alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
BF
a USGS U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

science fora changing world U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY

PROFESSIONAL PAPER 1411-B

Transmissivity of and maximum yields from the Redwall-Leadville zone—PLATE 3
Geldon, A.L., 2002, Hydrologic properties and ground-water flow systems of the Paleozoic rocks in the Upper
Colorado River Basin in Arizona, Colorado, New Mexico, Utah, and Wyoming, excluding the San Juan Basin

37°

Base from U.S. Geological Survey

Fontenelle
Reservoir

BOUNDARY OF
UPPER COLORADO
RIVER BASIN

AREA EXCLUDED FROM STUDY }
1
2 —/ 107°
— 36°

a) > a y

Se ~
108°
1:2,000,000

25 50 75 100 MILES
| J
T T T T

25 50 75 100 KILOMETERS

oo

COMPOSITE TRANSMISSIVITY

HOGSBACK

SPRING

INDIAN BIG
SPRING

BIG
SPRING
111°
5.009 :

KG)
S
ss

; BOWLES FISH
HATCHERY

BOUNDARY OF
: j f j 107° UPPER COLORADO

a RIVER BASIN

Springs ¢

Mss

——"37°
‘Navajo :

Reservoir DA

|

AREA EXCLUDED FROM STUDY }

i . ie 4107°
BLUE x oN 7 :

SPRING

1:2,000,000

Ze) 50 75 100 MILES
1 J
T T T T

25 50 75 100 KILOMETERS

o-oo

MAXIMUM YIELDS

EXPLANATION

as

an m Area where the Redwall-Leadville zone is missing because of erosion or
nondeposition

Composite Transmissivity

Relative composite transmissivity

ae

2 | Moderate

Small

—10— _ Line of equal estimated composite transmissivity—Location is approximate.
Interval, in feet squared per day, is variable

—_ _ Limit of data

Data sites

Site of pumping or flowing well test from which transmissivity was calculated by
analysis of drawdown- or recovery-versus-time data

Site of pumping test with specific capacity data from which transmissivity was
estimated

Maximum Yields

Relative maximum yield

ml.
Moderate

Small

—100-— Line of equal maximum yield from wells and springs under artesian
conditions—Dashed where approximately located. Interval, in gallons per
minute, is variable

Data sites
. Borehole—Yield is flow into or from well
2 Spring—Labeled if discharge equals or exceeds 1,000 gallons per minute.

Largest discharge (Blue Spring) is 45,000 gallons per minute

U.S. base map, 1:2,500,000

COMPOSITE TRANSMISSIVITY OF AND MAXIMUM YIELDS FROM THE REDWALL-LEADVILLE ZONE OF THE MADISON AQUIFER IN THE UPPER COLORADO RIVER BASIN AND VICINITY

IN ARIZONA, COLORADO, NEW MEXICO, UTAH, AND WYOMING

By
Arthur L. Geldon
2002
March 12, 2015 

Mr. Michael S. Bradshaw 

ArrowData, LLC 

777 North Rainbow Boulevard 380 

Las Vegas, NV 89107 

Dear Mr. Bradshaw: 

This letter is to inform you that we are unable to process your request for an exemption. It 

explains why we cannot process your request and what you should do in the next 30 days. 

Why We Cannot Process Your Request 

We entered your January 8, 2015, exemption request of behalf of ArrowData, LLC 

into the public docket (No. FAA-2015-0131), but we are unable to process your request any 

further. The information you sent does not comply with the requirements of § 11.81 (copy 

enclosed). For us to consider the request any further, you must send us all of the following: 

 The reasons why granting the request would be in the public interest; that is, how it would 

benefit the public as a whole. 

 Any additional information, views, or arguments available to support your request. 

What You Should Do 

If you want us to process your request any further, you must send the information described 

earlier to reach us within 30 days. Please note that § 11.63(d) requires you to send your 

petition for exemption at least 120 days before the proposed effective date of the exemption. 
2 

If We Do Not Hear From You 

If we do not hear from you within 30 days, we will close the docket without notifying you 

further. If you have any questions or require additional time, you may call (202) 267-9677. 

Sincerely, 

/s/ 

Nia Daniels 

Program Analyst, Airmen and 

 Airspace Rules Division 

Enclosure
#### Commissioner of Welfare of the City of New York, v. Michael Janicki.

