alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 31.2



Rule 13a-14(a) Certification

As Adopted Pursuant to

Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002



I, John C. Farmer, Chief Financial Officer and Secretary, certify that:



1.    I have reviewed this annual report
on Form 10-K of MK Resources Company;



2.    Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such
statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;



|                     |  |  |  |                                                     
|-------------------- |  |  |  | ----------------------------------------------------
|                     |  | 
|Date: April 28, 2005 |  |  |  | /s/ John C. Farmer                                  
|                     |  |  |  | John C. Farmer Chief Financial Officer and Secretary
### §1851. Reports to Congress; recommendations

The Board shall submit to the Congress annually a full report of its operations under this chapter. In addition, the Board shall submit to the Congress a special report not later than June 30, 1973, which shall include a full report of the Board's operations together with its recommendations with respect to the need to continue the guarantee program beyond the termination date specified in section 1852 of this title. If the Board recommends that the program should be continued beyond such termination date, it shall state its recommendations with respect to the appropriate board, agency, or corporation which should administer the program.

(Pub. L. 92–70, §12, Aug. 9, 1971, 85 Stat. 182.)
#### § 154.603 Adoption of the tariff by a successor.

Whenever the tariff or contracts of a natural gas company on file with the Commission is to be adopted by another company or person as a result of an acquisition, or merger, authorized by a certificate of public convenience and necessity, or for any other reason, the succeeding company must file with the Commission, and post within 30 days after such succession, a tariff filing in the electronic format required by § 154.4 bearing the name of the successor company.

[Order 714, 73 FR 57535, Oct. 3, 2008]
industrial Sites Controlierd by Qthers 

[ X ] — C8t (entire page)
# TS-GGKW10 Sanitized As TSCA CBI
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE PILOT
NETWORK SERVICES, INC. FORM 10-Q FOR THE PERIOD ENDED DECEMBER 31, 1998 AND IS
QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAR-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             APR-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                                          15,808
<SECURITIES>                                    14,723
<RECEIVABLES>                                    3,467
<ALLOWANCES>                                       250
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                34,390
<PP&E>                                          16,427
<DEPRECIATION>                                   6,844
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  44,729
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           10,922
<BONDS>                                          4,340
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            14
<OTHER-SE>                                      29,453
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    44,729
<SALES>                                         11,970
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                11,970
<CGS>                                           13,867
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   13,867
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                10,201
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              (1,286)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (13,384)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (13,384)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (1.68)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (1.68)
        

</TABLE>
§ 157.5 Purpose and intent of rules. ( a ) Applications under section 7 of the Natural Gas Act shall set forth all information necessary to advise the Commission fully concerning the operation, sales, service, construction, extension, or acquisition for which a certificate is requested or the abandonment for which permission and approval is requested. Some applications may be of such character that an abbreviated application may be justified under the provisions of § 157.7. Applications for permission and approval to abandon pursuant to section 7(b) of the Act shall conform to § 157.18 and to such other requirements of this part as may be pertinent. However, every applicant shall file all pertinent data and information necessary for a full and complete understanding of the proposed project, including its effect upon applicant's present and future operations and whether, and at what docket, applicant has previously applied for authorization to serve any portion of the market contemplated by the proposed project and the nature and disposition of such other project.
( b ) Every requirement of this part shall be considered as a forthright obligation of the applicant which can only be avoided by a definite and positive showing that the information or data called for by the applicable rules is not necessary for the consideration and ultimate determination of the application.
( c ) This part will be strictly applied to all applications as submitted and the burden of adequate presentation in intelligible form as well as justification for omitted data or information rests with the applicant.
[17 FR 7386, Aug. 14, 1952, as amended by Order 280, 29 FR 4876, Apr. 7, 1964]
# C_2013063EN.01000301.xml

| 2.3.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 63/3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

2.3.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 63/3

---

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 17 January 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster Gerichtshof — Austria) — Georg Köck v Schutzverband gegen unlauteren Wettbewerb

(Case C-206/11) (1)

1

(Consumer protection - Unfair business-to-consumer commercial practices in the internal market - Legislation of a Member State providing for prior authorisation of announcements of sales)

2013/C 63/03

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Referring court

Oberster Gerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Georg Köck

Applicant:

Defendant: Schutzverband gegen unlauteren Wettbewerb

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Request for a preliminary ruling — Oberster Gerichtshof — Interpretation of Directive 2005/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 May 2005 concerning unfair business-to-consumer commercial practices in the internal market and amending Council Directive 84/450/EEC, Directives 97/7/EC, 98/27/EC and 2002/65/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council and Regulation (EC) No 2006/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council (‘Unfair Commercial Practices Directive’) (OJ 2005 L 149, p. 22), in particular Articles 3(1) and 5(5) — Legislation of a Member State prescribing prior authorisation for the announcement of a clearance sale

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

Directive 2005/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 May 2005 concerning unfair business-to-consumer commercial practices in the internal market and amending Council Directive 84/450/EEC, Directives 97/7/EC, 98/27/EC and 2002/65/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council and Regulation (EC) No 2006/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council (‘Unfair Commercial Practices Directive’) must be interpreted as precluding a national court from ordering the cessation of a commercial practice not covered by Annex I to that directive on the sole ground that the practice has not been the subject of prior authorisation by the competent administrative authority, without itself carrying out an assessment of the unfairness of the practice in question against the criteria set out in Articles 5 to 9 of that directive.

