alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
**Exhibit 23.1**

**Consent ofIndependent Registered Public Accounting Firm**

The Board of DirectorsFairPoint Communications, Inc.:

We consent to the incorporation by reference in theregistration statements on Form S-8 (No. 333-122809) andon Form S-3 (Nos. 333-127759 and 333-127760) ofFairPoint Communications, Inc., of our report dated March 12, 2007,with respect to the consolidated balance sheets of FairPoint Communications, Inc.and subsidiaries (the Company) as of December 31, 2006 and 2005, and therelated consolidated statements of operations, stockholders’ equity (deficit),comprehensive income (loss), and cash flows for each of the years in thethree-year period ended December 31, 2006, management’s assessment of the effectivenessof internal control over financial reporting as of December 31, 2006 andthe effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting as of December 31,2006, which reports appear in this Amendment No. 1 to the December 31,2006 annual report on Form 10-K/A of FairPoint Communications, Inc.

Our report dated March 12, 2007 on management’sassessment of the effectiveness of internal control over financial reportingand the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting as of December 31,2006 contains an explanatory paragraph that states the Company acquired The Germantown Independent Telephone Company(GITC), Unite Communications Systems, Inc. (Unite), and Cass CountyTelephone Company Limited Partnership and LEC Long Distance, Inc. (CassCounty) during the year ended December 31, 2006, and managementexcluded from its assessment of the effectiveness of the Company’s internalcontrol over financial reporting as of December 31, 2006, internal controlover financial reporting of GITC, Unite, and Cass County associated with totalassets of $36.6 million and total revenues of $6.6 million, includedin the consolidated financial statements of the Company as of and for the yearended December 31, 2006. Our audit of internal control over financialreporting of the Company also excluded an evaluation of the internal controlover financial reporting of GITC, Unite, and Cass County.

Our report dated March 12,2007 on the consolidated financial statements refers to the Company’s adoptionof Statement of Financial Accounting Standards (SFAS) No. 123 (revised2004), *Share-Based Payment,*effective January 1,2006.

/s/ KPMG LLP

Charlotte, North CarolinaMay 30, 2007

----
#### § 39.27 What do I do if the airworthiness directive conflicts with the service document on which it is based?

In some cases an airworthiness directive incorporates by reference a manufacturer's service document. In these cases, the service document becomes part of the airworthiness directive. In some cases the directions in the service document may be modified by the airworthiness directive. If there is a conflict between the service document and the airworthiness directive, you must follow the requirements of the airworthiness directive.
§ 89.505 Serial numbers. No person may produce a standard remote identification unmanned aircraft under § 89.510 or § 89.515 or a remote identification broadcast module under § 89.520, unless the producer assigns to the unmanned aircraft or remote identification broadcast module a serial number that complies with ANSI/CTA-2063-A. ANSI/CTA-2063-A, *Small Unmanned Aerial Systems Serial Numbers* (September 2019) is incorporated by reference into this section with the approval of the Director of the Office of the Federal Register under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. All approved material is available for inspection at the FAA's Office of Rulemaking (ARM-1), 800 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20590 (telephone 202-267-9677) and is available from Consumer Technology Association (CTA), 1919 South Eads Street, Arlington, VA 22202, *CTA@CTA.tech*, 703-907-7600 or at *https://www.cta.tech .* It is also available for inspection at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at NARA, email *fedreg.legal@nara.gov ,* or go to *www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html .*
# Fourth Court of Appeals

**San Antonio, Texas**

MEMORANDUM OPINION

N o. 04

- 18

- 00595

- CV

Timothy L. BEATTY

, Appellant

v.

THE PALMS APARTMENTS

, Appellee

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

Trial Court No. 2018CV04587

Honorable Tommy Stolhandske, Judge Presiding

PER CURIAM

Sitting: Sandee Bryan Marion, Chief Justice

Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice

Irene Rios, Justice

Delivered and Filed: January 2, 2019

DISMISSED FOR WANT OF PROSECUTION

On December 7, 2018, we issued an order stating the appellant’s brief was overdue and

that no motio n for an extension of time to file the brief had been filed. We ordered appellant to file

the brief and a written response reasonably explaining appellant’s f ailure to timely file the brief,

and stated that if appellant did not comply with our order by December 17, 2018 , the appeal may

be dismissed. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 38.8(a)(1), 42.3(b), (c). Appellant has not filed the brief, a motion

for an extension of time to file the brief, or any other written response to this court’s order. We

therefore dismiss this appeal for want of prosecution. See id.

