alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
14910-13-P]



### DEPARTMENT OFTRANSPORT AnON Federal AviatioD 

### Administration

ONCURRENCE.' OLJTINGWMBOL



### Ainvorthiness Directives; Empresa BrasiJeira de Aeronautica S.A. (EMBRAER) Mode



### AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of Transportation (DOT). EMB-135BJ, -135ER, -135KE, -135KL, -135LR, -145, -145ER, -145MR, -145LR, -145XR, -145MP~ and -145EP Airplanes RlN 2120-AA64 

### 14CFR Part 39 

## 11.0

-SR.. (Docket No. FAA-2009-0132; Directorate IdentiJier 2008-NM-081-AD; Amendment I '; I 

## I(,~(.. ilO

## 10-1\-'-



## 0

## I 39-~; AD

=k***_* '_••110)



### ACTION: Final rule. 

# INlc~LSUMMARY: We are adopting anew airw0l1hiness directive (AD) for the products lisle -':' I r "')"rv,(~ above. This AD results from mandatory continuing airworthiness 

### infom1ation (MeAl) 1<O:77'80L originated by an aviation authority of another country to identify and correct an unsafe condition on an aviation product. The 

### MeAl describes the unsafe condition as: During aircraft full scale fatigue test, ithas been found the occurrence of cracks inthe cockpit windshield post lower eyelet fitting at the attachment ofthe center post on the forward fuselage (881 53-10-19). Further analysis ofthis cracking resulted inmodifications on the aircraft Airworthiness Limitation Items (ALI), to include new inspection tasks and its respective intervals. Undetected fatigue cracking in this area could adversely affect the structural integrity of these airplanes. We are issuing this AD to require actions to COlTectthe unsafe condition on these products.

''''TIAl&'SIG
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                                                 5
<LEGEND>
     THIS  SCHEDULE  CONTAINS  SUMMARY  FINANCIAL   INFORMATION  EXTRACTED  FROM
SPECTRUM INFORMATION TECHNOLOGIES,  INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES UNAUDITED CONSOLIDATED
FINANCIAL  STATEMENTS  AND IS  QUALIFIED  IN ITS  ENTIRETY BY  REFERENCE TO SUCH
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER>                                         1000

<S>                                                   <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                       3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                             MAR-31-2000
<PERIOD-END>                                  JUN-30-1999

<CASH>                                              1,045
<SECURITIES>                                            0
<RECEIVABLES>                                           0
<ALLOWANCES>                                            0
<INVENTORY>                                             0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                    1,046
<PP&E>                                                  1
<DEPRECIATION>                                          0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                      1,357
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                 231
<BONDS>                                                 0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                   8
<PREFERRED>                                             0
<COMMON>                                                0
<OTHER-SE>                                          1,118
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                        1,357
<SALES>                                                 0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                        0
<CGS>                                                   0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                           0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                        0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                        0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                      0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      (126)
<INCOME-TAX>                                            0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  (150)
<DISCONTINUED>                                         24
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                         0
<CHANGES>                                               0
<NET-INCOME>                                         (126)
<EPS-BASIC>                                       (.016)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                       (.016)


</TABLE>
Exhibit 10.B



 EXHIBIT (10)(b) 
 OPINION AND CONSENT OF ACTUARY 







 July 1, 2006 
 Transamerica Life Insurance Company 
 4333 Edgewood Road NE 
 Cedar Rapids, Iowa 52499-0001 
  

	Re:	Flexible Premium Variable Annuity – J 


	  	Separate Account VA Y 


	  	Registration on Form N-4 

 Dear
Sir/Madam: 
 With regard to the above registration statement, I have examined such documents and made such inquiries as I have deemed necessary and
appropriate, and on the basis of such examination, have the following opinions: 
 Fees and charges deducted under the Flexible Premium Variable Annuity
– J policies are those deemed necessary to appropriately reflect: 
  

	(1)	the expenses incurred in the acquisition and distribution of the policies, 

  

	(2)	the expenses associated with the development and servicing of the policies, 

  

	(3)	the assumption of certain risks arising from the operation and management of the policies and/or riders to the policy and that provides for a reasonable margin of profit.


