alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2014414EN.01000901.xml

| 20.11.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 414/9 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.11.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 414/9

---

Notice concerning the anti-dumping measures in force in respect of imports into the Union of ceramic tableware and kitchenware originating in the People’s Republic of China: change of the name of companies subject to the anti-dumping duty rate for cooperating non-sampled companies

2014/C 414/06

Imports of ceramic tableware and kitchenware (‘tableware’) originating in the People’s Republic of China are subject to a definitive anti-dumping duty, imposed by Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 412/2013 (1) (‘Regulation (EU) No 412/2013’).

1

Seven companies located in the People’s Republic of China, whose exports to the Union of tableware are subject to the anti-dumping duty rate for cooperating non-sampled companies of 17,9 %, have informed the Commission that they have changed their names as set out below.

The companies argued that their change of name does not affect their right to benefit from the duty applied to them under their previous names.

The Commission has examined the information supplied and concluded that the change of name in no way affects the findings of Regulation (EU) No 412/2013.

Therefore, the references in Annex I to Regulation (EU) No 412/2013 regarding these companies should be read as below and the TARIC additional codes applied accordingly:

| For | Read | TARIC code |
| --- | --- | --- |
| Chaozhou Ronglibao Porcelain Co., Ltd. | Guangdong Ronglibao Homeware Co., Ltd. | B461 |
| Yong Feng Yuan Industry Co., Ltd. (‘Yong Feng Yuan Industry’) | China Yong Feng Yuan Co., Ltd. | B747 |
| Chaozhou Jinqiangyi Ceramics Co., Ltd. | Guangdong Jinqiuangyi Ceramics Co., Ltd. | B437 |
| Chaozhou Totye Ceramics Industrial Co., Ltd. | Guangdong Totye Ceramics Industrial Co., Ltd. | B474 |
| Chaozhou Xinhui Porcelain Co., Ltd. | Chaozhou Wenhui Porcelain Co., Ltd. | B486 |
| Jiyuan Jukang Xingxing Ceramics Co., Ltd. | Jiyuan Jukang Xinxing Ceramics Co., Ltd. | B618 |
| T&C Shantou Daily Chemical Industry Co., Ltd. | Gemmi (Shantou) Industrial Co., Ltd. | B958 |

For

Read

TARIC code

Chaozhou Ronglibao Porcelain Co., Ltd.

Guangdong Ronglibao Homeware Co., Ltd.

B461

Yong Feng Yuan Industry Co., Ltd. (‘Yong Feng Yuan Industry’)

China Yong Feng Yuan Co., Ltd.

B747

Chaozhou Jinqiangyi Ceramics Co., Ltd.

Guangdong Jinqiuangyi Ceramics Co., Ltd.

B437

Chaozhou Totye Ceramics Industrial Co., Ltd.

Guangdong Totye Ceramics Industrial Co., Ltd.

B474

Chaozhou Xinhui Porcelain Co., Ltd.

Chaozhou Wenhui Porcelain Co., Ltd.

B486

Jiyuan Jukang Xingxing Ceramics Co., Ltd.

Jiyuan Jukang Xinxing Ceramics Co., Ltd.

B618

T&C Shantou Daily Chemical Industry Co., Ltd.

Gemmi (Shantou) Industrial Co., Ltd.

B958

---

(1)  OJ L 131, 15.5.2013, p. 1.

1

---
/**
 * U.S. Census Bureau
 *
 * We have a machine-readable dataset discovery service. Visit our Discovery
 * Tool page to learn more.
 *
 * https://www.census.gov/data/developers/updates/new-discovery-tool.html
 *
 *
 * In alignment with the Digital Government Strategy, the Census Bureau is offering
 * the public wider access to key U.S. statistics. The Census application programming
 * interface (API) lets developers create custom apps to reach new users and makes
 * key demographic, socio-economic and housing statistics more accessible than
 * ever before. The Census Bureau’s API allows developers to design web and mobile
 * apps to explore or learn more about America's changing population and economy.
 *
 * https://www.census.gov/developers/
 */

$QF(function($){
  $( document ).on( 'click', 'div.' + QF.cssPrefix + 'titlebar a.' + QF.cssPrefix + 'back', function( e ) {
    e.preventDefault();
    e.stopPropagation();

    var
      D = new Date();