PER CURIAM
#### § 91.315 Limited category civil aircraft: Operating limitations.

No person may operate a limited category civil aircraft carrying persons or property for compensation or hire.
1 | Building Technologies Program eere.energy.gov

The Parker Ranch installation in Hawaii

BUILDING TECHNOLOGIES PROGRAM

Distribution Transformers

Energy Conservation Program

LBNL Staff on behalf of

U.S. Department of Energy

Energy Efficiency & Renewable Energy

November 21, 2011
2 | Building Technologies Program eere.energy.gov

Contents

Draft National Impacts Analysis Results, ZDMH/SA1 (Wound Core) 

Exclusion Scenario for Low-Voltage Dry-Type Transformers

Prepared for the Low-Voltage Distribution 

Transformers Negotiated Rulemaking Working Group 

November 21, 2011
3 | Building Technologies Program eere.energy.gov

National Impacts Summary Results for LVDT ZDMH/SA1 

(Wound Core) Exclusion Scenario, by Efficiency Level

Summary Results by Efficiency Level for Low-Voltage Dry-Type Transformers

Efficiency Level

Base 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Transformer Shipments 2015-2044 (Billion KVA) 0.62 0.62 0.62 0.62 0.62 0.61 0.61 NA

Equipment Cost Savings ($Billions) 19.72 -2.30 -2.67 -3.24 -3.90 -6.40 -15.01 NA

Operating Cost Savings ($Billions) 26.53 9.40 10.30 10.79 11.89 13.42 15.71 NA

Cumulative Source Savings 2044 (Quads) 1.01 1.11 1.16 1.28 1.44 1.68 NA

Net Present Value at 3% Discount Rate ($Billions) 7.10 7.63 7.55 7.99 7.02 0.70 NA

Net Present Value at 7% Discount Rate ($Billions) 1.81 1.91 1.77 1.78 0.98 -2.71 NA
4 | Building Technologies Program eere.energy.gov

Summary Results by EL for Equipment Class 3

National Impacts Summary Results for LVDT ZDMH/SA1 

(Wound Core) Exclusion Scenario, by Efficiency Level

Summary Results by EL for Equipment Class 4

Efficiency Level

Base 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Transformer Shipments 2015-2044 (Billion KVA) 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 NA NA

Equipment Cost Savings ($Billions) 0.92 -0.02 -0.09 -0.19 -0.37 -0.79 NA NA

Operating Cost Savings ($Billions) 0.84 0.12 0.21 0.27 0.36 0.42 NA NA

Cumulative Source Savings 2044 (Quads) 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.04 NA NA

Net Present Value at 3% Discount Rate ($Billions) 0.10 0.12 0.08 -0.01 -0.37 NA NA

Net Present Value at 7% Discount Rate ($Billions) 0.03 0.02 -0.01 -0.08 -0.27 NA NA

Efficiency Level

Base 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Transformer Shipments 2015-2044 (Billion KVA) 0.60 0.59 0.59 0.59 0.59 0.59 0.59 NA

Equipment Cost Savings ($Billions) 18.81 -2.28 -2.59 -3.05 -3.53 -5.62 -14.22 NA

Operating Cost Savings ($Billions) 25.69 9.28 10.09 10.52 11.53 13.01 15.29 NA

Cumulative Source Savings 2044 (Quads) 1.00 1.09 1.13 1.24 1.40 1.64 NA

Net Present Value at 3% Discount Rate ($Billions) 7.00 7.51 7.47 8.00 7.39 1.07 NA

Net Present Value at 7% Discount Rate ($Billions) 1.78 1.88 1.78 1.85 1.25 -2.44 NA
§ 420.55 Scheduling of launch site operations. ( a ) A licensee shall develop and implement procedures to schedule operations to ensure that each operation carried out by a customer at the launch site does not create the potential for a mishap that could result in harm to the public because of the proximity of the operations, in time or place, to operations of any other customer. A customer includes any launch operator, and any contractor, subcontractor or customer of the launch site operator's customer at the launch site.
( b ) A licensee shall provide its launch site scheduling requirements to each customer before the customer begins operations at the launch site.
#### Charles Fritz, Appellant, *v.*Julius Krasne et al., Respondents, Impleaded with Another.