 Fees and charges assessed against the policy values in the variable account include: 
  

	(i)	Service Charge and Administrative Charge 

  

	(ii)	Mortality and Expense Risk Fee (M&E) 

  

	(iii)	Taxes (including premium and other taxes if applicable) 

  

	(iv)	Surrender Charges 

  

	(v)	Any applicable rider fees or charges 








 Transamerica Life Insurance Company 
 July 1, 2006 
 Page 2 
 The magnitude of each of the individual charges listed above in (i) through (v) is established in the pricing of the Flexible
Premium Variable Annuity -J, to achieve a reasonable Return on Investment (ROI), which is within the range of industry practice with respect to comparable variable annuity products. 
 Except by coincidence, it is not expected that actual charges assessed in a given year would exactly offset actual expenses incurred. Acquisition expenses (as well as major product and/or systems development expenses)
are incurred “up front” and recovered, with a reasonable profit margin, through future years’ charges. In addition, the company cannot increase certain charges under the policies in the pricing process. 
 Therefore, in my opinion, the fees and charges deducted under the policies, in the aggregate, are reasonable in relation to the services rendered, the expenses expected
to be incurred, and the risks assumed by the company. 
 I hereby consent to the use of this opinion, which is included as
an Exhibit to the registration statement. 
  

	
	
	 /s/ R. Gene Hauser

	 R. Gene Hauser, FSA, MAAA

	 Transamerica Life Insurance Company
§ 784.5 Waiver of identified inventions. This section covers the relinquishing by the Government to the contractor or inventor of title rights in a particular identified subject invention. In determining whether such a waiver of an identified invention will best serve the interests of the United States and the general public, the Secretary or designee shall, at a minimum, specifically include as considerations the following: ( a ) The extent to which such waiver is a reasonable and necessary incentive to call forth private risk capital for the development and commercialization of the invention;
( b ) The extent to which the plans, intentions, and ability of the contractor or inventor will obtain expeditious commercialization of such invention;
( c ) The extent to which the invention is useful in the production or utilization of special nuclear material or atomic energy;
( d ) The extent to which the Government has contributed to the field of technology of the invention;
( e ) The purpose and nature of the invention, including the anticipated use thereof;
( f ) The extent to which the contractor has made or will make substantial investment of financial resources or technology developed at the contractor's private expense which will directly benefit the commercialization of the invention;
( g ) The extent to which the field of technology of the invention has been developed at the contractor's expense;
( h ) The extent to which the Government intends to further develop the invention to the point of commercial utilization;
( i ) The extent to which the invention is concerned with the public health, public safety, or public welfare;
( j ) The likely effect of the waiver on competition and market concentration;
( k ) In the case of a domestic nonprofit educational institution under an agreement not governed by Chapter 18, Title 35, United States Code, the extent to which such institution has a technology transfer capability and program approved by the Secretary or designee as being consistent with the applicable policies of this section;
( l ) The small business status of the contractor, under an agreement not governed by Chapter 18 of Title 35, United States Code; and,
( m ) Such other considerations, such as benefit to the U.S. economy that the Secretary or designee may deem appropriate.
AFS

- 13

- 555

- E October 29, 2013

Exemption No. 10881

Regulatory Docket No. FAA

- 20 1 3

- 0824

Mr. Derek McGivern

Parent of Kiara McGivern

37 Walnut Drive

Wallaceburg, Ontario Canada N8A 3L3

Dear Mr. McGivern :

This letter is to inform you that we have granted your request for exemption. It transmits our

decision, explains its basis, and lists the conditions and limitations of the exemption,

including the date it ends.

The Basis for Ou r Decision

By letter received September 16, 2013

, y ou petitioned the Federal Aviation Administrat ion

(FAA) on behalf of Kiara McGivern for an exemption from § 121.311(b)(2)(iii)(B) of

Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR)

. That exemp tion , if gran ted, would allow

Kiara to exceed the specified weight limit for an FAA

- approved child restraint system

(CAReS, manufactured by AmSafe Corporation ) during use of that child restraint system

(CRS) aboard a United States (U.S.) aircraft.

