alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Rev 0 (9/08)

Comments in Response to 

“Final rule; request for comments”

Docket: FAA-2010-0385 Directorate Identifier 2010-NM-068-AD

Comments have been received in response to: “Final rule; request for comments,”

Airworthiness Directive (AD) Docket and Directorate Identifier entered above. 

(Project engineer: Please review any comments to determine if additional action is warranted.

Once you have made your determination, please fill in the commenter(s) name(s) and check the 

appropriate response below. Include additional information following the appropriate response, 

if necessary. Then include your name and the date in the spaces provided, and return it to the 

AD directorate focal.

The FAA has reviewed comment(s) related to the above FAA Docket that we received from: 

Embraer, ANAC

(Please check one)

 These comments have not been found to contain any information to warrant reconsideration 

or change of this AD.

 These comments have been found to contain information that warrants consideration of 

additional regulatory action. (SEE Airworthiness Directives Manual 

FAA-IR-M-8040.1 FOR ADDITIONAL ACTION.)

______Chip Adam, ANM-160L_____ 12/7/12__

Name: Date:

(This form is part of the official docket file for this AD action.)
NRC NEWS

U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

 Office of Public Affairs, Region I

 475 Allendale Road, King of Prussia, Pa. 19406

 www.nrc.gov

No. I-03-057 September 29, 2003

CONTACT: Diane Screnci, 610/337-5330 Email: opa1@nrc.gov

Neil Sheehan, 610/337-5331

NRC TO MEET WITH NEW JERSEY COMPANY 

TO DISCUSS APPARENT VIOLATIONS

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission will meet with representatives of Union City (N.J.)

Diagnostic Center on Thursday, October 2, to discuss apparent violations of NRC requirements.

The apparent violations were identified during NRC inspections of the facility in

February and March of this year. NRC inspectors found that, from July 1, 2002, through January

29 of this year, the company had been performing NRC-licensed activities without a radiation

safety officer, as required; used radioactive materials for medical purposes without an authorized

user physician; and maintained inaccurate records. 

The public is invited to observe the meeting, and NRC officials will be available before

the conclusion of the meeting to answer any questions. The meeting will begin at 10:00 a.m., in

the public meeting room at the NRC Region I office, 475 Allendale Road, in King of Prussia, Pa.

The decision to hold a predecisional enforcement conference does not mean that a

determination has been made that violations have occurred or that enforcement action will be

taken. The purpose is to discuss the apparent violations, causes and safety significance, to

provide the licensee with an opportunity to point out any errors in the NRC inspection report and

to enable the company to outline its corrective actions.

No decision on the apparent violations or any contemplated enforcement action, such as a

civil penalty, will be made at the conference. Those decisions will be made by NRC officials at a

later time.
- 2 -

A copy of the letter to Union City Diagnostic Center from the NRC regarding this

conference can be obtained from the Region I Office of Public Affairs at the above address or

from the NRC’s web site at www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html. Help in accessing the

document is available from the NRC Public Document Room at 800-397-4209.

###
#### § 1208.1 Scope.

This part governs appeals filed with the Board under the provisions of 38 U.S.C. 4324, as enacted by the Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act of 1994 (USERRA), Public Law 103-353, as amended, or under the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 3330a, as enacted by the Veterans Employment Opportunities Act of 1998 (VEOA), Public Law 105-339. With respect to USERRA appeals, this part applies to any appeal filed with the Board on or after October 13, 1994, without regard as to whether the alleged violation occurred before, on, or after October 13, 1994. With respect to VEOA appeals, this part applies to any appeal filed with the Board which alleges that a violation occurred on or after October 31, 1998.
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. 04-013 January 27, 2004

 NRC MODIFIES FINANCIAL INFORMATION REQUIREMENTS

 FOR POWER REACTOR LICENSES 

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is amending its regulations to remove the

requirement that power reactor licensees that are not electric utilities submit financial information in

their license renewal applications. Within the meaning of NRC regulations, an “electric utility” refers

to any entity that generates or distributes electricity and recovers the cost of this electricity through

rates established by a separate regulatory authority, or by the entity itself as in the case of a public

utility district.

 The NRC is also adding a requirement that a licensee changing from an electric utility to a nonelectric utility status without a license transfer notify the NRC and submit the financial information that

is required for obtaining an initial operating license. A “non-electric utility” refers to a company that

sells electricity at spot market prices and therefore does not recover its costs through the rate-making

process. 

