alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 35 (Tuesday, February 22, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Page 9821]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-3792]


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

NATIONAL CREDIT UNION ADMINISTRATION


Agency Information Collection Activities: Submission to OMB for 
Review; Comment Request

AGENCY: National Credit Union Administration (NCUA).

ACTION: Request for comment.

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

SUMMARY: The NCUA intends to submit the following information 
collection to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and 
clearance under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-13, 44 
U.S.C. Chapter 35). This information collection is published to obtain 
comments from the public.

DATES: Comments will be accepted until April 25, 2011.

ADDRESSES: Interested parties are invited to submit written comments to 
NCUA Clearance Officer listed below:
    Clearance Officer: Tracy Sumpter, National Credit Union 
Administration, 1775 Duke Street, Alexandria, Virginia 22314-3428. Fax 
No. 703-837-2861, E-mail: <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#ce818d8781a3afa7a28ea0adbbafe0a9a1b8"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="723d313b3d1f131b1e321c1107135c151d04">[email protected]</span></a>.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Requests for additional information or 
a copy of the information collection request should be directed to 
Tracy Sumpter at the National Credit Union Administration, 1775 Duke 
Street, Alexandria, VA 22314-3428, or at (703) 518-6440.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Proposal for the following collection of 
information:
    OMB Number: 3133-0121.
    Form Number: 4063 and 4063a.
    Type of Review: Reinstatement, without change, of a previously 
approved collection.
    Title: Notice of Change of Official or Senior Executive Officer and 
Individual Application for Approval of Official or Senior Executive 
Officer.
    Description: In order to comply with statutory requirements, the 
agency must obtain sufficient information from new officials or senior 
executives officers of troubled or newly chartered credit unions to 
determine their fitness for the position. These forms standardize the 
information gathered to evaluate the individual's fitness for the 
position. The format is similar to the one used by the FFIEC agencies 
and the FRB. 12 CFR 701.14 and 741.205.
    Estimated No. of Respondents/Recordkeepers: 650.
    Estimated Burden Hours per Response: 2.0 hours.
    Frequency of Response: Reporting and on occasion.
    Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 1300.
    Estimated Total Annual Cost: $ 0.