The FAA has determin ed that good cause exists for not publishing a summary of the petition

in the Federal Register because the requested exem ption would not set a precedent and any

delay in acting on this petition would be det rimental to Kiara

.

The FAA has issued grants of e xemption in circumstances similar in all material respects to

those presented in your petition. In Grant of Exemption No. 9834 (copy enclosed), the FAA

found that numerous p eople with physical challenges had previously completed flights using

restraint sys tems that addressed unique physical needs regarding safety, support, and security

in the same manner of operations as described in this petition. The FAA further found that the2

petition , if granted, would not set any new precedents regarding the use of res traint systems by

persons with disabilities.

Having reviewed your reasons for requesting an exemption, I find that

—

• they do not differ materially from those presented by the petitioner in the enclosed grant.

• the reasons stated by the FAA for granting the enclosed exemption also apply to the

situation you present ; and

• a grant of exemption is in the public interest.

Our Decision

Under the authority contained in 49 U.S.C. 40113 and 44701, which the FAA Administrator

has delegated to me, I hereby grant Kiara McGivern an exemption from § 121.311(b). In

addition, any air carrier or commercial operator operating under part 121 while Kiara is

aboard its aircraft is granted an exemption from 14 CFR § 121.311(b) to the extent necessary

to allow her to use an FAA

- a pproved CRS aboard a U.S. aircraft

.

All operations under this exemption must be conducted w ith at least one of Kiara ’s parents or a caregiver accompanying her

. Kiara McGivern may only occupy a passenger seat with no

passenger se ated behind her

. In addit ion, Kiara ’s parent or caregiver must carry a copy of this

exemption and advise the air carrier about the contents of the exemption at least 48 hours

before the date of each flight.

This exemption terminates on October 31 , 201 8 , unless sooner superseded o r rescinded.

Sincerely,

/s/

Michael J. Zenkovich

Deputy Director, Flight Standards Service

Enclosure
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Marilyn Kelly,

 Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Maura D. Corrigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

Stephen J. Markman

Diane M. Hathaway

Alton Thomas Davis, Justices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

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

 _________________________________________ 

 Clerk

October 20, 2010 

1013 

Order 

 

October 20, 2010 

141411 

VALARIE COULTER, 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

v SC: 141411 

 COA: 296688 

WCAC: 08-000255 

GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION, 

Defendant-Appellee. 

_________________________________________/ 

 On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the June 9, 2010 order of 

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

the question presented should be reviewed by this Court.
Exhibit 31.1

CERTIFICATION

I, Jason
Kulas, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this report on Form 10-K and all reports on Form 10-D required to be filed in respect of the
period covered by this report on Form 10-K of Santander Drive Auto Receivables Trust 2013-1 (the Exchange Act periodic reports);

2. Based on my knowledge, the Exchange Act periodic reports, taken as a whole, do 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, all of the distribution, servicing and other information required to be provided under Form 10-D for the period
covered by this report is included in the Exchange Act periodic reports;

4. I am responsible for reviewing the activities performed
by the servicer and based on my knowledge and the compliance review conducted in preparing the servicer compliance statement required in this report under Item 1123 of Regulation AB, and except as disclosed in the Exchange Act periodic reports,
the servicer has fulfilled its obligations under the servicing agreement in all material respects; and

5. All of the reports on
assessment of compliance with servicing criteria for asset-backed securities and their related attestation reports on assessment of compliance with servicing criteria for asset-backed securities required to be included in this report in accordance
with Item 1122 of Regulation AB and Exchange Act Rules 13a-18 and 15d-18 have been included as an exhibit to this report, except as otherwise disclosed in this report. Any material instances of noncompliance described in such reports have been
disclosed in this report on Form 10-K.

In giving the certifications above, I have reasonably relied on information provided to me by the
following unaffiliated parties: Deutsche Bank Trust Company Americas.



/s/ Jason KulasName:

Jason KulasTitle:

President and Chief Financial OfficerDate:

March 28, 2014
EX-4.1 Certificate of Decrease



 




Exhibit 4.1




CERTIFICATE OF DECREASE

RELATING TO

CERTIFICATE OF DESIGNATION, PREFERENCES AND RIGHTS

OF

SERIES A CONVERTIBLE PREFERRED STOCK

OF

NEW HORIZONS WORLDWIDE, INC.