The NRC believes that its financial reviews during initial licensing, license transfers or the

transition from electric utility to non-electric utility status, in addition to monitoring of financial health

between these reviews, provide a sufficiently comprehensive framework to assess financial

qualifications. The agency does not believe that the license renewal process is sufficiently unique to

warrant a separate financial review. 

On June 4, 2002, the NRC published a proposed rule on changes to the requirement for nonutilities to submit financial information. It received comments from nine different organizations,

including a state group, three non-profit firms and five companies in the nuclear power industry. 

Although all comments were considered, no changes were made to the final rule, which will become

effective 30 days after publication in a Federal Register notice, expected soon.

 ###
###### Editorial Note on Part 151

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 151 appear by CBP Dec. No. 16-26, 81 FR 93021, Dec. 20, 2016.

#### § 151.31 [Reserved]
**Exhibit 12.2**

 

I, Christopher H. Pickwoad, certify that:

 

1.               I have reviewed this Amendment No. 1 to the annual report onForm 20-F/A of Novamerican Steel Inc.;

 

2.               Based on my knowledge, this report doesnot contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a materialfact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances underwhich such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this report;

 

3.               Based on my knowledge, the financialstatements, and other financial information included in this report, fairlypresent in all material respects the financial condition, results of operationsand cash flows of the company as of, and for, the periods presented in thisreport;

 

4.               The company’s other certifyingofficer(s) and I are responsible for establishing and maintainingdisclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange ActRules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the company and have:

 

(a)          Designed such disclosure controls andprocedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designedunder our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to thecompany, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by otherswithin those entities, particularly during the period in which this report isbeing prepared;

 

(b)         Evaluated the effectiveness of thecompany’s disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report ourconclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures,as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation;and

 

(c)          Disclosed in this report any change inthe company’s internal control over financial reporting that occurred duringthe period covered by the annual report that has materially affected, or isreasonably likely to materially affect, the company’s internal control overfinancial reporting; and

 

5.               The company’s other certifyingofficer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation ofinternal control over financial reporting, to the company’s auditors and theaudit committee of the company’s board of directors (or persons performing theequivalent functions):

 

(a)          All significant deficiencies and materialweaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financialreporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the company’s abilityto record, process, summarize and report financial information; and

 

(b)         Any fraud, whether or not material, thatinvolves management or other employees who have a significant role in thecompany’s internal control over financial reporting.

 

Date: March 23, 2006

 
|   | /s/ *Christopher H. Pickwoad* |   |
|--------|-------------------------------|--------|
|   |                          |
|   | Chief Financial Officer       |

 

----
Editorial Note on Part 10
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 10 appear by CBP Dec. 16-26, 81 FR 93010, Dec. 20, 2016.

§ 10.177 Cost or value of materials produced in the beneficiary developing country. ( a ) *“Produced in the beneficiary developing country” defined.* For purposes of §§ 10.171 through 10.178, the words “produced in the beneficiary developing country” refer to the constituent materials of which the eligible article is composed which are either: ( 1 ) Wholly the growth, product, or manufacture of the beneficiary developing country; or
( 2 ) Substantially transformed in the beneficiary developing country into a new and different article of commerce.
( b ) *Questionable origin.* When the origin of an article either is not ascertainable or not satisfactorily demonstrated to the Center director, the article shall not be considered to have been produced in the beneficiary developing country.
( c ) *Determination of cost or value of materials produced in the beneficiary developing country.* ( 1 ) The cost or value of materials produced in the beneficiary developing country includes: ( i ) The manufacturer's actual cost for the materials;
( ii ) When not included in the manufacturer's actual cost for the materials, the freight, insurance, packing, and all other costs incurred in transporting the materials to the manufacturer's plant;
( iii ) The actual cost of waste or spoilage (material list), less the value of recoverable scrap; and
( iv ) Taxes and/or duties imposed on the materials by the beneficiary developing country, or an association of countries treated as one country, provided they are not remitted upon exportation.
( 2 ) Where the material is provided to the manufacturer without charge, or at less than fair market value, its cost or value shall be determined by computing the sum of: ( i ) All expenses incurred in the growth, production, manufacture or assembly of the material, including general expenses;
( ii ) An amount for profit; and
( iii ) Freight, insurance, packing, and all other costs incurred in transporting the materials to the manufacturer's plant.
If the pertinent information needed to compute the cost or value of the materials is not available, the appraising officer may ascertain or estimate the value thereof using all reasonable ways and means at his disposal. [T.D. 76-2, 40 FR 60049, Dec. 31, 1975, as amended by T.D. 86-118, 51 FR 22515, June 20, 1986]
#### Charles P. Lockwood et al., Appellants, v. W. Vincent Hall et al., as Trustees of Series Q-1 Mortgage Investments of New York Title and Mortgage Company, et al., Respondents.

