alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Christopher McMahon et al., Respondents, v Ford Motor Co. et al., Appellants.

[825 NYS2d 447]

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Marilyn Shafer, J.), entered April 26, 2005, which denied defendants’ motion to dismiss the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

*264Plaintiffs allege that Christopher McMahon was seriously injured in an accident on August 11, 1996 due to the failure of a seat belt in a vehicle manufactured by defendant Ford Motor Company and sold by defendant Metro Ford. In August 2004, defendants moved to dismiss the action based on spoliation and CPLR 3126.

Defendants’ claims of “constructive spoliation” with respect to the maintenance records for the vehicle and Mr. McMahon’s postaccident Albany Medical Center records are without merit. Plaintiffs have produced their copies of the requested records and should not be held responsible if the shops and hospital records are unavailable, as the records apparently have been discarded by these entities in the ordinary course of business without first consulting plaintiffs *(see Regalado v Independent Welding Supply Corp.,*289 AD2d 124, 125 [2001]; *Maliszewska v Potamkin N.Y. LP Mitsubishi Sterling,*281 AD2d 353 [2001]; *Calbi v General Motors Corp.,*204 AD2d 148 [1994]).

In contrast, the insurance company that destroyed the vehicle involved in the accident apparently informed plaintiffs in advance of the planned destruction, and plaintiffs raised no objection. Plaintiffs should have known defendants would seek to inspect the vehicle *(see Kirkland v New York City Hous. Auth.,*236 AD2d 170, 175 [1997]) and should have taken steps to preserve it *(see Thornhill v A.B. Volvo,*304 AD2d 651, 652 [2003]). Nevertheless, “dismissal would be too drastic a remedy where defendants are not entirely bereft of evidence tending to establish their position” *(Cohen Bros. Realty v Rosenberg Elec. Contrs.,*265 AD2d 242, 244 [1999], *lv dismissed*95 NY2d 791 [2000]). Defendants, as noted, are in possession of the repair and hospital records furnished by plaintiffs. Moreover, plaintiffs have narrowed their claim to one of defective seat belt buckle design, and prior to the vehicle’s destruction, the seat belt buckle Mr. McMahon allegedly used at the time of the accident was removed from the vehicle in a documented procedure performed by an insurer, was preserved, and defendants have since inspected it. Plaintiffs, we note, have submitted an unrebutted expert affidavit explaining that the entire vehicle is not necessary to the defense of their claim, as narrowed.

We have considered defendants’ remaining arguments and find them unavailing. Concur—Andrias, J.P., Marlow, Nardelli and Sweeny, JJ.
IV

106TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. RES. 407

Permitting official photographs of the House of Representatives to be taken

while the House is in actual session.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

JANUARY 27, 2000

Mr. THOMAS submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the

Committee on House Administration

RESOLUTION

Permitting official photographs of the House of Representatives to be taken while the House is in actual session.

1 Resolved, That at a time designated by the Speaker

2 of the House of Representatives, official photographs of

3 the House may be taken while the House is in actual ses4 sion. Payment for the costs associated with taking, pre5 paring, and distributing such photographs may be made

6 from the applicable accounts of the House of Representa7 tives.

Æ
OMI CORPORATION
      EXHIBIT 99.1
Form 10-Q


                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report of OMI Corporation (the "Company") on
Form 10-Q for the period ending June 30, 2002 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Kathleen C. Haines,
Senior Vice President, Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer of the Company,
certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

     3)   The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or
          15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

     4)   The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
          material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of
          the Company.





Date:   August 13, 2002                 By: /s/ Kathleen C. Haines
       -----------------------------        ----------------------
                                                Kathleen C. Haines
                                                Senior Vice President,
                                                Chief Financial Officer
                                                and Treasurer


<PAGE>


OMI CORPORATION
     EXHIBIT 99.1
Form 10-Q


                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report of OMI Corporation (the "Company") on
Form 10-Q for the period ending June 30, 2002 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Craig H. Stevenson,
Jr., Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to
18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, that:

     1)   The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or
          15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

     2)   The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
          material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of
          the Company.







Date:   August 13, 2002                By: /s/ Craig H. Stevenson, Jr.
       -----------------------------       -------------------------------
                                               Craig H. Stevenson, Jr.
                                               Chairman of the Board
                                               and Chief Executive
çO ST.

UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

REGION IX

75 Hawthorne Street

San Francisco, CA 941 05-3901

APR 092013

Mr. Richard W. Corey, Executive Officer

California Air Resources Board

Post Office Box 2815

Sacramento, California 95812

Dear Mr. Corey:

On February 6, 2013, CARE submitted revisions to the California State Implementation Plan (SIP). We

have reviewed materials submitted with the following rules and found that they fulfill the completeness

criteria in 40 CFR Part 51, Appendix V.

