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

[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 220 (Thursday, November 14, 2024)]
[Notices]
[Page 90088]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2024-26322]

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

POSTAL SERVICE

Product Change--Priority Mail Express, Priority Mail, and USPS 
Ground Advantage[supreg] Negotiated Service Agreement

AGENCY: Postal ServiceTM.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Postal Service gives notice of filing a request with the 
Postal Regulatory Commission to add a domestic shipping services 
contract to the list of Negotiated Service Agreements in the Mail 
Classification Schedule's Competitive Products List.

DATES: Date of required notice: November 14, 2024.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sean C. Robinson, 202-268-8405.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The United States Postal Service[supreg] 
hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on 
October 30, 2024, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a USPS 
Request to Add Priority Mail Express, Priority Mail & USPS Ground 
Advantage[supreg] Contract 581 to Competitive Product List. Documents 
are available at www.prc.gov, Docket Nos. MC2025-220, K2025-218.

Sean C. Robinson,
Attorney, Corporate and Postal Business Law.
[FR Doc. 2024-26322 Filed 11-13-24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7710-12-P
```
AD Economic Evaluation

Docket No. FAA-2013-0524 Directorate ID: 2012-SW-084-AD

Helicopter Model: Eurocopter France Model AS332C, AS332L, AS332L1, AS332L2 and 

EC225LP Helicopters

Number of Helicopters (U.S. Operators): 19 Helicopters in the US Registry.

Reason: The actions of this AD are intended to prevent failure of helicopter windows to jettison, 

so helicopter occupants can exit the aircraft during an emergency.

Costs:

Parts per Helicopter $0

Labor per Helicopter

(1 work-hour x $85/workhour for the inspection)

Labor per Helicopter 

(2 work-hours x $85/workhour to remove sealant from 

windows)

$85 to visually inspect the windows for sealant. 

$170 to remove sealant from windows.

Other (Explain)

Total Cost per Helicopter $85 for the inspection; $170 for the sealant removal.

Total US Fleet Cost $1,615 for the inspection; $3,230 to remove sealant 

from all helicopter windows. 

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 Engineer: Robert Grant
Exhibit 31.2



RULE 13A-14(A)/15D-14(A) CERTIFICATION OF THE CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER



I, Mauro Parissi, certify that:



1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of Dectron Internationale;



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;



3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;



4. The registrant's other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:



(a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;



(b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and



(c) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant's internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant's most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant's fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant's internal control over financial reporting; and



5. The registrant's other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant's auditors and the audit committee of the registrant's board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):



(a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant's ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and



(b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrant's internal control over financial reporting.



|                                                                                                  
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|Date: May 19, 2006

By:  /s/ Mauro Parissi
-----------------
Mauro Parissi
Chief Financial Officer
1

Stout, Alan

From: Stout, Alan

Sent: Monday, July 07, 2014 4:15 PM

To: jrege@globalautomakers.org; gambrozaitis@autoalliance.org; scarter@arb.ca.gov; 

tunick@vsci.net

Cc: Olechiw, Michael; Antonio Fernandez

Subject: Tier 3 Amendments

Attachments: Tier 3 amendments draft 07 07 2014.docx

Giedrius, Julia, Lance, and Sarah, 

The attached file has draft regulatory language to make a variety of corrections and clarifications to the Tier 3 

program. We believe all these items align with the program as adopted -- we are not aiming to accomplish any change 

in policy or revisit our conclusions on any issue. We have had interactions with industry folks on some of these 

items, but this is a full set of edits we have come up with for the whole vehicle program. 

The goal is to publish these changes in a direct final rule by the end of the year. This means that it is essential for us to 

have agreement beforehand that none of the individual elements are objectionable to any prospective 