Close, P. J., Hagarty, Carswell, Taylor and Lewis, JJ., concur.
Exhibit 31.2

CERTIFICATION

I, Kurt Bordian, Chief Financial Officer, certify that:

 1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-KSB/A of Mexoro Minerals Limited; 

 2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

 3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the small business issuer as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

4. The small business issuer’s other certifying officers and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the small business issuer and have:

(a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the small business issuer, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;

(b) omitted;  

(c) evaluated the effectiveness of the small business issuer’s disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and

(d) disclosed in this report any change in the small business issuer’s internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the small business issuer’s most recent fiscal quarter (the small business issuer’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the small business issuer’s internal control over financial reporting; and

5. The small business issuer’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation, to the small business issuer’s auditors and the audit committee of the small business issuer’s  board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):

(a) all significant deficiencies in the design or operation of internal controls which could adversely affect the small business issuer’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and

(b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the small business issuer’s internal control over financial reporting.
[Federal Register Volume 69, Number 208 (Thursday, October 28, 2004)]
[Notices]
[Page 62872]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 04-24102]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Institute of Standards and Technology


Judges Panel of the Malcolm Baldrige National Quality Award

AGENCY: National Institute of Standards and Technology, Department of 
Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of closed meeting.

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

SUMMARY: Pursuant to the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. app. 
2, notice is hereby given that the Judges Panel of the Malcolm Baldrige 
National Quality Award will meet Monday, November 15, 2004, 12 p.m. to 
5:30 p.m.; Tuesday, November 16, 2004, 8 a.m. to 5:30 p.m.; Wednesday, 
November 17, 2004, 8 a.m. to 5:30 p.m.; Thursday, November 18, 2004, 
and Friday, November 19, 2004, 8 a.m. to 3 p.m. The Judges Panel is 
composed of nine members prominent in the field of quality management 
and appointed by the Secretary of Commerce. The purpose of this meeting 
is to review the site visit process, review the final judging process 
and meeting procedures, review of feedback discussion approach with 
site visit team leaders, final judging of the 2004 applicants, learning 
and improvements for 2005 judging cycle, update on the 2005 program and 
review 2005 judges calendar. The review process involves examination of 
records and discussions of applicant data, and will be closed to the 
public in accordance with section 552b(c)(4) of Title 5, United States 
Code.

DATES: The meeting will convene November 15, 2004 at 12 p.m. and 
adjourn at 3 p.m. on November 19, 2004. The entire meeting will be 
closed.

ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held at the National Institute of 
Standards and Technology, Administration Building, Room A1038, 
Gaithersburg, Maryland 20899.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr. Harry Hertz, Director, National 
Quality Program, National Institute of Standards and Technology, 
Gaithersburg, Maryland 20899, telephone number (301) 975-2361.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Assistant Secretary for Administration, 
with the concurrence of the General Counsel, formally determined on 
February 7, 2004, that the meeting of the Judges Panel will be closed 
pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 
U.S.C. app. 2, as amended by section 5(c) of the Government in the 
Sunshine Act, Pub. L. 94-409. The meeting, which involves examination 
of Award applicant data from U.S. companies and a discussion of this 
data as compared to the Award criteria in order to recommend Award 
recipients, may be closed to the public in accordance with section 
552b(c)(4) of Title 5, United States Code, because the meetings are 
likely to disclose trade secrets and commercial or financial 
information obtained from a person which is privileged or confidential.

    Dated: October 22, 2004.
Richard F. Kayser,
Acting Deputy Director.
[FR Doc. 04-24102 Filed 10-27-04; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-13-P
###### Editorial Note on Part 356

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 356 appear at 78 FR 62418, Oct. 22, 2013.

