alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# Euroopan unionin C 104I/2021

| | ISSN 1977-1053 |
| --- | --- |
| Euroopan unionin
  virallinen lehti | C 104I |
| | |
| Suomenkielinen laitos | Tiedonantoja ja ilmoituksia | 64. vuosikerta26. maaliskuu 2021 |

ISSN 1977-1053

Euroopan unionin

virallinen lehti

C 104I

Suomenkielinen laitos

Tiedonantoja ja ilmoituksia

64. vuosikerta26. maaliskuu 2021

---

| Sisältö | Sivu |
| --- | --- |
| | IV   Tiedotteet |
| | EUROOPAN UNIONIN TOIMIELINTEN, ELINTEN, TOIMISTOJEN JA VIRASTOJEN TIEDOTTEET |
| | Euroopan komissio |
| 2021/C 104 I/01 | Selittävät huomautukset Euroopan unionin yhdistettyyn nimikkeistöön | 1 |

Sisältö

Sivu

IV   Tiedotteet

EUROOPAN UNIONIN TOIMIELINTEN, ELINTEN, TOIMISTOJEN JA VIRASTOJEN TIEDOTTEET

Euroopan komissio

2021/C 104 I/01

Selittävät huomautukset Euroopan unionin yhdistettyyn nimikkeistöön

1

---

| FI | |
| --- | --- |

FI

---

IV Tiedotteet

EUROOPAN UNIONIN TOIMIELINTEN, ELINTEN, TOIMISTOJEN JA VIRASTOJEN TIEDOTTEET

Euroopan komissio

| 26.3.2021 | FI | Euroopan unionin virallinen lehti | CI 104/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.3.2021

FI

Euroopan unionin virallinen lehti

CI 104/1

---

Selittävät huomautukset Euroopan unionin yhdistettyyn nimikkeistöön

(2021/C 104 I/01)

Muutetaan neuvoston asetuksen (ETY) N:o 2658/87 (1) 9 artiklan 1 kohdan a alakohdan nojalla Selittävät huomautukset Euroopan unionin yhdistettyyn nimikkeistöön (2) seuraavasti:

Sivu 369,

poistetaan alanimikkeen 8543 70 90 selittävästä huomautuksesta toinen kohta.

Sivu 416,

poistetaan alanimikkeen 9506 69 90 selittävän huomautuksen toinen ja kolmas kohta ja korvataan ne seuraavasti:

”Tähän alanimikkeeseen eivät kuitenkaan kuulu ns. stressipallot, jotka ovat pallon muotoisia ja jotka voidaan koristella monin eri tavoin. Ne on tavallisesti valmistettu muovista tai kumista, ja ne on suunniteltu niin, että niitä puristellaan kädessä stressinpoistoharjoituksena. ”Stressipallot” ja niiden kaltaiset erimuotoiset ja -kuvioiset ”stressitavarat” luokitellaan nimikkeeseen 9503.

---

(1)  Neuvoston asetus (ETY) N:o 2658/87, annettu 23 päivänä heinäkuuta 1987, tariffi- ja tilastonimikkeistöstä ja yhteisestä tullitariffista (EYVL L 256, 7.9.1987, s. 1).

(2)  EUVL C 119, 29.3.2019, s. 1.

---
II 

118TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 2859 

To amend title II of the Social Security Act to provide for the reissuance 

of social security account numbers to young children in cases where 

confidentiality has been compromised. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

SEPTEMBER 20, 2023 

Ms. SINEMA (for herself and Mr. CORNYN) introduced the following bill; which 

was read twice and referred to the Committee on Finance 

A BILL 

To amend title II of the Social Security Act to provide 

for the reissuance of social security account numbers 

to young children in cases where confidentiality has been 

compromised. 

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 ‘‘Social Security Child 

5 Protection Act of 2023’’. 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
2 

•S 2859 IS

1 SEC. 2. REISSUANCE OF SOCIAL SECURITY ACCOUNT NUM2 BERS TO YOUNG CHILDREN IN CASES WHERE 

3 CONFIDENTIALITY HAS BEEN COMPROMISED. 

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 205(c)(2)(B) of the Social 

5 Security Act (42 U.S.C. 405(c)(2)(B)) is amended— 

6 (1) by redesignating clause (iii) as clause (iv); 

7 and 

8 (2) by inserting after clause (ii) the following 

9 new clause: 