---

(1)  OJ C 226, 30.7.2011.

1

---
§ 43.2 Definitions. As used in this part: ( a ) *Assistant Secretary* means the Assistant Secretary—Indian Affairs, Department of the Interior.
( b ) *Educational institution* means any institution operated under the jurisdiction of the Bureau of Indian Affairs either directly or by contract, including, but not limited to, schools or dormitories from which Indian students attend public schools.
( c ) *Eligible student* means a student who has become 18 years of age or is attending an institution of post-secondary education. When a student becomes an *eligible student,* the permission required of and the rights given to the parents of the student shall thereafter only be required of and given to the student.
( d ) *Parent* means a natural parent, an adoptive parent, the legal guardian, or a legal custodian of a student. (Where the natural parents are unavailable, a required written parental consent may be obtained from the person who has assumed custody of the student.) For purposes of the Education of All Handicapped Children Act, the term *parent* also includes a *surrogate* as referred to in 20 U.S.C. 1415(b)(1)(B).
( e ) *Student records* means those records, files, documents, and other materials which contain information directly related to a student and which are maintained by an educational institution, or by a person acting for that institution. The term does not include: ( 1 ) Records of any educational personnel which are in the sole possession of the maker and which are not accessible or revealed to any other person except a substitute.
( 2 ) Records made and maintained in the normal course of business which relate exclusively to persons who are employed in an educational institution but do not attend that institution.
( 3 ) Directory information as given in § 43.20.
( 4 ) Records on a student who is 18 years of age or older, or is attending an institution of post-secondary education, which are made or maintained by a physician, psychiatrist, psychologist, or other recognized professional or paraprofessional acting in his professional or paraprofessional capacity, or assisting in that capacity, and which are made, maintained, or used only in connection with the provision of treatment to the student, and are not available to anyone other than persons providing such treatment, except that such records can be personally reviewed by a physician or other appropriate professional of the student's choice.
# C_2013108EN.01001801.xml

| 13.4.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 108/18 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.4.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 108/18

---

Order of the President of the Court of 17 January 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Rechtbank Breda — Netherlands) — Adrianus Theodorus Gerardus Martines van de Ven, Michaele Anna Harriet Tiny can de Ven-Janssen v Koninklijke Luchtvaart Maatschappij NV

(Case C-315/11) (1)

1

2013/C 108/37

Language of the case: Dutch

The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

---

(1)  OJ C 269, 10.9.2011.

1

---
# C_2012355EN.01002401.xml

| 17.11.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 355/24 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.11.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 355/24

---

Judgment of the General Court of 27 September 2012 — J v Parliament

(Case T-160/10) (1)

1

(Right of petition - Petition addressed to the European Parliament - Decision to take no further action - Action for annulment - Duty to state reasons - Petition not falling within an area of activity of the European Union)

2012/C 355/50

Language of the case: German

Parties

Parties

Applicant: J (Marchtrenk, Austria) (represented by: A. Auer, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Parliament (represented by: N. Lorenz and N. Görlitz, agents)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Action for annulment of the decision of the European Parliament’s Committee on Petitions of 2 March 2010 to take no further action in relation to the petition lodged by the applicant on 19 November 2009 (petition No 1673/2009).

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

| 1. | The action is dismissed; |
| --- | --- |

1.

The action is dismissed;

| 2. | Mr J is ordered to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Mr J is ordered to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 238, 13.8.2011.