    D.setTime( D.getTime() + (24*60*60*1000) );

    document.cookie = QF.cssPrefix + 'backLocation=' + window.location.href + '; expires=' + D.toGMTString() + '; path=' + QF.approot;

    window.location.href = $( this ).attr( 'href' );
  });
});
# C_2014031EN.01000101.xml

| 1.2.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 31/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

1.2.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 31/1

---

2014/C 31/01

Last publication of the Court of Justice of the European Union in the Official Journal of the European Union

Official Journal of the European Union

OJ C 24, 25.1.2014

OJ C 24, 25.1.2014

Past publications

Past publications

OJ C 15, 18.1.2014

OJ C 9, 11.1.2014

OJ C 377, 21.12.2013

OJ C 367, 14.12.2013

OJ C 359, 7.12.2013

OJ C 352, 30.11.2013

These texts are available on:

EUR-Lex: http://eur-lex.europa.eu

---
#### James Walter REWIS v. STATE.

No. 37022.

Supreme Court of Florida.

Feb. 1968.

Certiorari dismissed without opinion. 202 So.2d 838.
#### In the Matter of Prudential Securities Incorporated, Respondent, v J. Leonard Samansky, Appellant.

[721 NYS2d 787]

—In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR 2307 for the issuance of a subpoena duces tecum, the appeal is from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Roberto, J.), entered May 25, 2000, which denied the appellant’s motion to quash the subpoena and directed him to produce certain documents.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The Supreme Court properly denied the appellant’s motion to quash the subpoena served in this case since the documents sought therein are relevant and material to issues in a pending arbitration proceeding *(see, Matter of Terry D.,*81 NY2d 1042, 1044; *Valdez v Sharaby,*258 AD2d 458; *Pernice v Devora,*238 *484AD2d 558). The production of documents pursuant to the subpoena does not violate the nondisclosure provisions of Nassau County Administrative Code § 22-4.3, since those provisions concern disclosure to the public at large (see, *People v Doe,*84 AD2d 182, 193), which is not the situation in this case.

The appellant’s remaining contentions are without merit. O’Brien, J. P., Friedmann, H. Miller and Schmidt, JJ., concur.
<PAGE>
                                                                    EXHIBIT 99.1

    CERTIFICATION BY THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
          RELATING TO A PERIODIC REPORT CONTAINING FINANCIAL STATEMENTS


     I, David H. McCormick, Chief Executive Officer of FreeMarkets, Inc., hereby
certify to my knowledge, and I, Joan S. Hooper, Chief Financial Officer, of
FreeMarkets, Inc., hereby certify to my knowledge, that:

          (a)  The Company's periodic report on Form 10-Q for the quarterly
               period ended March 31, 2003 (the "Form 10-Q"), fully complies
               with the requirements of Section 13 (a) of the Securities
               Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

          (b)  The information contained in the Form 10-Q fairly presents, in
               all material respects, the financial condition and results of
               operations of the Company.

                                      * * *


 CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER                     CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER



 /s/ David H. McCormick                     /s/ Joan S. Hooper
 ----------------------                     -------------------
 David H. McCormick                          Joan S. Hooper
 Date:  May 2, 2003                          Date: May 2, 2003



                                       8
I

103D CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 3118

Concerning treatment of the Centennial Bridge, Rock Island, Illinois, under

title 23, United States Code.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

SEPTEMBER 22, 1993

Mr. EVANS (for himself, Mr. LEACH, Mr. LIPINSKI, and Mr. SANGMEISTER)

introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on

Public Works and Transportation

A BILL

Concerning treatment of the Centennial Bridge, Rock Island,

Illinois, under title 23, United States Code.

