alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# Euroopan unionin C 160A/27.

| | ISSN 1977-1053 |
| --- | --- |
| Euroopan unionin
  virallinen lehti | C 160A |
| | |
| Suomenkielinen laitos | Tiedonantoja ja ilmoituksia | 57. vuosikerta27. toukokuu 2014 |

ISSN 1977-1053

Euroopan unionin

virallinen lehti

C 160A

Suomenkielinen laitos

Tiedonantoja ja ilmoituksia

57. vuosikerta27. toukokuu 2014

---

| Ilmoitusnumero | Sisältö | Sivu |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | V   Ilmoitukset |
| | HALLINNOLLISET MENETTELYT |
| | Euroopan lääkevirasto |
| 2014/C 160A/01 | Ilmoitus peruuttamisesta | 1 |

Ilmoitusnumero

Sisältö

Sivu

V   Ilmoitukset

HALLINNOLLISET MENETTELYT

Euroopan lääkevirasto

2014/C 160A/01

Ilmoitus peruuttamisesta

1

| | |
| --- | --- |
| 2014/C 160A/02 | Luettelo EUVL:n C A -sarjassa julkaistuista kilpailuista | 2 |

2014/C 160A/02

Luettelo EUVL:n C A -sarjassa julkaistuista kilpailuista

2

| FI | |
| --- | --- |

FI

---

V Ilmoitukset

HALLINNOLLISET MENETTELYT

Euroopan lääkevirasto

| 27.5.2014 | FI | Euroopan unionin virallinen lehti | CA 160/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.5.2014

FI

Euroopan unionin virallinen lehti

CA 160/1

---

Ilmoitus peruuttamisesta

2014/C 160 A/01

Euroopan lääkevirasto on päättänyt peruuttaa valintamenettelyn:

| — | EMA/AD/359: Tietotekniikan käyttöosaston päällikkö, tietotekniikan jaosto (AD 10). |
| --- | --- |

—

EMA/AD/359: Tietotekniikan käyttöosaston päällikkö, tietotekniikan jaosto (AD 10).

---

27.5.2014

| 27.5.2014 | FI | Euroopan unionin virallinen lehti | CA 160/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

FI

Euroopan unionin virallinen lehti

CA 160/2

---

LUETTELO EUVL:N C A -SARJASSA JULKAISTUISTA KILPAILUISTA

2014/C 160 A/02

Jäljempänä luettelo kuluvana vuonna julkaistuista C A -lehdistä.

Mikäli toisin ei mainita, EUVL on julkaistu kaikkina kieliversioina.

| 5 | |
| --- | --- |
| 6 | |
| 11 | |
| 19 | |
| 21 | |
| 26 | |
| 27 | |
| 30 | (PL) |
| 35 | |
| 41 | (DE/EN/FR) |
| 42 | |
| 43 | |
| 46 | |
| 47 | |
| 48 | |
| 55 | |
| 56 | |
| 60 | |
| 62 | |
| 65 | |
| 73 | (DE/EN/FR) |
| 74 | |
| 81 | |
| 88 | |
| 92 | (DE/EN/FR) |
| 97 | |
| 98 | |
| 99 | |
| 108 | |
| 109 | |
| 116 | |
| 119 | |
| 133 | |
| 134 | |
| 136 | |
| 137 | (DE/EN/FR) |
| 140 | |
| 145 | |
| 152 | |
| 160 | |

5

6

11

19

21

26

27

30

(PL)

35

41

(DE/EN/FR)

42

43

46

47

48

55

56

60

62

65

73

(DE/EN/FR)

74

81

88

92

(DE/EN/FR)

97

98

99

108

109

116

119

133

134

136

137

(DE/EN/FR)

140

145

152

160

---
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-28-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JUN-30-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                               0
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    7,640
<ALLOWANCES>                                       189
<INVENTORY>                                      9,827
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                18,430
<PP&E>                                          47,974
<DEPRECIATION>                                  13,083
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  75,410
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           11,037
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            50
<OTHER-SE>                                      30,822
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    75,410
<SALES>                                         36,301
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                36,301
<CGS>                                           29,131
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   29,131
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 5,458
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               1,576
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    136
<INCOME-TAX>                                       163
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                               (27)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                  (107)
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     (134)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.03)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.03)
        


</TABLE>
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Sammy VALENCIA, Jr., Defendant-Appellant

No. 16-51399

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

October 5, 2017

Joseph H. Gay, Jr., Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, San Antonio, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Damian Castillo, Esq., Law Offices of Damian Castillo, Midland, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before DAVIS, CLEMENT, and COSTA, Circuit Judges.

