alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EAC Decision on Request for Interpretation 2008-08

2002 VSS Vol. I, Glossary 

2005 VVSG Vol. I, Glossary 

Date: 

August 1, 2008 

Question(s): 

Should a component such as automatic bar code readers be considered part of a voting 

system and be tested as such? 

Section of Standards or Guidelines: 

VSS/VVSG Glossary 

A Voting system is defined as : The total combination of mechanical, electromechanical 

or electronic equipment (including the software, firmware, and documentation required to 

program, control, and support the equipment) that is used to define ballots; to cast and 

count votes; to report or display election results; and to maintain and produce any audit 

trail information; and the practices and associated documentation used to identify system 

components and versions of such components; to test the system during its development 

and maintenance; to maintain records of system errors and defects; to determine specific 

system changes to be made to a system after the initial qualification of the system; and to 

make available any materials to the voter (such as notices, instructions, forms or paper 

ballots). 

Background: 

 

An automatic bar code reader (ABCR) has been claimed by the manufacturer as not 

covered under the definition of a voting system and therefore not subject to testing, 

including the accuracy test. The ABCR is described by the voting system manufacturer 

as: “...a device that audits and recounts the printout generated by the (DRE VVPAT) 

printer. The automatic bar code reader device interfaces with ABCR software installed on 

a PC to generate reports based upon the scanned barcodes from the (DRE VVPAT) 

printout.” 
Conclusion: 

An Automatic Bar Code Reader is considered part of voting system based on the 

definition of a voting system. Specifically, the Automatic Bar Code Reader “supports” 

the system and is used to produce audit trail information, therefore it must be included as 

part of the testing of a voting system. 

Effective Date: 

Immediately upon publication and distribution. 

2
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Michael Cooke FASELER, II, Defendant-Appellant

No. 16-41602 Summary Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Filed January 24, 2018

Jessica Carol Akins, Carmen Castillo Mitchell, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Southern District of Texas, Houston, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee Rene C. Flores, Esq., Corpus Christi, TX, for Defendant-Appellant

Before JONES, SMITH, and BARKSDALE, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Michael Cooke Faseler, II, challenges his conditional guilty-plea conviction of being a felon in possession of a firearm, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). He claims: the court erred by denying his motion to suppress evidence of deputies’ discovery of two firearms because they lacked reasonable, articulable suspicion to justify the warrantless search of his person; and the firearm discovered through the subsequent inventory search of his truck should have been suppressed as fruit of the poisonous tree.

When reviewing a denial of a motion to suppress, our court reviews “the district court’s findings of fact for clear error and its conclusions of law *de novo”, United States v. Broca-Martinez,*855 F.3d 675, 678 (5th Cir. 2017) (internal quotation omitted), and “view[s] the evidence in the light most favorable to the party that prevailed in the district court”, *United States v. Monsivais,*848 F.3d 353, 357 (5th Cir. 2017) (internal quotation omitted). “A district court’s ruling on a motion to suppress based upon live testimony at a suppression hearing is accepted unless clearly erroneous or influenced by an incorrect view of the law.” *United States v. Cardoza-Hinojosa,*140 F.3d 610, 613 (5th Cir. 1998) (internal quotation omitted).

The deputies were entitled to rely on the information they received from the police dispatcher, their fellow officers, and eyewitnesses when deciding to conduct a frisk for weapons. *United States v. Vickers,*540 F.3d 356, 361 (5th Cir. 2008). Although the dispatch indicated no weapons were displayed and the deputies did not see a weapon, it was reasonable for them to infer Faseler was likely armed and a dan*309ger to others based on his threat to “shoot the place up”, and his prior violence towards law enforcement. *United States v. Estrada,*459 F.3d 627, 631-33 (5th Cir. 2006); *United States v. Michelletti,*13 F.3d 838, 840-841 (5th Cir. 1994) (en banc).

Therefore, contrary to his assertion, the deputies had reasonable, articulable suspicion he was armed and dangerous, to justify the pat-down search. *Terry v. Ohio,*392 U.S. 1, 30, 88 S.Ct. 1868, 20 L.Ed.2d 889 (1968); *Estrada,*459 F.3d at 631. In that regard, the subjective intent of one of the deputies does not negate the objectively reasonable search. *Whren v. United States,*517 U.S. 806, 813, 116 S.Ct. 1769, 135 L.Ed.2d 89 (1996).

AFFIRMED.