Argued March 18, 1937;

decided April 20, 1937.

*650
      *Chester A. Hahn, Sylvia Miller*and *Harry Miller*for appellant.

*F. A. W. Ireland*for respondents.

Judgment affirmed, with costs; no opinion.

Concur: Grane, Ch. J., Lehman, O’Brien, Httbbs, Loughran, Finch and Rippet, JJ.
# Fourth Court of Appeals

**San Antonio, Texas**

JUDGMENT

No. 04

- 17

- 00424

- CR

Estaban PINON

, Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas,

Appellee

From the 25th Judicial District Court, Guadalupe County, Texas

Trial Court No. 16

- 1263

- CR

- B

Honorable Jessica Crawford, Judge Presiding

BEFORE CHIEF JUSTICE MARION

, JUSTICE BARNARD , AND JUSTICE ALVAREZ

In accordance with this court’s opinion of this date, the trial court’s judgment is

AFFIRMED.

SIGNED December 5, 2018.

_____________________________ Marialyn Barnard, Justice
ELECTRICITY PRICE PROJECTIONSLIST OF PROJECTIONS : -1 Constant 19992 AEO 2000 - Reference Case3 GRI 19984 AEO 2000 - High Growth Case5 AEO 2000 - Low GrowthElectricity Price Projections Electricity Price TrendsConst. AEO2000 GRI 98 High Low Const. AEO2000 GRI 98 High Lowcents / kWh (in 1998 dollar)1995 8.82 8.82 8.82 8.82 8.821996 8.63 8.63 8.63 8.63 8.631997 8.38 8.38 8.38 8.38 8.38 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.001998 8.05 8.05 8.05 8.05 8.05 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.96 0.961999 7.92 7.92 7.92 7.92 7.92 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.952000 7.92 7.86 8.50 7.98 7.85 0.95 0.94 1.01 0.95 0.942001 7.92 7.74 8.38 7.83 7.71 0.95 0.92 1.00 0.93 0.922002 7.92 7.63 8.27 7.77 7.56 0.95 0.91 0.99 0.93 0.902003 7.92 7.59 8.15 7.77 7.52 0.95 0.91 0.97 0.93 0.902004 7.92 7.56 8.03 7.78 7.46 0.95 0.90 0.96 0.93 0.892005 7.92 7.47 7.92 7.72 7.37 0.95 0.89 0.94 0.92 0.882006 7.92 7.48 7.82 7.76 7.32 0.95 0.89 0.93 0.93 0.872007 7.92 7.48 7.73 7.76 7.29 0.95 0.89 0.92 0.93 0.872008 7.92 7.46 7.64 7.71 7.22 0.95 0.89 0.91 0.92 0.862009 7.92 7.37 7.54 7.66 7.15 0.95 0.88 0.90 0.91 0.852010 7.92 7.39 7.45 7.71 7.13 0.95 0.88 0.89 0.92 0.852011 7.92 7.33 7.39 7.63 7.07 0.95 0.87 0.88 0.91 0.842012 7.92 7.30 7.32 7.62 7.03 0.95 0.87 0.87 0.91 0.842013 7.92 7.29 7.26 7.60 7.00 0.95 0.87 0.87 0.91 0.842014 7.92 7.32 7.20 7.61 7.01 0.95 0.87 0.86 0.91 0.842015 7.92 7.33 7.14 7.63 7.02 0.95 0.88 0.85 0.91 0.842016 7.92 