alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Diane M. Campanella et al., Respondents, v James P. Moore, Jr., Respondent, and Stanley Ginzig, Appellant.

[699 NYS2d 76]

—In a negligence action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the defendant Stanley Ginzig appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Garry, J.), dated November 13, 1998, as denied his motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and the cross claim insofar as asserted against him.

Ordered that the order is reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law, with one bill of costs payable by the respondents appearing separately and filing separate briefs, the motion is granted, the complaint and the cross claim are dismissed insofar as asserted against the appellant, and the action against the remaining defendant is severed.

On his motion for summary judgment, the defendant Stanley Ginzig established that his automobile had been fully stopped behind an automobile operated by the plaintiff Diane Campanella for.about 30 seconds when it was struck in the rear by an automobile driven by the defendant James P. Moore, Jr., and propelled into the Campanella vehicle. Ginzig thereby provided a nonnegligent reason for striking the plaintiffs’ automobile in the rear. As the plaintiffs failed to raise a triable issue of fact, Ginzig was entitled to summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against him *(see, e.g., Marsella v Sound Distrib. Corp.,*248 AD2d 683).

Ginzig is also entitled to summary judgment dismissing the *424cross claim asserted against him by Moore. The unrebutted evidence that the Ginzig vehicle had been completely stopped for about 30 seconds before it was struck by the Moore vehicle was sufficient as a matter of law to place sole responsibility on Moore *(see, Johnson v Phillips,*261 AD2d 269). Contrary to Moore’s claim, the emergency doctrine is inapplicable to routine rear-end automobile collisions such as this *(see, Johnson v Phillips, supra; Pappas v Opitz,*262 AD2d 471; *Sass v Ambu Trans,*238 AD2d 570). In any event, the situation confronting Moore did not abrogate his obligation to maintain a reasonable distance from Ginzig’s car *(see, Johnson v Phillips, supra; Gage v Raffensperger,*234 AD2d 751). Mangano, P. J., Ritter, Joy, McGinity and Smith, JJ., concur.
§ 1620.30 Investigations and compliance assistance. ( a ) As provided in sections 9, 11, 16, and 17 of the FLSA, the Commission and its authorized representatives under the Act may ( 1 ) investigate and gather data;
( 2 ) enter and inspect establishments and records, and make transcriptions thereof, and interview individuals;
( 3 ) advise employers regarding any changes necessary or desirable to comply with the Act;
( 4 ) subpoena witnesses and order production of documents and other evidence;
( 5 ) supervise the payment of amounts owing pursuant to section 16(c) of the FLSA;
( 6 ) initiate and conduct litigation.
( b ) The General Counsel, District Directors, Washington Field Office Director, and the Program Director, Office of Program Operations, or the designees of any of them are hereby delegated authority to exercise the powers enumerated in paragraphs (a) (1), (2), (3), and (5) of this section and to serve subpoenas. The General Counsel is delegated authority to seek preliminary relief under the Act. The General Counsel is hereby delegated authority to initiate other litigation at the direction of the Commission and to conduct such litigation.
( c ) The identity or identifying details of persons giving information in confidence as to violations of the Act shall not be disclosed unless necessary in a court proceeding.
[46 FR 4888, Jan. 19, 1981, as amended at 47 FR 46276, Oct. 18, 1982; 50 FR 30700, July 29, 1985. Redesignated at 51 FR 29819, Aug. 20, 1986, and amended at 54 FR 32063, Aug. 4, 1989]
----

Prior notification of a concentration

(Case No COMP/M.3477 — Land NRW/NRW Bank)

Candidate case for simplified procedure

(2004/C 182/02)

(Text with EEA relevance)

----

(1)OJ L 395, 30.12.1989, p. 1 ; corrigendum: OJ L 257, 21.9.1990, p. 13.

(2)OJ L 180, 9. 7. 1997, p. 1; corrigendum OJ L 40, 13.2.1998, p. 17.

(3)OJ C 217, 29.7.2000, p. 32.

----
11 TH COURT OF APPEALS

EASTLAND

, TEXAS

JUDGMENT

In the interest of S.H.

, A.H

., and * From the 326 th District Court

C.K ., children, of Taylor County,

Trial Court No. 9937

- CX

.

No. 11

- 2 1

- 00 235

- C V * April 7, 2022

* Memorandum Opinion by Bailey, C. J.

(P anel consists of: Bailey , C.J.,

Trotter , J. , and W illiams, J.)