APCD/AQMD j Rule # j Rule Title

Antelope Valley 218 Continuous Emission Monitoring

Continuous Emission Monitoring Performance

Antelope Valley 218.1 Specifications

Antelope Valley 1 101 Secondary Lead Smelters/Sulfur Oxides

Butte County 400 Permit Requirements

Butte County 401 Permit Exemptions

Butte County 432 Federal New Source Review

Butte County 433 Rice Straw Emission Reduction Credits

Butte County 1 107 Prevention of Significant Deterioration Permits

Great Basin 221 Prevention of Significant Deterioration Permits

Mojave Desert 1 1 13 Architectural Coatings

Monterey Bay 438 Open Outdoor Fires

Placer County 235 Adhesives

Placer County 239 Graphic Arts Operations

San Diego County 20.3.1 Prevention of Significant Deterioration

South Coast 1 147 NOx from Miscellaneous Sources

South Coast 1 177 Liquefied Petroleum Gas Transfer and Dispensing

Ventura County 37 Project XL

Ventura County 67 Vacuum Producing Devices

This addresses all revisions in this submittal. Tn the coming months we will review the complete

revisions for action pursuant to Clean Air Act section 110(k).

1rznted on RL’vled Paper
Questions regarding our completeness review should be directed to Robert Marinaro at (415) 972-3019.

Sincerely,

eborah Jordan

Director, Air Division

cc: Sent by e-mail

Tom Christoflç Air Pollution Control Officer, Placer County APCD

Eldon Heaston, Executive Director, Antelope Valley AQMD

Eldon Heaston, Executive Director, Mojave Desert AQMD

Robert Kard, Air Pollution Control Officer, San Diego County APCD

Ted Schade, Air Pollution Control Officer, Great Basin Unified APCD

Richard Stedman, Air Pollution Control Officer, Monterey Bay APCD

Michael Villegas, Air Pollution Control Officer, Ventura County APCD

W. James Wagoner, Air Pollution Control Officer, Butte County AQMD

Barry Wallerstein, Executive Officer, South Coast AQMD

Michael Guzzetta, Manager, Rule Evaluation Section, CARB
### §1224. Confirmation hearing

After expedited notice, the court shall hold a hearing on confirmation of the plan. A party in interest, the trustee, or the United States trustee may object to the confirmation of the plan. Except for cause, the hearing shall be concluded not later than 45 days after the filing of the plan.

(Added and amended Pub. L. 99–554, title II, §255, title III, §302(f), Oct. 27, 1986, 100 Stat. 3110, 3124; Pub. L. 103–65, §1, Aug. 6, 1993, 107 Stat. 311; Pub. L. 105–277, div. C, title I, §149(a), Oct. 21, 1998, 112 Stat. 2681–610; Pub. L. 106–5, §1(1), (2), Mar. 30, 1999, 113 Stat. 9; Pub. L. 106–70, §1, Oct. 9, 1999, 113 Stat. 1031; Pub. L. 107–8, §1, May 11, 2001, 115 Stat. 10; Pub. L. 107–17, §1, June 26, 2001, 115 Stat. 151; Pub. L. 107–170, §1, May 7, 2002, 116 Stat. 133; Pub. L. 107–171, title X, §10814(a), May 13, 2002, 116 Stat. 532; Pub. L. 107–377, §2(a), Dec. 19, 2002, 116 Stat. 3115; Pub. L. 108–73, §2(a), Aug. 15, 2003, 117 Stat. 891; Pub. L. 108–369, §2(a), Oct. 25, 2004, 118 Stat. 1749; Pub. L. 109–8, title X, §1001(a)(1), (c), Apr. 20, 2005, 119 Stat. 185, 186.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

For repeal of section effective Oct. 1, 1998, and subsequent reenactment of section, see note set out preceding section 1201 of this title.

#### **Statutory Notes and Related Subsidiaries**

#### Effective Dates

Permanent reenactment of section effective July 1, 2005, see section 1001(a)(2) of Pub. L. 109–8, set out as a Repeal, Reenactment, and Termination of Chapter note under section 1201 of this title. For effective dates of section and amendments extending periods for which section was reenacted prior to permanent reenactment, see Effective Date and Effective Date of 1999, 2001, 2002, 2003, and 2004 Amendment notes set out under section 1201 of this title.
## Breadcrumb

-  Inicio 
-  Información Sobre PBGC 
-  Medidas de Rendimiento de PBGC 

This page has not been translated. Please go to PBGC.gov’s English home page for more information available in English.

# Medidas de Rendimiento de PBGC

Las medidas de rendimiento de la satisfacción de los clientes de PBGC proporcionan información clave sobre la ejecución de los servicios de la agencia a sus clientes. Estas medidas permiten a PBGC hacer un seguimiento de su progreso e identificar las áreas que necesitan mejorar. A continuación, se indican los resultados recientes y los objetivos por año fiscal.

