alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 19 / Thursday, January 29, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 4807 

(a) Submit an electronic copy of the 

approved final scientific or technical report, 

not a summary, delivered under this contract 

to the Defense Technical Information Center 

(DTIC) through the web-based input system 

at http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/submit/ as 

required by DoD Instruction 3200.12, DoD 

Scientific and Technical Information 

Program (STIP). Include a completed 

Standard Form (SF) 298, Report 

Documentation Page, in the document, or 

complete the web-based SF 298. 

(b) For instructions on submitting multimedia reports, follow the instructions at 

http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/submit. 

(c) Email classified reports (up to Secret) to 

TR@DTIC.SMIL.MIL. If a SIPRNET email 

capability is not available, follow the 

classified submission instructions at http://

www.dtic.mil/dtic/submit/. 

(End of clause) 

[FR Doc. 2015–01432 Filed 1–28–15; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 5001–06–P 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Fish and Wildlife Service 

50 CFR Part 17 

[Docket No. FWS–R2–ES–2013–0056; 

FXES11130900000–156–FF09E42000] 

RIN 1018–AY46 

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife 

and Plants; Revision to the 

Regulations for the Nonessential 

Experimental Population of the 

Mexican Wolf; Correction 

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, 

Interior. 

ACTION: Final rule; correction. 

SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service, published a final rule 

in the Federal Register on January 16, 

2015, that revises the regulations for the 

nonessential experimental population of 

the Mexican wolf (Canis lupus baileyi). 

In that rule, we made an error in our 

description of Phase 2 by stating that 

dispersal and occupancy of Mexican 

wolves west of Interstate 17 will be 

limited to the area west of Highway 89 

in Arizona. We intended to state that 

dispersal and occupancy of Mexican 

wolves west of Interstate 17 will be 

limited to the area east of Highway 89. 

With this document, we correct our 

error. 

DATES: This correction is effective 

February 17, 2015. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Sherry Barrett, (505) 761–4704. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In a final 

rule that published in the Federal 

Register on January 16, 2015, at 80 FR 

2512, the following correction is made: 

§ 17.84 [Corrected] 

■ 1. On page 2564, in the third column, 

the fourth sentence of 

§ 17.84(k)(9)(iv)(B) is amended by 

removing the words ‘‘west of Highway 

89’’ and adding in their place the words 

‘‘east of Highway 89.’’ 

Dated: January 26, 2015. 

Signed: 

Tina A. Campbell, 

Chief, Division of Policy and Directives 

Management. 

[FR Doc. 2015–01687 Filed 1–28–15; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4310–55–P 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 98-6959

WENDELL DAVID GRIFFIN, Petitioner - Appellant, versus FRANK SIZER, Warden; ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF MARYLAND, Respondents - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District ofMaryland, at Baltimore. Catherine C. Blake, District Judge. (CA97-3669-CCB) Submitted: August 25, 1998 Decided: September 18, 1998 Before WIDENER, LUTTIG, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Wendell David Griffin, Appellant Pro Se. John Joseph Curran, Jr., Attorney General, Ann Norman Bosse, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MARYLAND, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Appellant appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254 (West 1994 & Supp. 1998). We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate ofappealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. Griffin v. Sizer , No. CA-97-3669-CCB (D. Md. June 11, 1998). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
#### Graber, Respondent, vs. Smith, Appellant.

For the appellant: *Clarence E. Rinehard*of Chippewa Falls.

For the respondent: *Culbertson & McPhee*of Stanley.

*By the Court.*

— Judgment affirmed.
```

[Congressional Bills 115th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 195 Engrossed Amendment Senate (EAS)]

<DOC>
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  

                  In the Senate of the United States,

                                                      January 22, 2018.
    Resolved, That the Senate agree to the amendment of the House of 
Representatives to the amendment of the Senate to the bill (H.R. 195) 
entitled ``An Act to amend title 44, United States Code, to restrict 
the distribution of free printed copies of the Federal Register to 
Members of Congress and other officers and employees of the United 
States, and for other purposes.'', with the following

        SENATE AMENDMENT TO HOUSE AMENDMENT TO SENATE AMENDMENT:

    On page 1, line 6, strike [February 16] and insert: February 8.

            Attest:

                                                             Secretary.
115th CONGRESS

  2d Session

                                H.R. 195

_______________________________________________________________________

        SENATE AMENDMENT TO HOUSE AMENDMENT TO SENATE AMENDMENT
```
[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 20 (Friday, January 30, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Page 5198]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2015-01737]



