DOCSLIB.ORG

Gulf Coast Claims Facility Report of Finding & Observations

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Gulf Coast Claims Facility Report of Finding & Observations BDO Consulting, a Division of BDO USA, LLP INDEPENDENT EVALUATION OF THE GULF COAST CLAIMS FACILITY REPORT OF FINDINGS & OBSERVATIONS TO THE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE June 5, 2012 INDEPENDENT EVALUATION OF THE GULF COAST CLAIMS FACILITY REPORT OF FINDINGS & OBSERVATIONS Table of Contents I. INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................................................ 1 II. AREAS OF FOCUS & APPROACH ................................................................................................................ 2 A. GENESIS OF THE INDEPENDENT EVALUATION ...................................................................................................... 2 B. AREAS OF FOCUS........................................................................................................................................... 3 C. THE BDO INDEPENDENT EVALUATION TEAM ...................................................................................................... 6 D. APPROACH TO THE INDEPENDENT EVALUATION ................................................................................................... 7 III. GCCF FORMATION & OPERATIONS ......................................................................................................... 11 A. BP RESPONSE TO THE SPILL & ORIGINS OF THE GCCF ........................................................................................ 11 B. ENTITIES ENGAGED TO ASSIST OR ADVISE THE GCCF.......................................................................................... 14 Figure 1: Overview of the GCCF ...................................................................................................................... 15 C. GCCF PHASE I ............................................................................................................................................ 28 D. GCCF PHASE II ........................................................................................................................................... 34 1. Types of Claims Available During Phase II ....................................................................................... 34 2. Development of Methodology for Interim Payment and Final Payment Claims ............................ 36 a. Role of ARPC ............................................................................................................................................ 36 b. Causation ................................................................................................................................................. 38 3. Implementation of the Final Rules and Claims Evaluation Methodology ....................................... 39 a. Claimant Eligibility ................................................................................................................................... 39 b. Loss Calculation ....................................................................................................................................... 41 c. Interest Calculation ................................................................................................................................. 43 d. Communication of Claim Status and Resolution to Claimants ................................................................ 45 e. Claim Reconsideration Methods ............................................................................................................. 46 f. Diversity of Claimants .............................................................................................................................. 47 g. Modifications to the GCCF Methodologies ............................................................................................. 48 i. Examples of Methodology Modifications ................................................................................................ 49 (a) Treatment of Individuals and Businesses in the Casino Industry and Other Businesses with Gaming Operations ....................................................................................................................................... 49 (b) Inclusion of Prior Year Income for Similar Lines of Work Only ........................................................ 51 (c) Use of Annualized January through April 2010 Earnings in Loss Calculations ................................. 51 (d) Use of Claimant Verified Amount Rule During Phase I .................................................................... 51 (e) Use of Special Determination Letter During Phase II ...................................................................... 52 (f) Letters to Claimants Previously Denied During Phase II .................................................................. 