7.32 7.14 7.62 7.01 0.95 0.87 0.85 0.91 0.842017 7.92 7.32 7.14 7.60 7.00 0.95 0.87 0.85 0.91 0.842018 7.92 7.32 7.14 7.63 7.02 0.95 0.87 0.85 0.91 0.842019 7.92 7.29 7.14 7.59 7.01 0.95 0.87 0.85 0.91 0.842020 7.92 7.28 7.14 7.61 6.99 0.95 0.87 0.85 0.91 0.832021 7.92 7.28 7.14 7.61 6.99 0.95 0.87 0.85 0.91 0.832022 7.92 7.28 7.14 7.61 6.99 0.95 0.87 0.85 0.91 0.832023 7.92 7.28 7.14 7.61 6.99 0.95 0.87 0.85 0.91 0.832024 7.92 7.28 7.14 7.61 6.99 0.95 0.87 0.85 0.91 0.832025 7.92 7.28 7.14 7.61 6.99 0.95 0.87 0.85 0.91 0.832026 7.92 7.28 7.14 7.61 6.99 0.95 0.87 0.85 0.91 0.832027 7.92 7.28 7.14 7.61 6.99 0.95 0.87 0.85 0.91 0.832028 7.92 7.28 7.14 7.61 6.99 0.95 0.87 0.85 0.91 0.832029 7.92 7.28 7.14 7.61 6.99 0.95 0.87 0.85 0.91 0.832030 7.92 7.28 7.14 7.61 6.99 0.95 0.87 0.85 0.91 0.832021-2030 Electricity price are kept constant after 2020 for AEO 2000 Reference, High Growth and Low Growth Cases2016-2030Electricity price are kept constant after 2015 for GRI 1998
- Cover
- 1909CollPg10-19
- 1909CollPg20-29
- 1909CollPg30-finish
§ 65.57 Experience or training requirements. An applicant for an aircraft dispatcher certificate must present documentary evidence satisfactory to the Administrator that he or she has the experience prescribed in paragraph (a) of this section or has accomplished the training described in paragraph (b) of this section as follows: ( a ) A total of at least 2 years experience in the 3 years before the date of application, in any one or in any combination of the following areas: ( 1 ) In military aircraft operations as a— ( i ) Pilot;
( ii ) Flight navigator; or
( iii ) Meteorologist.
( 2 ) In aircraft operations conducted under part 121 of this chapter as— ( i ) An assistant in dispatching air carrier aircraft, under the direct supervision of a dispatcher certificated under this subpart;
( ii ) A pilot;
( iii ) A flight engineer; or
( iv ) A meteorologist.
( 3 ) In aircraft operations as— ( i ) An Air Traffic Controller; or
( ii ) A Flight Service Specialist.
( 4 ) In aircraft operations, performing other duties that the Administrator finds provide equivalent experience.
( b ) A statement of graduation issued or revalidated in accordance with § 65.70(b) of this part, showing that the person has successfully completed an approved aircraft dispatcher course.
**REGULATORY EVALUATION**