    By the National Credit Union Administration Board on February 
15, 2011.
Mary Rupp,
Secretary of the Board.
[FR Doc. 2011-3792 Filed 2-18-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7535-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
! "# $ & ' () * + , - ./ 0. 1 2 . ' 3 , 3 ! 
 ! "# $ & ' () * + , - ./ 0. 1 2 . ' 3 , 3 ! !
 ! "# $ & ' () * + , - ./ 0. 1 2 . ' 3 , 3 ! "
 ! "# $ & ' () * + , - ./ 0. 1 2 . ' 3 , 3 ! #
 ! "# $ & ' () * + , - ./ 0. 1 2 . ' 3 , 3 ! $
 ! "# $ & ' () * + , - ./ 0. 1 2 . ' 3 , 3 ! %
 ! "# $ & ' () * + , - ./ 0. 1 2 . ' 3 , 3 ! &
 ! "# $ & ' () * + , - ./ 0. 1 2 . ' 3 , 3 ! '
 ! "# $ & ' () * + , - ./ 0. 1 2 . ' 3 , 3 ! (
 ! "# $ & ' () * + , - ./ 0. 1 2 . ' 3 , 3 ! )
 ! "# $ & ' () * + , - ./ 0. 1 2 . ' 3 , 3 ! 
 ! "# $ & ' () * + , - ./ 0. 1 2 . ' 3 , 3 ! !
 ! "# $ & ' () * + , - ./ 0. 1 2 . ' 3 , 3 ! "
 ! "# $ & ' () * + , - ./ 0. 1 2 . ' 3 , 3 ! #
 ! "# $ & ' () * + , - ./ 0. 1 2 . ' 3 , 3 ! $
 ! "# $ & ' () * + , - ./ 0. 1 2 . ' 3 , 3 ! %
 ! "# $ & ' () * + , - ./ 0. 1 2 . ' 3 , 3 ! &
 ! "# $ & ' () * + , - ./ 0. 1 2 . ' 3 , 3 ! '
 ! "# $ & ' () * + , - ./ 0. 1 2 . ' 3 , 3 ! (
 ! "# $ & ' () * + , - ./ 0. 1 2 . ' 3 , 3 ! ! )
 ! "# $ & ' () * + , - ./ 0. 1 2 . ' 3 , 3 ! ! 
 ! "# $ & ' () * + , - ./ 0. 1 2 . ' 3 , 3 ! ! !
 ! "# $ & ' () * + , - ./ 0. 1 2 . ' 3 , 3 ! ! "
 ! "# $ & ' () * + , - ./ 0. 1 2 . ' 3 , 3 ! ! #
 ! "# $ & ' () * + , - ./ 0. 1 2 . ' 3 , 3 ! ! $
 ! "# $ & ' () * + , - ./ 0. 1 2 . ' 3 , 3 ! ! %
 ! "# $ & ' () * + , - ./ 0. 1 2 . ' 3 , 3 ! ! &
 ! "# $ & ' () * + , - ./ 0. 1 2 . ' 3 , 3 ! ! '
 ! "# $ & ' () * + , - ./ 0. 1 2 . ' 3 , 3 ! ! (
 ! "# $ & ' () * + , - ./ 0. 1 2 . ' 3 , 3 ! " )
 ! "# $ & ' () * + , - ./ 0. 1 2 . ' 3 , 3 ! " 
 ! "# $ & ' () * + , - ./ 0. 1 2 . ' 3 , 3 ! " !
 ! "# $ & ' () * + , - ./ 0. 1 2 . ' 3 , 3 ! " "
 ! "# $ & ' () * + , - ./ 0. 1 2 . ' 3 , 3 ! " #
 ! "# $ & ' () * + , - ./ 0. 1 2 . ' 3 , 3 ! " $
 ! "# $ & ' () * + , - ./ 0. 1 2 . ' 3 , 3 ! " %
 ! "# $ & ' () * + , - ./ 0. 1 2 . ' 3 , 3 ! " &
 ! "# $ & ' () * + , - ./ 0. 1 2 . ' 3 , 3 ! " '
 ! "# $ & ' () * + , - ./ 0. 1 2 . ' 3 , 3 ! " (
 ! "# $ & ' () * + , - ./ 0. 1 2 . ' 3 , 3 ! # )
 ! "# $ & ' () * + , - ./ 0. 1 2 . ' 3 , 3 ! # 
 ! "# $ & ' () * + , - ./ 0. 1 2 . ' 3 , 3 ! # !
 ! "# $ & ' () * + , - ./ 0. 1 2 . ' 3 , 3 ! # "
 ! "# $ & ' () * + , - ./ 0. 1 2 . ' 3 , 3 ! # #
 ! "# $ & ' () * + , - ./ 0. 1 2 . ' 3 , 3 ! # $
 ! "# $ & ' () * + , - ./ 0. 1 2 . ' 3 , 3 ! # %
 ! "# $ & ' () * + , - ./ 0. 1 2 . ' 3 , 3 ! # &
 ! "# $ & ' () * + , - ./ 0. 1 2 . ' 3 , 3 ! # '
 ! "# $ & ' () * + , - ./ 0. 1 2 . ' 3 , 3 ! # (
 ! "# $ & ' () * + , - ./ 0. 1 2 . ' 3 , 3 ! $ )
 ! "# $ & ' () * + , - ./ 0. 1 2 . ' 3 , 3 ! $ 

1 . * 45 '. 1 .6 0 6 7 6 8 9 . '7
 ! "# $ & ' () * + , - ./ 0. 1 2 . ' 3 , 3 ! $ !

: .; (< =. > ? @ A B > C > ? AD E F C > B F G C A H A C C I D > ? @

C I F I ? ? > C E E J K ? I F E F J ? @ & #! A B K > ? > ? - ? AD E F @ G

I L G - - E G I M @ ? I I N J E - AE O O > - A? H E F > L I
#### § 91.1 Purpose.

The purpose of the regulations in this part is to establish policies and procedures for the government of Indian villages, Osage Reservation, Oklahoma.
#### Joseph Rudtner and William Harker, Respondents, v. Michael Cooper, Appellant.

Judgment and order reversed and new trial granted, costs "to abide the event, unless the plaintiffs within twenty days consent to reduce the damages to *931$708.75, in which case the judgment as so modified and the order are affirmed, without costs. No opinion. Woodward, Jenks, Hooker, Gaynor and Rich, JJ., concurred.
Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation 

76-75 

June 4, 1976 

REFERENCE: 

 [*1] Miscellaneous

208 Mergers, Consolidations and other Transfers of Plan Assets 

OPINION: 

 We have carefully considered your letters of March 24, 1976 and of April 29, 1976. In your letter of March 24th,

you have asked that we intervene in the matter of * * * vs. * * * etc. "to assert . . . [our] preemptive authority" and direct

the parties not to take any steps to implement a court ordered merger of the two plans until we can conduct an

investigation. 