*226PER CURIAM:*

The attorney appointed to represent Sammy Valencia, Jr. has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with *Anders v. California,*386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), and *United States v. Flores,*632 F.3d 229 (6th Cir. 2011). Valencia has not filed a response. We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein. We concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous issue for appellate review. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. *See*5th CIR. R. 42.2.

*

 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,
Dolores



# Fourth Court of Appeals

**San Antonio, Texas**

February 26, 2015

N o. 04

- 14

- 00752

- C V

HUMANA INSURANCE COMPANY

, Appellant

v.

Dolores MUELLER

, Appellee

From the County Court at Law No. 3, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 376765

Honorable Tina Torres, Judge Presiding



### ORDER

The Appellee ’ s Motion for Extension of T i me to File Brief is GRANTED.

It is so ORDERED on this 26 th da y of February , 2015

PER CURIAM

ATTESTED TO:

_____________________________ Keith E. Hottle

Clerk of Court
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<CIK> 0000882342
<NAME> 90CC.TXT
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1997
<CASH>                                          97,428
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   80,132
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               177,560
<PP&E>                                       5,747,606
<DEPRECIATION>                               4,313,112
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,612,054
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           19,190
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                   1,592,864
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 1,612,054
<SALES>                                        188,025
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               189,405
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  119,664
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 69,741
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             69,741
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    69,741
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     9.17
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
*The Honorable JOHN F. NANGLE, United States District

Judge for the Eastern District of Missouri, sitting by

designation.

___________

No. 95-3608

___________

Jackie L. Russell, *

*

Appellant, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the Eastern

* District of Arkansas.

Shirley S. Chater, *

Commissioner, Social Security * [PUBLISHED]

Administration, *

*

Appellee. *

___________

 Submitted: April 11, 1996

 Filed: July 29, 1996

___________

Before BEAM and MURPHY, Circuit Judges, and NANGLE, District Judge.*

___________

PER CURIAM.

Jackie L. Russell appeals a denial of social security benefits. We

affirm.

Russell, now fifty years old, is an alcoholic. He was previously

employed as a roofer and a lawn-care worker. He has an eighth-grade

education. He filed for disability benefits claiming that he is unable to

work because of alcoholism, anti-social behavior and dysthymic disorder.

After a hearing, the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) denied benefits, but

that decision was reversed by the Appeals Council. On remand, the ALJ

again denied benefits.
 Because we find that the ALJ correctly denied benefits under 1

the standards in place at the time of Russell's hearing, we need

not address the effect of recent amendments to the Social Security

Act that eliminate alcoholism or drug dependence as a basis for

obtaining disability benefits. Contract with America Advancement

Act of 1996, Pub. L. No. 104-121, 110 Stat. 847 (amending 42 U.S.C.

§ 423(d)(2)).

-2-

The ALJ found that, although Russell has a severe combination of

impairments including alcohol dependency, his impairments do not prevent

him from performing his past relevant work as a roofing or lawn-care

laborer. Like the district court, we have reviewed the record in this case

and agree that substantial evidence in this record supports the ALJ's

conclusions. 

The "mere presence of alcoholism is not necessarily disabling."

Mapes v. Chater, 82 F.3d 259, 263 (8th Cir. 1996). In fact the burden of

proving disability based on alcoholism is a high one. Id. A claimant is

required to show that he has lost self-control to the point of being

impotent to seek and use means of rehabilitation. Id. He must show that

he is unable, not merely unwilling, to seek and use means of

rehabilitation. Lorenzen v. Chater, 71 F.3d 316, 319 (8th Cir. 1995).

