alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
DEPARTMENT OF HEA LTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services 42 CFR Parts 417, 422, and 423 [CMS-4144-CN] RIN 0938-AQ00 Medicare Program; Proposed Changes to the Medic are Advantage and the Medicare Prescription Drug Benefit Progr ams for Contract Year 2012 and Other Proposed Changes; Correction AGENCY: Centers for Medicare & Me dicaid Services (CMS), HHS. ACTION: Correction of proposed rule. SUMMARY: This document corrects a technical e rror that appeared in the proposed rule entitled "Medicare Program; Proposed Ch anges to the Medicare Advantage and the Medicare Prescription Drug Benefit Prog rams for Contract Year 2012 and Other Proposed Changes" which was filed fo r public inspection on November 10, 2010. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT : Sabrina Ahmed, (410) 786-7499. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Background In FR Doc. 2010-28774 filed November 10, 2010, there was a technical error that is identified and corrected in the Corr ection of Errors section below. II. Summary of Errors In the "DATES" section, we inadvertently requested that the Office of the Federal Register base the comment pe riod closing date on the date the proposed rule will appearCMS-4144-CN 2 in the Federal Register instead of the date of filing fo r public inspection. Therefore, in section III. of this correction notice, we correct this error by inserting the date that the comment period closes, which is January 11, 2011.

III. Waiver of 60-Day Comment Period We ordinarily permit a 60- day comment period on notices of proposed rulemaking in the Federal Register , as provided in section 1871(b)(1) of the Act. The change made by this correction notice does not constitute agency rulemaking, and therefore the 60-day comment period does not apply. This correc tion notice merely corrects a technical error in the proposed rule and does not make subs tantive changes to the proposed rule that would require additional time on which to comment. Instead, this correction notice is intended to ensure the accuracy of the proposed rule. IV. Correction of Errors In FR Doc. 2010-28774 filed November 10, 2010, make the following correction: 1. In the "DATES" section, the phrase " [ O F R

- - i n s e r t d a t e 6 0 d a y s a f t e r d a t e o f
p u b l i c a t i o n i n t h e Federal Register] " is corrected to read "January 11, 2011."CMS-4144-CN (Catalog of Federal Domestic Assist ance Program No. 93.773, Medicare--Hospital Insurance; and Program No. 93.774, Medicar e--Supplementary Me dical Insurance Program)

Dated: November 12, 2010

________________________ Barbara J. Holland , Deputy Executive Secretary to the Department

.CMS-4144-CN 4

BILLING CODE 4120-01-P

[FR Doc. 2010-28997 Filed 11/12/2010 at 4: 15 pm; Publication Date: 11/22/2010]
#### § 125.21 Cartage other than for examination.

Any licensed customhouse cartman, including an importer licensed to cart his own imported merchandise and a bonded carrier provided for in § 112.2 of this chapter, at the expense of the importer or other party in interest, may transfer merchandise from the importing vessel or other conveyance to a bonded warehouse, from one vessel or conveyance to another, from one bonded warehouse to another, from the public stores to a bonded warehouse, from warehouse for transportation or for exportation, and from an internal revenue warehouse for exportation under the internal revenue laws without payment of tax. Foreign trade zone operators, bonded warehouse proprietors, container station operators and centralized examination station operators may engage in limited cartage or lighterage under the conditions specified in § 112.2 of this chapter. Nothing in this section shall apply to the cartage of examination packages to the place of examination.

[T.D. 94-81, 59 FR 51495, Oct. 12, 1994]
§ 190.45 Returned retail merchandise. ( a ) *Special rule for substitution.* Section 313(c)(1)(C)(ii) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (19 U.S.C. 1313(c)(1)(C)(ii)), provides for drawback upon the exportation or destruction under CBP supervision of imported merchandise which has been entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption, duty-paid and ultimately sold at retail by the importer, or the person who received the merchandise from the importer, and for any reason returned to and accepted by the importer, or the person who received the merchandise from the importer.
( b ) *Eligibility requirements.* ( 1 ) Drawback is allowable pursuant to compliance with all requirements set forth in this subpart; and
( 2 ) The claimant must also show by evidence satisfactory to CBP that drawback may be claimed by— ( i ) Designating an entry of merchandise that was imported within 1 year before the date of exportation or destruction of the merchandise described in paragraph (a) under CBP supervision.
( ii ) Certifying that the same 8-digit HTSUS subheading number and specific product identifier (such as part number, SKU, or product code) apply to both the merchandise designated for drawback (in the import documentation) and the returned merchandise.
( c ) *Allowable refund.* The total amount of drawback allowable will not exceed 99 percent of the amount of duties paid with respect to the imported merchandise.
( d ) *Denial of claims.* No drawback will be refunded if CBP is not satisfied that the claimant has provided, upon request, the documentation necessary to support the certification required in paragraph (b)(2)(ii) of this section.
#### Lena Colvin, Respondent, v. James A. P. Ramsdell and Others, Individually and as Trustees, etc., Defendants. Henry P. Ramsdell, Individually and as Trustee, etc., Appellant.