 






PURSUANT TO SECTION 151(g) OF THE

GENERAL CORPORATION LAW OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE




 






     New Horizons Worldwide, Inc., a corporation organized and existing under the General
Corporation Law of the State of Delaware, certifies as follows:



     FIRST: The name of the corporation is New Horizons Worldwide, Inc. (the “Company”).



     SECOND: This certificate relates to the Company’s Certificate of Designation, Preferences and
Rights (the “Certificate of Designation”) relating to the Company’s Series A Convertible Preferred
Stock, without par value (the “Series A Preferred Stock”), filed with the Secretary of State of
Delaware on February 7, 2005.



     THIRD: A decrease in the number of designated shares of Series A Preferred Stock of 361,602
(from 2,000,000 shares to 1,638,398 shares) was authorized and directed by a resolution adopted by
the Board of Directors of the Company, pursuant to Section 151(g) of the Delaware General
Corporation Law.



     FOURTH: This certificate shall be effective upon filing with the Secretary of State of
Delaware.



     IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Company has caused this certificate to be duly executed by Thomas J.
Bresnan, President of the Company, on July 5, 2006.



	 	 	 	 	 
	 	NEW HORIZONS WORLDWIDE, INC.

 	 
	 	By:  	/s/  Thomas J. Bresnan
 	 
	 	 	Thomas J. Bresnan, President
#### § 719.13 Who at the Department receives and reviews the Legal Management Plan?

Contractors must submit a Legal Management Plan to Department Counsel. If the contractor has not been notified of the assignment of Department Counsel, the contractor must submit the Legal Management Plan to the contracting officer and the DOE Deputy General Counsel for Litigation and Enforcement or the NNSA Deputy General Counsel as appropriate.
#### Robert Smarek et al., Respondents, v Concepcion Padilla et al., Appellants.

In a negligence action to recover damages for personal injuries, *875etc., defendants appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County, dated August 17,1979, which (1) granted plaintiffs’ motion for an extension of time to serve the complaint and (2) denied defendants’ cross motion to dismiss the action for failure to serve a complaint. Order reversed, on the law, without costs or disbursements, motion denied, cross motion granted, and action dismissed. In our opinion, the 49-month delay between defendants’ demand for a complaint and plaintiffs’ alleged service thereof is without valid excuse (see *Barasch v Micucci,*49 NY2d 594; *Odess v Medical Center, Teamster Local 1034,*67 AD2d 941). The record reveals that a complaint could have been drafted and timely served with the aid of hospital records available to counsel, without resort to additional medical examinations. Nor does the fact that the infant plaintiff can still institute another action (see CPLR 208) warrant saving the instant action from dismissal (see *Gundershein v Bradley-Mahoney Coal Corp.,*295 NY 539,540). Mollen, P. J., Mangano, Margett and Weinstein, JJ., concur.
#### § 984.36 Term of office.

The term of office for Board members and their alternates shall be for a period of two years ending on August 31 of odd-numbered years, but they shall serve until their respective successors are selected and have qualified.

[74 FR 18464, Apr. 23, 2009]
Editorial Note on Part 72
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 72 appear at 80 FR 74981, Dec. 1, 2015, and at 81 FR 86910, Dec. 2, 2016.

§ 72.104 Criteria for radioactive materials in effluents and direct radiation from an ISFSI or MRS. ( a ) During normal operations and anticipated occurrences, the annual dose equivalent to any real individual who is located beyond the controlled area must not exceed 0.25 mSv (25 mrem) to the whole body, 0.75 mSv (75 mrem) to the thyroid and 0.25 mSv (25 mrem) to any other critical organ as a result of exposure to: ( 1 ) Planned discharges of radioactive materials, radon and its decay products excepted, to the general environment,
( 2 ) Direct radiation from ISFSI or MRS operations, and
( 3 ) Any other radiation from uranium fuel cycle operations within the region.
( b ) Operational restrictions must be established to meet as low as is reasonably achievable objectives for radioactive materials in effluents and direct radiation levels associated with ISFSI or MRS operations.
( c ) Operational limits must be established for radioactive materials in effluents and direct radiation levels associated with ISFSI or MRS operations to meet the limits given in paragraph (a) of this section.
[53 FR 31658, Aug. 19, 1988, as amended at 63 FR 54562, Oct. 13, 1998]
Electronically Filed Supreme Court SCPR-10-0000081 29-OCT-2010 03:39PM SCPR-10-0000081
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI ' I