Here, a psychiatrist who examined Russell noted, "[b]asically, he doesn't

want to stop drinking, and has at this point no good reason to even

consider it." Administrative Transcript at 255. The record also shows

that Russell walked out of treatment several times and has missed numerous

follow-up appointments. This, and other evidence in the record,

demonstrates that Russell has failed to make the appropriate showing for

disability based on alcoholism. Accordingly, further discussion is

unnecessary. We affirm for the reasons stated in the district court's

1

opinion. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.

The judgment of the district court is affirmed.
-3-

A true copy.

Attest:

CLERK, U. S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
#### Sven GOLDMANIS, Plaintiff-Appellant, and Linda Insinger, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. John INSINGER; et al., Defendants-Appellees.

No. 14-35776

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted March 6, 2017 * Seattle, Washington

Filed March 08, 2017

Sven Goldmanis, Pro Se

*606Matthew Erik Johnson, Esquire, Attorney, Johnson Legal Group, Seattle, WA, for Plaintiff-Appellant

Thomas M. Brennan, Michael D. McKay, Attorneys, McKay Chadwell, PLLC, Seattle, WA, for Defendant-Appel-lee John Insinger, John Insinger, Robert Insinger, Susan Insinger, Risch Goss In-singer & Gustavel, Virginia Hayes Teta-mentary Trust, Insinger-24 LLC, Hollis Seim

Sam B. Franklin, Attorney, Lee Smart, P.S., Inc., Seattle, WA, for Defendant-Ap-pellee Theressa Pulliam

Before: GRABER, IKUTA, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.

*

 The panel unanimously concludes that this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

Plaintiff Linda Insinger appeals the district court’s grant of summary judgment to Defendants and the district court’s award of sanctions against her. We affirm.1

1. The district court correctly granted summary judgment to Defendants on the ground that this civil RICO action is untimely. See Smith v. Clark Cty. Sch. Dist., 727 F.3d 950, 954 (9th Cir. 2013) (“We review *de novo*the district court’s grant of summary judgment.”). Plaintiff had knowledge of her alleged injuries by 2007 at the latest, yet did not file this action until 2013—well after the expiration of the four-year statute of limitations. See Pincay v. Andrews, 238 F.3d 1106, 1108 (9th Cir. 2001) (“The statute of limitations for civil RICO actions is four years.”); id. at 1109 (“[T]he civil RICO limitations period begins to run when a plaintiff knows or should know of the injury that underlies his cause of action.” (internal quotation marks omitted)). The fact that Plaintiff later discovered additional information concerning Defendants’ conduct does not affect the analysis. See id. at 1110.

2. The district court did not abuse its discretion in awarding sanctions under its inherent powers. See Moore v. Keegan Mgmt. Co. (In re Keegan Mgmt. Co., Sec. Litig.), 78 F.3d 431, 436 (9th Cir. 1996) (“We review the district court’s entry of sanctions under its inherent power for an abuse of discretion.”). The court properly concluded that Plaintiff “knowingly brought a frivolous, time-barred suit in bad faith.” See id. (“Bad faith is present when an attorney knowingly or- recklessly raises a frivolous argument....” (internal quotation marks omitted)).

AFFIRMED as to Plaintiff Linda In-singer, and DISMISSED as to Plaintiff Sven Goldmanis.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

1

. We dismiss Plaintiff Sven Goldmanis’ ap*607*peal*for failure to prosecute.
# Europos Sąjungos C 164A/2014

| | ISSN 1977-0960 |
| --- | --- |
| Europos Sąjungos
  oficialusis leidinys | C 164A |
| | |
| Leidimas lietuvių kalba | Informacija ir pranešimai | 57 tomas2014m. gegužės 29d. |

ISSN 1977-0960

Europos Sąjungos

oficialusis leidinys

C 164A

Leidimas lietuvių kalba

Informacija ir pranešimai

57 tomas2014m. gegužės 29d.

---

| Pranešimo Nr. | Turinys | Puslapis |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | V   Nuomonės |
| | ADMINISTRACINĖS PROCEDŪROS |
| | Europos Centrinis Bankas |
| 2014/C 164A/01 | Galutinio termino pratęsimas pateikti paraiškas dėl paskyrimo Administracinės peržiūros valdybos nariais | 1 |

Pranešimo Nr.