​1 El Índice Americano de Satisfacción del Cliente (ACSI, siglas en inglés) y el Análisis de la Experiencia del Cliente (CXA, siglas en inglés) son índices de satisfacción del cliente que utilizan una escala de 0 a 100.​2 Esta medida refleja los tres primeros trimestres del año fiscal.

Abril 4, 2024

Déjenos sus comentarios
### [§4274. Omitted]

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Pub. L. 116–283, div. A, title XVIII, §1847(e)(4), (5), Jan. 1, 2021, 134 Stat. 4256, 4257, enacted this section, transferred subsec. (b) of section 2547 of this title to this section, and made additional amendments, which were all to become effective Jan. 1, 2022. Subsequently, Pub. L. 117–81, div. A, title XVII, §1701(r)(1)(B), Dec. 27, 2021, 135 Stat. 2149, repealed section 1847(e)(4), (5) of Pub. L. 116–283, effective as if included therein, thereby omitting this section and eliminating the amendments before they took effect.
NASA LogoNTRSNTRS - NASA Technical Reports ServerSearchmore_vertCollectionsAboutNewsHelpLogin Back to ResultsAn Analysis of the Speed Commands from an Interval Management Algorithm during the ATD-1 Flight TestNASA's first Air Traffic Management Technology Demonstration (ATD-1) successfully completed a nineteen-day flight test under a NASA contract with Boeing, with Honeywell and United Airlines as sub-contractors. An Interval Management (IM) avionics prototype was built based on international IM standards, integrated into two test aircraft, and then flown in real-world conditions to determine if the goals of improving aircraft efficiency and airport throughput during high-density arrival operations could be met. This paper describes the speed behavior of the IM avionics prototype, focusing on the speed command rate and the number of speed increases.Document ID20180000700Acquisition SourceLangley Research CenterDocument TypeTechnical Memorandum (TM)AuthorsWatters, Christine*(Louisiana State Univ. New Orleans, LA, United States)*Wilson, Sara R.*(NASA Langley Research Center Hampton, VA, United States)*Swieringa, Kurt A.*(NASA Langley Research Center Hampton, VA, United States)*Date AcquiredJanuary 25, 2018Publication DateNovember 1, 2017Subject CategoryStatistics And ProbabilityReport/Patent NumberNF1676L-28546NASA/TM-2017-219793L-20892Funding Number(s)WBS: WBS 330693.04.10.07.09Distribution LimitsPublicCopyrightPublic Use Permitted.Available DownloadsNameType20180000700.pdfSTIcloud_downloadcontent_copyvisibilityRelated RecordsThere are no records associated with this record.visibility_offNo Preview Available
 No Fear Act | Freedom of Information Act | Office of the Inspector General | Agency Financial ReportsNASA Web Privacy Policy and Important Notices | NASA Guidelines for Quality of InformationDisclaimers, Copyright, Terms of Use | Accessibility | NASA OCIO | USA.gov | NASA.govContact Us | Site MapSTI LogoNASA Official: JoAnne R. Calhoun Site Curator: STI Compliance and Distribution Services Last Modified: September 12, 2024
E-2007-0904 

October 25, 2007 

 Exemption No. 9529 

 Regulatory Docket No. FAA-2006-25223 

Mr. James L. Jensen 

Director of Operations 

Air Center Helicopters, Inc. 

150 Aviation Way, Hangar 17N 

Fort Worth, TX 76106 

Dear Mr. Jensen: 

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

decision and explains its basis. 

The Basis for Our Decision 

By letter dated June 15, 2006, you petitioned the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) on 

behalf of Air Center Helicopters, Inc. (ACHI), for an exemption from § 135.145 of Title 14, 

Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) to the extent necessary to allow ACHI to place turbine 

helicopters in service under part 135 without conducting proving flights. 

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

in the Federal Register because the requested exemption would not set a precedent, and any 

delay in acting on this petition would be detrimental to ACHI. 

The FAA issued a denial of exemption in circumstances similar in all material respects to 

those presented in your petition. In Denial of Exemption No. 7967 (copy enclosed), the 

petitioner desired relief in order to place turbine airplanes in service under part 135 without 

conducting proving flights. After considering all the relevant material, the FAA found that the 

petitioner failed to show that the proposed exemption would provide a level of safety 

equivalent to that provided under the current regulation. The FAA also found that the 

petitioner has failed to show how its circumstances are sufficiently unique to justify relief by 

exemption instead of through the general rulemaking process. In addition the FAA found the 

proposed exemption would not be in the public interest. 
2 

Having fully reviewed your petition, the FAA finds that the relief you have requested is the 

same sought in Denial of Exemption No. 7967. In addition, we find that the supportive 

information is essentially similar to that contained in Denial of Exemption No. 7967. 