Interlocutory judgment unanimously affirmed, with costs. Present —Jenks, P. J., Thomas, Carr, Stapleton and Putnam, JJ.
United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission

Office of Public Affairs

Washington, DC 20555

Phone 301-415-8200 Fax 301-415-2234

Internet:opa@nrc.gov

No. 98-20 FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

(Friday, January 30, 1998)

NOTE TO EDITORS:

A subcommittee of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's

Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards (ACRS) has scheduled a

meeting February 19 and 20 in Rockville, Maryland.

The meeting, which will be open to public observation, will

begin at 8:30 a.m. each day in Room T-2B3, 11545 Rockville Pike,

Rockville, Md. The Subcommittee on Reliability and Probabilistic

Risk Assessment will review the proposed standard review plan

sections and regulatory guides for risk-informed, performancebased regulation, including individual applications for graded

quality assurance, technical specifications, and inservice

testing. Some portions of the meeting may be closed.

Other aspects of the meeting, including an opportunity for

public comment, will be described in a Notice of Meeting

published in a forthcoming edition of the Federal Register.

#
NRC NEWS

U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

Office of Public Affairs Telephone: 301/415-8200

Washington, DC 20555-001 E-mail: opa@nrc.gov

Web Site: http://www.nrc.gov/OPA

No. 01-012 February 2, 2001

NRC’s ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON REACTOR SAFEGUARDS SUBCOMMITTEE ON

THERMAL-HYDRAULIC PHENOMENA TO MEET ON FEB. 20

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission’s Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards (ACRS)

has scheduled a meeting of its subcommittee on thermal-hydraulic phenomena on February 20 in

Rockville, Maryland.

The meeting, most of which will be open to the public, will be held in Room T-2B3 of the

agency’s Two White Flint North building, at 11545 Rockville Pike, beginning at 8:30 a.m.

The subcommittee will continue its review of the Electric Power Research Institute’s thermalhydraulic transient analysis code and discuss the status of the NRC staff’s pending reviews on industry

thermal-hydraulic codes.

For additional information or schedule changes, contact Paul Boehnert, at 301-415-8065.

ACRS meeting notices, transcripts and letters are available on the internet, at

http://www.nrc.gov/ACRSACNW/ .

###
##### 



Exhibit 99.2

(Certification Required by 18 U.S.C. Section 1350
(as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002)

I, Tommy L. McAden, as Chief Financial Officer of Technical Olympic USA, Inc.
(the Company), certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 (as adopted
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002), that to my
knowledge:

1.     the accompanying Annual Report on Form 10-K of the Company for the
annual period ended December 31, 2002 (the Report), filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission, fully complies with the requirements
of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as
amended; and

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

|                        |  |                                        
|----------------------- |  | ---------------------------------------
|Date: February 12, 2003 |  | /s/ Tommy L. McAden                    
|                        |  |                                        
|                        |  | Tommy L. McAden
Chief Financial Officer
EXHIBIT 4.2




   NUMBER                                                  SHARES
   _____                                                  ________

                               NEXGEN VISION, INC.


     This  Certifies  that _____________________________________ is the owner of
______________________________  Class  B fully paid and non-assessable Shares of
the  above  Corporation transferable only on the books of the Corporation by the
holder  hereof  in  person or by duly authorized Attorney upon surrender of this
Certificate  properly  endorsed.

     In  Witness Whereof, the said Corporation has caused this Certificate to be
signed  by  its  duly  authorized officers and to be sealed with the Seal of the
Corporation.