We have determined that we cannot take the steps you propose. The Department of Labor and the Internal Revenue

Service have not yet issued regulations explicating and implementing § 208 with respect to single employer plans. In

these circumstances, we have not yet issued regulations determining the extent to which § 208 applies to terminations

with or among multiemployer plans. Consequently, as Mr. Delevett advised you, our position is that § 208's limitation

on mergers is not yet in effect with respect to multiemployer plans. In any event, § 514(a) of the Act, which we assume

you believe gives us the "preemptive authority" to which you refer, does ". . . not apply with respect to any cause of

action which arose, or any act or omission which [*2] occurred before January 1, 1975." Act § 514(b)(1). The April

16, 1975 court opinion, which you supplied, states that ". . . on February 12, 1974, the trustees of the * * * by letter,

informed the trustees of the * * * pension fund that they had voted not to proceed with the proposed integration." It thus

appears that the cause of action upon which the State court's decree of specific performance is based arose prior to

January 1, 1975. Therefore, in light of § 514(b)(1), we do not believe that the Act confers any authority on us to

interfere in this matter. For these reasons, we decline to intervene. 

Henry Rose 

General Counsel
### [§2536. Renumbered §4874]
### [§676. Renumbered §12308]
II

106TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. 1011

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide that trusts established for the benefit of individuals with disabilities shall be taxed at

the same rates as individual taxpayers.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

MAY 11, 1999

Mr. FRIST introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred

to the Committee on Finance

A BILL

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide

that trusts established for the benefit of individuals with

disabilities shall be taxed at the same rates as individual

taxpayers.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Tax Fairness for Sup5 port of the Permanently Disabled Act’’.
2

•S 1011 IS

1 SEC. 2. MODIFICATION OF TAX RATES FOR TRUSTS FOR

2 INDIVIDUALS WHO ARE DISABLED.

3 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 1(e) of the Internal Rev4 enue Code of 1986 (relating to tax imposed on estates and

5 trusts) is amended to read as follows:

6 ‘‘(e) ESTATES AND TRUSTS.—

7 ‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—Except as provided in para8 graph (2), there is hereby imposed on the taxable in9 come of—

10 ‘‘(A) every estate, and

11 ‘‘(B) every trust,

12 taxable under this subsection a tax determined in

13 accordance with the following table:

‘‘If taxable income is: The tax is:

Not over $1,500 ............................ 15% of taxable income.

Over $1,500 but not over $3,500 .. $225, plus 28% of the excess over

$1,500.

Over $3,500 but not over $5,500 .. $785, plus 31% of the excess over

$3,500.

Over $5,500 but not over $7,500 .. $1,405, plus 36% of the excess over

$5,500.

Over $7,500 ................................... $2,125, plus 39.6% of the excess over

$7,500.

14 ‘‘(2) SPECIAL RULE FOR TRUSTS FOR DIS15 ABLED INDIVIDUALS.—

16 ‘‘(A) IN GENERAL.—There is hereby im17 posed on the taxable income of an eligible trust

18 taxable under this subsection a tax determined

19 in the same manner as under subsection (c).

20 ‘‘(B) ELIGIBLE TRUST.—For purposes of

21 subparagraph (A), a trust shall be treated as an
3

•S 1011 IS

1 eligible trust for any taxable year if, at all times

2 during such year during which the trust is in

3 existence, the exclusive purpose of the trust is

4 to provide reasonable amounts for the support

5 and maintenance of 1 or more beneficiaries

6 each of whom is permanently and totally dis7 abled (within the meaning of section 22(e)(3)).

8 A trust shall not fail to meet the requirements

9 of this subparagraph merely because the corpus

10 of the trust may revert to the grantor or a

11 member of the grantor’s family upon the death

12 of the beneficiary.’’

13 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by

14 this section shall apply to taxable years beginning after

15 December 31, 1998.

Æ
#### State of Connecticut *v.*Napier D. Talton

*Ernest J. Diette, Jr.,*assistant state’s attorney, for the appellee (state).

*William F. Gallagher,*special public defender, for the appellant (defendant).

Argued June 4

decided June *4,*1974

The plaintiff’s motion to dismiss the appeal from the Superior Court in New Haven County is granted.
* 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.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 05-21005 c/w 05-21083

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

KHANH DUY HA,

Defendant-Appellant.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 4:03-CR-169-2

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

Before REAVLEY, WIENER and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Khanh Duy Ha appeals his guilty plea conviction and sentence

for conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute

methamphetamine and conspiracy to possess with intent to

distribute ecstasy. Ha argues that the district court clearly

erred in enhancing his offense level pursuant to U.S.S.G. 