commenter. Toward that end, we would appreciate your help in facilitating a wide-ranging review of this material 

before we reach publication. 

Our timeline will likely involve submitting the final documents for internal review at the end of August. If we could 

arrange for this round of review to be completed with any comments reaching us by August 5, we will be well positioned 

to keep our schedule. We hope that this represents a full set of corrections, but if this round of review leads us to 

expand the list of necessary changes, we will do our best to address those issues as well. 

Thanks in advance for your help in coordinating these changes. Let us know if you have any questions along the way. 

Alan 

_________________

Alan Stout 

U.S. EPA Office of Transportation and Air Quality 

2000 Traverwood Dr. 

Ann Arbor, MI 48105 

734-214-4805 

734-214-4816 (fax) 

stout.alan@epa.gov 

www.epa.gov/otaq/
Docket No: FAA-2016-0733 

Directorate ID: 2015-SW-040-AD 

Originating Office Tracking No.: 

' Disposition Comments 

Next Step: 1>!1 FRAN 0 NPRM 

D These comments are in 

response to an SNPRM 

0 No Comments/Only Supportiv Comments Received- {[this box is checked, 110 signatllres are 

required. l 

No Has the referenced s rvicc information been revised since the NPRM was issued? 

If yes. list latest rcvif,ion and attach a copy. Note that changes beyond the scope of tile 

J~re\'io~ls~v pub~islled 111

:R1H will require a new notice. Contact tile Directorate fuca/ point 

for gmdance. .,.· .. ·, ·., · · 

Instructions: Summarize all comments by issue (not by commenter) and provide your recommended resolution of 

each issue. All comments relating to the same issue should be discussed together. Do not list all of the issues 

from one commenter together. lfchangds to the AD are required based on the comments received. explain why and 

describe in detail what change(s) you re~omrnend. Reference FAA-IR-M-8040.\C Chapter 9. 

ISSUE 1: Select one oflhefo!lowil :applicability 

ff other. explain: 

Commenter(s): Robinson Hclicopte Company 

What change to the AD action is req tested? in (a) Applicability: Change " ... part number (PIN) 

C016-7 Revision N/C. A through -·and AA through AE installed: .... " to " ... pat1numbcr (PIN) 

COI6~7 Revision AA through AE installed: .... " 

Why is the change requested or how s itjustilied? Reason(s): \.Main rotor blade part number 

C016-7 did not exist until Revisio AA. and 2. Feedback from tield indicates some technicians 

have erroneously focused on Revi ion letters when complying with referenced R44 Service 

Bulletin SB-89. and may likewise wrongfully apply the proposed AD to main rotor blade part 

number CO 16-5 Revisions W thru Z. 

Do we agree? Yes 

If YES, we agree because as Ro inson stated. part number COI6-7 did not exist until revision AA. 

Make the following changes t the AD: in (a) Applicability: Change " ... part number (PIN) 

C016-7 Revision N/C. A though Z. and AA through AE installed: .... " to " ... part number 

(PIN) C016~7 Revision AA through AE installed: .... " 

Page I of2 
Signature Section 

Signature indicates concurrence with this action. 

Originating Office Tracking No.: 

ASE 

L?U:# 

Branch Manager 

'6)JJ)J6 

Date 

Page 2 of2
Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

Clerk's Office, Atlanta, December 13, 2016.

I certify that the above is a true extract from the minutes 

of the Court of Appeals of Georgia.

Witness my signature and the seal of said court hereto 

affixed the day and year last above written.

, Clerk.

Court of Appeals 

of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA, December 13, 2016

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order

A17D0172. JOEY SAMPSON v. JAMES CURETON et al. .

Upon consideration of the Application for Discretionary Appeal, it is ordered that it be 

hereby GRANTED. The Appellant may file a Notice of Appeal within 10 days of the date of 

this order. The Clerk of Superior Court is directed to include a copy of this order in the record 

transmitted to the Court of Appeals.

LC NUMBERS:

SU10DM3887
**Exhibit 31.2**

 

**CERTIFICATION**

 

I, Beth E. Mooney, certify that: 

 

1.    I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of AmSouth Bancorporation; 

 

2.    Based on my knowledge, this report does not containany 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;

 

3.    Based on my knowledge, the financialstatements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

 

4.    The registrant’s othercertifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have: 

 

a)  Designed such disclosure controls andprocedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within thoseentities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared; 

 

b)  Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report ourconclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and 

 

