alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM  AND IS
QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-28-1997
<CASH>                                           1,606
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    1,600
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                        704
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 4,078
<PP&E>                                          12,629
<DEPRECIATION>                                   3,102
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  18,265
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            3,006
<BONDS>                                          2,785
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            11
<OTHER-SE>                                      12,594
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    18,265
<SALES>                                         11,543
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                12,221
<CGS>                                            6,229
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    9,934
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 4,152
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 218
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (2,083)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (2,083)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.28)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
<PAGE>


                                                                    Exhibit 32.2

                           SECTION 1350 CERTIFICATION

 In connection with the Quarterly Report of Central Parking Corporation (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q for the three months ended June 30, 2005 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 9, 2005 (the "Report"), I, Jeff
Heavrin, Senior Vice President and Chief Financial 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

         (b)      The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in
                  all material respects, the financial condition and results of
                  operations of the Company.




                                                 /s/  JEFF HEAVRIN
                                                 ------------------------
                                                 Jeff Heavrin
                                                 Senior Vice President and Chief
                                                 Financial Officer

 A SIGNED ORIGINAL OF THIS WRITTEN STATEMENT REQUIRED BY SECTION 906 HAS BEEN
PROVIDED TO CENTRAL PARKING CORPORATION AND WILL BE RETAINED BY CENTRAL PARKING
CORPORATION AND FURNISHED TO THE SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION OR ITS STAFF
UPON REQUEST.

 The foregoing certification is being furnished solely to accompany the Report
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss 1350, and is not being filed for purposes of Section 18
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and is not to be
incorporated by reference into any filing of the Company, whether made before or
after the date hereof, regardless of any general incorporation language in such
filing. This certification is executed as of August 9, 2005.
U.S. flag
              An official website of the United States government Skip to main content   end of header Census.gov Newsroom Releases 2010 Census
 Newsroom Archive
 Skip left menu navigation
 About the Newsroom
 				Facts for Features
 				**News Releases**
 				Press Kits
 				Tip Sheets
 Release Information CB11-CN.81 **Contact:**  Public Information Office
301-763-3030
 FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:  THURSDAY, MARCH 10, 2011 Media Advisory — Census Bureau to Release Local 2010 Census Data for Alaska, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Minnesota, Montana, New Mexico, North Dakota and Tennessee According to Public Law 94-171, the Census Bureau must provide redistricting data to the 50 states no later than April 1 of the year following the census. As a result, the Census Bureau is delivering the data state-by-state on a flow basis in February and March. All states will receive their data by April 1, 2011.
  http://factfinder2.census.gov For more information on the Census Bureau's Redistricting Data Program, visit https://www.census.gov/rdo.
  http://2010.census.gov/news/press-kits/redistricting.html Twitter Facebook Flickr YouTube
  CONNECT WITH US

Information Quality
                    Data Linkage Infrastructure
                    Data Protection and Privacy Policy
                    Accessibility      
                    FOIA
                    Inspector General
                    No FEAR Act
                    U.S. Department of Commerce
                    USA.gov
                   Measuring America's People, Places, and Economy
#### INTERNATIONAL LONGSHOREMEN’S ASSOCIATION, LOCAL 1416, AFL-CIO, Appellant, v. ARIADNE SHIPPING COMPANY, Limited, Appellee.

No. 68-44.

District Court of Appeal of Florida. Third District.

July 9, 1968.

Kastenbaum, Mamber, Gopman, Epstein & Miles, Miami Beach, for appellant.

Shutts & Bowen; Muller, Schenerlein & Bare, Miami, for appellee.

Before CHARLES CARROLL, C. J., and PEARSON and SWANN, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

This interlocutory appeal is from an order dated November 14, 1967, entered subsequent to a summary judgment dated September 5, 1967, which made permanent a previously entered temporary injunction. In granting judgment the trial court had released the principal and surety on the bond which had been filed incident to the injunc*94tion pendente lite. The order here under appeal was one denying motion of the defendant to reinstate the bond. See International Longshoremen’s Ass’n v. Eastern S. S. Lines, Fla.App.1968, 206 So.2d 473.