#### § 356.25 Witnesses.

Witnesses summoned before the Department shall be paid the same fees and mileage that are paid witnesses in the courts of the United States.
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

MEMORANDUM OPINION

No. 04-17-00301-CV

IN RE ENVISION Healthcare Holdings, Inc.

Original Mandamus Proceeding1

PER CURIAM

Sitting: Karen Angelini, Justice

Marialyn Barnard, Justice

Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice

Delivered and Filed: July 26, 2017

PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS DISMISSED

Relator filed this petition for writ of mandamus on May 10, 2017. Relator has filed an 

agreed motion to dismiss the petition for writ of mandamus advising that the parties have reached 

an agreement fully resolving the dispute underlying this proceeding. Accordingly, this original 

mandamus proceeding is dismissed.

PER CURIAM

 1 This proceeding arises out of Cause No. 2015-CVZ003029 D3, styled Candace S. Glazier vs. Envision Healthcare 

Holdings, Inc., d/b/a Emcare, Inc., pending in the 341st Judicial District Court, Webb County, Texas, the Honorable 

Rebecca Ramirez Palomo presiding.
```

[Congressional Bills 108th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1572 Introduced in House (IH)]

108th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1572

 To designate the historic Federal District Court Building located at 
  100 North Palafox Street in Pensacola, Florida, as the ``Winston E. 
                       Arnow Federal Building''.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             April 2, 2003

Mr. Miller of Florida introduced the following bill; which was referred 
         to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To designate the historic Federal District Court Building located at 
  100 North Palafox Street in Pensacola, Florida, as the ``Winston E. 
                       Arnow Federal Building''.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. DESIGNATION.

    The historic Federal District Court Building located at 100 North 
Palafox Street in Pensacola, Florida, shall be known and designated as 
the ``Winston E. Arnow Federal Building'', in honor of Winston E. Arnow 
who was appointed United States District Judge for the Northern 
District of Florida by President Lyndon B. Johnson in 1968, and who 
served with distinction until his death in 1994.

SEC. 2. REFERENCES.

    Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, paper, or other 
record of the United States to the building referred to in section 1 
shall be deemed to be a reference to the ``Winston E. Arnow Federal 
Building''.
                                 <all>
```
I 

108TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 139

To make the repeal of the estate tax permanent. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JANUARY 7, 2003

Mr. MCINNIS introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Ways and Means 

A BILL

To make the repeal of the estate tax permanent.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Permanent Death Tax 

5 Repeal Act of 2003’’. 

6 SEC. 2. ESTATE TAX REPEAL MADE PERMANENT. 

7 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 901 of the Economic 

8 Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001 is 

9 amended—

10 (1) in subsection (a) by striking ‘‘shall not 

11 apply—’’ and all that follows and inserting ‘‘(other 

12 than title V) shall not apply to taxable, plan, or limi-
2

•HR 139 IH 

1 tation years beginning after December 31, 2010.’’, 

2 and 

3 (2) in subsection (b) by striking ‘‘, estates, 

4 gifts, and transfers’’. 

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

6 subsection (a) shall take effect as if included in section 

7 901 of the Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconcili8 ation Act of 2001.

Æ
NRC NEWS

 U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 

 Office of Public Affairs Telephone: 301/415-8200

 Washington, DC 20555-0001 E-mail: opa@nrc.gov 

 Web Site: www.nrc.gov

No. 02-131 November 12, 2002

 NRC APPROVES POWER UPRATE FOR H.B. ROBINSON NUCLEAR PLANT

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission has approved a request by Carolina Power & Light

Company to increase the generating capacity of the H.B. Robinson Steam Electric Plant, Unit 2, by 1.7

percent. 

The power uprate at the plant, located near Hartsville, South Carolina, will increase the

generating capacity of Unit 2 from 683 megawatts electric to 695. The licensee intends to implement

the power uprate immediately. 

NRC published a notice about the power uprate application in the Federal Register providing

the public an opportunity to comment or request a hearing.

 The NRC’s safety evaluation of the requested power uprate for the plant focused on several

areas, including nuclear steam supply systems, instrumentation and control systems, electrical systems,

accident evaluations, radiological consequences, operations, and other technical specification changes.

The NRC staff determined that the licensee could safely increase the power output of the reactor

primarily through increased feedwater flow measurement accuracy.

###