*

 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.
# C_2023134EN.01000203.xml

| 17.4.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 134/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.4.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 134/2

---

Appeal brought on 17 October 2022 by SB against the judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber) delivered on 7 September 2022 in Case T-217/21, SB v eu-LISA

(Case C-648/22 P)

(2023/C 134/04)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Appellant: SB (represented by: H. Tagaras, dikigoros)

Other party to the proceedings: European Union Agency for the Operational Management of Large-Scale IT Systems in the Area of Freedom, Security and Justice (eu-LISA)

By order of 9 March 2023, the Court of Justice (Sixth Chamber) dismissed the appeal as, in part, manifestly inadmissible and, in part, manifestly unfounded and ordered the appellant to bear his own costs.

---
I 

116TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 8896 

To repeal section 230 of the Communications Act of 1934 (commonly referred 

to as the Communications Decency Act) to stop censorship, and for 

other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

DECEMBER 8, 2020 

Mr. GOHMERT (for himself, Mr. BIGGS, Mr. MCCLINTOCK, Mr. LAMBORN, Mr. 

GOODEN, Mr. KING of Iowa, and Mr. KELLY of Mississippi) introduced 

the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Energy and 

Commerce 

A BILL 

To repeal section 230 of the Communications Act of 1934 

(commonly referred to as the Communications Decency 

Act) to stop censorship, and for other purposes. 

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 ‘‘Abandoning Online 

5 Censorship Act’’ or the ‘‘AOC Act’’. 


pamtmann on DSKBC07HB2PROD with BILLS
2 

HR 8896 IH

1 SEC. 2. REPEAL OF SECTION 230 OF THE COMMUNICATIONS 

2 ACT OF 1934 (COMMONLY REFERRED TO AS 

3 THE COMMUNICATIONS DECENCY ACT). 

4 (a) SECTION 230 OF THE COMMUNICATIONS ACT OF

5 1934.—Effective as of enactment of this language, section 

6 230 of the Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 

7 230(c)) is repealed. 

Æ 


pamtmann on DSKBC07HB2PROD with BILLS
Exhibit 23.1

 

Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 333-205058) pertaining to the Amended and Restated Equity Incentive Plan and 2015 Omnibus Equity Incentive Plan of DAVIDsTEA Inc. of our report dated April 12, 2016 with respect to the consolidated financial statements of DAVIDsTEA Inc. included in this Annual Report (Form 10-K) for the year ended January 30, 2016.

 

/s/Ernst & Young LLP

 

Montreal, Canada 

 

April 12, 2016

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

(1) CPA auditor, CA, public accountancy permit no. A112179

 

 

----
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 43 (Wednesday, March 5, 1997)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 10010-10011]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-5355]


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


FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
47 CFR Part 73

[MM Docket No. 97-84, RM-9021]


Radio Broadcasting Services; Pauls Valley, OK

AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Commission requests comments on a petition filed by Tom 
Stamper seeking the allotment of Channel 291A to Pauls Valley, OK, as 
the community's second local FM and third aural broadcast service. 
Channel 291A can be allotted to Pauls Valley in compliance with the 
Commission's minimum distance separation requirements with a site 
restriction of 9.8 kilometers (6.1 miles) south, at coordinates 34-39-
14 NL; 97-11-54 WL, to avoid a short-spacing to Station KGOU, Channel 
292A, Norman, OK.

DATES: Comments must be filed on or before April 21, 1997, and reply 
comments on or before May 6, 1997.

ADDRESSES: Federal Communications Commission, Washington, DC 20554. In 
addition to filing comments with the FCC, interested parties should 
serve the petitioner, or its counsel or consultant, as follows: Tom 
Stamper, 2402 C Avenue, Lawton, OK 73505 (Petitioner).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Leslie K. Shapiro, Mass Media Bureau, 
(202) 418-2180.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a synopsis of the Commission's 
Notice of Proposed Rule Making, MM Docket No. 97-84, adopted February 
21, 1997, and released February 28, 1997. The full text of this 
Commission decision is available for inspection and copying during 
normal business hours in the FCC Reference Center (Room 239), 1919 M 
Street, NW., Washington, DC. The complete text of this decision may 
also be purchased from the Commission's copy contractor, International 
Transcription Services, Inc., (202) 857-3800, 2100 M Street, NW., Suite 
140, Washington, DC 20037.
    Provisions of the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 do not apply 
to this proceeding.
    Members of the public should note that from the time a Notice of 
Proposed

[[Page 10011]]

Rule Making is issued until the matter is no longer subject to 
Commission consideration or court review, all ex parte contacts are 
prohibited in Commission proceedings, such as this one, which involve 
channel allotments. See 47 CFR 1.1204(b) for rules governing 
permissible ex parte contacts.
    For information regarding proper filing procedures for comments, 
see 47 CFR 1.415 and 1.420.