§ 2D1.1(b)(1) and that his guilty plea was rendered involuntary

when the Government breached the plea agreement by failing to

move for a U.S.S.G. § 5K1.1 departure.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

December 11, 2006

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk
No. 05-21005 c/w 05-21083

-2-

We first address Ha’s breach argument, which we review de

novo. See United States v. Saling, 205 F.3d 764, 766 (5th Cir.

2000). In Ha’s plea agreement, the Government retained sole

discretion to move for a § 5K1.1 departure, and Ha does not argue

that the Government’s refusal to do so was based on an

unconstitutional motive. See United States v. Garcia-Bonilla, 11

F.3d 45, 46 (5th Cir. 1993). Furthermore, the Government’s

conduct was not inconsistent with the parties’ reasonable

understanding of the agreement. See United States v. Wilder, 15

F.3d 1292, 1295 (5th Cir. 1994). In light of the foregoing, Ha

has not borne his burden of establishing by a preponderance of

the evidence that the Government breached the plea agreement. 

See United States v. Price, 95 F.3d 364, 367 (5th Cir. 1996).

Ha’s plea agreement contained an appeal waiver, which the

Government seeks to enforce and which the record establishes was

entered into knowingly and voluntarily. See United States v.

Robinson, 187 F.3d 516, 517 (5th Cir. 1999). Therefore, Ha’s

challenge to the § 2D1.1(b)(1) enhancement is barred by his

appeal waiver and is dismissed. See United States v. Melancon,

972 F.2d 566, 568 (5th Cir. 1992).

DISMISSED.
-  Home 

# PHMSA's Approach to the Hazardous Materials Emergency Preparedness Program Recipient Review Assessment Recommendations

Approach to Recommendations - January 2012 Final.pdf (63.26 KB)

*DOT is committed to ensuring that information is available in appropriate alternative formats to meet the requirements of persons who have a disability. If you require an alternative version of files provided on this page, please contact          PHMSA-Accessibility@dot.gov.*
# C_2007052EN.01000401.xml

| 7.3.2007 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 52/4 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.3.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 52/4

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case COMP/M.4178 — MAN Ferrostaal/Eurotecnica Group)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2007/C 52/05)

On 31 January 2007, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the common market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004. The full text of the decision is available only in English and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

| — | from the Europa competition website (http://ec.europa.eu/comm/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes, |
| --- | --- |

—

from the Europa competition website (http://ec.europa.eu/comm/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website under document number 32007M4178. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law. (http://eur-lex.europa.eu) |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website under document number 32007M4178. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law. (http://eur-lex.europa.eu)

---
#### § 2.703 How do I file a Notice of Appeal of a Tribal representative recognition decision?

To file a Notice of Appeal, you must submit, as provided in § 2.214, the Notice of Appeal to the reviewing official identified in the decision document's notice of appeal rights, as prescribed in § 2.702.
This memorandum opinion was not selected for publication in the New Mexico Reports. Please 1 see Rule 12-405 NMRA for restrictions on the citation of unpublished memorandum opinions. 2 Please also note that this electronic memorandum opinion may contain computer-generated 3 errors or other deviations from the official paper version filed by the Court of Appeals and does 4 not include the filing date. 5 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO 6
STATE OF NEW MEXICO ex rel. 7 HUMAN SERVICES DEPARTMENT 8 and ROBERTA PEKARCIK, 9 Petitioners-Appellees, 10
v. NO. 30,744 11 PHILIP PEKARCIK , 12 Respondent-Appellant. 13 APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF SANTA FE COUNTY 14 David K. Thomson, District Judge 15 McDevitt Law Firm, P.A. 16 Susan Schaefer McDevitt 17 Santa Fe, NM 18 for Appellee 19 Philip Pekarcik 20 Los Lunas, NM 21 Pro Se Appellant 22
MEMORANDUM OPINION 23 VIGIL, Judge. 242 Summary reversal was proposed for the reasons stated in the notice of proposed 1 summary disposition. No memorandum opposing summary reversal has been filed 2 and the time for doing so has expired. 3 REVERSED. 4 IT IS SO ORDERED. 5

_______________________________ 6 MICHAEL E. VIGIL, Judge 7
WE CONCUR: 8

_________________________________ 9 MICHAEL D. BUSTAMANTE, Judge 10

_________________________________ 11 TIMOTHY L. GARCIA, Judge 12
### [§2667a. Repealed. Pub. L. 110–417, div. B, title XXVIII, §2812(e)(1), Oct. 14, 2008, 122 Stat. 4727]

Section, added Pub. L. 105–85, div. A, title X, §1062(a), Nov. 18, 1997, 111 Stat. 1891; amended Pub. L. 107–217, §3(b)(13), Aug. 21, 2002, 116 Stat. 1296; Pub. L. 108–136, div. A, title X, §1031(a)(28), Nov. 24, 2003, 117 Stat. 1599, related to leases of non-excess property of Defense agencies.