1

---
```

[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 107 (Friday, June 3, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Page 32265]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-13826]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

Executive Committee of the Aviation Rulemaking Advisory 
Committee; Meeting

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of meeting.

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

SUMMARY: The FAA is issuing this notice to advise the public of a 
meeting of the Executive Committee of the Aviation Rulemaking Advisory 
Committee.

DATES: The meeting will be held on June 29, 2011, at 10 a.m.

ADDRESSES: The meeting will take place at the Federal Aviation 
Administration, 800 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC, 20591, 
10th floor, MacCracken Room.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Renee Butner, Federal Aviation 
Administration, 800 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC, 20591, 
telephone (202) 267-5093; fax (202) 267-5075; e-mail 
Renee.Butner@faa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Under section 10(a)(2) of the Federal 
Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. App. 2), we are giving notice of a 
meeting of the Executive Committee of the Aviation Rulemaking Advisory 
Committee taking place on June 29, 2011, at the Federal Aviation 
Administration, 800 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20591. The 
Agenda includes:

1. Discussion of Potential Restructuring of ARAC
2. Discussion of ARAC EXCOM Role in Implementing Future of Aviation 
Advisory Committee (FAAC) Recommendation 22
3. Update on FAA Response to Process Improvement Working Group (PIWG) 
Recommendations
4. Review of the Retrospective Regulatory Review Report
5. Issue Area Status Reports From Assistant Chairs
6. Remarks From Other EXCOM Members

Attendance is open to the interested public but limited to the space 
available. The FAA will arrange teleconference service for individuals 
wishing to join in by teleconference if we receive notice by June 22. 
Arrangements to participate by teleconference can be made by contacting 
the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. 
Callers outside the Washington metropolitan area are responsible for 
paying long-distance charges.
    The public must arrange by June 22 to present oral statements at 
the meeting. The public may present written statements to the executive 
committee by providing 25 copies to the Executive Director, or by 
bringing the copies to the meeting.
    If you are in need of assistance or require a reasonable 
accommodation for this meeting, please contact the person listed under 
the heading FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on May 31, 2011.
Dennis Pratte,
Acting Director, Office of Rulemaking.
[FR Doc. 2011-13826 Filed 6-2-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
```
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA No. DA 24
- 0247 STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellee, v. HARRY RICHARDS,

Defendant and Appellant.

**ORDER** Upon consideration of Appellant’s motion for extension of time, and good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellant is granted an extension of time to and including November 8 , 202 4 , within which to prepare, file, and serve Appellant’s opening brief on appeal.

Electronically signed by: Mike McGrath Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

October 5 2024

10/07/2024

Case Number: DA 24-0247
### 1 

# APPENDIX F



# MOBILE6.2 Input Parameter Summary

## Table 1: General Parameters and Options

Input parameter Summer Wkd

Output Pollutants VOC, NOX
Analysis Day Avg Weekday (Jun, Jul, Aug) Counties Cecil Traffic Data SHA Universal Highway Database Source Data Year 2005
HPMS VMT Adjustment Year 2005 SHA Seasonal Factor Data 2005 SHA Hourly Pattern Data 2005 MOBILE6 Defaults Used to Disaggregate Auto, Truck, Bus, MC Vehicle Mix Categories 2005

Traffic Volume Forecasted

Growth Extrapolated growth based

on 1990

-2005 HPMS VMT
M6Parameters Em issions Calendar Year 2009
Evaluation Month 7 (July) Season 1

- Summer CAAA Standards Enabled Tier2 Standards Enabled 2007 HDDV Rule Enabled North

- East NLEV Included Refueling Emissions Not Included Registration Data 2005 from MDE
Diesel Sales Fractions 2005 from MDE VMT by Hour 2005 Local Data (varies by cty, fc) VMT by Facility Each facility run as separate scenario VMT by Speed Calculated by PPSUITE

## Table 2: Inspection/Maintenance Program Input Parameters

MOBILE6 I/M Test Types: 2009 I/M Program EVAP OBD & GC OBD I/M IM240* IDLE IDLE Program Start Year 2002 1984 1984 1984 1984 I/M Stringency 20.0 20.0 20.0 20.0 I/M Model Years First Year 1996 1996 1984 1977 1977 Last Year 2050 2050 1995 2050 1983 I/M W aiver Rates Pre

-81 Model Years 5.4% 5.4% 13.8% 13.8% 13.8% Post

-81 Model Years 5.4% 5.4% 13.8% 13.8% 13.8% I/M Compliance 96.0% 96.0% 96.0% 96.0% 96.0% Program Type: Test Only (T/O) Test & Repair computerized

(TRC) Test & Repair Manual (TRM) T/O T/0 T/O T/O T/O

Inspection Frequency Annual / Biennial 2 2 2 2 2
I/M Vehicles 1 = I/M Benefits not calculated 2 = I/M Benefits calculated

LDGV 2 2 2 1 2 LDGT1 2 2 2 1 2 LDGT2 2 2 2 1 2 LDGT3 2 2 2 1 2 LDGT4 2 2 2 1 2 HDGV2B 1 1 1 2 1 HDGV3 1 1 1 2 1 HDGV4 1 1 1 2 1 HDGV5 1 1 1 2 1 HDGV6 1 1 1 2 1 HDGV7 1 1 1 1 1 HDGV8A 1 1 1 1 1 HDGV8B 1 1 1 1 1 GAS BUS 1 1 1 1 1 I/M Grace Period 2 2 2 2 2 * Uses 75%

Cutpoints for 2009 and varies by year.