Motion for leave to appeal as a poor person denied, with leave to renew upon proper papers and upon appropriate service of copies thereof on the attorney for the complainant-respondent. Concur — Botein, P. J., Valente, Stevens, Eager and Bergan, JJ.
§ 77.2104 Record and inspection. ( a ) The operator shall make the written safety program available for inspection by authorized representatives of the Secretary and provide a copy upon request.
( b ) The operator shall make the written safety program available for inspection by miners and their representatives and, at no cost, provide a copy upon request.
FREMONT

CARBON

SWEETWATER

ALBANY

NATRONA

SUBLETTE

LINCOLN

CONVERSE

CROOK

UINTA

LARAMIE

WESTON

PLATTE

GOSHEN

NIOBRARA

§ ̈¦25

§ ̈¦80

§ ̈¦80

§ ̈¦80

§ ̈¦25

§ ̈¦90

Bridger-Teton

Thunder 

Basin

Medicine-Bow

Medicine-Bow

Rawlins

Casper

Rock Springs

Kemmerer

Pinedale

Yellowstone Newcastle

National Park

Lusk

Yoder

Hanna

Baggs

Afton

Hulett

Glendo

Casper

Douglas

Bairoil

Rawlins

Laramie

Superior

Sundance

Saratoga

La Barge Guernsey

Pinedale

Kemmerer

Evanston

Cheyenne

Wheatland

Wamsutter

Cokeville

Chugwater

Big Piney

Newcastle

Torrington

Rock River

Pine Bluffs

Green River

Medicine Bow

Fort Laramie

Elk Mountain

Rock Springs

Grand Encampment

0 20 40 80

Miles

0 25 50 100

Kilometers

Wyoming Sage-Grouse 

Land Use Plan Amendments

o

NO WARRANTY IS MADE BY THE BLM FOR USE OF 

THE DATA FOR PURPOSES NOT INTENDED BY BLM.

LUP Amendments Planning Area

BLM Field Office Boundary

Forest Service Planning Unit Boundary

Closed to leasing of non-energy solid minerals

BLM and USFS Surface Lands

Sage-grouse Priority/Core Habitat Areas

Sage-grouse Connectivity Habitat Areas

Counties

Water

Interstate

State / US Hwy

Cities

Map 2-26: Alternative C

Areas Closed to Non-energy 

Solid Leasable Minerals
Editorial Note on Part 75
Editorial Note: The provisions of this part marked [Statutory Provision] appear in Title III of the Federal Coal Mine Health and Safety Act of 1969.

§ 75.209 Automated Temporary Roof Support (ATRS) systems. ( a ) Except in anthracite mines and as specified in paragraphs (b) and (c) of this section, an ATRS system shall be used with roof bolting machines and continuous-mining machines with integral roof bolters operated in a working section. The requirements of this paragraph shall be met according to the following schedule: ( 1 ) All new machines ordered after March 28, 1988.
( 2 ) All existing machines operated in mining heights of 36 inches or more after March 28, 1989; and
( 3 ) All existing machines operated in mining heights of 30 inches or more but less than 36 inches after March 28, 1990.
( b ) After March 28, 1990 the use of ATRS systems with existing roof bolting machines and continuous-mining machines with integral roof bolters operated in a working section where the mining height is less than 30 inches shall be addressed in the roof control plan.
( c ) Alternative means of temporary support shall be used, as specified in the roof control plan, when— ( 1 ) Mining conditions or circumstances prevent the use of an ATRS system; or
( 2 ) Temporary supports are installed in conjunction with an ATRS system.
( d ) Persons shall work or travel between the support device of the ATRS system and another support, and the distance between the support device of the ATRS system and support to the left, right or beyond the ATRS system, shall not exceed 5 feet.
( e ) Each ATRS system shall meet each of the following: ( 1 ) The ATRS system shall elastically support a deadweight load measured in pounds of at least 450 times each square foot of roof intended to be supported, but in no case less than 11,250 pounds.
( 2 ) The controls that position and set the ATRS system shall be— ( i ) Operable from under permanently supported roof; or
( ii ) Located in a compartment, which includes a deck, that provides the equipment operator with overhead and lateral protection, and has the structural capacity to elastically support a deadweight load of at least 18,000 pounds.
( 3 ) All jacks affecting the capacity of the ATRS system and compartment shall have check valves or equivalent devices that will prevent rapid collapse in the event of a system failure.
( 4 ) Except for the main tram controls, tram controls for positioning the equipment to set the ATRS system shall limit the speed of the equipment to a maximum of 80 feet-per-minute.
( f ) The support capacity of each ATRS system and the structural capacity of each compartment shall be certified by a registered engineer as meeting the applicable requirements of paragraphs (e)(1) and (e)(2) of this section. The certifications shall be made available to an authorized representative of the Secretary and representative of the miners.
###### Editorial Note on Part 75

#### Editorial Note:

The provisions of this part marked [Statutory Provision] appear in Title III of the Federal Coal Mine Health and Safety Act of 1969.