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

3 SECTION 1. TREATMENT OF CENTENNIAL BRIDGE, ROCK

4 ISLAND, ILLINOIS, AGREEMENT.

5 For purposes of section 129(a)(6) of title 23, United

6 States Code, the agreement concerning the Centennial

7 Bridge, Rock Island, Illinois, entered into under the Act

8 entitled ‘‘An Act authorizing the city of Rock Island, Illi9 nois, or its assigns, to construct, maintain, and operate

10 a toll bridge across the Mississippi River at or near Rock
2

•HR 3118 IH

1 Island, Illinois, and to a place at or near the city of Dav2 enport, Iowa’’, approved March 18, 1938 (52 Stat. 110),

3 shall be treated as if such agreement had been entered

4 into under section 129 of title 23, United States Code,

5 as in effect on December 17, 1991, and may be modified

6 accordingly.

Æ
#### Ira M. DUSHOFF, Appellant, v. Rae T. DUSHOFF, Appellee.

No. N-422.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

June 29, 1971.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM VERITAS
DGC INC.'S FORM 10-K FOR THE YEAR ENDED JULY 31, 1998 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS
ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FORM 10-K.
</LEGEND>
<RESTATED> 
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUL-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             AUG-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               JUL-31-1997
<CASH>                                             550
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  120,946
<ALLOWANCES>                                       646
<INVENTORY>                                      2,333
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               205,435
<PP&E>                                         240,758
<DEPRECIATION>                                 108,004
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 385,089
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           83,733
<BONDS>                                         75,588
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           200
<OTHER-SE>                                     221,101
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   385,089
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               362,715
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  271,656
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               7,484
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 30,309
<INCOME-TAX>                                     6,062
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             25,125
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    25,125
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     1.33<F1>
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.30
<FN>
<F1>AS RESTATED FOR SFAS NO. 128 "EARNINGS PER SHARE"
</FN>
        

</TABLE>
Exhibit
32.1





CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO


18
U.S.C. SECTION 1350,


AS
ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION
906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





In connection with the Quarterly Report
of Protect Pharmaceutical Corporation (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the
period ended September 30, 2010, as filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, William D. Abajian, Chief
Executive Officer and Principal Accounting Officer of the Company, certify,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Sec. 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





(2)           
The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the
Company.





/s/
      William
      D. AbajianWilliam
      D. AbajianChief
      Executive OfficerActing
      Principal Accounting OfficerNovember
      15, 2010





A signed
original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document
authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears
in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement has been
provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the
Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.  The
foregoing certifications are accompanying the Company's Form 10-Q solely
pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and
(b) of section 1350, chapter 63 of title 18, United States Code) and is not
being filed as part of the Form 10-Q or as a separate disclosure
document.
#### STATE of Louisiana v. Lucas McCURADY.

No. 53820.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Dec. 3, 1973.

Frank J. Kenner, New Orleans, for defendant-appellant.

William J. Guste, Jr., Atty. Gen., LeRoy A. Hartley, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jim Garrison, Dist. Atty., Louise Korns, Asst. Dist. Atty., for plaintiff-appellee.

CULPEPPER, Justice Ad Hoc.

The defendant was tried and convicted of armed robbery and sentenced to serve twenty years at hard labor. He was granted an appeal to this Court.

Although several bills of exceptions were reserved during the trial, none of the bills were perfected. This is conceded by defendant. The record contains not only a reminder by the trial judge of the failure to so perfect these bills, but extension of time to do so. In spite of this, no bills were submitted or perfected.

Now, in brief filed in this Court, it is argued that a prejudicial statement was made by a police officer during his testimony at trial which indicated that this defendant had a criminal record. No objection was then made, but defendant seeks to have this Court consider this as error. The brief states:

> “Defense counsel did not object to this statement as prejudicial on the grounds of emphasizing to the members of the jury the implication that the accused had a prior record. Defense counsel was aware that the Code of Criminal Proce*639dure, Article 771, provides that the trial judge can admonish the jurors to disregard any prejudicial remarks that might have been made. However, in the present case, since the accused chose not to take the stand and, had defense counsel offered an objection, which would have served only to bring the matter of prior criminal record to the attention of the jurors, the accused was denied a fair trial and is entitled to have the verdict set aside and have a new trial ordered.

> “It is axiomatic that defendant is innocent until proven guilty. When the arresting officer said that some of the employees at Stratton-Baldwin, Inc. had police records, the members of the jury could not but draw an adverse inference concerning defendant’s prior background.”

