Lack of accreditation
requirements under current law have been a focal point for the initiative's critics.
The requirement under current law to determine who is at fault for causing the divorce has significant financial and emotional costs, and unnecessarily forces couples in deteriorating relationships to rehash the bitter, painful and embarrassing reasons for divorce.
Not exact matches
Important factors that could cause actual results to differ materially from those reflected in such forward - looking statements and that should be considered in evaluating our outlook include, but are not limited to, the following: 1) our ability to continue to grow our business and execute our growth strategy, including the timing, execution, and profitability of new and maturing programs; 2) our ability to perform our obligations
under our new and maturing commercial, business aircraft, and military development programs, and the related recurring production; 3) our ability to accurately estimate and manage performance, cost, and revenue
under our contracts, including our ability to achieve certain cost reductions with respect to the B787 program; 4) margin pressures and the potential for additional forward losses on new and maturing programs; 5) our ability to accommodate, and the cost of accommodating, announced increases in the build rates of certain aircraft; 6) the effect on aircraft demand and build rates of changing customer preferences for business aircraft, including the effect of global economic conditions on the business aircraft market and expanding conflicts or political unrest in the Middle East or Asia; 7) customer cancellations or deferrals as a result of global economic uncertainty or otherwise; 8) the effect of economic conditions in the industries and markets in which we operate in the U.S. and globally and any changes therein, including fluctuations in foreign currency exchange rates; 9) the success and timely execution of key milestones such as the receipt of necessary regulatory approvals, including our ability to obtain in a timely fashion any required regulatory or other third party approvals for the consummation of our announced acquisition of Asco, and customer adherence to their announced schedules; 10) our ability to successfully negotiate, or re-negotiate, future pricing
under our supply agreements with Boeing and our other customers; 11) our ability to enter into profitable supply arrangements with additional customers; 12) the ability of all parties to satisfy their performance
requirements under existing supply contracts with our two major customers, Boeing and Airbus, and other customers, and the risk of nonpayment by such customers; 13) any adverse impact on Boeing's and Airbus» production of aircraft resulting from cancellations, deferrals, or reduced orders by their customers or from labor disputes, domestic or international hostilities, or acts of terrorism; 14) any adverse impact on the demand for air travel or our operations from the outbreak of diseases or epidemic or pandemic outbreaks; 15) our ability to avoid or recover from cyber-based or other security attacks, information technology failures, or other disruptions; 16) returns on pension plan assets and the impact of future discount rate changes on pension obligations; 17) our ability to borrow additional funds or refinance debt, including our ability to obtain the debt to finance the purchase price for our announced acquisition of Asco on favorable terms or at all; 18) competition from commercial aerospace original equipment manufacturers and other aerostructures suppliers; 19) the effect of governmental
laws, such as U.S. export control
laws and U.S. and foreign anti-bribery
laws such as the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act and the United Kingdom Bribery Act, and environmental
laws and agency regulations, both in the U.S. and abroad; 20) the effect of changes in tax
law, such as the effect of The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (the «TCJA») that was enacted on December 22, 2017, and changes to the interpretations of or guidance related thereto, and the Company's ability to accurately calculate and estimate the effect of such changes; 21) any reduction in our credit ratings; 22) our dependence on our suppliers, as well as the cost and availability of raw materials and purchased components; 23) our ability to recruit and retain a critical mass of highly - skilled employees and our relationships with the unions representing many of our employees; 24) spending by the U.S. and other governments on defense; 25) the possibility that our cash flows and our credit facility may not be adequate for our additional capital needs or for payment of interest on, and principal of, our indebtedness; 26) our exposure
under our revolving credit facility to higher interest payments should interest rates increase substantially; 27) the effectiveness of any interest rate hedging programs; 28) the effectiveness of our internal control over financial reporting; 29) the outcome or impact of ongoing or future litigation, claims, and regulatory actions; 30) exposure to potential product liability and warranty claims; 31) our ability to effectively assess, manage and integrate acquisitions that we pursue, including our ability to successfully integrate the Asco business and generate synergies and other cost savings; 32) our ability to consummate our announced acquisition of Asco in a timely matter while avoiding any unexpected costs, charges, expenses, adverse changes to business relationships and other business disruptions for ourselves and Asco as a result of the acquisition; 33) our ability to continue selling certain receivables through our supplier financing program; 34) the risks of doing business internationally, including fluctuations in foreign
current exchange rates, impositions of tariffs or embargoes, compliance with foreign
laws, and domestic and foreign government policies; and 35) our ability to complete the proposed accelerated stock repurchase plan, among other things.