#### § 75.508-1 Mine tracks.

When mine track is used as a conductor of a trolley system, the location of such track shall be shown on the map required by § 75.508, with a notation of the number of rails and the size of such track expressed in pounds per yard.
*Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the Court has determined that this

opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the

limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

_______________________

No. 02-50239

Summary Calendar

_______________________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

DARRELL ANDRE WILBERT,

Defendant-Appellant.

_________________________________________________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

U.S.D.C. No. W-99-CR-91-1

_________________________________________________________________

October 21, 2002

Before JONES, STEWART and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Darrell Andre Wilbert, federal prisoner #03001-180,

pleaded guilty to possession with intent to distribute crack

cocaine and was sentenced to 146 months’ imprisonment, five years

supervised release, and a $3,000 fine, with payment to begin
2

immediately. Wilbert filed the instant “Motion for Fine

Reassessment and Payment Plan,” asking the district court to

establish a payment plan for his $3,000 fine. He alleged that the

Bureau of Prisons (BOP) was requiring him to pay more per month

than he could afford. Wilbert appeals the district court’s denial

of this motion.

Wilbert did not challenge the legality of or the

imposition of his sentence in his motion in the district court.

His motion was limited to a request for the district court to set

up a payment plan for his fine. Any other arguments in his brief

are raised for the first time on appeal and will not be addressed.

See United States v. Madkins, 14 F.3d 277, 279 (5th Cir. 1994);

Leverette v. Louisville Ladder Co., 183 F.3d 339, 342 (5th Cir.

1999).

Wilbert’s motion challenged the manner in which the BOP

was administering the Inmate Financial Responsibility Program

(IFRP) in his case and asked the district court to set up a payment

plan. His motion did not explicitly attack any action by the

sentencing court. Wilbert’s motion is in the nature of a 28 U.S.C.

§ 2241 petition, and it should have been filed in the district of

his incarceration. See Pack v. Yusuff, 218 F.3d 448, 451 (5th Cir.

2000).

Accordingly, the district court’s order is VACATED and

this case is REMANDED with instructions that the district court
3

enter an order dismissing Wilbert’s 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition for

lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

VACATED and REMANDED.
#### § 885.14 How long is my grant?

The performance period for your grant will be the time period you request in your grant application.
§ 90.301T Respirable dust control plan; approval by District Manager; copy to part 90 miner. Cross Reference
Link to an amendment published at 89 FR 28485 , Apr. 18, 2024.
As of April 14, 2025: ( a ) The District Manager will approve respirable dust control plans on a mine-by-mine basis. When approving respirable dust control plans, the District Manager shall consider whether: ( 1 ) The respirable dust control measures would be likely to maintain concentrations of respirable coal mine dust below the standard; and
( 2 ) The operator's compliance with all provisions of the respirable dust control plan could be objectively ascertained by MSHA.
( b ) MSHA may take respirable dust samples to determine whether the respirable dust control measures in the operator's plan effectively maintain concentrations of respirable coal mine dust below the standard.
( c ) The operator shall comply with all provisions of each respirable dust control plan upon notice from MSHA that the respirable dust control plan is approved.
( d ) The operator shall provide a copy of the current respirable dust control plan required under this part to the part 90 miner. The operator shall not post the original or a copy of the plan on the mine bulletin board.
( e ) The operator may review respirable dust control plans and submit proposed revisions to such plans to the District Manager for approval.
[89 FR 28485, Apr. 18, 2024]
gaMa Gas Appliance Manufacturers Association

2107 Wilson Boulevard, Suite 600 Arlington, VA 22201

Phone: (703) 525-7060 Fax: (703) 525-6790 www.gamanet.org

March 18, 2002

Mr. Cyrus Nasseri

Program Manager

Office ofBuilding Research and Standards (MS EE-41)

U.S. Department of Energy

1000 Independence Avenue, SW

Washington D.C. 20585

Re: Docket No. EE-RM/STD-0 1-3 50

Efficiency Standards for Residential Furnaces and Boilers

Dear Mr. Nasseri:

The Gas Appliance Manufacturers Association (GAMA), on behalf of our members,

is pleased to provide you with furnace jacket loss data in support of your review of

the NAECA efficiency standards for furnaces and boilers. The data comprise all the

furnace jacket loss testing that Intertek Testing Services (ITS) performed as part of

GAMA's performance certification program in 2001.

