Pursuant to 30 CFR 732.17(f)(1), Mississippi is required to submit to OSM by the specified date the following written, proposed program amendments, or a description of the amendments to be proposed, that meet the requirements of SMCRA and 30 CFR chapter VII and a timetable for enactment that is consistent with Mississippi's established administrative or legislative procedures.
Description of amendment: This amendment includes a principal negotiating objective in the Bipartisan Congressional Trade Priorities and Accountability Act of 2015 that incorporates the text of the U.S.-Israel Trade Enhancement Act of 2015 (S. 619), and limits that principal negotiating objective to apply only to the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership agreement.
The following is a list of the dates amendments were submitted to OSM, the dates when the Director's decision approving all, or portions of these amendments, were published in the Federal Register and the State citations or a brief description of each amendment.
The description of the package of draft amendments that was leaked to the press would put Turkey on a decidedly liberal constitutional course.
The following is a list of the dates on which the State of Mississippi submitted amendments to OSMRE, the dates when the Director's decision approving all, or portions of these amendments, were published in the Federal Register, and the State citations or a brief description of each amendment.
Later, Lib Dems appeared to concede to the government's description of the changes as less like "amendments" and more like "reassurances".
If we need to amend this protocol, we will give the date of each amendment, a description of the change and the rationale.
Despite suggestions that Americans were either tired of the health care issue or did not consider it to be enough of a priority, we found that people would read the long description of the bill, then wade through 10 amendments.
We also propose an amendment to the description of the subspecies infantis in that members may have capabilities to utilise carbohydrates other than HMOs.
The appeals court said that inventors who made such amendments could not use the doctrine of equivalents because their amendments had narrowed the description of the invention.