This court has inspected the record in this cause and concludes that th ere is no

error in the order below. Therefore, in accordance with this court’s opinion, the

order of the tr ia l court is in all things affirmed.
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 96 (Wednesday, May 17, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Pages 31350-31351]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-12402]


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

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Pension and Welfare Benefits Administration


Working Group on Phased Retirement, Advisory Council on Employee 
Welfare and Pension Benefits Plans; Notice of Meeting

    Pursuant to the authority contained in Section 512 of the Employee 
Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA), 29 U.S.C. 1142, the 
Working Group assigned by the Advisory Council on Employee Welfare and 
Pension Benefit Plans to study the issue of phased retirement will hold 
an open public meeting on Thursday, June 1, 2000 in Room N-5437 A-D, 
U.S. Department of Labor Building, Second and Constitution Avenue NW, 
Washington, DC 20210.
    The purpose of the open meeting, which will run from 9:30 a.m. to 
approximately noon, is for Working Group members to hear testimony 
concerning workforce demographic trends and current practices in phased 
retirement plans.
    Members of the public are encouraged to file a written statement 
pertaining to the topic by submitting 20 copies on or before May 26, 
200 to Sharon Morrissey, Executive Secretary, ERISA Advisory Council, 
U.S. Department of Labor, Room N-5677, 200 Constitution Avenue NW, 
Washington, DC 20210. Individuals or representatives of organizations 
wishing to address the Working Group should forward their request to 
the Executive Secretary or telephone (202) 219-8753. Oral presentations 
will be limited to 10 minutes, but an extended statement may be 
submitted for the record. Individuals with disabilities who need 
special accommodations should contact Sharon Morrissey by May 26 at the 
address indicated in this notice.
    Organizations or individuals may also submit statements for the 
record without testifying. Twenty (20) copies of such statements should 
be sent to the Executive Secretary of the Advisory Council at the above 
address. Papers will be accepted and included in the record of the 
meeting if received on or before May 26.

    Signed at Washington, DC this 12th day of May 2000.
Leslie Kramerich,
Acting Assistant Secretary, Pension and Welfare Benefits 
Administration.
[FR Doc. 00-12402 Filed 5-16-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-29-M
# EUR-Lex - 31999R1411 - EN

Avis juridique important

*|*

# 31999R1411

**Commission Regulation (EC) No 1411/1999 of 29 June 1999 concerning the authorisation of new additives and new additive uses in feedingstuffs **

*
Official Journal L 164 , 30/06/1999 P. 0056 - 0062 *

COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 1411/1999

of 29 June 1999

concerning the authorisation of new additives and new additive uses in feedingstuffs

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,

Having regard to Council Directive 70/524/EEC of 23 November 1970 concerning additives in feedingstuffs(1), as last amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 1245/1999(2), and in particular Articles 9j and 3 thereof,

(1) Whereas Directive 70/524/EEC provides that new additives or new additive uses may be authorised, taking account of advances in scientific and technical knowledge;

(2) Whereas Council Directive 93/113/EC of 14 December 1993 concerning the use and the marketing of enzymes, micro-organisms and their preparations in animal nutrition(3), as last amended by Directive 97/40/EC(4), by derogation from Directive 70/524/EEC, authorised Member States to permit provisionally the use and marketing of enzymes, micro-organisms and their preparations;

(3) Whereas the examination of the dossiers, submitted by the Member States in accordance with Article 3 of Directive 93/113/EC, indicates that a certain number of preparations belonging to the groups of enzymes and micro-organisms can be provisionally authorised;

(4) Whereas the Scientific Committee for Animal Nutrition has delivered a favourable opinion with regard to the harmlessness of these preparations;

(5) Whereas the measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on Feedingstuffs,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

The preparations belonging to the group "enzymes" and listed in Annex I to this Regulation may be authorised according to Directive 70/524/EEC as additives in animal nutrition under the conditions laid down in that Annex.

Article 2

The preparations belonging to the group "micro-organisms" and listed in Annex II to this Regulation may be authorised according to Directive 70/524/EEC as additives in animal nutrition under the conditions laid down in that Annex.

Article 3

This Regulation shall enter into force on the day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Communities.

It shall apply from 1 July 1999.

This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.

Done at Brussels, 29 June 1999.

For the Commission

Franz FISCHLER

Member of the Commission

(1) OJ L 270, 14.12.1970, p. 1.

(2) OJ L 150, 17.6.1999, p. 15.

(3) OJ L 334, 31.12.1993, p. 17.

(4) OJ L 180, 9.7.1997, p. 21.