[[Page 5198]]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Surface Transportation Board

[Docket No. FD 35899]


Burlington Shortline Railroad, Inc., d/b/a Burlington Junction 
Railway--Operation Exemption--Rail Line of the City of Le Mars, Iowa

    Burlington Shortline Railroad, Inc., d/b/a Burlington Junction 
Railway (BSLR), a Class III rail carrier, has filed a verified notice 
of exemption under 49 CFR 1150.41 to operate approximately 5,600 feet 
of certain private industry track located inside an industrial park 
owned by the City of Le Mars, Iowa (the City).\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ According to BSLR, there are no mileposts associated with 
the line.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    BSLR states that it has executed a Switching Services Agreement 
with the City giving it the exclusive right to provide switching 
services over the track owned by the City and over connecting industry-
owned track. BSLR further states that it will provide all common 
carrier rail services, replacing industrial switching services that the 
Chicago Central & Pacific Railroad Company currently provides.
    BSLR states that there are no agreements applicable to the line 
imposing any interchange commitments.
    BSLR certifies that its projected annual revenues as a result of 
this transaction will not exceed those that would qualify it as a Class 
II or Class I rail carrier and will not exceed $5 million.
    BSLR states that it intends to consummate the proposed transaction 
on or after April 1, 2015. The transaction may be consummated on or 
after February 13, 2015, the effective date of the exemption (30 days 
after the exemption was filed).
    If the verified notice contains false or misleading information, 
the exemption is void ab initio. Petitions to revoke the exemption 
under 49 U.S.C. 10502(d) may be filed at any time. The filing of a 
petition to revoke will not automatically stay the effectiveness of the 
exemption. Petitions for stay must be filed no later than February 6, 
2015 (at least seven days before the exemption becomes effective).
    An original and ten copies of all pleadings, referring to Docket 
No. FD 35899, must be filed with the Surface Transportation Board, 395 
E Street, SW., Washington, DC 20423-0001. In addition, one copy of each 
pleading must be served on John D. Heffner, Strasburger & Price, LLP, 
1025 Connecticut Ave. NW., Suite 717, Washington, DC 20036.
    Board decisions and notices are available on our Web site at 
www.stb.dot.gov.

    Decided: January 26, 2015.

    By the Board, Rachel D. Campbell, Director, Office of 
Proceedings.
Raina S. White,
Clearance Clerk.
[FR Doc. 2015-01737 Filed 1-29-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4915-01-P
From: Cogliano, Gerain 

Sent: Wednesday, February 10, 2016 1:09 PM

To: 'Jones, Danielle' <Danielle_Y_Jones@omb.eop.gov>

Subject: EPA response to OSHA language on feasibility

Importance: High

Attachments: 

 

OSHA 

feasibility_EPA response.docx

Hi Danielle,

Upon reviewing OSHA’s language on feasibility, we’ve made some revisions. (See attached). If OSHA 

accepts these edits, we won’t need a phone call.

The most substantive change is that we do not see a need to incorporate the case citations into the 

preamble discussion. The paragraph should really just explain the OSHA concerns and request comment. 

The case citations are more information than is necessary for the purpose of soliciting comments.

Let me know if you have any questions or concerns.

Gerain
Attachment: OSHA feasibility_EPA response.docx

Insert for page 93 of the EO 12866 RMP draft

EPA is also proposing to require owners or operators to evaluate the feasibility of implementing 

any IST or ISD considered. EPA believes a feasibility analysis of any considered IST or ISD is necessary to 

ensure the facility owner or operator seriously considers whether IST or ISD modifications could further 

reduce risks and prevent accidents at the facility.