Defendant concedes that, according to prior jurisprudence, bills of exceptions which are not perfected leave nothing for the court to review on appeal, but he urges that the lack of a timely objection was the sole manner in which the accused could minimize the damage done by the police officer’s prejudicial statement.

This argument is without substance. Defendant has answered his contention in his own quotation above, for he points out that our law in Article 771 Code of Criminal Procedure provides for admonition to the jury, upon objection, to disregard prejudicial remarks.

Only perfected bills, as required by Articles 844 and 845 C.Cr.P., will be considered for the purpose of appellate review; in their absence, we are limited on appeal to a review of the pleadings and proceedings for discoverable error. State v. Farner, 284 So.2d 573, No. 53,684 on the docket of this Court handed down on October 29, 1973, and the cases therein cited; State v. Robertson, 274 So.2d 707 (La.1973). We find none.

For the reasons assigned, the conviction and sentence are affirmed.
# C_2012313EN.01000701.xml

| 17.10.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 313/7 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.10.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 313/7

---

Euro exchange rates (1)

1

16 October 2012

2012/C 313/03

1 euro =

1 euro =

| | Currency | Exchange rate |
| --- | --- | --- |
| USD | US dollar | 1,3046 |
| JPY | Japanese yen | 102,94 |
| DKK | Danish krone | 7,4594 |
| GBP | Pound sterling | 0,80970 |
| SEK | Swedish krona | 8,6274 |
| CHF | Swiss franc | 1,2091 |
| ISK | Iceland króna | |
| NOK | Norwegian krone | 7,3910 |
| BGN | Bulgarian lev | 1,9558 |
| CZK | Czech koruna | 24,875 |
| HUF | Hungarian forint | 278,51 |
| LTL | Lithuanian litas | 3,4528 |
| LVL | Latvian lats | 0,6962 |
| PLN | Polish zloty | 4,0920 |
| RON | Romanian leu | 4,5783 |
| TRY | Turkish lira | 2,3585 |
| AUD | Australian dollar | 1,2693 |
| CAD | Canadian dollar | 1,2870 |
| HKD | Hong Kong dollar | 10,1116 |
| NZD | New Zealand dollar | 1,6023 |
| SGD | Singapore dollar | 1,5928 |
| KRW | South Korean won | 1 443,90 |
| ZAR | South African rand | 11,3680 |
| CNY | Chinese yuan renminbi | 8,1728 |
| HRK | Croatian kuna | 7,5148 |
| IDR | Indonesian rupiah | 12 515,85 |
| MYR | Malaysian ringgit | 3,9789 |
| PHP | Philippine peso | 53,896 |
| RUB | Russian rouble | 40,2810 |
| THB | Thai baht | 40,012 |
| BRL | Brazilian real | 2,6534 |
| MXN | Mexican peso | 16,6848 |
| INR | Indian rupee | 68,9550 |

Currency

Exchange rate

USD

US dollar

1,3046

JPY

Japanese yen

102,94

DKK

Danish krone

7,4594

GBP

Pound sterling

0,80970

SEK

Swedish krona

8,6274

CHF

Swiss franc

1,2091

ISK

Iceland króna

NOK

Norwegian krone

7,3910

BGN

Bulgarian lev

1,9558

CZK

Czech koruna

24,875

HUF

Hungarian forint

278,51

LTL

Lithuanian litas

3,4528

LVL

Latvian lats

0,6962

PLN

Polish zloty

4,0920

RON

Romanian leu

4,5783

TRY

Turkish lira

2,3585

AUD

Australian dollar

1,2693

CAD

Canadian dollar

1,2870

HKD

Hong Kong dollar

10,1116

NZD

New Zealand dollar

1,6023

SGD

Singapore dollar

1,5928

KRW

South Korean won

1 443,90

ZAR

South African rand

11,3680

CNY

Chinese yuan renminbi

8,1728

HRK

Croatian kuna

7,5148

IDR

Indonesian rupiah

12 515,85

MYR

Malaysian ringgit

3,9789

PHP

Philippine peso

53,896

RUB

Russian rouble

40,2810

THB

Thai baht

40,012

BRL

Brazilian real

2,6534

MXN

Mexican peso

16,6848

INR

Indian rupee

68,9550

---

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

1

Source

---
### IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA OP 24-0064 STEVEN TYRONE TIETZ, Petitioner, v. CAPT RAYVAUGHN, Warden, Respondent. GRANT OF MOTION TO PROCEED WITHOUT PAYMENT OF FILING FEE