ANNEX I

>TABLE>

ANNEX II

>TABLE>
#### § 1960.58 Training of collateral duty safety and health personnel and committee members.

Within six months after October 1, 1980, or on appointment of an employee to a collateral duty position or to a committee, each agency shall provide training for collateral duty safety and health personnel and all members of certified occupational safety and health committees commensurate with the scope of their assigned responsibilities. Such training shall include: The agency occupational safety and health program; section 19 of the Act; Executive Order 12196; this part; agency procedures for the reporting, evaluation and abatement of hazards; agency procedures for reporting and investigating allegations of reprisal, the recognition of hazardous conditions and environments; identification and use of occupational safety and health standards, and other appropriate rules and regulations.
T hi s di s pos i t i on i s notappr opr i a t e f orpubl i c a t i on and i s notpr e c e de nt * e xc e pta s pr ovi de d by9th C i r . R . 36- 3.

T he pa ne l una ni m ous l yc onc l ude s thi s c a s e i s s ui t abl e f orde c i s i on ** w ith o u t o r a l ar g u m e n t. See F ed. R . A pp . P . 34 (a )( 2). E G / R es ear ch NOT F OR P UB L I CAT I ON

UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS FOR T HE NI NTH CI RC UI T I SI A H D A N I ELS, P e titio n e r- A p p e llan t, v. D. K. S I S T O, R es po nd ent- A pp el l ee . N o. 07- 16257 D. C . No . C V- 0 4 - 0 5 1 2 3 - MHP ME MOR AN DU M *

A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt f o rth e N o rth e rn D is tr ic t o f C a lif o rn ia M a r i l y n H . P a t e l , D i s tr i c tJudge , P r e s i di ng S ubm i tt e d F e brua ry16, 2010 ** B efo re: F E RN A N D E Z , G O U L D , an dM . S M IT H , C i rcu i tJu d g es. C alifo rn ia state p riso n erIs iah D an iels ap p ea ls p ro se fr o m th e d istrict co u rt’s j udgm e ntde ny i ng hi s 28 U . S . C . § 2254 habe a s pe t i t i on. W e ha ve j ur i s di c t i on p u r s u a n t to 2 8 U .S .C . § 2 2 5 3 , a n dw e a f f irm . 

# FI LED MA R 05 2010 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALSE G / Res ea r ch 07- 16257 2 A s athr e s hol d m a tt e r , w e de nyA ppe l l e e ’ s m ot i on t o di s m i s s the appe a l f or l a c k of j ur i s di c t i on. D a ni e l s doe s notr e qui r e ac e rt i f i c a t e of appe a l abi l i tyunde r28 U . S . C . § 2253 t o c ha l l e nge the B oa r d of P a r ol e H e a r i ngs ’ a dm i ni s tr a t i ve de c i s i ons r e g a r d in g h is p a r o le . See R osas v. N i el se n , 428 F . 3d 1229, 1232 ( 9th C i r . 2005) ( p e rc u r ia m ) . D a ni e l s c ont e nds tha thi s due pr oc e s s r i ght s w e r e vi ol a t e d w he n he w a s not gr a nt e d pa r ol e w i thi n ni ne y e a r s of hi s s e nt e nc i ng. T he C a l i f orni ac ourt s ’ de ni a l of thi s c l ai m w as no tcontraryt o o r an u nrea sonabl e app l i cat i on of fe dera l l aw as e s tab lis h e db yth e S up r e m e C o u rt o f th e U n ite dS ta te s . See 2 8 U .S .C . § 22 54 (d)( 1). A s the di stri ctcourtcorr ec t l y c on cl ud ed, the j ud ge’ s s t at em ent s at s e n te n c in g r e g a r d in g p a r o le w e r e n o t p a rt o f th e p le aa g r e e m e n t. C

f . B row n v. P o o le , 3 3 7 F . 3 d1 1 5 5 , 1 1 5 9 -6 1 (9 th C i r. 2 0 0 3 ) (h o l d i n g p ro secu t o r’ s o ral p ro m i se t o d efen d an tatp l ea co l l o q u y pr i ort o cou rt ’ s a cc ept ance of pl eaw as partof pl ea a g r e e m e n t) . W e co n stru e D an i el s’ arg u m en treg ard i n g th e v al i d i ty o f h i s g u i l ty p l ea as a m o tio n to r e c o n s id e ro u rp r io rd e n ia l o f ac e rtif ic a te o f ap p e a lab ilitya s to th is is s u e . S o c o n s tru e d , th e m o tio n is d e n ie d . See 9 th C ir . R . 2 2 - 1 ( d ) - ( e ) ; see a l so Hi i v ala v . W