Dated  ________________,  200__


______________________________               ______________________________
Gary  Lafferty,  President                   Jan  Lafferty,  Secretary

<PAGE>
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission

101 Marietta Street, N.W.

Suite 2900

Atlanta, GA 30323

No:II-97-21 FOR IMMEDIATE

RELEASE

Contact: Ken Clark (404) 331-5503 (Tuesday, March 4,

1997)

Roger Hannah (404) 331-7878

NRC STAFF RAISES WATTS BAR SALP RATING

Plant Support Category Raised from Good To Superior

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff has revised a

Systematic Assessment of Licensee Performance (SALP) report

appraisal at the Tennessee Valley Authority's Watts Bar nuclear

power plant near Spring City, Tennessee from a Category 2 (good)

to a Category 1 (superior) in the area of Plant Support.

The NRC's original Watts Bar SALP report, discussed in a

public meeting at the site last January 7, rated the plant as

Category 1 (superior) in the areas of Maintenance and Engineering

and as Category 2 (good) in Operations and Plant Support.

In a letter to TVA's Chief Nuclear Officer, Oliver D.

Kingsley, dated March 3, Luis A. Reyes, administrator of the NRC's

Atlanta regional office, said the NRC staff made the change after

careful review of a TVA letter dated January 23 which provided the

NRC with information TVA considered relevant to support the view

that overall performance in Plant Support, which includes

radioactive effluents and waste, plant chemistry, emergency

preparedness, security, fire protection and housekeeping, merited

a superior rating.

Reyes said plant security, considered adequate in the original

NRC evaluation, underwent several TVA initiatives during the

evaluation period to address problems associated with emergency

contingencies and security equipment

and that the problems did not reoccur.

"After considering all relevant information," he said, "the

(SALP) Board determined that Plant Support area performance was

more appropriately characterized at the Category 1 level."

#
U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

Region III Office of Public Affairs

801 Warrenville Road, Lisle IL 60532-4351

RIII-00-02 January 11, 2000

CONTACT: Jan Strasma, (630) 829-9663

Pam Alloway-Mueller, (630) 829-9662

E-MAIL: opa3@nrc.gov

NRC TO HOLD “ROUNDTABLE DISCUSSION” AT PUBLIC MEETING

ON NEW REACTOR OVERSIGHT PROGRAM AT QUAD CITIES NUCLEAR PLANT

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff will meet with invited community leaders,

industry representatives and members of public interest groups for a “roundtable” discussion of

the agency’s new reactor oversight process for the Quad Cities Nuclear Power Station during a

public meeting on Wednesday, January 19, in Moline, Illinois.

The meeting will be at 7 p.m. in the John Deere Commons of the Radisson Hotel, 1415

River Drive, Moline. The roundtable discussion portion of the meeting will be open to public

observation. Members of the general public will have an opportunity to present their views to

NRC officials afterward.

The Quad Cities plant, operated by Commonwealth Edison Company, is one of nine

nuclear plant sites with 13 reactors that are participating in a pilot program which began June 1

of last year. A public meeting is planned for each plant site. Following a several month trial to

determine if revisions are needed, the process is expected to be extended this year to all 103

commercial nuclear power reactors.

The NRC is seeking comments and suggestions from the public on its new reactor

oversight process, including the inspection and assessment programs to maintain safety, improve

public confidence, increase efficiency and effectiveness, and reduce unnecessary regulatory

burden. The changes reflect, in part, improvements in nuclear power plant safety performance

over the past 20 years. Plants that perform well will generally have less regulatory oversight than

plants that have problems.

The pilot plant sites are: (1) Salem 1 and 2, near Wilmington, Delaware, operated by

Public Service Electric & Gas; (2) Hope Creek near Wilmington, Delaware, operated by Public

Service Electric & Gas; (3) Fitzpatrick, near Oswego, New York, operated by the Power

Authority of the State of New York; (4) Shearon Harris, near Raleigh, North Carolina, operated

by Carolina Power & Light Co.; (5) Sequoyah 1 and 2, near Chattanooga, Tennessee, operated by

the Tennessee Valley Authority; (6) Prairie Island 1 and 2, near Red Wing, Minnesota, operated

by Northern States Power Co.; (7) Quad Cities 1 and 2, near Cordova, Illinois, operated by
Commonwealth Edison Co.; (8) Ft. Calhoun, near Omaha, Nebraska, operated by the Omaha

Public Power District; and (9) Cooper, near Nebraska City, Nebraska, operated by the Nebraska

Public Power District.