53 h. GCCF Quality Control Processes .............................................................................................................. 54 i. Centralization of Claims Process ............................................................................................................. 54 j. Feinberg Rozen Oversight and Discretion ............................................................................................... 55 E. THE CURRENT STATUS OF THE GCCF .............................................................................................................. 56 Prepared at the Request of The U.S. Department of Justice i June 5, 2012 IV. FINDINGS & OBSERVATIONS .................................................................................................................. 58 A. FINDINGS & OBSERVATIONS REGARDING CLAIMS PROCESSING ............................................................................ 58 1. Claims Paid, Denied or In-Process ................................................................................................... 58 a. Claims Paid .............................................................................................................................................. 59 Figure 2: BP/GCCF Payment History Chart ..................................................................................................... 60 Figure 3: Claims Paid by Location ................................................................................................................... 61 b. Claims Denied .......................................................................................................................................... 62 c. Claims In-Process ..................................................................................................................................... 64 Figure 4: GCCF Staffing Levels ........................................................................................................................ 65 2. Claims with Identified Errors Corrected by the GCCF ..................................................................... 66 Figure 5: Summary of First-time or Additional Payments and/or Offers for Payment ................................... 69 B. OBSERVATIONS RELATING TO CERTAIN CONCERNS OF CLAIMANTS, PUBLIC OFFICIALS AND OTHER STAKEHOLDERS......... 70 1. WHY THERE SEEMED TO BE INCONSISTENT OUTCOMES AMONG CLAIMANTS THAT MAY APPEAR TO HAVE BEEN SIMILARLY SITUATED ............................................................................................................................. 72 2. WHETHER THE GCCF GAVE APPROPRIATE CONSIDERATION TO DOCUMENTATION SUBMITTED BY CLAIMANTS ....... 77 3. WHETHER COMMUNICATIONS WITH CLAIMANTS WERE EFFECTIVE ............................................................... 78 4. OTHER CONCERNS ............................................................................................................................... 84 5. FINDINGS AND OBSERVATIONS REGARDING CONCERNS ............................................................................... 85 C. CONSIDERATIONS FOR FUTURE CLAIMS PROCESSING FACILITIES ............................................................................ 85 1. GCCF’S SUGGESTIONS FOR FUTURE CLAIMS FACILITIES ............................................................................... 85 2. FURTHER SUGGESTIONS FOR FUTURE CLAIMS FACILITIES .............................................................................. 87 V. CONCLUSION .......................................................................................................................................... 88 APPENDIX ............................................................................................................................................................ A1 Prepared at the Request of The U.S. Department of Justice ii June 5, 2012 INDEPENDENT EVALUATION OF THE GULF COAST CLAIMS FACILITY REPORT OF FINDINGS & OBSERVATIONS I. INTRODUCTION At the request of the U.S. Department of Justice (the ―DOJ‖), BDO Consulting, a division of BDO USA, LLP (―BDO‖), conducted an independent evaluation of the Gulf Coast Claims Facility (the ―GCCF‖). The GCCF was established to receive and process claims by individuals and businesses for costs and damages as a result of the oil discharges from the April 20, 2010 Deepwater Horizon incident (―the Spill‖). On December 21, 2011, the DOJ publicly announced the selection of BDO to perform the independent evaluation and mandated that our work be fully independent,1 be overseen and directed by the DOJ, and meet the highest professional standards. (See Exhibit A.) In conducting our independent evaluation, we were at all times mindful of the unprecedented
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Consent Decree: Safeway, Inc. (PDF)