IN RE EDA U. SUH

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING ORDER GRANTING PETITION TO RESIGN AND SURRENDER LICENSE (By: Recktenwald, C.J., Nakayama, Acoba and Duffy, JJ., and Intermediate Court of Appeals Chief Judge Nakamura, assigned by reason of vacancy) Upon consideration of the petition to resign and surrender license to practice law in the State of Hawai ' i, submitted by Petitioner Eda U. Suh, filed pursuant to Rule 1.10 of the Rules of the Supreme Court of the State of Hawai ' i (RSCH), and in consideration of the affidavits and exhibits in support thereof, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the petition is granted. Petitioner shall surrender her license to practice law to the Clerk forthwith. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to RSCH Rule 1.10(g), that Petitioner shall comply with the notice, affidavit, and record requirements of RSCH Rules 2.16(a), (b), (d), and (g). IT IS FINALLY ORDERED that the Clerk shall remove thename of Petitioner Eda U. Suh, attorney number 6864, from the roll of attorneys of the State of Hawai ' i, effective with the filing of this order. DATED: Honolulu, Hawai ' i, October 29, 2010. /s/ Mark E. Recktenwald /s/ Paula A. Nakayama /s/ Simeon R. Acoba, Jr. /s/ James E. Duffy, Jr. /s/ Craig H. Nakamura

2
#### § 52.163 Administrative review of applications; hearings.

A proceeding on a manufacturing license is subject to all applicable procedural requirements contained in 10 CFR part 2, including the requirements for docketing in § 2.101(a)(1) through (4) of this chapter, and the requirements for issuance of a notice of proposed action in § 2.105 of this chapter, *provided, however,* that the designated sections may not be construed to require that the environmental report or draft or final environmental impact statement include an assessment of the benefits of constructing and/or operating the manufactured reactor or an evaluation of alternative energy sources. All hearings on manufacturing licenses are governed by the hearing procedures contained in 10 CFR part 2, subparts C, E, G, L, and N.

[72 FR 49517, Aug. 28, 2007, as amended at 78 FR 34249, June 7, 2013]
§ 905.12 How must IRPs be submitted? ( a ) *Number of IRPs submitted.* Except as provided in paragraph (c) of this section, one IRP is required per customer, regardless of the number of long-term firm power contracts between the customer and Western.
( b ) *Method of submitting IRPs.* Customers must submit IRPs to Western under one of the following options: ( 1 ) Customers may submit IRPs individually.
( 2 ) MBAs may submit IRPs for each of their members or submit one IRP on behalf of all or some of their members. An IRP submitted by an MBA must specify the responsibilities and participation levels of individual members and the MBA. Any member of an MBA may submit an individual IRP to Western instead of being included in an MBA IRP.
( 3 ) Customers may submit IRPs as regional/IRP cooperatives when previously approved by Western. Western encourages customers to prepare “regional” IRPs. Regional IRPs are voluntary and participants need not be members of an MBA or a Western customer. Regional/IRP cooperatives may also submit small customer plans, minimum investment reports, and EE/RE reports on behalf of eligible IRP cooperative members.
( c ) *Alternatives to submitting individual IRPs.* Customers with Western approval to submit small customer plans, minimum investment or EE/RE reports may substitute the applicable plan or report instead of an IRP. Each customer that intends to seek approval for IRP cooperative, small customer, minimum investment report or EE/RE report status must provide advance written notification to Western. A new customer must provide this notification to the Western Regional Manager of the Region in which the customer is located within 30 days from the time it becomes a customer. Any customer may resubmit an IRP or notify Western of its plan to change its compliance method at any time so long as there is no period of noncompliance.
[65 FR 16795, Mar. 30, 2000, as amended at 73 FR 35062, June 20, 2008]