List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 73

    Radio broadcasting.

Federal Communications Commission.
John A. Karousos,
Chief, Allocations Branch, Policy and Rules Division, Mass Media 
Bureau.
[FR Doc. 97-5355 Filed 3-4-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-P
#### PAPIERFABRIK AUGUST KOEHLER SE, Plaintiff-Appellant v. UNITED STATES, Appvion, Inc., Defendants-Appellees

2016-2425

United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit.

February 7, 2018

John F. Wood, Hughes Hubbard & Reed LLP, Washington, DC, argued for plaintiff-appellant. Also represented by Flora Amanda DeBusk, Lynn Kamarck, Matthew R. Nicely, Eric S. Parnés, Daniel Martin Witkowski,

Joshua E. Kurland, Commercial Litiga-' tion Branch, Civil Division, United States Department of Justice, Washington, DC, argued for defendant-appellee United States. Also represented by Chad A. Rea-dler, Jeanne E. Davidson, Reginald T. Blades, Jr.; Jessica M. Link, Office of Chief Counsel for Trade Enforcement and Compliance, United States Department of Commerce, Washington, DC.

Daniel Schneiderman, King & Spalding LLP, Washington, DC, argued for defendant-appellee Appvion, Inc. Also represented by Stephen A. Jones.

(Lourie, Schall, and O’Malley, Circuit Judges).

*890JUDGMENT

Per Curiam

This Cause having been heard and considered, it is Ordered and Adjudged:

AFFIRMED. *See*Fed. Cir. R. 36.
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 11 (Thursday, January 16, 1997)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 2266-2267]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-55572]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

21 CFR Part 165


Beverages

CFR Correction

    In Title 21 of the Code of Federal Regulations, parts 100 to 169, 
revised as of April 1, 1996, Sec. 165.110 is corrected by transferring 
paragraph (b)(5) from page 531 and inserting text immediately following 
the note in the second column on page 526.

Sec. 165.110  Bottled water.

 * * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (5) Radiological quality. (i) Bottled water shall, when a composite 
of analytical units of equal volume from a sample is examined by the 
methods described in paragraph (b((5)(ii) of this section, meet 
standards of radiological quality as follows:
    (A) The bottled water shall not contain a combined radium-226 and 
radium-228 activity in excess of 5 picocuries per liter of water.
    (B) The bottled water shall not contain a gross alpha particle 
activity (including radium-226, but excluding radon and uranium) in 
excess of 15 picocuries per liter of water.
    (C) The bottled water shall not contain beta particle and photon 
radioactivity from manmade radionuclides in excess of that which would 
produce an annual dose equivalent to the total body or any internal 
organ of 4 millirems per year calculated on the basis of an intake of 2 
liters of the water per day. If two or more beta or photon-emitting 
radionuclides are present, the sum of their annual dose equivalent to 
the total body or to any internal organ shall not exceed 4 millirems 
per year.
    (ii) Analyses conducted to determine compliance with paragraph 
(b)(5)(i) of this section shall be made in accordance with the methods 
described in the applicable sections of ``Standard Methods for the 
Examination of Water and Wastewater,'' 15th Ed. (1980), and ``Interim 
Radiochemical Methodology for Drinking Water,'' U.S. EPA, EMSL, EPA-
600/4-75-008 (Revised), March

[[Page 2267]]

1976, both of which are incorporated by reference. The availability of 
these incorporations by reference is given in paragraph (b)(2) of this 
section.
 * * * * *

[FR Doc. 97-55572 Filed 1-15-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 1505-01-D
**Exhibit 99.1**

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO**

**SECTION 1350 OF CHAPTER 63 OF 18 U.S.C.**

**AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**

**SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

In connection with the Quarterly Report of The Immune ResponseCorporation (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ending March 31, 2003as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission, accompanied by thiswritten statement (the “Report”), I, John N. Bonfiglio, Chief Executive Officerof the Company, certify pursuant to § 1350 of Chapter 63 of 18 U.S.C., asadopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

 

(1)                                  The Report fully complies with therequirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934;and

 

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

 

 
|  /s/ John N.  Bonfiglio |   |
|------------------------------|--------|
| John N. Bonfiglio, Ph.D.     |   |
| Chief Executive Officer      |   |
| May 20, 2003                 |   |

 

----

 

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO**

**SECTION 1350 OF CHAPTER 63 OF 18 U.S.C.**

**AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**

**SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

In connection with the Quarterly Report of The Immune ResponseCorporation (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ending March 31, 2003as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission, accompanied by thiswritten statement (the “Report”), I, MichaelL. Jeub,Chief Financial Officer ofthe Company, certify pursuant to § 1350 of Chapter 63 of 18 U.S.C., as adoptedpursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