**Directorate Identifier: 2013** 

**- NM** 
**- 096** 

**- AD** 

**Executive Order 12866:** Could the AD be considered a “significant regulatory action”? YES ( ) explain NO (X) **DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures:** Is the AD significant? YES ( ) explain NO (X) **Regulatory Flexibility Act:** Will the AD have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities? YES ( ) explain NO (X) **Intrastate Aviation in Alaska:** This AD could affect intrastate aviation in Alaska. I s it appropriate t o include specific requirements for aircraft operated in Alaska, where aviation might be the only mode of transportation? YES ( ) explain NO (X)
#### §§ 91.823-91.849 [Reserved]
#### In the Matter of Antonio DaSilva, Respondent, v Zoning Board of Appeals of Village of Mineola, Appellant.

[699 NYS2d 67]

—In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review a determination of the Zoning Board of Appeals of the Village of Mineóla, dated January 15, 1998, which, after a hearing, denied the petitioner’s application for certain area variances, the appeal is from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Dunne, J.), dated August 24, 1998, which granted the petition and annulled the determination.

Ordered that the judgment is reversed, on the law, with costs, the petition is denied, the determination is confirmed, and the proceeding is dismissed on the merits.

The petitioner, Antonio DaSilva, applied to the Building Department of the Village of Mineóla (hereinafter the Building Department) for permission to subdivide real property with the dimensions of 137.43 feet by 100 feet, located in a residential neighborhood of R-l and R-3 zoning (Zoning Code of Incorporated Vil of Mineóla §§ 30.21, 30.23). Zoning Code § 30.21 permits a one-family residence on a lot with a minimum square footage of 7,500 square feet. Zoning Code § 30.23 permits a two-family residence on a lot with the same minimum square footage. At the time of the subdivision application, there were two two-family houses located on DaSilva’s property. He sought, however, to partition the land so as to yield one legal-sized lot of 7,500 square feet on which he intended to build a large, new one-family home of nonconforming dimensions, and *459a second lot of substandard size on which the two existing structures stood. DaSilva intended to convert one of the two-family houses to a single-family dwelling.

The Building Department denied the application and the petitioner sought review by the Zoning Board of Appeals of the Village of Mineóla (hereinafter the Zoning Board). Relying upon the negative recommendation of the Nassau County Planning Board, the Building Department’s records, the applicable building ordinances, and testimony during the public hearing from neighbors who opposed the proposed variances and construction, the Zoning Board denied the petitioner’s application in all respects. The Zoning Board concluded that granting the application would result in an over-intensified use of the property, noting, in particular, that under the applicable zoning laws, the substandard parcel could not legally support a single-family dwelling, and thus, an additional two-family dwelling on the same parcel was untenable.

A determination by a zoning board will not be set aside if it is supported by substantial evidence *(see, Matter of Fuhst v Foley,*45 NY2d 441, 444; *Matter of Cowan v Kern,*41 NY2d 591, 599). A court will find that a determination is supported by substantial evidence where “the record contains sufficient evidence to support the rationality of the Board’s determination” *(Matter of Sasso v Osgood,*86 NY2d 374, 384, n 2). Contrary to the Supreme Court’s determination, there is substantial evidence in the record to support the Zoning Board’s denial of the application. Bracken, J. P., Joy, Goldstein and Luciano, JJ., concur.
#### § 67.205 Ear, nose, throat, and equilibrium.

Ear, nose, throat, and equilibrium standards for a second-class airman medical certificate are:

(a) The person shall demonstrate acceptable hearing by at least one of the following tests:

(1) Demonstrate an ability to hear an average conversational voice in a quiet room, using both ears, at a distance of 6 feet from the examiner, with the back turned to the examiner.

(2) Demonstrate an acceptable understanding of speech as determined by audiometric speech discrimination testing to a score of at least 70 percent obtained in one ear or in a sound field environment.

(3) Provide acceptable results of pure tone audiometric testing of unaided hearing acuity according to the following table of worst acceptable thresholds, using the calibration standards of the American National Standards Institute, 1969:

| Frequency (Hz) | 500 Hz | 1000 Hz | 2000 Hz | 3000 Hz |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Better ear (Db) | 35 | 30 | 30 | 40 |
| Poorer ear (Db) | 35 | 50 | 50 | 60 |

(b) No disease or condition of the middle or internal ear, nose, oral cavity, pharynx, or larynx that—

(1) Interferes with, or is aggravated by, flying or may reasonably be expected to do so; or

(2) Interferes with, or may reasonably be expected to interfere with, clear and effective speech communication.

(c) No disease or condition manifested by, or that may reasonably be expected to be manifested by, vertigo or a disturbance of equilibrium.
[No. 20540-1-III.

Division Three.

October 24, 2002.]

#### The State of Washington, *Respondent,*v. Javier Garcia Flores, *Appellant.*

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court for Franklin County, No. 00-1-50218-3, Carolyn A. Brown, J., entered August 21, 2001. *Affirmed*by unpublished opinion per Kato, J., concurred in by Brown, C.J., and Kurtz, J.
STEAM ELECTRIC

C B I R E P L AC E M E NT P A G E

EPA

- HQ

- OW

- 20 09

- 0819

DCN:

________________________________________

T H E FO LL OW ING H AS BEE N R E M O V E D BE CAUSE IT

C O N T AINS C O N F ID E N T IAL B USIN E SS IN FO RMA T I O N

(C B I) P E R 4 0 C F R P ART 2

, SU B P ART B

. SE 04 331A015
1 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Docket No. 44482

STATE OF IDAHO ,

Plaintiff

- Respondent ,

v.