SB 219 would serve to clarify employer
requirements and keep New Hampshire in compliance with
current Federal
laws and court decisions, including the March 25 Supreme Court ruling on Young vs United Parcel Service (UPS), which ruled in favor of Peggy Young to reverse the lower court's decision and to have a trial, after she sued UPS
under the federal Pregnancy Discrimination Act, for failure to provide pregnancy accommodations.
The
current state
law says that towns,
under the state's so - called «minimum budget
requirement,» can not spend less money on public education than was spent during the previous year — unless special circumstances such as a sudden drop in enrollment or other problems.
My main recommendation, therefore, is to maintain the
law's
current annual testing
requirements, while restoring to states virtually all decisions about the design of their accountability systems, including how schools and teachers are identified as
under - performing and what should be done to improve their performance.
This report, co-authored by Safal Partners and Public Impact for the National Charter School Resource Center, examines federal
requirements under civil rights
laws and the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, and state
laws governing charter school recruitment, retention, enrollment of EL students and their accountability for EL student performance;
requirements and
current challenges related to EL data reporting; and whether existing
laws are adequate to address the needs of this growing population of ELs in charter schools.
(Sec. 8019)
Under current law, an SEA must reduce funding for a covered program to the extent that an LEA fails to meet certain maintenance of effort
requirements.
Under current law, districts already risk losing their Title I dollars if they fail to comply with comparability
requirements.
Under current law, a state is required to establish long - term goals based on the
requirement that all students attain a proficient or higher level of achievement within a specified timeframe.
In addition to flexibility regarding compliance with these fiscal
requirements,
under this proposal, districts also would be permitted to transfer 100 percent of all ESEA formula funds — expanded from only Title I, Title II, and Title IV
under current law — among those programs, with the exceptions that funds still could not be transferred out of Title I and districts would not need to comply with specific program
requirements as long as they met the programs» intent and purposes.
This bill requires parents to discuss immunizations with a health care practitioner if they are opting out of those
requirements for their children, as a personal belief exemption, as is allowable
under current law.
Under current Iowa
law, though licensed, they are exempt from the inspections and other
requirements that apply to non-USDA licensed commercial kennels, breeders, dealers and auctions. Iowa Code  § 162.11,  §  § 162.1 et seq and 21 IAC 67.1 (162) et seq..
Under the
current version of S63 — which has changed form a couple of times, since its introduction in January — anyone who sells five or more cats and dogs «sight unseen» to folks inside New Jersey would have to comply with the
law's
requirements.
The compromise bill has more limited
requirements for veterinary care than either the
current law under the Puppy Mill Cruelty Prevention Act or S.B. 113 / S.
We also have une standard rooms adapted for physically handicapped people, with a full - sized bed and wheelchair - enabled bathroom services, pursuant to the design
requirements established
under current Costa Rican
law.
Mr. Pinegar advises executive management, boards of directors and board committees regarding disclosure compliance
under federal securities
laws as well as the changing corporate governance environment and
current and prospective governance
requirements and attitudes (including
under Sarbanes - Oxley, SEC rules, NYSE / NASDAQ rules and state
law).
The Justice Ministry will begin work to review
current laws with an eye on meeting
requirements under the 1980 Hague Convention on Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction, the sources said.
Instead it suggests that the
current Delphic statutory definition of «who is an employee» (namely someone who works
under a contract of employment) should be replaced by a more detailed statutory definition reflecting the criteria which has been developed by case
law such as the
requirement for «mutual obligation» and «control».
To have the mandatory four - year B.A.
requirement under the
current conditions where a
law degree is a degree with more limited job prospects than in the past is the biggest contributor to the crisis of
law students and young lawyers who can not find articling positions and entry level jobs.
The LAA has amended all
current contracts in order to meet the
requirements imposed by the General Data Protection Regulation (Regulation (EU) 2016/679) and the
Law Enforcement Directive (Directive (EU) 2016/680), being implemented
under Part 3 of the Data Protection bill.
The best way to learn the legal profession is through tried experience and practical training, which,
under our
current system, are delayed for years, first by the
requirement that would - be lawyers graduate from accredited
law schools and second by the bar exam and its accompanying exam for professional fitness.