c)  Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting that occurredduring the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal controlover financial reporting; and 

 

5.    Theregistrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committee of registrant’s board of directors (orpersons performing the equivalent functions): 

 

a)  All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process,summarize and report financial information; and 

 

b)  Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.
Proposed Rule: Mandatory Reporting of Greenhouse Gas Emissions 

Meeting Documentation Meetings with LAM Research 

Date Staff Contact Information 

(Name, email, phone #) 

Name of Organization 

(Attach list of all attendees 

names and emails if 

possible) 

Summary of Discussion (e.g., applicability, 

reporting requirements, etc.)

Written 

Comments 

Provided? 

Did they also 

submit to 

Docket? 

Date sent to 

EPA- CCD 

Discussions 

from October 

2009 to 

March 2010. 

Kirsten Cappel, 

cappel.kirsten@epa.gov, 

(202) 343-9556 

LAM Research: 

• Brian Claes 

(brian.claes@lamrc.com)

• EPA and EPA 

contractors 

Discussions included: 

• Refinement of semiconductor 

manufacturing process categories and 

availability of emission factors. 

NA March 15, 

2010
EXHIBIT
21





PARENTS
AND SUBSIDIARIES





The
Company was organized as a partnership in 1867 and incorporated in 1882 under
the laws of the State of Connecticut as The Acme Shear Company.  The
corporate name was changed to Acme United Corporation in 1971.





There is
no parent of the registrant.





Registrant
has the following subsidiaries, all of which are wholly owned by the
registrant:




Name
            Country of
      IncorporationAcme United
      Limited
            CanadaAcme United
      Europe GmbH
            GermanyAcme United
      (Asia Pacific) Limited
            Hong
      Kong





All
subsidiaries are active and included in the Company’s consolidated financial
statements included in this Form 10-k.
يمكن ألي شخص أن يصبح ضحية للتجارة

باألشخاص في مجال العمل

إذا تم استدراجك أو تجنيدك أو نقلك للعمل أو الخدمات أو الجنس

التجاري من قبل شخص ما باستخدام القوة أو االحتيال أو التهديد،

فهذا هو اتجار بالبشر

يستهدف اتجار العمالة: العمال غير الموثقين بالمستندات، والعمال

األجانب المؤقتين، ومتعاطي المواد المخدرة، واألشخاص االين

يعانون من اضطرابات الصحة النفسية، وشباب الشوارع أو الهاربين،

واألفراد الذين يعانون من التحديات االقتصادية

عالمات اتجار العمالة تشمل

استخدام القوة أو االحتيال أو الوعود أو السيطرة النفسية

إجبارك على العمل لساعات طويلة أو العمل في وظائف غير آمنة

تقديم أجر ضئيل أو عدم دفع األجر بالكامل أو حجز الشيكات

التهديد باإليذاء لك أو ألحبائك

السيطرة على حركتك وسكنك ووصولك للمال أو على من تتحدث إليه، و

احتجاز هويتك أو جواز سفرك

اتجار العمالة شائع بشكل أكبر في العمل الزراعي أو الفالحي والبناء

والصناعات البحرية والعناية بالحدائق والفنادق والمطاعم والعمل

المنزلي

إذا كنت أنت أو شخص تعرفه في بيئة يشتبه في وجود اتجار بالجنس أو العملة، فاتصل بالشرطة عن

ً بالخط الساخن الوطني لإلبالغ

طريق االتصال بالرقم ،911 و يمكن لك أو لشخص تثق به االتصال أيضا

عن االتجار بالبشر على الرقم 1-888-373-7888؛ أو إرسال رسالة نصية إلى )233733(؛ أو التحدث

مباشرة عبر اإلنترنت على موقع

التحديد واإلبالغ عن

osha.gov/workers

OSHA 4334-08 2023 | Arabic

اتجار

العمالة

إدارة السالمة والصحة

المهنية

:

humantraffickinghotline.org
#### Setsuo Ito, Appellant, v Dryvit Systems, Inc., Respondent, et al., Defendant. (And a Third-Party Action.)

[773 NYS2d 599]

—In an action to recover for damage to property, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Molia, J.), dated January 17, 2003, which denied his motion pursuant to CPLR 3124 to compel the defendant Dryvit Systems, Inc., to comply with his discovery demands.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

“The supervision of discovery, and the setting of reasonable terms and conditions for disclosure, are within the sound discretion of the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court’s discretion is broad because it is familiar with the action before it, and its exercise should not be disturbed on appeal unless it was improvidently exercised” *(Provident Life & Cas. Ins. Co. v Brittenham,*284 AD2d 518 [2001]). The Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in this case in denying the plaintiffs motion to compel. However, the plaintiff may, if he be so advised, serve a new demand tailored to the component or components actually installed. Ritter, J.P., Smith, Friedmann, H. Miller and Crane, JJ., concur.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                                         5
<CIK>                                    0000002880
<NAME>                                 AIC INTERNATIONAL INC.
       
<S>                                      <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                  YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                       FEB-29-1996