    1 2 3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 4 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION 5 6 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ) 7 ) Plaintiff, ) Case No. 8 ) v. ) 9 ) SAFEWAY INC., ) 10 ) Defendant. ) 11 ) 12 13 14 CONSENT DECREE 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Consent Decree 1 2 TABLE OF CONTENTS 3 I. JURISDICTION, VENUE, AND NOTICE .............................................................2 4 II. APPLICABILITY....................................................................................................2 5 III. OBJECTIVES ..........................................................................................................3 6 IV. DEFINITIONS.........................................................................................................3 7 V. CIVIL PENALTIES.................................................................................................6 8 9 VI. COMPLIANCE REQUIREMENTS ........................................................................6 10 A. Refrigerant Compliance Management System ............................................6 11 B. Corporate-Wide Leak Rate Reduction .........................................................7 12 C. Emissions Reductions at Highest-Emission Stores......................................8 13 VII. PARTICIPATION IN RECOGNITION PROGRAMS .........................................10 14 VIII. REPORTING REQUIREMENTS .........................................................................10 15 IX. STIPULATED PENALTIES .................................................................................12
    [Show full text]
  • Western Weekly Reports
    WESTERN WEEKLY REPORTS Reports of Cases Decided in the Courts of Western Canada and Certain Decisions of the Supreme Court of Canada 2013-VOLUME 12 (Cited [2013] 12 W.W.R.) All cases of value from the courts of Western Canada and appeals therefrom to the Supreme Court of Canada SELECTION EDITOR Walter J. Watson, B.A., LL.B. ASSOCIATE EDITORS (Alberta) E. Mirth, Q.C. (British Columbia) Darrell E. Burns, LL.B., LL.M. (Manitoba) E. Arthur Braid, Q.C. (Saskatchewan) G.L. Gerrand, Q.C. CARSWELL EDITORIAL STAFF Cheryl L. McPherson, B.A.(HONS.) Director, Primary Content Operations Audrey Wineberg, B.A.(HONS.), LL.B. Product Development Manager Nicole Ross, B.A., LL.B. Supervisor, Legal Writing Andrea Andrulis, B.A., LL.B., LL.M. (Acting) Supervisor, Legal Writing Andrew Pignataro, B.A.(HONS.) Content Editor WESTERN WEEKLY REPORTS is published 48 times per year. Subscrip- Western Weekly Reports est publi´e 48 fois par ann´ee. L’abonnement est de tion rate $409.00 per bound volume including parts. Indexed: Carswell’s In- 409 $ par volume reli´e incluant les fascicules. Indexation: Index a` la docu- dex to Canadian Legal Literature. mentation juridique au Canada de Carswell. Editorial Offices are also located at the following address: 430 rue St. Pierre, Le bureau de la r´edaction est situ´e a` Montr´eal — 430, rue St. Pierre, Mon- Montr´eal, Qu´ebec, H2Y 2M5. tr´eal, Qu´ebec, H2Y 2M5. ________ ________ © 2013 Thomson Reuters Canada Limited © 2013 Thomson Reuters Canada Limit´ee NOTICE AND DISCLAIMER: All rights reserved.
    [Show full text]
  • MHP and DMC-ODS Beneficiary Policy Number: 3224 Grievance and Appeal Process
    SANTA CRUZ COUNTY Behavioral Health Services POLICIES AND PROCEDURE MANUAL Subject: MHP and DMC-ODS Beneficiary Policy Number: 3224 Grievance and Appeal Process 9 Date Effective: 4/26/2021 Pages: 7 Prior Version: 12/01/2020 Responsible for Updating: Quality Improvement Staff Approval: ___________________________ __________________________ Behavioral Health Director Date BACKGROUND: Santa Cruz County Behavioral Health Services [Mental Health Plan (MHP) and Drug Medi-Cal Organized Delivery System (DMC-ODS)] is committed to respecting and protecting a person’s right to express service dissatisfaction, and to reviewing each notification as a means to support quality behavioral health care. We adhere to federal and state requirements for processing beneficiary grievances and appeals. SCOPE: Providers who render MHP and/or DMC-ODS Network services shall adhere to this policy to ensure beneficiaries are informed of their grievance and appeal rights and have access to methods for filing a grievance and appeal with County Quality Improvement. PURPOSES: To provide beneficiaries and providers with clear, viable procedures for the resolution of grievances and appeals. POLICY: Santa Cruz County Behavioral Health Services shall provide all Medi-Cal beneficiaries with information, in both English and Spanish, regarding grievance and appeal procedures. Beneficiaries shall have access to these grievance and appeal procedures in accordance with state and federal mandates, as described in this policy. Information regarding the process for filing grievances and appeals is available as brochure forms, and also in the Mental Health Plan (MHP) Beneficiary Handbook for Specialty Mental Health Services and the Drug Medi-Cal Organized Delivery System (DMC-ODS) Beneficiary Handbook. 3224: Grievance and Appeal Process (MHP & DMC) 1 DEFINITIONS: 1.