 

(1)                                  The Report fully complies with therequirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934;and

 

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

 

 

 
|  /s/ Michael L. Jeub |   |
|---------------------------|--------|
| Michael L. Jeub           |   |
| Chief Financial Officer   |   |
| May 20, 2003              |   |

 

----
# C_2022303EN.01002001.xml

| 8.8.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 303/20 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.8.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 303/20

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Vestre Landsret (Denmark) lodged on 8 June 2022 — Skatteministeriet v Danish Fluid System Technologies A/S

(Case C-368/22)

(2022/C 303/26)

Language of the case: Danish

Referring court

Vestre Landsret

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Skatteministeriet

Defendant: Danish Fluid System Technologies A/S

Question referred

Is subheading 7307 22 10 of the Combined Nomenclature of the Common Customs Tariff, as amended by Annex I to Commission Regulation (EU) No 861/2010 (1) of 5 October 2010 amending Annex I to Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff, to be interpreted as covering articles such as those at issue in the main proceedings?

---

(1)  OJ 2010 L 284, p. 1.

---
#### COHO LICENSING LLC, Plaintiff-Appellant v. OATH INC., Defendant-Appellee Glam Media Inc., Ning Inc., Rovi Corporation, Defendants

2017-1704, 2017-1706, 2017-1707, 2017-1708, 2017-1709, 2017-1710

United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit.

February 7, 2018

Stefanie T. Scott, Scott Shah Law^ PLLC, Austin, TX, argued for plaintiff-appellant. Also represented by Victor G. Hardy, Minghui Yang, Hardy Parrish Yang, LLP, Austin, TX.

Christopher Kao, Vinson *&*Elkins LLP, San Francisco, CA, argued for defendant-appellee. Also represented by Brock Ste. VEN WEBER; JEFFREY TA-HWA Han, Austin, TX.

Isaac Philip Rabicoff,' Rabicoff Law LLC, Chicago, IL, for amici curiae Paul Asija, Craig Miloscia, Daniel P. Brown, Paul Morinville, Rita Crompton, Daniel G. Papst, Jeffrey Dobkin, Adrian Pelkus, Francisco Guerra, Lu Anne Puett, Bob Hausslein, Isaac Philip Rabicoff, Jeff Hit-zler, Wayne Rasanen, Brian James, Don Skaggs, Glen Kotapish, Eren Soyak, Gary Stecklein, Randy Landreneau, Matt Steig, Steve Lyon, James Stevens, Leo Mazur, Greg Wawrzyniak, Birkir Marteinsson.

Per Curiam

JUDGMENT

(Dyk, O’Malley, and Wallach, Circuit Judges).

This Cause having been heard and considered, it is Ordered and Adjudged:

AFFIRMED. *See*Fed. Cir. R. 36.
# Iris Oifigiúil C NaN/2018

| | ISSN 1977-107X |
| --- | --- |
| Iris Oifigiúil
  an Aontais Eorpaigh | Eagrán Speisialta (
  *1
  ) |
| | |
| An t-eagrán Gaeilge | Faisnéis agus Fógraí | 6115 Bealtaine 2018 |

ISSN 1977-107X

Iris Oifigiúil

an Aontais Eorpaigh

Eagrán Speisialta (
  *1
  )

*1

An t-eagrán Gaeilge

Faisnéis agus Fógraí

6115 Bealtaine 2018

---

| | Clár | Leathanach |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | V   Fógairtí |
| | NÓSANNA IMEACHTA RIARACHÁIN |
| 2018/C 168/01 | Glaonna ar iarratais don tionscnamh WiFi4EU (nascacht idirlín a chur chun cinn i bpobail áitiúla), faoin tSaoráid um Chónascadh na hEorpa i réimse na líonraí teileachumarsáide tras-Eorpacha (Clár Oibre Leasaithe Teileachumarsáide 2017 na Saoráide um Chónascadh na hEorpa — Cinneadh Cur Chun Feidhme C(2017) 7732 ón gCoimisiún) | 1 |

Clár

Leathanach

V   Fógairtí

NÓSANNA IMEACHTA RIARACHÁIN

2018/C 168/01

Glaonna ar iarratais don tionscnamh WiFi4EU (nascacht idirlín a chur chun cinn i bpobail áitiúla), faoin tSaoráid um Chónascadh na hEorpa i réimse na líonraí teileachumarsáide tras-Eorpacha (Clár Oibre Leasaithe Teileachumarsáide 2017 na Saoráide um Chónascadh na hEorpa — Cinneadh Cur Chun Feidhme C(2017) 7732 ón gCoimisiún)

1

---

| | |
| --- | --- |
| | (*1)   Faoin tagairt C 168 a foilsíodh ábhar an eagráin seo i dteangacha oifigiúla eile an Aontais Eorpaigh. |

---

(*1)   Faoin tagairt C 168 a foilsíodh ábhar an eagráin seo i dteangacha oifigiúla eile an Aontais Eorpaigh.