The contention presented on this interlocutory appeal is also asserted by this appellant by an assignment of error (Rule 3.2(d) FAR, 32 F.S.A.) in the appeal which is pending in this court from the final judgment in the cause. Accordingly, we reserve ruling on this interlocutory appeal in favor of consideration and disposition of the point as raised in appeal No. 67-853 from the final judgment.

It is so ordered.
#### STATE ex rel. Dr. Karl F. ROLLER v. Dr. Edward K. WALKER.

No. 38680.

Supreme Court of Florida.

June 1969.

Rehearing Denied July 17, 1969.

Certiorari denied without opinion. 221 So.2d 764.
Exhibit 32.1SECTION 1350 CERTIFICATION     In connection with the Quarterly Report of Central Parking Corporation (the “Company”) on Form10-Q for the Quarter ending December 31, 2006 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commissionon February 9, 2007 (the “Report”), I, Emanuel Eads, Chief Executive Officer of the Company,certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that: (1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of section13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and  (b) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, inall material respects, the financial condition and results of
# C_2012345EN.01000301.xml

| 13.11.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 345/3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.11.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 345/3

---

Euro exchange rates (1)

1

12 November 2012

2012/C 345/05

1 euro =

1 euro =

| | Currency | Exchange rate |
| --- | --- | --- |
| USD | US dollar | 1,2735 |
| JPY | Japanese yen | 101,13 |
| DKK | Danish krone | 7,4577 |
| GBP | Pound sterling | 0,80200 |
| SEK | Swedish krona | 8,5809 |
| CHF | Swiss franc | 1,2057 |
| ISK | Iceland króna | |
| NOK | Norwegian krone | 7,3030 |
| BGN | Bulgarian lev | 1,9558 |
| CZK | Czech koruna | 25,366 |
| HUF | Hungarian forint | 283,60 |
| LTL | Lithuanian litas | 3,4528 |
| LVL | Latvian lats | 0,6963 |
| PLN | Polish zloty | 4,1706 |
| RON | Romanian leu | 4,5293 |
| TRY | Turkish lira | 2,2900 |
| AUD | Australian dollar | 1,2200 |
| CAD | Canadian dollar | 1,2725 |
| HKD | Hong Kong dollar | 9,8704 |
| NZD | New Zealand dollar | 1,5591 |
| SGD | Singapore dollar | 1,5572 |
| KRW | South Korean won | 1 386,28 |
| ZAR | South African rand | 11,0900 |
| CNY | Chinese yuan renminbi | 7,9333 |
| HRK | Croatian kuna | 7,5300 |
| IDR | Indonesian rupiah | 12 243,86 |
| MYR | Malaysian ringgit | 3,9017 |
| PHP | Philippine peso | 52,272 |
| RUB | Russian rouble | 40,2398 |
| THB | Thai baht | 39,020 |
| BRL | Brazilian real | 2,6053 |
| MXN | Mexican peso | 16,7975 |
| INR | Indian rupee | 69,8830 |

Currency

Exchange rate

USD

US dollar

1,2735

JPY

Japanese yen

101,13

DKK

Danish krone

7,4577

GBP

Pound sterling

0,80200

SEK

Swedish krona

8,5809

CHF

Swiss franc

1,2057

ISK

Iceland króna

NOK

Norwegian krone

7,3030

BGN

Bulgarian lev

1,9558

CZK

Czech koruna

25,366

HUF

Hungarian forint

283,60

LTL

Lithuanian litas

3,4528

LVL

Latvian lats

0,6963

PLN

Polish zloty

4,1706

RON

Romanian leu

4,5293

TRY

Turkish lira

2,2900

AUD

Australian dollar

1,2200

CAD

Canadian dollar

1,2725

HKD

Hong Kong dollar

9,8704

NZD

New Zealand dollar

1,5591

SGD

Singapore dollar

1,5572

KRW

South Korean won

1 386,28

ZAR

South African rand

11,0900

CNY

Chinese yuan renminbi

7,9333

HRK

Croatian kuna

7,5300

IDR

Indonesian rupiah

12 243,86

MYR

Malaysian ringgit

3,9017

PHP

Philippine peso

52,272

RUB

Russian rouble

40,2398

THB

Thai baht

39,020

BRL

Brazilian real

2,6053

MXN

Mexican peso

16,7975

INR

Indian rupee

69,8830

---

(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.