Information on the new oversight program, including a list of questions that will be

discussed at the roundtable meeting, is available on the NRC website at:

http://www.nrc.gov/NRR/OVERSIGHT/index.html.

#####
NRC NEWS

U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

OFFICE OF PUBLIC AFFAIRS, REGION IV

611 Ryan Plaza Drive - Suite 400

Arlington TX 76011-8064

No. IV-00-20 May 31, 2000

CONTACT: Breck Henderson

Phone: 817-860-8128

Cellular: 817-917-1227

e-mail: bwh@nrc.gov

NRC TO MEET WITH PUBLIC TO DISCUSS

NEW REACTOR OVERSIGHT PROCESS FOR PALO VERDE

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission will hold a public meeting Tuesday, June 6, in

Goodyear, Arizona, to discuss the new reactor oversight process for Palo Verde Nuclear Generating

Station, a nuclear power plant operated by Arizona Public Service Company.

The meeting will begin at 7 p.m. at the Hampton Inn and Suites, Pavilion 2 Meeting Room,

2000 North Litchfield Road in Goodyear. Anyone who would like to learn more about the new

oversight process or ask questions of NRC officials is invited to attend.

The new program was implemented nationwide in early April after a six-month pilot test

conducted at 13 nuclear power plants at nine sites from May to November 1999. It uses more

objective, timely, and safety-significant criteria in assessing performance, while seeking to more

effectively and efficiently regulate the industry. It also takes into account improvements in the

performance of the nuclear industry over the past twenty years.

Under the new process, inspections by NRC resident inspectors and regional office-based

personnel are supplemented by statistical measures of plant activities called performance indicators.

These performance indicators measure important safety aspects of plant performance, including the

viability of redundant safety systems, emergency planning, radiation protection, and security.

Inspection findings and performance indicators for each nuclear power plant are posted on the

NRC’s internet website every three months, along with semi-annual updates to each plant's inspection

plans. Current performance information for Palo Verde can be found at:

http://www.nrc.gov/NRR/OVERSIGHT/ASSESS/PALO1/palo1_chart.html.

http://www.nrc.gov/NRR/OVERSIGHT/ASSESS/PALO2/palo2_chart.html.

http://www.nrc.gov/NRR/OVERSIGHT/ASSESS/PALO3/palo3_chart.html.

A plain language summary of the new inspection and assessment program is available from the

NRC Office of Public Affairs or on the website at: http://www.nrc.gov/OPA/primer.htm.

###
§ 207.115 Petition for review. ( a ) *The petition and responses.* ( 1 ) Any party may request a review by the Commission of the initial determination by filing with the Commission Secretary a petition for review, except that a party who has defaulted may not petition for review of any issue regarding which the party is in default.
( 2 ) Any person who wishes to obtain judicial review pursuant to 19 U.S.C. 1677f(f)(5) must first seek review by the Commission in accordance with the procedures set forth in this regulation governing petitions for review.
( 3 ) Any petition for review must be filed within fourteen (14) days after service of the initial determination on the charged party. The petition shall: ( i ) Identify the party seeking review;
( ii ) Specify the issues upon which review is sought, including a statement as to whether review is sought of the initial determination regarding the commitment of a prohibited act, or of the initial determination regarding sanctions;
( iii ) Set forth a concise statement of the relevant law or material facts necessary for consideration of the stated issues; and
( iv ) Present a concise argument setting forth the reasons why review is necessary or appropriate.
( 4 ) Any issue not raised in the petition for review filed under this section will be deemed to have been abandoned and may be disregarded by the Commission.
( 5 ) Any party may file a response to the petition within seven (7) days after service of the petition, except that a party who has defaulted may not file a response to any issue regarding which the party is in default.
( b ) *Grant or denial of review.* ( 1 ) The Commission shall decide whether to grant a petition for review, in whole or in part, within forty-five (45) days of the service of the initial determination on the parties, or by such other time as the Commission may order.
( 2 ) The Commission shall base its decision whether to grant a petition for review upon the petition and response thereto, without oral argument or further written submissions, unless the Commission shall order otherwise.
( 3 ) The Commission shall grant a petition for review of an initial determination or certain issues therein when at least one of the participating Commissioners votes for ordering review. In its notice, the Commission shall establish the scope of the review and the issues that will be considered and make provisions for the filing of briefs and oral argument if deemed appropriate by the Commission. The notice that the Commission has granted the petition shall be served by the Commission Secretary on all parties.
#### In the Matter of the Estate of Hugo Zietz, Jr., Deceased. Willy Zietz, Appellant; William Fitz Gibbon, as Ancillary Administrator of the Estate of Hugo Zietz, Jr., Deceased, Respondent.