*1

| GA | |
| --- | --- |

GA

---

V Fógairtí

NÓSANNA IMEACHTA RIARACHÁIN

| 15.5.2018 | GA | Iris Oifigiúil an Aontais Eorpaigh | 1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.5.2018

GA

Iris Oifigiúil an Aontais Eorpaigh

1

---

Glaonna ar iarratais don tionscnamh WiFi4EU (nascacht idirlín a chur chun cinn i bpobail áitiúla), faoin tSaoráid um Chónascadh na hEorpa i réimse na líonraí teileachumarsáide tras-Eorpacha

(Clár Oibre Leasaithe Teileachumarsáide 2017 na Saoráide um Chónascadh na hEorpa — Cinneadh Cur Chun Feidhme C(2017) 7732 ón gCoimisiún)

(2018/C 168/01)

Tá an glao ar iarratais seo a leanas á sheoladh ag Ard-Stiúrthóireacht na Líonraí Cumarsáide, an Ábhair Dhigitigh agus na Teicneolaíochta sa Choimisiún Eorpach leis seo don tionscnamh WiFi4EU chun deontais a dhámhachtain ar thionscadail i gcomhréir leis na tosaíochtaí agus na cuspóirí atá leagtha amach i gClár Oibre leasaithe 2017 i réimse na líonraí teileachumarsáide tras-Eorpacha faoin tSaoráid um Chónascadh na hEorpa.

Iarrtar iarratais a chur isteach ar an gcéad ghlao (WIFI4EU-2017-1) chun nascacht idirlín a chur chun cinn i bpobail áitiúla.

Is é EUR 17 745 000 an buiséad iomlán táscach atá ar fáil do na hiarratais a roghnófar faoin nglao seo.

Is é an 15 Meitheamh 2018 an spriocdháta le hiarratais a dhéanamh.

Ní mór iarratais don ghlao a chur isteach ar thairseach WiFi4EU: https://www.wifi4eu.eu/

Tá an doiciméadacht ábhartha don ghlao ar fáil ar shuíomh gréasáin INEA: https://ec.europa.eu/inea/en/connecting-europe-facility/cef-telecom/wifi4eu

---
November 12 th 2015 

## US DRONE AVIATION LLC

U.S. Department of Transportation

, Docket Management System

, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE

, Washington, DC 20590

**RE: Pet**  **i tion to Amend Exemption 11855; Docket No.**  **FAA**

**- 2015** 

**- 1163** 

Dear Sir or Madam:

US Drone Aviation LLC hereby petitions for an amendment to E xemption No

. 11855 issued to US Drone Aviation LLC on June 18

, 2015 to permit unmanned aircraft s y stem ( " UAS " ) operations for a variety of services. US Drone Aviation respectfully requests that the FAA amend Exempt ion No. 11855 to include an additional airframe for operations pertaining to oil and gas emission monitoring with the use of a proprietary sensor. This request is solely to add an additional airframe

, all existing conditions of the Exemption 11855 will be adhered to by US Drone Aviation LLC in all operations of sUAS’s.

The requested amendment to Exe mption No. 11855 would add the “ Yuneec T ornado H920 ” airframe from Yuneec Electric Aviation a major manufacturer of sUAS. The T ornado H920 airframe is a hexa copter with a total weight of under 13lbs , and payload of approximately 5lbs. The Tornado H920 has an exemplary safety record of operations and is within the parameters of the s UAS operations as currently approved by the FAA for Section 333 exemptions. The Tornado H920 airframe will be integrated into US Drone A viation’s flightline, providing services to the oil and gas industry for Green house Gas emissions monitoring and other operations as permitted under our existing Section 333 exe mption.

Attached by separa te document are specifications and background info rmation on the Yuneec Tornado H920 airframe which we respectfully request be retained as private and confidential proprietary information not for the public docket.
We respectively request an amendment to exemption No 11855 to enable US Drone Av i a tion to operate efficient, limited, low

- risk commercial sUAS operations for the activities stated

, respecting at all times the space and privacy of citizens and property while keeping airspace safe.
Sincerely

Stephen Elms US Drone Avia tion LLC P.O. Box 7998

, Jackson, WY 83002

(307) 264

- 2959

steve@USDroneAviation.com