Turinys

Puslapis

V   Nuomonės

ADMINISTRACINĖS PROCEDŪROS

Europos Centrinis Bankas

2014/C 164A/01

Galutinio termino pratęsimas pateikti paraiškas dėl paskyrimo Administracinės peržiūros valdybos nariais

1

| | |
| --- | --- |
| 2014/C 164A/02 | Oficialiojo leidinio C A Serijos Konkursai apžvalga | 2 |

2014/C 164A/02

Oficialiojo leidinio C A Serijos Konkursai apžvalga

2

| LT | |
| --- | --- |

LT

---

V Nuomonės

ADMINISTRACINĖS PROCEDŪROS

Europos Centrinis Bankas

| 29.5.2014 | LT | Europos Sąjungos oficialusis leidinys | CA 164/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.5.2014

LT

Europos Sąjungos oficialusis leidinys

CA 164/1

---

Galutinio termino pratęsimas pateikti paraiškas dėl paskyrimo Administracinės peržiūros valdybos nariais

2014/C 164 A/01

ECB praneša, kad galutinis terminas pateikti paraiškas atsiliepiant į 2014 m. gegužės 1 d.Europos Sąjungos oficialiajame leidinyje paskelbtą kvietimą pareikšti interesą išorės ekspertams būti paskirtiems Europos Centrinio Banko administracinės peržiūros valdybos nariais ir pakaitiniais nariais (Frankfurte prie Maino, Vokietijoje) (1) pratęsiamas iki 2014 m. birželio 2 d.

Frankfurtas prie Maino, 2014 m. gegužės 23 d.

---

(1)  OL C 133 A, 2014 5 1, p. 1

---

29.5.2014

| 29.5.2014 | LT | Europos Sąjungos oficialusis leidinys | CA 164/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

LT

Europos Sąjungos oficialusis leidinys

CA 164/2

---

OFICIALIOJO LEIDINIO C A SERIJOS KONKURSAI APŽVALGA

2014/C 164 A/02

Toliau pateikiamas šiais metais išleistų C A serijos leidinių sąrašas.

Jei nenurodyta kitaip, Oficialieji leidiniai yra išleisti visomis kalbomis.

| 5 | |
| --- | --- |
| 6 | |
| 11 | |
| 19 | |
| 21 | |
| 26 | |
| 27 | |
| 30 | (PL) |
| 35 | |
| 41 | (DE/EN/FR) |
| 42 | |
| 43 | |
| 46 | |
| 47 | |
| 48 | |
| 55 | |
| 56 | |
| 60 | |
| 62 | |
| 65 | |
| 73 | (DE/EN/FR) |
| 74 | |
| 81 | |
| 88 | |
| 92 | (DE/EN/FR) |
| 97 | |
| 98 | |
| 99 | |
| 108 | |
| 109 | |
| 116 | |
| 119 | |
| 133 | |
| 134 | |
| 136 | |
| 137 | (DE/EN/FR) |
| 140 | |
| 145 | |
| 152 | |
| 160 | |
| 163 | |
| 164 | |

5

6

11

19

21

26

27

30

(PL)

35

41

(DE/EN/FR)

42

43

46

47

48

55

56

60

62

65

73

(DE/EN/FR)

74

81

88

92

(DE/EN/FR)

97

98

99

108

109

116

119

133

134

136

137

(DE/EN/FR)

140

145

152

160

163

164

---
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v William Constant, Appellant.

[770 NYS2d 635]

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Wexner, J.), rendered March 27, 2001, convicting him of burglary in the first degree (two counts), upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

We have reviewed the record and agree with the defendant’s assigned counsel that there are no nonfrivolous issues which could be raised on appeal. Counsel’s application for leave to withdraw as counsel is granted *(see Anders v California,*386 US 738 [1967]; *People v Paige,*54 AD2d 631 [1976]; *cf. People v Gonzalez,*47 NY2d 606 [1979]).

The defendant has not raised any nonfrivolous issues in his supplemental pro se brief. Santucci, J.P., Goldstein, Schmidt and Cozier, JJ., concur.
#### Gary HAMILTON, Appellant v. R. Alexander ACOSTA, Appellee

No. 16-5195

September Term, 2016

United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit.