    [Show full text]
  • Drb Final Resolution
    COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION STANDARD SPECIFICATION SECTION 105 DISPUTE REVIEW BOARD Brannan Sand and Gravel Co. v. Colorado Department of Transportation DRB FINAL RESOLUTION BACKGROUND Colorado Project No. STA 0404-044 15821R, “Removing Asphalt Mat on West Colfax Avenue and Replacing with a new Hot Mix Asphalt Overlay”, was awarded to Brannan Sand and Gravel Company on August 11, 2008, for $1,089,047.93. The contract incorporated all Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT) Standard Specifications and Project Special Conditions, including, Standard Specification 109.06: Standard Specification 109.06 Partial Payments. CDOT will make partial payments to the Contractor once each month as the work progresses, when the Contractor is performing satisfactorily under the Contract. Payments will be based upon progress estimates prepared by the Engineer, of the value of work performed, materials placed in accordance with the Contract, and the value of the materials on hand in accordance with the Contract. Revision of Section 109. In September 2006, CDOT, CCA (Colorado Contractors Associations), and CAPA (Colorado Asphalt Pavement Association) formed a joint Task Force at the request of CAPA to evaluate the need for an asphalt cement cost adjustment specification that would be similar to the Fuel Cost Adjustment that was currently being used by CDOT. The result of the Task Force effort was the revision of Standard Specification 109.06 to include the Asphalt Cement Cost Adjustments Subsection. Subsection 109.06, Revision of Section 109, “Asphalt Cement Cost Adjustment When Asphalt Cement is Included in the Bid Price for HMA”, states: _____________________________________________________________ DRB Final Resolution Brannan Sand & Gravel v.
    [Show full text]
  • Procedural Items for the Cmfa Summary and Recommendations ______
    PROCEDURAL ITEMS FOR THE CMFA SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS _____________________________________________________________ Items: A1, A2, A3 Action: Pursuant to the by-laws and procedures of CMFA, each meeting starts with the call to order and roll call (A1) and proceeds to a review and approval of the minutes from the prior meeting (A2). After the minutes have been reviewed and approved, time is set aside to allow for comments from the public (A3). _____________________________________________________________ NEW ROADS SCHOOL SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS _____________________________________________________________ Applicant: New Roads School Action: Final Resolution Amount: $3,250,000 Purpose: Finance and Refinance the Acquisition, Construction, Improvement, Renovation and Equipping of Educational Facilities, Located in the City of Santa Monica, California. Activity: Private School Meeting: June 7, 2013 Background: New Roads School (“New Roads”) was established in 1995 as a model for education in an ethnically, racially, culturally, and socio-economically diverse community. New Roads began as a middle school program with 70 students and has grown in both directions each year thereafter. New Roads now serves over 600 students representing the kaleidoscope of communities that make up Los Angeles. Unique among independent schools, no less that 40% of the New Roads School tuition budget is devoted to need-based financial aid every year, enabling them to provide financial assistance to more than 50% of their families. Over the past 15 years, New Roads has dedicated approximately $60 million to financial aid. New Roads School seeks to spark enduring curiosity, to promote personal, social, political, cultural and moral understanding, to instill respect for the life and ecology of the earth, and to foster the sensitivity to embrace life’s deep joys and mysteries.
    [Show full text]
  • Pharmacy Support Person Registration of Respondent
    BEFORE THE IOWA BOARD OF PHARMACY Re: Case No. 2011-172 Pharmacy Support Person Registration of STATEMENT OF CHARGES TYLERANTHONY SMITH Registration No. 792, Respondent COMES NOW, the Complainant, Lloyd K. Jessen, and states: 1. He is the Executive Director ofthe Iowa Board ofPharmacy and files this Statement ofCharges solely in his official capacity. 2. The Board has jurisdiction in this matter pursuant to Iowa Code Chapters 147,155A and 272C (2011). 3. The Board issued Tyler Anthony Smith (hereinafter, "Respondent") pharmacy support person registration number 792, subject to the laws of the State ofIowa and the rules ofthe Board. Respondent's registration was last renewed on July 12, 2010, and will expire on June 30, 2012. 4. At all times material to this Statement ofCharges, Respondent was employed as a pharmacy support person at Hy-Vee Pharmacy, Perry, Iowa. A. CHARGES COUNT I- UNLAWFUL POSSESSION AND DISTRIBUTION OF DRUGS Respondent is charged pursuant to Iowa Code §§ 124.403, i55A.6B(s) and 155A.21 (2011), and 657 Iowa Administrative Code § 36.i(4)(h), with possession and distribution of a prescription drugs - specifically, controlled substances - for other than lawful purposes. COUNT II - VIOLATING LAWS RELATED TO PHARMACY Respondent is charged pursuant to Iowa Code § 155A.6B(5) (2011) and 657 Iowa Administrative Code § 36.i(4)(j) with violating state laws related to the practice of pharmacy; specifically, laws relating to possession and distribution ofcontrolled substances found at Iowa Code §§ 124.403,155A.21 and 155A.23 (2011). COUNT III - INABILITY TO PRACTICE DUE TO CHEMICAL ABUSE Respondent is charged pursuant to Iowa Code § i55A.6B(s) (2011), and 657 Iowa Administrative Code § 36.1(4X111) with the inability to practice as a pharmacy support person, with reasonable skill and safety, due to chemical abuse.