ood , 19 5 F . 3d 10 98 , 11 04 -05 (9th C i r. 19 99 ) ( per c uri am ). AF F I RME D.
§ 22.22 Exchange of witness lists, statements, and exhibits. ( a ) At least 15 days before the hearing or at such other time as may be ordered by the ALJ, the parties shall exchange witness lists, copies of prior statements of proposed witnesses, and copies of proposed hearing exhibits, including copies of any written statements that the party intends to offer in lieu of live testimony in accordance with § 22.33(b). At the time the above documents are exchanged, any party that intends to rely on the transcript of deposition testimony in lieu of live testimony at the hearing, if permitted by the ALJ, shall provide each party with a copy of the specific pages of the transcript it intends to introduce into evidence.
( b ) If a party objects, the ALJ shall not admit into evidence the testimony of any witness whose name does not appear on the witness list or any exhibit not provided to the opposing party as provided above unless the ALJ finds good cause for the failure or that there is no prejudice to the objecting party.
( c ) Unless another party objects within the time set by the ALJ, documents exchanged in accordance with paragraph (a) of this section shall be deemed to be authentic for the purpose of admissibility at the hearing.
PUBLIC LAW 112–1—JAN. 31, 2011 125 STAT. 3 

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY—H.R. 366: 

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, Vol. 157 (2011): 

Jan. 25, considered and passed House. 

Jan. 26, considered and passed Senate. 

Æ 

Public Law 112–1 

112th Congress 

An Act 

To provide for an additional temporary extension of programs under the Small 

Business Act and the Small Business Investment Act of 1958, and for other purposes. 

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 

the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

SECTION 1. ADDITIONAL TEMPORARY EXTENSION OF AUTHORIZATION 

OF PROGRAMS UNDER THE SMALL BUSINESS ACT AND 

THE SMALL BUSINESS INVESTMENT ACT OF 1958. 

(a) IN GENERAL.—Section 1 of the Act entitled ‘‘An Act to 

extend temporarily certain authorities of the Small Business 

Administration’’, approved October 10, 2006 (Public Law 109–316; 

120 Stat. 1742), as most recently amended by section 1 of Public 

Law 111–251 (124 Stat. 2631), is amended by striking ‘‘January 

31, 2011’’ each place it appears and inserting ‘‘May 31, 2011’’. 

(b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by subsection 

(a) shall take effect on January 30, 2011. 

Approved January 31, 2011. 

Jan. 31, 2011 

[H.R. 366] 


dkrause on GSDDPC29PROD with PUBLIC LAWS
NETTIE MAYERSO H N

Assemblywoman 27 th District

ALBANY OFFICE Room 746, Legislative Office Building Albany, New York 12248 (518) 455

- 4404

DISTRICT OFFICE

159

- 06 71 st Avenue Flushing, New York 11365 (718) 969

- 1508 

### THE ASSEMBLY
STATE OF NEW YORK

ALB ANY

DEAN Queens Assembly Delegation

COMMITTEES

Health

Labor

May 21, 2010

Mr. Chris Ward

Executive Director Port Authority of New York and New Jersey
225 Park Avenue, South New York, NY 10003

Dear Mr. Ward:

As the New York State Assemblywoma n representing the College Point community, I write to reiterate my strong concerns regarding the New York City Department of Sanitation’s Marine Transfer Station (MTS) at College Point, Queens, NY and the additional safeguards recommended in the April 20 10 study entitled, “Evaluation of the North Shore Marine Transfer Station and its Compatibility with Respect to Bird Strikes and Safe Air Operations at LaGuardia Airport” (Document ID DOT

- OST

- 2010

- 0104

- 0001).

Given the close proximity to LaGuardia Airpo rt’s Runway 13

- 31 and the MTS being a natural attractant for birds, the placement of the MTS increases the danger of bird strikes to approaching aircraft. While I recognize the additional precautions against bird strikes recommended by the study, I am con cerned that the study did not address how these changes will be implemented.

Specifically, the study recommends several additional design modifications, operational procedures and a wildlife management program during the planning, construction and operati onal phases of the MTS. These changes to the design, construction and operation of the MTS will require long

- term commitments and extensive coordination from several city, state and federal agencies, including: the Department of Sanitation, New York City; the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation; the Federal Aviation Administration of the U.S. Department of Transportation; and the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service and Wildlife Services of the U.S. Department of Agriculture. This oversight and coordination is not

delineated in the report, and w hile there are worthy safeguards recommended in this study, they will be of no value if there is not the required commitment and authority to carry them out.**Marine Transfer Station Letter** 

**– Page**  **2**

In light of the serious threat that bird strikes pose

, I must reiterate my concerns over the placement of the MTS in College Point. Given the number of bird strikes that already occur at LaGuardia, I am sure you will agree that we must be absolutely certain that this MTS is not going to add to the problem.