EPA is proposing to use the term “feasibility” to describe this analysis because it is already 

widely used in the context of IST. However, according to OSHA, this term has a distinct meaning under 

the Occupational Safety and Health Act, where the courts look to whether a safety measure is capable of 

being done. In this enforcement context, feasibility means that technical know-how about materials and 

methods is available or adaptable to specific circumstances, which when applied creates a reasonable 

possibility that employee exposure to occupational hazards will be reduced, and that the firm is 

financially able to implement the measure without severe adverse economic effect. Because of the 

potential for confusion, OSHA has indicated that it would be unable to adopt the term feasible, as 

defined in this notice, under its PSM standard if OSHA considers similar revisions involving IST. EPA seeks 

comment on whether it would be better if EPA used another term, such as “practicability” for this 

analysis.

EPA is not proposing to require sources affected by this provision to implement an evaluated IST 

or ISD because the decision to implement such measures must consider the numerous factors related to 

processes, facilities, and society at large. Improper implementation of a seemingly safer alternative may 

lead to undesired consequences. EPA believes that only qualified facility personnel should choose the 

best measures that can reduce the risk of an accident at the facility. This decision should be based on a 

careful analysis and take into account: the chemicals present and their associated hazards; the 

operations and process conditions involved; and the types of equipment used that are specific to the 

facility’s process.

Commented [A1]: OSHA Insert
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v John Rogers, Appellant.

[773 NYS2d 720]

Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Onondaga County (John J. Brunetti, A.J.), rendered January 7, 2002. The judgment convicted defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of attempted assault in the second degree.

It is hereby ordered that the judgment so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously affirmed.

Memorandum: By failing to move to withdraw his plea of guilty or to vacate the judgment of conviction, defendant failed to preserve for our review his contention that his plea was not knowingly and voluntarily entered *(see People v Hogue,*295 AD2d 928 [2002], *lv denied*99 NY2d 536 [2002]; *People v Linares,*174 AD2d 847 [1991], *lv denied*78 NY2d 969 [1991]). The sentence is not unduly harsh or severe. Present—Pigott, Jr., P.J., Green, Hurlbutt, Scudder and Lawton, JJ.
**Exhibit 23.1**

**CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**

We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in theRegistration Statements on Form S-3 (File Nos. 333-****132389, 333-129250, 333-127674 and 333-120930) and on Form S-8 (File Nos. 333-105610 and 333-105609) of Transmeridian Exploration Incorporated of our reports dated March 16, 2006relating to the consolidated financial statements of Transmeridian Exploration Incorporated, Transmeridian Exploration Incorporated’s management assessment of the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting, and the effectivenessof internal control over financial reporting of Transmeridian Exploration Incorporated which appears in the Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2005. 

/s/ UHY MANN FRANKFORT STEIN & LIPP CPAs, LLP 

Houston, Texas 

March 16, 2006
No. 91-6123.

#### Brewster (Johnson) *v.*Board of Review.

Super. Ct. N. J., App. Div. Certiorari denied.
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Health and Human Services

###### National Institutes of Health

Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following meeting.

The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

*Name of Committee:*                         National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases Special Emphasis Panel; Diabetic Gastroparesis.                    

*Date:*                         February 24, 2015.                    

*Time:*                         1:00 p.m. to 5:00 p.m.                    

*Agenda:*                         To review and evaluate grant applications.                    

*Place:*                         National Institutes of Health, Two Democracy Plaza, 6707 Democracy Boulevard, Bethesda, MD 20892 (Telephone Conference Call).                    

*Contact Person:*                         Barbara A. Woynarowska, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Review Branch, DEA, NIDDK, National Institutes of Health, Room 754, 6707 Democracy Boulevard, Bethesda, MD 20892-5452, (301) 402-7172,                         *woynarowskab@niddk.nih.gov*.                    

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.847, Diabetes, Endocrinology and Metabolic Research; 93.848, Digestive Diseases and Nutrition Research; 93.849, Kidney Diseases, Urology and Hematology Research, National Institutes of Health, HHS)

Dated: January 20, 2015.

David Clary,

Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.

[FR Doc. 2015-01226 Filed 1-23-15; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE P
EXHIBIT 99.1

    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 Galaxy Investments, Inc. (the "Company")
on Form 10-KSB for the year ending November 30, 2002, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Marc E.
Bruner, President (principal 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:

(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 results of operations of the
       Company.


/s/ MARC E. BRUNER
--------------------------------------
Marc E. Bruner, President
Principal Executive Officer