    [Show full text]
  • CITY of VANCOUVER RESOLUTION July 7, 2008
    CITY OF VANCOUVER RESOLUTION July 7, 2008 RESOLUTION NO. fl-&ha A RESOLUTION relating to selection of a Locally Preferred Alternative (LPA) for the Columbia River Crossing project (CRC), adauthorizing action by the City of Vancouver's delegates to the C-TRAN Board and Regional Transportation Council Board, guided by the principles herein, in support of a regional LPA. WHEREAS, Interstate 5 is a conidor of national significance that serves the entire west coast of the United States, as well as international commerce with Canada, Mexico, and all of the countries of the Pacific Rim that access US west coast sea ports; and WHEREAS, Interstate 5 between Portland, Oregon and Vancouver, Washington experiences some of the worst congestion along the entire length of the Interstate 5 corridor; and WHEREAS, the 1-5 Interstate Bridge is one of only two Columbia River crossings between Vancouver, Washington and Portland, Oregon and approximately 138,000 people rely on crossing the 1-5 Bridge daily by car, transit, bicycle and on foot; and WHEREAS, the Vancouver-Portland Metropolitan Area is expected to grow by one million new residents by the year 2030; and WHEREAS, the existing 1-5 bridges ate old and do not meet current seismic hazard avoidance standards; and WHEREAS, the 1-5 Transportation and Trade Partnership Final Strategic Plan recommended congestion and mobility improvements within the 1-5 Bridge Influence Area in 2002; and WHEREAS, the Governors of Oregon and Washington initiated the Columbia River Crossing Project (CRC) and appointed a 39
    [Show full text]
  • When Can I Confirm an Arbitration Award?
    When Can I Confirm an Arbitration Award? June 01, 2021 Timeline to Confirm Arbitration Award BST Ohio Corp. v. Wolgang, 2021-Ohio-1785 In this appeal, the Supreme Court of Ohio reversed the lower court’s decision, holding that neither R.C. 2711.09 nor R.C. 2711.13 requires a court to wait three months after an arbitration award is issued before confirming the award. The Bullet Point: In this matter, the Supreme Court of Ohio determined that trial courts need not wait three months before confirming an arbitration award. In making this determination, the Court analyzed the interplay of the timing requirements of R.C. 2711.09 and 2711.13. Under R.C. 2711.09, a party may file an application to confirm an arbitration award with a court of common pleas within one year after the award is issued. Thereafter, the court must grant an order and issue judgment confirming said award unless it has been vacated, modified, or corrected pursuant to R.C. 2711.10 and 2711.11. As compared to said one-year limit to confirm, R.C. 2711.13 mandates that a party seeking to alter the results of arbitration must move to vacate, modify, or correct the award within three months of the award being issued. In this case, the plaintiff applied to the Cuyahoga County Common Pleas Court (the “trial court”) to confirm the arbitration award the same day it was issued. The following day, the defendant filed a petition to vacate or correct the award in the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles.