*749No opinion. Present — Glennon, J. P., Dore, Cohn, Callahan and Shientag, JJ.
OFFICEOFTHEATTORNEYGENERALOF **TEXAS AUSTIN** 

Bonorabla 0. C. Fisher District Attorney &KI &l&3810,T8XE8

Dear sir: /\ i

A\

**YoUr** latter Ot on the above style ofiioe. tatit Of T8m8, prOaX mOn8y 

### 68ha8b8en lerfda made for the ng 8 sinking **rood** and rticular boade to **be d**  **in** the r8&9Ui~tiOfZ, suah bonds as provided
8, Bevised Civil Statutes, with iurtbar suanc8 of bonde, prOvid88: 818OtiOn r8d.tS ill$aVOr Of the r bonds and the 18Vy or a tax in pay**l&8& thereof,**  **said** Bcxwd, 8tt8r suah retit ha@ b88n declared, elm11nraiman 

### order directing the laauancs of tba bonds of said district and provide for the levy and aolleotioa ot a tax annually of sutrlclent amount xith which to pay the int8r8St and provide a ainkirrg29 F:h whiah to peryswohbonds et nreturity .=OXlOrabl80. C. FIgher, pi3$38 #S

You are reAp8CtrUlly 8dViAAd 8t the outset that the funds derived frolothe tax 18Vy for the purpose of paying the int8r89t on 8lldretiring a particular Iaaua of bonds niaybe used only for that purpose, and the **diversion** and ua8 of such funds for a dlrfareat purpoa8 lauaaut.horIz8d and unlawful. This department has soheld on several oacaaloaa.

Iiiyour 0338, hOw8T8r, Under the faota AA Set out in **your letter**  **Or October**  **3,** wareapeotrully suggest 

### thatrhea it 13 determined thnt th8 Sinking fWid OOntAInA 8AOUgh fUndA to Eeeetthe requIrameata neaesaary ror the peymeat or Inter8at and prIWIpa1 maturing the next year or years without tha levy ofa tax, then the diatriat mey diapeaa8 ulth auoh levy tot bond purposea and raise theAU3iatAMaC8 tAX prOpOrtIOI4Ata~y. For lr!ateace,in

### your**pertioular ease**  

### 12oeata liadbeen 

### lerlad for the partioular Iaaue of bon’63 la qu8atIoa, and Itwas de8m**8d** 

### thatthe sinking fund for auoh issue oontained **SDOU&** fund3 to take care or the r8qUir8lR8ntAror the ooming year. Suoh 1Z cents, instead OS being levied 

### for bond purp0383, aould be levied **tar maintenance**  **JNlIp0383,** thereby r8iAing the mintanaaae tax ror that year. ror the r0iioting year than just make e AUffICi8nt levy t0 pAy the prInOIpO1 And itlt8SeAt,8lld In thisway youwill not have a residue In the alnklng fund after the lastbond la pafd.

Trusting that this Mtiafactorlly answers your queatloa, we 

### are
Very truly yours ATTdRNEY Gl5NERJ.L OF TEXIS

Aaelatant COB-A

ATTORNEY GENERAL OPTzAs
EXHIBIT 10.1

CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

We consent to the use in this Annual Report pursuant to Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 for the year ended November 27,
2004 of Novamerican Steel Inc. on Form 20-F of our reports dated December 17, 2004, accompanying the Consolidated Financial Statements and Schedule II of the Company
appearing in this Annual Report.

We
also consent to the reference to us under the heading "Item 3 Key InformationSelected Financial Data" in such Annual Report.

We
also consent to the incorporation of our reports by reference to Novamerican Steel Inc.'s Registration Statement on Form S-8 (File No. 333-7688)

GRAPHIC

Chartered
Accountants

Montréal,
Canada
February 23, 2005

---



QuickLinks