Filed On: May 19, 2017

Gary Hamilton, Pro Se

Christopher Hair, Special Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, (USA) Appellate Division, Washington, DC, R. Craig Lawrence, U.S. Attorney’s Office, (USA) Civil Division, Washington, DC, for Defendant-Appellee

BEFORE: Henderson, Rogers, and Griffith, Circuit Judges

JUDGMENT

Per Curiam

Upon consideration of the record from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia and on the briefs filed by the parties, see Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); D.C. Cir. Rule 34(j), the motion to appoint counsel, the motion for reconsideration of the court’s order filed November 17, 2016, deferring consideration of the motion to appoint counsel, and the motion for miscellaneous relief, which is construed as a motion for leave to file the reply brief, it is

*17ORDERED that the motion for leave be granted. The Clerk is directed to file appellant’s reply brief. It is

FURTHER ORDERED that the motion for reconsideration be denied. It is

FURTHER ORDERED that appellant’s motion to appoint counsel be denied. In civil cases, appellants are not entitled to appointment of counsel when they have not demonstrated sufficient likelihood of success on the merits. It is

FURTHER ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the district court’s order filed May 3, 2016, be affirmed. In dismissing the complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, the district court appropriately relied on the jurisdiction-stripping provision of 5 U.S.C. § 8128(b), which provides that decisions allowing or denying claims under the Federal Employees Compensation Act (FECA) are “not subject to review by another official of the United States or by a court by mandamus or otherwise.” Even if construed liberally, appellant’s pro se complaint does not assert a colorable due process claim that could bring him within the implicit exception recognized in Lepre v. Dep’t of Labor, 275 F.Bd 59 (D.C. Cir. 2001). This court need not reach the question of whether Section 8128(b)(2) bars judicial review of a claimed violation by the Secretary of the Department of Labor of a clear statutory mandate because appellant’s complaint fails to allege a facial violation of FECA. Lepre, 275 F.3d at 74. Finally, because appellant makes no mention of his breach of contract claims in his appellate brief, this court need not address that aspect of the district court’s decision. See United States v. Reeves, 586 F.3d 20, 25 (D.C. Cir. 2009) (argument not raised on appeal is waived) (citing Doe v. Dist. of Columbia, 93 F.3d 861, 875 n.14 (D.C. Cir. 1996) (per curiam)).

Pursuant to D.C. Circuit Rule 36, this disposition will not be published. The Clerk is directed to withhold issuance of the mandate herein until seven days after resolution of any timely petition for rehearing or petition for rehearing en banc. See Fed. R. App. P. 41(b); D.C. Cir. Rule 41.
[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 28 (Thursday, February 10, 2022)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 7756]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2022-02758]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

49 CFR Part 391

[Docket No. FMCSA-2019-0049]
RIN 2126-AC21


Qualifications of Drivers; Vision Standard; Correction

AGENCY: Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), Department 
of Transportation (DOT).

ACTION: Final rule; correction.

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

SUMMARY: In a final rule published in the Federal Register on January 
21, 2022, FMCSA amended its regulations to permit individuals who do 
not satisfy, with the worse eye, either the existing distant visual 
acuity standard with corrective lenses or the field of vision standard, 
or both, to be physically qualified to operate a commercial motor 
vehicle in interstate commerce under specified conditions. The document 
included an incorrect date for grandfathered drivers who participated 
in a vision waiver study program to come into compliance with the 
provisions in the final rule.

DATES: This correction is effective March 22, 2022.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Christine A. Hydock, Chief, 
Medical Programs Division, FMCSA, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, 
Washington, DC 20590-0001, (202) 366-4001, <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#d1b7bcb2a2b0bcb4b5b8b2b0bd91b5bea5ffb6bea7"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="70161d1303111d15141913111c30141f045e171f06">[email protected]</span></a>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In FR Doc. 2022-01021 appearing on page 3419 
in the Federal Register of January 21, 2022 (87 FR 3390), the following 
corrections are made:


Sec.  391.64  [Corrected]

0
On page 3419, in the third column, in Sec.  391.64, in paragraph (b) 
introductory text and paragraph (b)(4), ``March 22, 2022'' is corrected 
to read ``March 22, 2023''.
    Issued under authority delegated in 49 CFR 1.87.

Larry W. Minor,
Associate Administrator for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2022-02758 Filed 2-9-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-EX-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>