    [Show full text]
  • Official Proceedings of the Meetings of the Board Of
    OFFICIAL PROCEEDINGS OF THE MEETINGS OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF PORTAGE COUNTY, WISCONSIN January 18, 2005 February 15, 2005 March 15, 2005 April 19, 2005 May 17, 2005 June 29, 2005 July 19, 2005 August 16,2005 September 21,2005 October 18, 2005 November 8, 2005 December 20, 2005 O. Philip Idsvoog, Chair Richard Purcell, First Vice-Chair Dwight Stevens, Second Vice-Chair Roger Wrycza, County Clerk ATTACHED IS THE PORTAGE COUNTY BOARD PROCEEDINGS FOR 2005 WHICH INCLUDE MINUTES AND RESOLUTIONS ATTACHMENTS THAT ARE LISTED FOR RESOLUTIONS ARE AVAILABLE AT THE COUNTY CLERK’S OFFICE RESOLUTION NO RESOLUTION TITLE JANUARY 18, 2005 77-2004-2006 ZONING ORDINANCE MAP AMENDMENT, CRUEGER PROPERTY 78-2004-2006 ZONING ORDINANCE MAP AMENDMENT, TURNER PROPERTY 79-2004-2006 HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES NEW POSITION REQUEST FOR 2005-NON TAX LEVY FUNDED-PUBLIC HEALTH PLANNER (ADDITIONAL 20 HOURS/WEEK) 80-2004-2006 DIRECT LEGISLATION REFERENDUM ON CREATING THE OFFICE OF COUNTY EXECUTIVE 81-2004-2006 ADVISORY REFERENDUM QUESTIONS DEALING WITH FULL STATE FUNDING FOR MANDATED STATE PROGRAMS REQUESTED BY WISCONSIN COUNTIES ASSOCIATION 82-2004-2006 SUBCOMMITTEE TO REVIEW AMBULANCE SERVICE AMENDED AGREEMENT ISSUES 83-2004-2006 MANAGEMENT REVIEW PROCESS TO IDENTIFY THE FUTURE DIRECTION TECHNICAL FOR THE MANAGEMENT AND SUPERVISION OF PORTAGE COUNTY AMENDMENT GOVERNMENT 84-2004-2006 FINAL RESOLUTION FEBRUARY 15, 2005 85-2004-2006 ZONING ORDINANCE MAP AMENDMENT, WANTA PROPERTY 86-2004-2006 AUTHORIZING, APPROVING AND RATIFYING A SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT INCLUDING GROUND
    [Show full text]
  • Final Resolution and Order Vs
    COMMONWEALTH OF PUERTO RICO PUERTO RICO ENERGY COMMISSION MARC BEJARANO CASE NO.: CEPR-RV-2017-0004 PETITIONER SUBJECT: FinAl Resolution And Order vs. AUTORIDAD DE ENERGÍA ELÉCTRICA DE PUERTO RICO RESPONDENT FINAL RESOLUTION AND ORDER I. Brief ProcedurAl BAckground On February 27, 2017, Marc Bejarano (“Petitioner” or “Mr. Bejarano”) filed a petition for bill review before the Puerto Energy Commission (“Commission”) pursuAnt to Article 6.27 of Act 57-20141 and Regulation 8863.2 Mr. Bejarano’s petition relates to a past due charge included in A bill dated October 28, 2016 issued by the Puerto Rico Electric Power Authority (“PREPA”) to Ms. Wendy CArroll PArker. On MArch 17, 2017, PREPA AppeAred before the Commission And requested an extension until April 10, 2017 to reply to Mr. BejArAno’s petition. The Commission grAnted PREPA’s request on MArch 20, 2017. On April 4, 2017, Mr. BejArAno filed A Motion requesting thAt the heAring in this case be conducted in the English language. The Commission grAnted the Petitioner’s request on April 5, 2017, pursuant to Section 1.10 of Regulation 8543.3 On April 10, 2017, PREPA filed A motion requesting the dismissAl of Mr. BejArAno’s petition. On April 19, 2017, the Commission held A hearing to Address: (1) whether it has jurisdiction to consider the dispute of the past due charges contested by the Petitioner; (2) whether there Are grounds to consider the present cAse As A complAint rAther thAn A petition for bill review, given PREPA having allegedly transferred the past due balance to the 1 The Puerto Rico Energy TrAnsformAtion And RELIEF Act, As Amended.