1

Source

---
260 La. 124

#### Rebecca S. BROWN et al. v. TRAVELERS INSURANCE CO. et al.

No. 51925.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Dec. 3, 1971.

In re: Rebecca S. Brown, et al., applying for certiorari, or writ of review, to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, Parish of Rapides. 255 So.2d 111.

Writ refused. On the facts found by the Court of Appeal the judgment is correct. The errors assigned to the rehearing practice of the court of appeal are without merit.
# C_2012131EN.01000201.xml

| 5.5.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 131/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

5.5.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 131/2

---

Euro exchange rates (1)

1

4 May 2012

2012/C 131/03

1 euro =

1 euro =

| | Currency | Exchange rate |
| --- | --- | --- |
| USD | US dollar | 1,3132 |
| JPY | Japanese yen | 105,41 |
| DKK | Danish krone | 7,4378 |
| GBP | Pound sterling | 0,81195 |
| SEK | Swedish krona | 8,9041 |
| CHF | Swiss franc | 1,2014 |
| ISK | Iceland króna | |
| NOK | Norwegian krone | 7,5610 |
| BGN | Bulgarian lev | 1,9558 |
| CZK | Czech koruna | 25,023 |
| HUF | Hungarian forint | 284,85 |
| LTL | Lithuanian litas | 3,4528 |
| LVL | Latvian lats | 0,6990 |
| PLN | Polish zloty | 4,1848 |
| RON | Romanian leu | 4,4048 |
| TRY | Turkish lira | 2,3053 |
| AUD | Australian dollar | 1,2830 |
| CAD | Canadian dollar | 1,2986 |
| HKD | Hong Kong dollar | 10,1925 |
| NZD | New Zealand dollar | 1,6465 |
| SGD | Singapore dollar | 1,6306 |
| KRW | South Korean won | 1 486,50 |
| ZAR | South African rand | 10,1630 |
| CNY | Chinese yuan renminbi | 8,2812 |
| HRK | Croatian kuna | 7,4978 |
| IDR | Indonesian rupiah | 12 110,53 |
| MYR | Malaysian ringgit | 3,9937 |
| PHP | Philippine peso | 55,570 |
| RUB | Russian rouble | 38,8750 |
| THB | Thai baht | 40,630 |
| BRL | Brazilian real | 2,5107 |
| MXN | Mexican peso | 17,0670 |
| INR | Indian rupee | 70,2230 |

Currency

Exchange rate

USD

US dollar

1,3132

JPY

Japanese yen

105,41

DKK

Danish krone

7,4378

GBP

Pound sterling

0,81195

SEK

Swedish krona

8,9041

CHF

Swiss franc

1,2014

ISK

Iceland króna

NOK

Norwegian krone

7,5610

BGN

Bulgarian lev

1,9558

CZK

Czech koruna

25,023

HUF

Hungarian forint

284,85

LTL

Lithuanian litas

3,4528

LVL

Latvian lats

0,6990

PLN

Polish zloty

4,1848

RON

Romanian leu

4,4048

TRY

Turkish lira

2,3053

AUD

Australian dollar

1,2830

CAD

Canadian dollar

1,2986

HKD

Hong Kong dollar

10,1925

NZD

New Zealand dollar

1,6465

SGD

Singapore dollar

1,6306

KRW

South Korean won

1 486,50

ZAR

South African rand

10,1630

CNY

Chinese yuan renminbi

8,2812

HRK

Croatian kuna

7,4978

IDR

Indonesian rupiah

12 110,53

MYR

Malaysian ringgit

3,9937

PHP

Philippine peso

55,570

RUB

Russian rouble

38,8750

THB

Thai baht

40,630

BRL

Brazilian real

2,5107

MXN

Mexican peso

17,0670

INR

Indian rupee

70,2230

---

(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.