Furthermore, the FAA finds that an exemption would reduce the level of safety currently 

provided by § 135.145. Accordingly, FAA finds that a grant of exemption would not be 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 deny the petition of Air Center Helicopters, Inc. for an 

exemption from 14 CFR § 135.145. 

Sincerely, 

/s/ 

James J. Ballough 

Director, Flight Standards Service 

Enclosure
#### § 39.904 Limitations.

Nothing in this provision shall be interpreted as relieving the Bureau branch of Facilities Management or its field offices of any responsibility for continuing to provide maintenance and repair service to schools through existing procedures.
# C_2006242EN.01001201.xml

| 7.10.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 242/12 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.10.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 242/12

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case COMP/M.4177 — BASF/Degussa)

(2006/C 242/09)

(Text with EEA relevance)

On 24 May 2006, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the common market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004. The full text of the decision is available only in English and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

| — | from the Europa competition website (http://ec.europa.eu/comm/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes, |
| --- | --- |

—

from the Europa competition website (http://ec.europa.eu/comm/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website under document number 32006M4177. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law. (http://ec.europa.eu/eur-lex/lex) |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website under document number 32006M4177. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law. (http://ec.europa.eu/eur-lex/lex)

---
#### § 575.1 Scope.

This part addresses the assessment of civil fines under section 2713(a) of the Act with respect to notices of violation issued under § 573.3 of this chapter.
### Organization
```

[Congressional Bills 106th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 569 Agreed to House (ATH)]

106th CONGRESS
  2d Session
H. RES. 569

 Designating majority membership on certain standing committees of the 
                                 House.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             July 27, 2000

 Mrs. Biggert submitted the following resolution; which was considered 
                             and agreed to

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
 Designating majority membership on certain standing committees of the 
                                 House.

    Resolved, That the following named Member be, and he is hereby, 
elected to the following standing committee of the House of 
Representatives:
    Committee on House Administration: Mr. Linder.
                                 <all>
```
§ 36.100 Are there minimum requirements for student attendance checks? Yes, there are minimum requirements for student attendance checks as follows: ( a ) All students must be physically accounted for four times daily;
( b ) Each count must be at least two hours apart;
( c ) If students are on an off-campus activity, physical accounts of students must be made at least once every two hours or at other reasonable times depending on the activity;
( d ) At night all student rooms should be physically checked at least once every hour;
( e ) If a student is unaccounted for, the homeliving program must follow its established search procedures; and
( f ) When homeliving staff is aware of a student who is going to be absent from school, the homeliving program is required to notify the school.
### [§2207. Renumbered §4651]
§ 162.535 What effectiveness, compliance, and enforcement provisions apply to WEELs? ( a ) The provisions at § 162.586 apply to WEEL lease documents.
( b ) The provisions at §§ 162.587 through 162.589 and 162.591 through 162.599 apply to WEELs, except that any references to § 162.590 will apply instead to § 162.536.
```

[Congressional Bills 106th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 582 Engrossed in House (EH)]

                 In the House of Representatives, U.S.,

                                                    September 20, 2000.
    Resolved, That at any time after the adoption of this resolution the Speaker 
may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule XVIII, declare the House resolved into the 
Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of the 
bill (H.R. 4945) to amend the Small Business Act to strengthen existing 
protections for small business participation in the Federal procurement 
contracting process, and for other purposes. The first reading of the bill shall 
be dispensed with. Points of order against consideration of the bill for failure 
to comply with clause 4(a) of rule XIII are waived. General debate shall be 
confined to the bill and shall not exceed one hour equally divided and 
controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on Small 
Business. After general debate the bill shall be considered for amendment under 
the five-minute rule. The bill shall be considered as read. During consideration 
of the bill for amendment, the Chairman of the Committee of the Whole may accord 
priority in recognition on the basis of whether the Member offering an amendment 
has caused it to be printed in the portion of the Congressional Record 
designated for that purpose in clause 8 of rule XVIII. Amendments so printed 
shall be considered as read. The Chairman of the Committee of the Whole may: (1) 
postpone until a time during further consideration in the Committee of the Whole 
a request for a recorded vote on any amendment; and (2) reduce to five minutes 
the minimum time for electronic voting on any postponed question that follows 
another electronic vote without intervening business, provided that the minimum 
time for electronic voting on the first in any series of questions shall be 15 
minutes. At the conclusion of consideration of the bill for amendment the 
Committee shall rise and report the bill to the House with such amendments as 
may have been adopted. The previous question shall be considered as ordered on 
the bill and amendments thereto to final passage without intervening motion 
except one motion to recommit with or without instructions.
            Attest:

                                                                          Clerk.
```