    [Show full text]
  • 1- Board Order No. 065 Final Resolution of the Board Of
    BOARD ORDER NO. 065 FINAL RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF TAXICAB COMMISSIONERS CITY OF LOS ANGELES WHEREAS, the Board, as part of each taxicab franchise ordinance, may adopt vehicle standards and requirements for clean fuel/clean air taxicab vehicle policies; and WHEREAS, the City Council on October 26, 2010, approved the renewal of the existing taxicab franchise agreements to at least December 31, 2015, and that such renewal approval included a “green taxi” provision whereby 80% of each Los Angeles taxicab fleet (not including Wheelchair Accessible vehicle exemptions) must be included as “green” vehicles producing lower smog pollution and Green House Gas emissions by the end of 2015; and WHEREAS, the Board approved Board Order No. 062 on December 16, 2010, establishing the City of Los Angeles Taxicab Greening Program describing “green” vehicle standards and deployment requirements during the taxicab franchising period in order to aide in the reduction of pollutants emitted from taxicab transportation vehicles for both smog pollution and Green House Gas emissions; and WHEREAS, the Board has reviewed the potential for a temporary taxicab vehicle substitution program whereby vehicles removed from active service (outage) due to unexpected major repairs or replacement issues may be temporarily replaced with a pre-approved substitute green taxicab, lessening the economic effect to vehicle owners and drivers during vehicle outage periods, as well as providing more consistent service capability to the public; and WHEREAS, the Board of Taxicab Commissioners approved Tentative Resolution, Board Order No. 065 on June 16, 2011, and such Tentative Resolution was published on June 23, 2011, for a five-day public review period; THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that each taxicab operator (franchisee) shall have the option (if they so desire), to establish an authorized “green” taxicab substitution vehicle pool, for use as temporary taxicab fleet vehicle substitutes during vehicle outage periods of both “green” and other types of taxicabs.
    [Show full text]
  • The Omega Man Or the Isolation of U.S. Antitrust Law
    Loyola University Chicago, School of Law LAW eCommons Faculty Publications & Other Works 2020 The Omega Man or the Isolation of U.S. Antitrust Law Spencer Weber Waller Loyola University Chicago, School of Law, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://lawecommons.luc.edu/facpubs Part of the Antitrust and Trade Regulation Commons Recommended Citation Spencer Weber Waller, The Omega Man or the Isolation of U.S. Antitrust Law, 52 CONN. L. REV. 123 (2020). This Article is brought to you for free and open access by LAW eCommons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Faculty Publications & Other Works by an authorized administrator of LAW eCommons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. CONNECTICUT LAW REVIEW VOLUME 52 APRIL 2020 NUMBER 1 Article The Omega Man or the Isolation of U.S. Antitrust Law SPENCER WEBER WALLER There is a classic sciencefiction novel andfilm that presenta metaphorfor the isolation of United States antitrust law in the current global context. Richard Mathiesson 's 1954 classic science fiction novel, I am Legend, and the later 1971 film released under the name of The Omega Man starring Charleton Heston, both deal with the fate of Robert Neville, a survivor of a world-wide pandemic who believes he is the last man on Earth. While I am Legend and The Omega Man are obviously works offantasy, it nonetheless has resonancefor contemporaryantitrust debate and discourse. United States antitrust law and policy diverges significantly from the rest of the global antitrust community in important areas of scope, philosophy, doctrine, procedure, remedies, and institutions.Much of this divergence in world view is the product of history and path dependence that is largely unique to the United States experience.
    [Show full text]