<PERIOD-START>                           MAR-1-1995
<PERIOD-END>                            FEB-29-1996
<CASH>                                      471,008
<SECURITIES>                                      0
<RECEIVABLES>                             1,562,765
<ALLOWANCES>                                (82,925)
<INVENTORY>                               3,529,399
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                          5,798,033
<PP&E>                                      371,834
<DEPRECIATION>                             (309,760)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                            5,877,928
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                     3,758,250
<BONDS>                                           0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                             0 
<PREFERRED>                                       0
<COMMON>                                    424,488
<OTHER-SE>                                1,568,358
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>              5,877,928
<SALES>                                  14,273,933
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                         14,273,933
<CGS>                                     9,487,677
<TOTAL-COSTS>                            13,990,929
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             75,391
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                  0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                          164,216
<INCOME-PRETAX>                             (56,603)
<INCOME-TAX>                                (20,893)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                         (35,710)
<DISCONTINUED>                                    0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                   0
<CHANGES>                                         0
<NET-INCOME>                                (35,710)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                 (0.01)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0
        



</TABLE>
Argued October 8,

affirmed October 29, 1973

#### In the Matter of the Dissolution of the Marriage of PENWARDEN, *Respondent, and*PENWARDEN (No. 383-034), *Appellant.*

514 P2d 1356

*James F. Lonergan,*Portland, argued the cause and filed the brief for appellant.

*George E. Birnie,*Portland, argued the cause and filed the brief for respondent.

Before Schwab, Chief Judge, and Foley and Tanzer, Judges.

*179FOLEY, J.

A decree of dissolution of marriage was entered and the respondent wife appeals from provisions of the final order which set amounts of child support and alimony and pertains to use of the family home.

Petitioner husband is required by the trial court’s oi’der to pay $75 per month for each of two children, now aged 14 and 16. He is also required to pay $50 alimony and make a mortgage payment of $150 each month. The evidence indicates his take-home pay to be about $800 per month, which suggests that he will be paying . $350 and retaining about $450.

Respondent’s expenses are estimated at $390 per month and by the terms of the decree she is to receive $200 from petitioner. She is an experienced typist and secretary and estimates that she can earn $250 working part time. Even after taxes it is apparent that she will earn enough to meet her expenses. While it may be that petitioner, with $450 per month remaining, could afford to pay more, from our de novo review we are convinced that the trial court’s determination is reasonable under the circumstances. *See Wright and Wright,*13 Or App 101, 508 P2d 829 (1973).

We have reviewed petitioner’s other assignment of error and find it to be without merit.

Affirmed.
**Exhibit 99.1**

 

# **CERTIFICATION**

 

The undersigned certifies pursuant to 18 U.S.C.  1350, that:

 

(1)          Theaccompanying Report on Form 10-Q fully complies with the requirements ofSection 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

 

(2)          Theinformation contained in the accompanying Report fairly presents, in allmaterial respects, the financial condition and results of operations of theCompany.

 
|                           | Canterbury Park Holding Corporation         |
|--------------------------------|---------------------------------------------|
|                           |                                        |
| Dated:  November 14, 2002 | /s/  Randall  D. Sampson          |
|                           | Randall D. Sampson,                         |
|                           | President, and Chief Executive Officer      |
|                           |                                        |
| Dated:  November 14, 2002 | /s/  David  C. Hansen             |
|                           | David C. Hansen,                            |
|                           | Vice President, and Chief Financial Officer |

 

19

----