1

Source

---
#### STATE of Louisiana v. Darrell J. SONGY, Jr.

No. 62103.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

June 30, 1978.

In re: Darrell J. Songy, Jr., applying for writs of certiorari, prohibition, mandamus and for stay order. Parish of Jefferson.

Writ denied.

TATE, J.,

concurs because the issue may be considered on appeal upon proper assignment of error.

DIXON, J., would grant the writ.
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Stephen J. Markman, Chief Justice

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano 

Richard H. Bernstein

Joan L. Larsen

Kurtis T. Wilder,

Justices

I, Larry S. Royster, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

 June 23, 2017

d0620

Order 

Clerk

June 23, 2017

155921 & (21)

WILBERT EVANS,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 155921

COA: 337361 

Oakland CC: 2016-155470-NH

WILLIAM BEAUMONT HOSPITAL,

Defendant, 

and

DANIEL MICHAEL, M.D., and UNIVERSITY

NEUROSURGICAL ASSOCIATES, P.C., d/b/a

MICHIGAN HEAD AND SPINE INSTITUTE,

Defendants-Appellants.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the motion for immediate consideration is GRANTED. 

The application for leave to appeal the April 28, 2017 order of the Court of Appeals is 

considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the question presented 

should be reviewed by this Court.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                             163
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    1,430
<ALLOWANCES>                                        44
<INVENTORY>                                      1,052
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 2,751
<PP&E>                                           5,639
<DEPRECIATION>                                   2,559
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   7,875
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            2,792
<BONDS>                                          1,869
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                        187
<COMMON>                                            49
<OTHER-SE>                                       1,848
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     7,875
<SALES>                                          9,844
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                            6,049
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    8,752
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 175
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    917
<INCOME-TAX>                                       308
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       580
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     3.93
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
#### Robert LOVE, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 70-1065.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

Dec. 12, 1972.

Chandler R. Muller, of Mairs, Wood, Muller, Boroughs & Fisher, Winter Park, for appellant.

Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., and Wallace E. Allbritton, Asst. Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Defendant appeals his conviction of robbery and sentence of thirty-five years at hard labor and contends that the lower court erred when it did not sufficiently inquire into whether defendant knowingly and intelligently waived his right to counsel. The record reflects that counsel was appointed for the defendant but the defendant subsequently discharged him and proceeded to conduct his own defense.

We have carefully reviewed the record on appeal and we are of the opinion that under the circumstances of this case the scope of the trial court’s inquiry was not of such a nature as to clearly reflect that defendant knowingly and intelligently waived his right to counsel. King v. State, 157 So. 2d 440 (Fla.App.1963); Donald v. State, *409166 So.2d 453 (Fla.App.1964); Richards v. State, 214 So.2d 31 (Fla.App.1968).1

The judgment is reversed and the cause remanded to the trial court with directions to afford the appellant a new trial.

REED, C. J., MAGER, J., and CARLTON, CHARLES T., Associate Judge, concur.

1

. As the court observed in Donald v. State, 166 So.2d 453 (Fla.App.1964) at 457: “The court did not explain to the accused the difficulties involved in presenting an effective defense and the consequences of proceeding without the benefit of counsel.” Compare with Richards v. State, 214 So.2d 31 (Fla.App.1968), where defendant “was told by the trial judge that he was not equipped to represent himself but he elected to do so anyway.” See also State v. Cappetta, 216 So. 2d 749 (Fla.1969).
II 

113TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 1915 

To permit health insurance issuers to offer additional plan options to 

individuals. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JANUARY 13, 2014 

Mr. FLAKE (for himself and Mr. JOHNSON of Wisconsin) introduced the 

following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Finance 

A BILL 

To permit health insurance issuers to offer additional plan 

options to individuals. 