### Motion to proceed withoutpayment ofthe filing fee in this matter is GRANTED. DATED February 1, 2024.
BOWEN GREENWOOD Clerk ofthe Supreme Court 02/01/2024
Case Number: OP 24-0064
**Exhibit 32(b)**

 

**DPL Inc.**

 

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18U.S.C. SECTION 1350 AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906

OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

 

Theundersigned officer of DPL Inc. (the “Issuer”) hereby certifies pursuant to 18U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Issuer’s Annual Report on Form 10-Kfor the period ended December 31, 2007, which this certificateaccompanies, fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the informationcontained therein fairly presents, in all material respects, the financialcondition and results of operations of the Issuer as of the dates and for theperiods expressed therein.

 

Asigned original of this written statement required by Section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, or other document authenticating, acknowledging, orotherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form within theelectronic version of this statement required by Section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, has been provided to the Issuer and will beretained by the Issuer and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commissionor its staff upon request.

 

Signed:

 

 
|   /s/  John J. Gillen                    |   |
|----------------------------------------------------|--------|
| John J. Gillen                                     |
| Senior  Vice President and Chief Financial Officer |

 

Date:February 22, 2008

 

The foregoing certificate is being furnished solelypursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 and is not being filed as part of theIssuer’s Annual Report or as a separate disclosure document.

 

1

----
EXHIBIT (3.1)

                       AMENDMENT TO BY-LAWS

On April 3, 1997, the Board of Directors voted to accept the
following change to CPI Corp.'s By-Laws:

     RESOLVED, that the first sentence of section 3.2 of the
By-Laws of the Corporation be, and hereby is, amended to read
as follows:

     The number of directors constituting the full
     Board of Directors shall be no more than nine
     (9), or such other number, not less that three
     (3), as may from time to time be established
     by amendment of these By-Laws.































                              22
#### MASSACHUSETTS BAY INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellant, v. Rudolph F. MASI, Appellee.

Nos. 67-513, 67-539.

District Court of Appeal of Florida. Second District.

Sept. 20, 1968.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
Regulatory Evaluation

Docket No. FAA-2015-1988 Directorate Identifier: 2015-NM-085-AD

If you make changes to the values in the table below, you must ensure the totals update accordingly. If 

they do not, click (or Tab) into and then out of the changed cell.

Estimated Costs:

Action

(e.g., Inspection, 

replacement)

Do not include oncondition costs here

Costs per Product (e.g., aircraft, engine, 

propeller, appliance)

Work-hours

(include 

access, testing, 

and close-up)

Labor 

cost 

(@$85/h

our)

Parts Cost Total Costs 

(labor + 

parts)

Number of 

U.S. 

Registered 

Products

Total Cost 

for U.S. Fleet

Change AFM 1.0 $ 85.00 $ 85.00 120 $10,200.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

The known number of products in compliance:

Total Costs of compliance for U.S. fleet: $10,200

Costs covered under warranty (if known) $

On-Condition Costs:

Action

(e.g., Inspection, 

replacement)

Work-hours 

(include access, 

testing, and closeup)

Labor cost 

(@$85/hour)

Parts Cost Cost per Product

$ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00

Special considerations for Economic Analysis (Use this field to explain anything in the Estimated Costs table 

that was assumed or might not be obvious. This field can also be used to explain warranty costs):
Executive Order 12866:

Could the AD be considered a “significant regulatory action”?

YES* NO 

*Explanation: 

DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures:

Is the AD significant? 

YES* NO 

*Explanation: 

Regulatory Flexibility Act:

Will the AD have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities? Explain for 

either a Yes or No answer.

YES NO 

Explanation: 

Intrastate Aviation in Alaska:

This AD could affect intrastate aviation in Alaska. Is it appropriate to include specific requirements for 

aircraft operated in Alaska where aviation might be the only mode of transportation?

YES* NO 

*Explanation: