alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# EUR-Lex - 31994L0051 - EN

Avis juridique important

*|*

# 31994L0051

**Commission Directive 94/51/EC of 7 November 1994 adapting to technical progress Council Directive 90/219/EEC on the contained use of genetically modified micro-organisms **

*
Official Journal L 297 , 18/11/1994 P. 0029 - 0030 Finnish special edition: Chapter 15 Volume 13 P. 0248 Swedish special edition: Chapter 15 Volume 13 P. 0248 *

COMMISSION DIRECTIVE 94/51/EC of 7 November 1994 adapting to technical progress Council Directive 90/219/EEC on the contained use of genetically modified micro-organisms

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,

Having regard to Council Directive 90/219/EEC of 23 April 1990 on the contained use of genetically modified micro-organisms (1), and in particular Article 20 thereof,

Whereas Directive 90/219/EEC classifies genetically modified micro-organisms into two groups having regard to the risks they present, whereas Annex II to the said Directive sets out the criteria for determining such classification;

Whereas, having regard to the experience gained with the contained use of genetically modified micro-organisms, and to technical progress generally in the field of biotechnology, and on the basis of an evaluation of the risks currently presented, it is appropriate to revise the classification of genetically modified micro-organisms;

Whereas the measures provided for in this Directive are in accordance with the opinion of the Committee established by Article 21 of Directive 90/219/EEC,

HAS ADOPTED THIS DIRECTIVE:

Article 1

Annex II to Directive 90/219/EEC is replaced by the Annex hereto.

Article 2

Member States shall bring into force the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with this Directive by 30 April 1995. They shall immediately inform the Commission thereof.

When Member States adopt these provisions, these shall contain a reference to this Directive or shall be accompanied by such reference at the time of their official publication. The procedure for such reference shall be adopted by Member States.

Article 3

This Directive shall enter into force on the 20th day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Communities.

Done at Brussels, 7 November 1994.

For the Commission

Yannis PALEOKRASSAS

Member of the Commission

(1) OJ No L 117, 8. 5. 1990, p. 1.

ANNEX

'ANNEX II

CRITERIA FOR CLASSIFYING GENETICALLY MODIFIED MICRO-ORGANISMS INTO GROUP I

A genetically modified micro-organism is classified as falling within Group I when all the following criteria are fulfilled:

(i) the recipient or parental micro-organism is unlikely to cause disease to humans, animals or plants;

(ii) the nature of the vector and the insert is such that they do not endow the genetically modified micro-organism with a phenotype likely to cause disease to humans, animals or plants, or likely to cause adverse effects in the environment;

(iii) the genetically modified micro-organism is unlikely to cause disease to humans, animals or plants and is unlikely to have adverse effects on the environment.'
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Benny Garcia, Appellant.

[813 NYS2d 303]

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Leslie Crocker Snyder, J.), rendered on or about June 24, 2003, unanimously affirmed.

Application by appellant’s counsel to withdraw as counsel is granted *(see Anders v California,*386 US 738 [1967]; *People v Saunders,*52 AD2d 833 [1976]). We have reviewed this record and agree with appellant’s assigned counsel that there are no nonfrivolous points which could be raised on this appeal. We have considered the contentions raised in defendant’s pro se supplemental brief and find them without merit.

Pursuant to Criminal Procedure Law § 460.20, defendant may apply for leave to appeal to the Court of Appeals by making application to the Chief Judge of that Court and by submitting such application to the Clerk of that Court or to a Justice of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of this Department on reasonable notice to the respondent within 30 days after service of a copy of this order, with notice of entry.

Denial of the application for permission to appeal by the judge or justice first applied to is final and no new application may thereafter be made to any other judge or justice. Concur—Mazzarelli, J.P., Andrias, Gonzalez and McGuire, JJ.
[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 6 (Monday, January 10, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Page 1491]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-33273]


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

SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION


Emergence Capital Partners SBIC, L.P. License No. 09/79-0454; 
Notice Seeking Exemption Under Section 312 of the Small Business 
Investment Act, Conflicts of Interest

    Notice is hereby given that Emergence Capital Partners SBIC, L.P., 
160 Bovet Road, Suite 300, San Mateo, CA 94402, a Federal Licensee 
under the Small Business Investment Act of 1958, as amended (``the 
Act''), in connection with the financing of a small concern, has sought 
an exemption under Section 312 of the Act and Section 107.730, 
Financings which Constitute Conflicts of Interest of the Small Business 
Administration (``SBA'') Rules and Regulations (13 CFR 107.730). 
Emergence Capital Partners SBIC, L.P. proposes to provide equity 
financing to PivotLink, Inc., 15325 SE 30th Place, Suite 300, Bellevue, 
WA 98007. The financing is contemplated for working capital and general 
operating purposes.
    The financing is brought within the purview of Sec.  107.730(a)(1) 
of the Regulations because Emergence Capital Partners, L.P. and 
Emergence Capital Associates, L.P., Associates of Emergence Capital 
Partners SBIC, L.P., own more than ten percent of PivotLink, Inc. 
Therefore, PivotLink, Inc is considered an Associate of Emergence 
Capital Partners SBIC, L.P. and this transaction is considered 
Financing an Associate, requiring prior SBA approval.
    Notice is hereby given that any interested person may submit 
written comments on the transaction within 15 days of the date of this 
publication to the Associate Administrator for Investment, U.S. Small 
Business Administration, 409 Third Street, SW., Washington, DC 20416.

    Dated: December 3, 2010.
Sean J. Greene,
Associate Administrator for Investment.
[FR Doc. 2010-33273 Filed 1-7-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE P
Exhibit 35.1

 

ANNUAL SERVICER’S COMPLIANCE CERTIFICATE

 

This Compliance Certificateis furnished pursuant to Section 4.10 of the Sale and Servicing Agreement (the “Agreement”), dated as of January 30,2013, by and among Hyundai Auto Receivables Trust 2013-A, Hyundai Capital America, as seller and servicer (the “Servicer”),Hyundai ABS Funding, LLC (formerly known as Hyundai ABS Funding Corporation), as depositor, and U.S. Bank National Association,as indenture trustee and Item 1123 of Regulation AB. The undersigned hereby certifies that:

 

1)          I am a duly authorized officer of the Servicer.

 

2)          A review of the activities of the Servicerfrom January 1, 2016 through December 31, 2016 (the “Relevant Period”) and of the Servicer’s performance underthe Agreement during the Relevant Period has been made under my supervision.

 

3)          Based on such review, the Servicer has,to the best of my knowledge, fulfilled all of its obligations under the Agreement in all material respects throughout the RelevantPeriod.

 

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have duly executed thisCompliance Certificate this 16th day of March, 2017.
### Page 1of 3

i 

# -\ RE:,Emission reductions from rules? 

## f

# & ' Jess1Fierro



# ''d bces Wicher 07/07/2011 0455PM Hide Details From: "Jessi Fierro" <Jessica.Fierro@valleyair.org> Frances Wicher Air Planning Office (AIR2) EPA Region 9 75 Hawthorne Street San Francisco, California 94105 office: (415) 972-3957 fax: (415) 947-3579 email: wicher.frances@epa.gov 

### To: FrancesWicher/R9iLTSEPAIUS@EPA F-9m. 'Jess1 Fierro' cJessica.Fierro@valleyaIr.org> To Frances WicherlRS/USEPA/US@EPA Ddie 0512612011 03:50 PM Sii3,""t RE: Emission redunionsfrom rules?

Hi Frances. Apologies for the delay, and Igot your voicemail. I've attached an updated table. I'm looking into your other questions about 4320 and 4702 and hope to get back to you today or tomorrow. Jessi 

## ! History: Thismessage has been replied to and forwarded.

1Attachment

Hi Frances, I've attached an excel sheet that shows reductions from ozone plan rules, per your request. 

# ---- -- 

# -- -- - 

# -- ---7- 

# --

, 

# -- I 

### From: Wicher.Frances@epama~l.epa.gov [mallto:W~cher.FrancesCe~arnail.e~a.qov] 1 

### Sent: Wednesday, May 18, 2011 10:04 AM I 

### To: Jess1 F~erro 

### Subject: RE: Em~sslonreduct~ons from rules?

Jessi Thanks Hey Jessi, Iknow there isa big board meeting tomorrow which you are probably deep into preparing for but if you could take a minute or so and send me the updated version of this table Iwould greatly appreciate it.



### From: Frances Wicher 

### [mailto:Wicher.Frances@e~arnail.e~a.aov] Sent: Wednesday, July 06, 2011 9:24 AM 

### To: Jessi Fierro 

### Subject: RE: Emission reductions from rules? Jessi, It's now ozone plan time, so Iwill now start bothering about info related that that plan. To start: doyou have a table like the one below for the ozone plan rules? Thanks, Frances Wicher Air Planning Office (AIR2) EPA Region 9 75 Hawthorne Street San Francisco, California 94105 office: (415) 972-3957 fax: (41 5) 947-3579 email: wicher.frances@epa.gov F;,,m. 'Jessi Fierro" <Jes~ica.Fierro@valleyair.org> To Frances Wicher/RS/USEPA/US@EPA Odic 04/28/2011 08:17 AM RE Emisslon reductions from rules? 

### file://C:\Documents and Settings\fwicher\l,ocal Settings\Temp\notesBAAA2.5\-web3249.h


## ... 9/13/2011 file://C:\Docurnents and Settings\fwicher\Local 

## Settings\Temp\notesBAAA25\-web3249.h


## ... 9/13/2011 

# I
## SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK 

## Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

**904 CA 14-00359**  PRESENT: SMITH, J.P., FAHEY, LINDLEY, WHALEN, AND DEJOSEPH, JJ.

ALI R. ABDULNABI, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT,

V MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

ALLSTATE INSURANCE COMPANY, DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT.

MARCUS & CINELLI, LLP, WILLIAMSVILLE (DAVID P. MARCUS OF COUNSEL), FOR PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT.

LEWIS JOHS AVALLONE AVILES, LLP, ISLANDIA (DANIEL A. BARTOLDUS OF COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT.

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Erie County (Shirley Troutman, J.), entered November 25, 2013. The order, among other things, denied the motion of plaintiff for summary judgment.

It is hereby ORDERED that the order so appealed from is unanimously affirmed without costs.

Memorandum: Plaintiff commenced this action seeking damages based on defendant’s alleged breach of an insurance policy issued by defendant to plaintiff covering real property owned by plaintiff. Plaintiff submitted a claim to defendant for fire loss, and defendant refused to pay the claim on the ground that, inter alia, plaintiff’s intentional conduct caused the fire.

We conclude that Supreme Court properly denied plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment. An insurer denying coverage based on the intentional ignition or procurement of a fire by the insured must establish “either that the fire was intentionally set or that [the insured] had a financial motive to destroy his [or her] property for the insurance proceeds” ( Van Nevius v Preferred Mut. Ins. Co. [appeal No. 1], 280 AD2d 947, 947 [emphasis added]). Here, in the context of plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment, if the evidence “ ‘indicates that plaintiff[’s] premises may have been damaged by arson and that plaintiff[] may have had a motive to see the[] property destroyed by fire,’ ” a plaintiff-insured’s motion for summary judgment should be denied ( Benjaminov v Republic Ins. Group , 241 AD2d 473, 474; see R.C.S. Farmers Mkts. Corp. v Great Am. Ins. Co. , 56 NY2d 918, 920). Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party, as we must ( see Esposito v Wright , 28 AD3d 1142, 1143), we conclude that plaintiff failed to meet his initial burden of establishing that the fire was not intentionally set ( see generally Zuckerman v City of New York , 49 NY2d 557, 562). We further conclude**-2- 904 CA 14-00359** 
that, although plaintiff met his initial burden of establishing that he did not have a financial motive to destroy the property for the insurance proceeds, defendant raised a triable issue of fact in that respect ( see generally id. ).

Entered: September 26, 2014 Frances E. Cafarell Clerk of the Court
# m8834.docx

EUROPEAN COMMISSION Brussels, 28.3.2018 C(2018) 2078 final PUBLIC VERSION To the Notifying Party Subject : Case M.8834 - Brookfield / Saeta Commission decision pursuant to Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 1 and Article 57 of the Agreement on the European Economic Area 2 Dear Sir or Madam, 1. On 7 M arch 2018 , the European Commission received notification of a proposed concentration pursuant to Article 4 of the Merger Regulation by which the undertaking TERP Spanish HoldCo S.L. ("TERP", Spain) controlled by Brookfield Asset Management Inc. ("Brookfield Group", Canada) acquire s within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Merger Regulation sole control of the whole of the undertaking Saeta Yield, S.A. ("Saeta", Spain) ), currently controlled by Cobra Concessiones S.L. ("Cobra", Spain), GIP II Helios, S.à.rl. ("GIP", Luxembourg), Mutuactivos S.A.U., S.G.I.I.C. ("Mutuactivos", Spain) and Sinergia Advisors 2006, A.V., S.A. ("Sinergia", Spain), by way of public bid . 3 2. The business activities of the undertakings concerned are: - For Brookfield: global asset management group focused on investing in real estate, infrastructure, renewable power and private equity. Within its energy portfolio, the Brookfield Group operates a diversified portfolio of assets that generate electricity from renewable sources, which consist of hydroelectric and wind power facilities in North America, Colombia, Brazil, Uruguay and Europe, - For Saeta: active in the generation and wholesale supply of renewable energy. Its facilities comprise a number of wind farms and solar thermal plants in Spain. They also include wind portfolios in Portugal and Uruguay. 3. After examination of the notification, the European Commission has concluded that the notified operation falls within the scope of the Merger Regulation and of paragraph 5 ( c) of the Commission Notice on a simplified procedure for treatment of certain concentrations under Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 . 4 4. For the reasons set out in the Notice on a simplified procedure, the European Commission has decided not to oppose the notified operation and to declare it compatible with the internal market and with the EEA Agreement. This decision is adopted in application of Article 6(1)(b) of the Merger Regulation and Article 57 of the EEA Agreement .
For the Commission
(Signed)
Johannes LAITENBERGER Director - General
(1)
OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1 ( the ' Merger Regulation ' ). With effect from 1 December 2009, the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union ( ' TFEU ' ) has introduced certain changes, such as the replacement of ' Community ' by ' Union ' and ' common market ' by ' internal market ' . The terminology of the TFEU will be used throughout this decision.
(2) OJ L 1, 3.1.1994, p. 3 ( the ' EEA Agreement ' ).
(3) Publication in the Official Journal of the European Union No C 95 , 13 . 3 . 2018 , p. 26 .
(4)
OJ C 366, 14.12.2013, p. 5 .
# EUR-Lex - 31994D0010 - EN

Avis juridique important

*|*

# 31994D0010

**94/10/EC: Commission Decision of 21 December 1993 on a standard summary form for the notification of a decision to award the Community eco-label **

*
Official Journal L 007 , 11/01/1994 P. 0017 - 0019 Finnish special edition: Chapter 15 Volume 13 P. 0113 Swedish special edition: Chapter 15 Volume 13 P. 0113 *

COMMISSION DECISION of 21 December 1993 on a standard summary form for the notification of a decision to award the Community eco-label (94/10/EC)

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,

Having regard to Council Regulation (EEC) No 880/92 of 23 March 1992 on a Community eco-label award scheme (1), and in particular Article 10 (3) thereof,

Whereas Article 10 (3) of Regulation (EEC) No 880/92 provides that the decision to award an eco-label shall be made by the competent body of a Member State after assessment of the product; whereas it is further provided that such decision shall be notified to the Commission enclosing the full results of the said assessment together with a summary thereof;

Whereas a standard summary form should contribute to the transparency of the product assessment and award procedures;

Whereas the measures set out in this Decision are in accordance with the opinion of the Committee set up under Article 7 of Regulation (EEC) No 880/92,

HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:

Article 1

The standard summary form referred to in Article 10 (3) of Regulation (EEC) No 880/92 is hereby established, in the form set out in the Annex to this Decision.

Article 2

This Decision is addressed to the Member States.

Done at Brussels, 21 December 1993.

For the Commission

Yannis PALEOKRASSAS

Member of the Commission

(1) OJ No L 99, 11. 4. 1992, p. 1.

ANNEX
PPCR

Publication Product Condition Report

(To validate warranty or commercial assistance, all information MUST be filled out.)

SECTION I: Customer information (Completed by End User)

Name: Date of Report: Tel:

Company Name: E-mail:

Address:

Aircraft Mfg: Time in Service: Model: S/N:

Engine

SECTION II: Product or Component Information (Completed by End User)

Nomenclature: Turbocharger or T-wheel (part) Part Number:

(circle one) (Write in)

Serial Number: Batch/Date Code:

Part Time in Service: New: YES o Rebuilt: YES o

SECTION III: Compliance Information: (Completed by Repair Facility) 

Compliance with ASB 048: YES o

Turbocharger returned to HET: YES o NO o

T-wheel returned to HET: YES o NO o

Comments on compliance with ASB 048:

Eligibility:

To be eligible for any commercial assistance, this form must be completed as instructed above and will serve as a

claim form. NO reimbursement will be made without completing this form and return of affected T-wheel or

turbocharger. All commercial assistance shall end three (3) calendar months from the original published

date of ASB 048.

