/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, Richard Wayland/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, Karen 

Martin/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, Lewis Weinstock/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, Deirdre 

Murphy/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, Nealson Watkins/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, Joseph 

Somers/AA/USEPA/US@EPA, David Orlin/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, James 

Hemby/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, Bill Lamason/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, Sherry 

Russell/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA

Date: 08/08/2011 11:53 AM

Subject: RE: Response to OMB Comments on CO NAAQS

Hi Rosalina,

Thanks again to EPA for sending this response.  Do folks have time around COB today for a quick call?

Have a great day,

Christine

From: Rodriguez.Rosalina@epamail.epa.gov [mailto:Rodriguez.Rosalina@epamail.epa.gov] 

Sent: Thursday, August 04, 2011 4:38 PM

To: Kymn, Christine J.

Cc: Wegman.Lydia@epamail.epa.gov; Wayland.Richard@epamail.epa.gov; 

Martin.Karen@epamail.epa.gov; Weinstock.Lewis@epamail.epa.gov; Murphy.Deirdre@epamail.epa.gov; 

Watkins.Nealson@epamail.epa.gov; Somers.Joseph@epamail.epa.gov; Orlin.David@epamail.epa.gov; 

Hemby.James@epamail.epa.gov; Lamason.Bill@epamail.epa.gov; Russell.Sherry@epamail.epa.gov

Subject: Response to OMB Comments on CO NAAQS

Hi, Christine:

Attached is a file with our response to the 2 comments we received with respect to monitoring under the 

CO NAAQS, currently under OMB review (with court ordered deadline for signature of August 12). 

Specifically, the two comments we addressed are: (1) rationale for the 1 million population threshold, and 

(2) consideration of comments regarding safety concerns for near-road monitors.

Please let us know if you have further comments. Thank you.

Rosalina M. Rodriguez

Associate Division Director, Health and Environmental Impacts Division, USEPA

919-541-5298
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

DAY ELEVATION

 241.43

 241.21

 240.43

 240.05

 239.72

 239.80

 239.74

 239.79

 239.79

 239.72

 239.99

 240.53

 240.47

 240.87

 240.95

 240.96

 241.95

 240.56

 240.56

 241.70

 241.63

 240.95

 240.39

 240.30

 240.27

 239.90

 239.41

 239.02

 675

 641

 529

 477

 436

 446

 439

 445

 445

 436

 469

 543

 535

 590

 601

 602

 755

 547

 547

 717

 706

 601

 524

 511

 507

 458

 399

 352

STORAGE

-43

-34

-112

-52

-41

+10

-7

+6

+0

-9

+33

+74

-8

+55

+11

+1

+153

-208

+0

+170

-11

-105

-77

-13

-4

-49

-59

-47

CHANGE

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 170

 170

 164

 167

 35

 0

 0

 60

 16,319

 15,894

 13,545

 10,200

 9,050

 10,645

 10,874

 10,643

 10,411

 10,306

 9,414

 14,795

 14,816

 15,113

 14,985

 17,674

 19,842

 15,530

 15,941

 16,374

 16,569

 14,973

 13,861

 13,109

 13,364

 10,443

 8,962

 7,892

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

U.S. BUREAU OF RECLAMATION-CENTRAL VALLEY PROJECT-CALIFORNIA

FEBRUARY 2003 RED BLUFF DIVERSION RESERVOIR DAILY OPERATIONS RUN DATE: March 13, 2003

IN LAKE

CANAL

 ACRE-FEET

TOTALS -366 766 371,544

ACRE-FEET -366 1,519 736,958

SUMMARY

RELEASE (ACRE-FEET)

TOTAL 738,735

 718

RELEASE

RIVER

CORNING TO SACTO

CANAL

RELEASE C.F.S

TEHAMA

COLUSA

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 16

 17

 0

 0

 0

 20

 23

 23

 31

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 0

 130

 258

CORNING CANAL 258

TEHAMA-COLUSA CANAL 1,519

TO SACTO RIVER 736,958

Table 9
(No. 73-CC-371

#### Ascot House, Claimant, *vs.*State of Illinois, Governor’s Office of Human Resources, Respondent.

*Opinion filed, July 13, 1973.*

Ascot House, Claimant, pro se.

William J. Scott, Attorney General; Saul R. Wexler, Assistant Attorney General, for Respondent.

Per Curiam.
#### The Equitable Life Assurance Society of the United States, Respondent, v. Ella N. Seiniger, Appellant, Impleaded with Others.

Order affirmed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements. No opinion. Present— Ingraham, P. J., Laughlin, Clarke, Scott and Hotchkiss, JJ.
### Part F—Consular Agents