### 1 

## Table 3: Anti

-Tampering Program Input Parameters

ATP Parameters Cecil County Program Start Year 89 I/M Model Years First Year 77 Last Year 83 I/M Vehicles 1 = I/M Benefits not calculated 2 = I/M Benefits calculated

LDGV 2 LDGT1 2 LDGT2 2 LDGT3 2 LDGT4 2 HDGV2B 2 HDGV3 2 HDGV4 2 HDGV5 2 HDGV6 2 HDGV7 1 HDGV8A 1 HDGV8B 1 GAS BUS 1 Inspection Frequency: Annual Biennial 2
I/M Compliance 96.0% Inspections Performed: 1 = Not Performed 2 = Performed Air Pump System 1 Cata lyst Removal 2 Fuel Inlet Restrictor 2 Tailpipe Lead Deposit Test 1 EGR System 1 Evaporative Control System 1 PCV System 1 Gas Cap 2
### §20. Repealed. Pub. L. 101–588, §3, Nov. 16, 1990, 104 Stat. 2880

Section, act Oct. 15, 1914, ch. 323, §10, 38 Stat. 734, related to a $50,000 yearly, aggregate limitation on purchases and contracts between a common carrier and any entity with whom such carrier has any form of interlocking directorate, etc., required filing with ICC of a full statement of transactions excluded from such limitation, and set forth fines and penalties for violation of such limitation.
Enclosure Page 2

FCIC Interpretation of Procedure

Risk Management Agency Interpretation of FCIC Provisions:

Subject: Request dated September 25, 2020, to the Risk Management Agency for an interpretation 

for the 2018 policy year in the determination of whether section 9(g) of the 2018 Whole-Farm 

Revenue Protection (WFRP) Pilot Policy authorizes an Approved Insurance Provider (AIP) to reduce 

an insured’s approved revenue average coverage attaches.

The relevant policy provision provided by the requestor is section 9(g):

9. Coverage

(g) We will reduce your approved revenue and any indemnity or deny coverage at any time we 

become aware that the information used to determine your approved revenue is incorrect or 

is not supported by verifiable records. Your premium will be adjusted to reflect any revised 

approved revenue.

Interpretation Submitted by Requestor(s)

The requestors’ interpretation of section 9(g) of the 2018 WFRP Pilot Policy is an AIP has the 

authority to reduce the approved revenue “at any time” it is determined the information used to 

determine the insured’s approved revenue “is incorrect or is not supported by verifiable records.” The 

phrase “at any time” means that such a reduction can occur after coverage attaches, including during 

adjustment of the claim.

Federal Crop Insurance Corporation Determination

FCIC agrees with the requestors’ interpretation that section 9(g) of the 2018 WFRP Pilot Policy does 

authorize the AIP to reduce the insured’s approved revenue, at any time, when it is determined the 

information used to calculate the insured’s approved revenue is incorrect or cannot be verified.

In accordance with section 33(a)(1) of the WFRP Pilot Policy, this FCIC interpretation is generally 

applicable and binding in any mediation or arbitration. In accordance with section 33(a)(1), any 

appeal of this interpretation must be in accordance with 7 C.F.R. part 11.
#### § 154.308 Representation of chief accounting officer.

The filing must include a statement executed by the chief accounting officer or other authorized accounting representative of the filing company representing that the cost statements, supporting data, and workpapers, that purport to reflect the books of the company do, in fact, set forth the results shown by such books.
# C_2010134EN.01004501.xml

| 22.5.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 134/45 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.5.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 134/45

---

Action brought on 18 March 2010 — Hartmann v OHIM (Complete)

(Case T-123/10)

2010/C 134/73

Language in which the application was lodged: German

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Paul Hartmann AG (Heidenheim, Germany) (represented by N. Aicher, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

Defendant:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

| — | annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 20 January 2010 in Case R 601/2009-4; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 20 January 2010 in Case R 601/2009-4;

| — | order the defendant to pay the costs, including the costs of the proceedings before OHIM. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the defendant to pay the costs, including the costs of the proceedings before OHIM.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

Community trade mark concerned: Word mark ‘Complete’ for goods in classes 5 and 10 (Application No 7 432 024)

Community trade mark concerned:

Decision of the Examiner: Rejection of the application

Decision of the Examiner:

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissal of the appeal

Decision of the Board of Appeal:

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009, (1) in that the sign applied for in respect of the goods in question is not directly descriptive and, further, infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009 in that this sign does not lack the requisite distinctive character.

Pleas in law:

1

---

(1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 of 26 February 2009 on the Community trade mark (OJ 2009 L 78, p. 1).

1

---