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Prior Provisions

A prior section 2667a, added Pub. L. 98–115, title VIII, §807(a)(1), Oct. 11, 1983, 97 Stat. 786, provided for sale and replacement of nonexcess real property, prior to repeal by Pub. L. 98–115, title VIII, §807(c), Oct. 11, 1983, 97 Stat. 789, as amended by Pub. L. 99–167, title VIII, §806(a), Dec. 3, 1985, 99 Stat. 988, effective Oct. 1, 1986.

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

#### Savings Provision

Pub. L. 110–417, div. B, title XXVIII, §2812(e)(2), (3), Oct. 14, 2008, 122 Stat. 4727, provided that:

"(2) Effect on existing contracts.—The repeal of section 2667a of title 10, United States Code, shall not affect the validity or terms of any lease with respect to property of a Defense Agency entered into by the Secretary of Defense under such section before the date of the enactment of this Act [Oct. 14, 2008].

"(3) Treatment of money rents.—Amounts in any special account established for a Defense Agency pursuant to subsection (d) of section 2667a of title 10, United States Code, before repeal of such section by paragraph (1), and amounts that would be deposited in such an account in connection with a lease referred to in paragraph (2), shall—

"(A) remain available until expended for the purposes specified in such subsection, notwithstanding the repeal of such section by paragraph (1); or

"(B) to the extent provided in appropriations Acts, be transferred to the special account required for the Secretary of Defense by subsection (e) of section 2667 of such title, as amended by subsection (d)(2) of this section."
#### § 226.45 Notices.

Notices and orders issued by the Superintendent to the representative and/or operator shall be binding on the lessee. The Superintendent may in his/her discretion increase the time allowed in his/her orders and notices.
§ 571.5 Entry of premises. ( a ) The Commission's authorized representative may enter the premises of an Indian gaming operation to inspect, examine, photocopy, and audit all papers, books, and records (including computer records) concerning: ( 1 ) Gross revenues of class II gaming conducted on Indian lands; and
( 2 ) Any other matters necessary to carry out the duties of the Commission under the Act and this chapter.
( b ) The Commission's authorized representative shall present official identification upon entering a gaming operation for the purpose of enforcing the Act.
# C_2013351EN.01002502.xml

| 30.11.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 351/25 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.11.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 351/25

---

Information communicated by Member States regarding closure of fisheries

2013/C 351/04

In accordance with Article 35(3) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1224/2009 of 20 November 2009 establishing a Community control system for ensuring compliance with the rules of the common fisheries policy (1), a decision has been taken to close the fishery as set down in the following table:

1

| Date and time of closure | 24.10.2013 |
| --- | --- |
| Duration | 24.10.2013-31.12.2013 |
| Member State | France |
| Stock or group of stocks | HER/4AB. |
| Species | Herring (Clupea Harengus) |
| Zone | EU and Norwegian waters of IV north of 53° 30′ N |
| Type(s) of fishing vessels | — |
| Reference number | 63/TQ40 |

Date and time of closure

24.10.2013

Duration

24.10.2013-31.12.2013

Member State

France

Stock or group of stocks

HER/4AB.

Species

Herring (Clupea Harengus)

Clupea Harengus

Zone

EU and Norwegian waters of IV north of 53° 30′ N

Type(s) of fishing vessels

—

Reference number

63/TQ40

---

(1)  OJ L 343, 22.12.2009, p. 1.

1

---
March 23 , 2015

Mr. Alex Brito

Accent Compliance LLC

248 Old Haymaker Road

Monroeville, PA 15146

Dear Mr. Brito :

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 Can n o t Process Your Request

We entered your J anuary 13 , 2015 exemption request on behalf of Accent Compliance LLC

into the public docket (No. FAA

- 20 15

- 00 64 ) , 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 specific section or sections of 14 CFR from which you seek relief and th e extent of

the relief you seek

.

• The reasons why granting the request would be in the public interest; th at is, how it would

benefit the public as a whole.

• The reasons why the exemption would not adversely affect safety or how the exemption

would provide a level of safety at least equal to that provided by the rule from which you

seek an exemption.

• Any addi tional information, views, or arguments available to support your request.

W hat 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 No t 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

- 9521

.

Sincerely,

/s/

Jake Troutman

Program Analyst , Airmen and

Airspace Rules Division

Enclosure