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 ‘‘Removing Limitations 

5 on Insurance Effectiveness and Flexibility Act of 2013’’ 

6 or the ‘‘ReLIEF Act’’. 

7 SEC. 2. AUTHORITY TO OFFER ADDITIONAL PLAN OPTIONS. 

8 (a) CATASTROPHIC PLANS.—Notwithstanding title I 

9 of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (Public 

10 Law 111–148), a catastrophic plan as described in section 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 1915 IS

1 1302(e) of such Act shall be deemed to be a qualified 

2 health plan (including for purposes of receiving tax credits 

3 under section 36B of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 

4 and cost-sharing assistance under section 1402 of this 

5 Act), except that for purposes of enrollment in such plans, 

6 the provisions of paragraph (2) of such section 1302(e) 

7 shall not apply. 

8 (b) INDIVIDUAL MANDATE.—Coverage under a cata9 strophic plan under subsection (a) shall be deemed to be 

10 minimum essential coverage for purposes of section 5000A 

11 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986. 

Æ 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

, Chief Justice

Stephen J. Markman

Mary Be th Kelly

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano

Richard H. Bernstein,

Justices

I, Larry S. Royster , Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

May 20, 2015

s0513 

# Order

Clerk May 20, 2015

150470

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff

- Appellee,

v SC: 150470

COA: 314906

Kalamazoo CC: 2012

- 000990

- FC

MARCUS TRINAL ROBINSON,

Defendant

- Appellant.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the October 2, 2014

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not

persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.
## COURT OF APPEALS

SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH

NO. 02

- 14

- 00065

- CV

Jimmy and Karen Lewis

v.

Bell Helicopter Textron, Inc. §

§

§

§

§ From the 431st District Court

of Denton County

(2013

- 70726

- 431)

June 4, 2015

Opinion by Justice Dauphinot



### JUDGMENT

This court has considered the record on appeal in this case and holds that

there was error in part of the trial court’s judgment. It is ordered that the

judgment of the trial court i s affirmed in part and reversed in part. We affirm that

portion of the trial court’s judgment as to Appellants Jimmy and Karen Lewis’s

claim for injunctive relief . We reverse that portion of the trial court’s judgment as

to Appellants Jimmy and Karen Lew is’s claim for damages and remand this case

to the trial court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

It is further ordered that each party shall bear their own costs of this

appeal, for which let execution issue.SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

By

_ /s/ Lee Ann Dauphinot

______________ Justice Lee Ann Dauphinot
**AD Economic Evaluation**



### Docket No . FAA
- 20 14
- 0643 Directorate ID : 20 13
- SW
- 059
- AD Helicopter Model: Bell Helicopter Textron Canada Model 206L
- 4, 407, and 427 Helicopters Number of Helicopters (U.S. Operators): 970 Helicopt ers in the US Registry
. Reason : The actions of this AD are intended to prevent failure of a driveshaft, loss of drive to the main rotor system, and a subsequent emergency landing. Costs : Parts per Helicopter $ 39,724 to replace a driveshaft Labor per H elicopter ( 0.25 work
-hour x 

### $ 8 5 /work

hour to determine whether the driveshaft has ever been installed on a Bell Model 407 helicopter. ) $ 22

Other 1 hour to inspect the driveshaft at $85 per helicopter. 2 work hours to replace the helicopter at $170 per helicopter and $39,724 for required parts to replace a driveshaft for a total of $39,894. Total Cost per Helicopter $ 22 to determine if a driveshaft has ever been installed on a Model 407 helicopter. If a driveshaft is replaced, then the total per helicopter is $39,894. Total US Fleet Cost $ 21,340 to determine if a driveshaft has ever been installed on a Model 407 helicopter and $39,894 to replace one. Executive Order 12866 : Could the AD be considered a “significant regulatory action?” Yes ( ) No (  ) DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures : Is the AD significant? Yes ( ) Explain Below No (  ) Regulatory Flexibility Act : Will the AD have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities? Yes ( ) No (  ) Project Enginee r : Matthew Fuller