For further information contact Hartzell Engine Technologies LLC at: 2900 Selma Highway, Montgomery, AL 36108

USA or FAX to HET Customer Service, 334-386-5450. The complete service bulletin is available to you online via

our website at http://www.HartzellEngineTech.com.

(as may be applicable)

ATTACHMENT A - ASB 048
# EUR-Lex - 31977D0505 - EN

Avis juridique important

*|*

# 31977D0505

**77/505/EEC: Council Decision of 25 July 1977 setting up a Standing Committee on Zootechnics **

*
Official Journal L 206 , 12/08/1977 P. 0011 - 0011 Finnish special edition: Chapter 3 Volume 9 P. 0052 Greek special edition: Chapter 03 Volume 19 P. 0061 Swedish special edition: Chapter 3 Volume 9 P. 0052 Spanish special edition: Chapter 03 Volume 13 P. 0027 Portuguese special edition Chapter 03 Volume 13 P. 0027 *

COUNCIL DECISION of 25 July 1977 setting up a Standing Committee on Zootechnics (77/505/EEC)

THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Economic Community,

Having regard to the draft Decision submitted by the Commission,

Whereas it is desirable that, for cases where the Council delegates powers to the Commission in the zootechnical field, a Committee should be set up, consisting of experts from the Member States, for the purpose of ensuring close cooperation between Member States and the Commission and of enabling the latter to consult experts;

Whereas, furthermore, it is desirable that such cooperation should extend to all fields covered by Community rules on these matters ; whereas the said Committee should accordingly be empowered to consider any question relating to such fields,

HAS DECIDED AS FOLLOWS:

Article 1

A Standing Committee on Zootechnics (hereinafter referred to as "the Committee") is hereby set up, consisting of representatives of the Member States with a representative of the Commission as Chairman.

Article 2

The Committee shall carry out the duties delegated to it by provisions adopted by the Council in the zootechnical field, in the cases and on the conditions provided for therein.

In addition, it may consider any other question arising in this field and referred to it by the Chairman either on his own initiative or at the request of a Member State.

Article 3

The Committee shall adopt its own rules of procedure.

Done at Brussels, 25 July 1977.

For the Council

The President

H. SIMONET
IV 

109TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. RES. 748 

Recognizing the 225th anniversary of the American and French victory at 

Yorktown, Virginia, during the Revolutionary War. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MARCH 30, 2006 

Mrs. JO ANN DAVIS of Virginia (for herself, Mr. CANTOR, Mr. SCOTT of Virginia, Mr. WOLF, Mr. GOODE, Mr. BOUCHER, Mrs. DRAKE, Mr. GOODLATTE, Mr. MORAN of Virginia, Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia, and Mr. 

FORBES) submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the 

Committee on Government Reform 

RESOLUTION 

Recognizing the 225th anniversary of the American and 

French victory at Yorktown, Virginia, during the Revolutionary War. 

Whereas at Yorktown, Virginia, on October 19, 1781, General George Washington and the American and French 

armies received the surrender of Lieutenant General 

Charles Cornwallis and nearly 7,100 British soldiers and 

sailors, ending nine days of siege operations against the 

British army; 

Whereas the victory at Yorktown concluded the last major 

battle of the American Revolution, effectively ending the 

war and securing for the colonies their independence by 


wwhite on PROD1PC65 with BILLS
2 

•HRES 748 IH 

providing a military conclusion to the political declaration 

issued five years earlier; 

Whereas Virginia, as the largest and most populous of the 

original 13 colonies and the home of General Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Patrick Henry, Thomas Nelson, Jr., and other leaders of the American Revolution, 

is blessed with a rich history of noteworthy contributions 

to the struggle to secure liberty and democracy; 

Whereas in 1983 the Virginia General Assembly designated 

the 19th day of October of each year to be recognized 

and celebrated as Yorktown Day throughout the Commonwealth of Virginia; and 

Whereas the 2006 observance of Yorktown Day celebrates the 

225th anniversary of the American and French victory at 

Yorktown: Now, therefore, be it 

1 Resolved, That the House of Representatives recog2 nizes the 225th anniversary of the American and French 

3 victory at Yorktown, Virginia, during the Revolutionary 

4 War and reminds the American people of the debt the 

5 United States owes to its armed forces and the important 

6 role Yorktown and the Commonwealth of Virginia played 

7 in securing their liberty. 

Æ 


wwhite on PROD1PC65 with BILLS