This information is normally not available to the public, but we are pleased to make it

available to you and the public as part of this proceeding. Please look to us to

continue to provide you with useful information in the months ahead.

Best Regards,

Mark Kendall

Director, Technical. Services

Attachment

EE-RM/STD-01-350 COMMENT 22
Furnace Jacket Loss Test Results

22 Furnace Models from ITS Testing, 2001

Gas Appliance Manufacturers Association

Submitted to the U.S. DOE on March 18, 2002

Rated Measured

Input, Jacket

kBtu/hr. Loss, %

40 0.38

40 0.99

50 0.57

60 0.32

60 0.3

75 0.36

80 0.58

80 0.37

100 0.34

100 0.31

100 0.21

100 0.45

100 0.35

115 9.45

115 0.14

120 0.22

120 0.21

120 0.28

125 0.19

125 0.17

125 0.36

150 0.34

1.2

1

0.8

0.6

0.4

0.2

0

Furnace Jacket Loss Test Results for 2001

75 80 85 90 95 100

Rated AFUE (%)

Furnace Jacket Loss Test Results for 2001

1.2

1

0.8

N

N

3 0.6

0.4

0.2

0

0

y = -0.3003Ln(x) + 1.7092

R2=03947

20 40 60 80 100

Input (kBTUh)

0

120 140 160

Rated Measured

AFUE, % Jacket

Loss, %

80 0.17

80 0.21

80 0.32

80 0.34

80 0.34

80 0.35

80 0.36

80 0.37

80 0.45

80 0.45

80 0.57

80 0.58

80 0.99

81 0.14

81 0.36

92 0.21

93 0.22

93 0.28

93 0.3

93 0.31

94 0.19

96 0.38

EE-RM/STD-01-350 COMMENT 22
#### § 556.712 What is the effective date of a transfer?

Any transfer is effective at 12:01 a.m. on the first day of the month following the date on which BOEM approves your request, unless you request an earlier effective date and BOEM approves that earlier date, but such earlier effective date, if prior to the date of BOEM's approval, does not relieve you of obligations accrued between that earlier effective date and the date of approval.
###### Editorial Note on Part 817

#### Editorial Note:

At 82 FR 54999, Nov. 17, 2017, as required by the Congressional Review Act and Public Law 115-5, the Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement removed all amendments to part 817 made effective on Jan. 19, 2017, at 81 FR 93418, Dec. 20, 2016.

#### § 817.13 Casing and sealing of exposed underground openings: General requirements.

Each exploration hole, other drillhole or borehole, shaft, well, or other exposed underground opening shall be cased, lined, or otherwise managed as approved by the regulatory authority to prevent acid or other toxic drainage from entering ground and surface waters, to minimize disturbance to the prevailing hydrologic balance and to ensure the safety of people, livestock, fish and wildlife, and machinery in the permit area and adjacent area. Each exploration hole, drill hole or borehole or well that is uncovered or exposed by mining activities within the permit area shall be permanently closed, unless approved for water monitoring or otherwise managed in a manner approved by the regulatory authority. Use of a drilled hole or monitoring well as a water well must meet the provisions of § 817.41 of this part. This section does not apply to holes drilled and used for blasting, in the area affected by surface operations.

[44 FR 15422, Mar. 13, 1979, as amended at 48 FR 14822, Apr. 5, 1983; 48 FR 43992, Sept. 26, 1983; 81 FR 93418, Dec. 20, 2016; 82 FR 54999, Nov. 17, 2017]
### §60137. Pipeline control room management

(a) In General.—Not later than June 1, 2008, the Secretary shall issue regulations requiring each operator of a gas or hazardous liquid pipeline to develop, implement, and submit to the Secretary or, in the case of an operator of an intrastate pipeline located within the boundaries of a State that has in effect an annual certification under section 60105, to the head of the appropriate State authority, a human factors management plan designed to reduce risks associated with human factors, including fatigue, in each control center for the pipeline. Each plan must include, among the measures to reduce such risks, a maximum limit on the hours of service established by the operator for individuals employed as controllers in a control center for the pipeline.