Thank you for your attention to this matter, and I look forward to hearing your thoughts on this important safety issue.

Sincerely,

Nettie Mayersohn Member of Assembly
EXHIBIT 10(3)



                         DESCRIPTION OF
               ANNUAL INCENTIVE COMPENSATION PLAN




     The Annual Incentive Compensation Plan is intended to
recognize key employees for major contributions to the Company
and will yield cash awards based on how well the Company
performs financially.  When the Company's financial targets are
met or exceeded, incentive cash awards are payable on an annual
basis.  A threshold Return on Average Capital Employed (ROACE)
must be achieved by the Company before awards are made.  The
threshold ROACE is established by the Executive Compensation
Committee at the beginning of the year along with an award
target expressed as a percentage of salary based on competitive
data.  The size of an award is determined by the amount by which
the threshold ROACE is exceeded and the position and performance
of the individual.
§ 1470.51 Later disallowances and adjustments. The closeout of a grant does not affect: ( a ) The Federal agency's right to disallow costs and recover funds on the basis of a later audit or other review;
( b ) The grantee's obligation to return any funds due as a result of later refunds, corrections, or other transactions;
( c ) Records retention as required in § 1470.42;
( d ) Property management requirements in §§ 1470.31 and 1470.32; and
( e ) Audit requirements in § 1470.26.
§ 1919.78 Nondestructive examinations. ( a ) Wherever it is considered necessary by the accredited person or his authorized representative and wherever it is practical and advisable to avoid disassembly of equipment, removal of pins, etc., examination of structure or parts by electronic, ultrasonic, or other nondestructive methods may be carried out, provided that the procedure followed is acceptable to the Assistant Secretary and the person carrying out such examination is accredited or acceptable to the Assistant Secretary for the purpose.
# EUR-Lex - 31997D0799 - EN

Avis juridique important

*|*

# 31997D0799

**97/799/EC: Commission Decision of 14 November 1997 recognizing that the production of certain vins de pays and quality wines psr in France, by reason of their qualitative characteristics, is far from able to satisfy demand (Only the French text is authentic) **

*
Official Journal L 324 , 27/11/1997 P. 0041 - 0045 *

COMMISSION DECISION of 14 November 1997 recognizing that the production of certain vins de pays and quality wines psr in France, by reason of their qualitative characteristics, is far from able to satisfy demand (Only the French text is authentic) (97/799/EC)

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,

Having regard to Council Regulation (EEC) No 822/87 of 16 March 1987 on the common organization of the market in wine (1), as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 1417/97 (2), and in particular Article 6 (4) thereof,

Whereas, in accordance with Article 6 (1) of Regulation (EEC) No 822/87, all new planting of vines is prohibited until 31 August 1998; whereas, however, there is provision for Member States to grant authorization for new vine planting for the 1996/97 and 1997/98 wine years for areas intended for the production of:

- quality wines produced in specified regions (quality wines psr),

and

- table wines designated as one of the following: Landwein, vin de pays, indicazione geografica tipica, vino de la tierra, vinho regional, regional wine, etc,

for which the Commission has recognized that production, by reason of their qualitative characteristics, is far from able to satisfy demand;

Whereas requests for the application of that provision for certain vins de pays and certain quality wines psr were submitted by the French Government on 10 September and 1 October 1997;

Whereas examination of the requests has revealed that the vins de pays and quality wines psr in question meet the requisite conditions; whereas the limit of 2 584 ha laid down in Article 6 (1) of Regulation (EEC) No 822/87 has not been exceeded;

Whereas the measures provided for in this Decision are in accordance with the opinion of the Management Committee for Wine,

HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:

Article 1

The vins de pays and quality wines psr listed in the Annex meet the requirements of the second subparagraph of Article 6 (1) of Regulation (EEC) No 822/87, provided that the increase in surface area given in that Annex is complied with.

Article 2

This Decision is addressed to the French Republic.

Done at Brussels, 14 November 1997.

For the Commission

Franz FISCHLER

Member of the Commission

(1) OJ L 84, 27. 3. 1987, p. 1.

(2) OJ L 196, 24. 7. 1997, p. 10.

ANNEX

>TABLE>

>TABLE>