JASON ANTHONY EDWARDS ,

Defendant

- Appellant

. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) 2017 Unpublished Opinion No. 404

Filed: March 17, 2017

Stephen W. Kenyon, Clerk

THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED OPINION AND SHALL NOT BE CITED AS AUTHORITY

Appeal from the District Court of the First Judicial District, State of Idaho, Kootenai County. Hon. Lansing L. Haynes , District Judge.

Judgment of conviction and consecutive unified sentences of fifteen years indeterminate for attempted first degree kidnapping; twenty years determinate for battery with intent to commit a serious felony; and twenty years, with ten years determinate, for aggravated assault with an enhancement for use of a deadly

weapon, affirmed

.

Eric D. Fredericksen, State Appellate Public Defender; Brian R. Dickson , Deputy Appellate Public Defender, Boise, for appellant.

Hon. Lawrence G. Wasden, Attorney General; Lori A. Fleming , Deputy Attorney General, Boise, for respondent.

________________________________________________
Before GRATTON, Chief Judge; GUTIERREZ, Ju dge; and MELANSON, Judge

________________________________________________

PER CURIAM

Jason Anthony Edwards pled guilty to attempted first degree kidnapping (Count I) , Idaho

Code §§ 18

- 306, 18

- 4501(1), 18

- 4502; battery with intent to commit a serious felony (Count II)

, I.C. §§ 18

- 903, 18

- 911; and aggravated assault with an enhancement for use of a deadly weapon

(Count III) , I.C. §§ 18

- 901, 18

- 905. The district court imposed consecutive unified sentences of

fifteen years indeterminate on Count I; twenty years determinate on Count II; and twenty years,2 with ten years determinate, on Count III

. Edwards appeals, contending that his sentence s are

excessive.

Sentencing is a matter for the trial court’s di scretion. Both our standard of review and the

factors to be considered in evaluating the reasonableness of the sentence are well established and

need not be repeated here. See State v. Hernandez , 121 Idaho 114, 117

- 18, 822 P.2d 1011, 1014

- 15 (Ct. App. 1991); State v. Lopez , 106 Idaho 447, 449

- 51, 680 P.2d 869, 871

- 73 (Ct. App.

1984); State v. Toohill , 103 Idaho 565, 568, 650 P.2d 707, 710 (Ct. App. 1982). When reviewing

the length of a sentence, we consider the defendant’s entire sentence. State v. Oliver , 144 Idaho

722, 726, 170 P.3d 387, 391 (2007). Applying these standards, and having reviewed the record

in this case, we cannot say that the district court abused its discretion.

Therefore, Ed wards ’ judgment of conviction and sentence s are affirmed.
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

JUDGMENT

No. 04-22-00427-CV

Chris Noel CARLIN,

Appellant

v.

BEXAR COUNTY, Bexar County Judge Nelson W. Wolff, in his Official Capacity as Bexar 

County Judge, Judge Ron Rangel in his Official Capacity as Local Criminal Court 

Administrative Judge, Bexar County, Texas, and Judge Rosie Alvarado, in her Official Capacity 

as Local Administrative Judge, Bexar County, Texas,

Appellees

From the 45th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2021CI10840

Honorable Tina Torres, Judge Presiding

BEFORE JUSTICE RIOS, JUSTICE WATKINS, AND JUSTICE VALENZUELA

In accordance with this court’s memorandum opinion of this date, the judgment of the trial 

court is AFFIRMED. Costs of appeal are assessed against appellant Chris Noel Carlin.

SIGNED December 20, 2023.

_____________________________

Irene Rios, Justice
§ 89.225 Duration of an FAA-recognized identification area. ( a ) *Duration.* Except as otherwise provided in this subpart, an FAA-recognized identification area will be in effect for 48 calendar months after the date the FAA approves the request for establishment of an FAA-recognized identification area.
( b ) *Renewal.* A person wishing to renew an FAA-recognized identification area must submit a request for renewal no later than 120 days prior to the expiration of the FAA-recognized identification area in a form and manner acceptable to the Administrator. The Administrator may deny requests submitted after that deadline or requests submitted after the expiration.