(b) Review and Approval of the Plan.—The Secretary or, in the case of an operator of an intrastate pipeline located within the boundaries of a State that has in effect an annual certification under section 60105, the head of the appropriate State authority, shall review and approve each plan submitted to the Secretary or the head of such authority under subsection (a). The Secretary and the head of such authority may not approve a plan that does not include a maximum limit on the hours of service established by the operator of the pipeline for individuals employed as controllers in a control center for the pipeline.

(c) Enforcement of the Plan.—If the Secretary or the head of the appropriate State authority determines that an operator's plan submitted to the Secretary or the head of such authority under subsection (a), or implementation of such a plan, does not comply with the regulations issued under this section or is inadequate for the safe operation of a pipeline, the Secretary or the head of such authority may take action consistent with this chapter and enforce the requirements of such regulations.

(d) Compliance With the Plan.—Each operator of a gas or hazardous liquid pipeline shall document compliance with the plan submitted by the operator under subsection (a) and the reasons for any deviation from compliance with such plan. The Secretary or the head of the appropriate State authority, as the case may be, shall review the reasonableness of any such deviation in considering whether to take enforcement action or discontinue approval of the operator's plan under subsection (b).

(e) Deviation Reporting Requirements.—In issuing regulations under subsection (a), the Secretary shall develop and include in such regulations requirements for an operator of a gas or hazardous liquid pipeline to report deviations from compliance with the plan submitted by the operator under subsection (a).

(Added Pub. L. 109–468, §12(a), Dec. 29, 2006, 120 Stat. 3494.)
Electronically Filed Intermediate Court of Appeals CAAP-16-0000334 05-SEP-2017 10:34 AM
§ 910.773 Requirements for permits and permit processing. ( a ) Part 773 of this chapter, *Requirements for Permits and Permit Processing,* shall apply to any person who applies for a permit for surface coal mining and reclamation operations.
( b ) In addition to the requirements of part 773, the following permit application review procedures shall apply: ( 1 ) Any person applying for a permit shall submit five copies of the application to the Office.
( 2 ) The Office shall review an application for administrative completeness and acceptability for further review and shall notify the applicant in writing of the findings. The Office may: ( i ) Reject a flagrantly deficient application, notifying the applicant of the findings;
( ii ) Request additional information required for completeness stating specifically what information must be supplied and negotiate the date by which the information must be submitted; or
( iii ) Judge the application administratively complete and acceptable for further review.
( 3 ) Should the applicant not submit the information as required by § 910.773(b)(2)(ii) by the specified date, the Office may reject the application. When the applicant submits the required information by the specified date, the Office shall review it and advise the applicant concerning its acceptability.
( 4 ) When the application is judged administratively complete, the applicant shall be advised by the Office to file the public notice required § 773.6 of this chapter.
( 5 ) A representative of the Office shall visit the proposed permit area to determine whether the operation and reclamation plans are consistent with actual site conditions. The applicant will be notified in advance of the time of the visit. At the time of the visit, the applicant shall have the locations of the proposed permit boundaries, topsoil storage areas, sediment control structures, roads, and other significant features contained in the application marked by flags.
( c ) In addition to the information required by subchapter G of this chapter, the Office may require an applicant to submit supplementary information to ensure compliance with applicable Federal laws and regulations other than the Act.
( d ) Issuance of permits shall also be coordinated with permits issued pursuant to the Georgia Water Quality Control Act, section 17-501; the Georgia Solid Waste Management Act, section 43-1681; the Georgia Air Quality Act of 1973; the Georgia Hazardous Waste Management Act of 1979; the Georgia Groundwater Use Act; and the rules of the Georgia Fire Safety Commission on blasters' permits.
( e ) The Secretary shall provide for coordination of review and issuance of permits for surface mining and reclamation operations with applicable requirements of the Georgia Wildflower Preservation Act of 1973, section 43-1801 *et seq.;* the Georgia Endangered Wildlife Act of 1973, section 43-2101 *et seq.;* the Georgia Heritage Trust Act of 1975, section 43-2301 *et seq.;* and the Georgia Cave Protection Act of 1977, section 43-2501 *et seq.*
[52 FR 13806, Apr. 24, 1987, as amended at 65 FR 79672, Dec. 19, 2000]