10 ‘‘(iii) In any case in which a social security account 

11 number has been issued to a child who has not attained 

12 the age of 14 pursuant to subclause (IV) or (V) of clause 

13 (i) and it is demonstrated by evidence, as determined by 

14 the Commissioner of Social Security, and submitted under 

15 penalty of perjury to the Commissioner by a parent or 

16 guardian of the child that in the course of transmission 

17 of the social security card to the child, the confidentiality 

18 of such number has been compromised by reason of loss 

19 or theft of such social security card, the Commissioner 

20 shall issue a new social security account number to such 

21 child and make note in the records maintained with re22 spect to such child of the pertinent information received 

23 by the Commissioner regarding the loss or theft of the 

24 social security card.’’. 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
3 

•S 2859 IS

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

2 subsection (a) shall take effect on the date that is 180 

3 days after the date of the enactment of this Act. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTE CTION A G ENC Y WASHINGTON , D

. C

. 20460

Richard Deni so n a nd Lindsay McC o rmick Environme ntal Defense F und (EDP) 187 5 Co nn ecticut Ave N W # 600 Washington , DC 20009 rden i !>OINt t:d l.org Dear Dr. Denison and Ms. Mc Cormick

. OFFIC E O F CHE M ICAL SAFETY AN D P O LLU TIO N P R EV E N T I O N

Th ank yo u for yo ur l etter of Decembe r 14. 20 15 support in g th e Ea rthju s tice and Natura l Reso ur ces Defen se Co un c il 's (NRDC) request for a 45-day ex t ens ion of th e current 120 -day publi c com ment period for EPA 's TSCA Wo rk Pl an C hemi ca l Pr o bl e m Formulation a nd Data Nee d s Assess ment for the Br o minat e d Ph tha l ates C lu ste r and r eq u es t f o r the r elease of add it io nal inf o rmati on. At yo ur r e qu es t , o n Dece mb e r 17, 2015 , and Janu a r y 7, 2016 , EP A conve ned a co nfere nce ca l l w ith re pr ese ntat ive s f r o m E D F t o di sc uss data avai l ab ility. EP A de sc ribed th e s ource( s) of available data it r e li ed o n and s ummarized in th e D ata Needs Assessment and how this inf o rmati o n cross -walk s with inf o rma tion fo r PMN P-0 4-0404 a nd data s ubmitted by C hemtura in 20 12. In a s u bseq u e nt ema il , E PA a l so r efere nced r ecent in f o rm ation s ubmitt ed by Che mtur a to the docket f o r the D ata Needs A ssess me n t indicatin g the nature o f the che mical s s ubject t o th e testin g r e ferenced in the 20 12 letter f r om C hemtur a. E PA i s de nyin g the requ est to ext e nd the com me nt period fo r the D a ta Needs Assess men t document s because the documents are s h ort. do no t include detailed analyses and as ex p l a ined durin g the Dece mber co nf e rence call. E P A included s ummarie s of a ll availab l e inf o rmation in the Data Nee d s Asses s ment and Tec hni ca l Suppl e me nt s. Howeve r , whi l e th e co mm e nt period c l ose d o n Decemb e r 16 , 20 1 5, E PA w ill review a nd re s p o nd to a ll co mm e nt s r ece ived up to and in c ludin g Janu ary 20 , 20 16. Pl ease f eel free to co ntac t me if yo u hav e an y questi o ns. Since r ely,

Dr. Stanle y Bar 1e Deputy D iv is io n Di r ector Risk Assess m e nt Di vi s i o n (7403M) Office o f Polluti o n Pr ev e ntion and Toxic s

I ntern e t A dd ress ( UR L) • http // WNW e pa g ov Recycled/ Recyclable • Pron te d w 1th Vegeta ble 011 Based In k s on 100% Postconsumer Process Chlorone F re e Recycled Pa per
EXHIBIT 31.2


                  CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
         PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


     I, Dale W. Bleck, certify that:

     1.     I have reviewed this annual report of CET Services, Inc.:

     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 officer(s) 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)     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

     (c)     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(s) and I
have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over
financial reporting, 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 and material weaknesses in the
design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are
reasonably likely to 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.

Date:  March 9, 2007


/s/ Dale W. Bleck
Dale W. Bleck
Chief Financial Officer
NEILABERCROMBIE GOVERNOR OfHAW•JI LORETTA J. FUDDY, A.C.S.W., M.P.H. DL'<EGTOR OF HEALTH l 

### tJ 

### STATE OF HAWAii.; DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH P. 0. BOX4444 KALAUPAPA, HI 96742 In re9ly, pleasemferto.
March 11, 2014 Kevin D. Schlemmer, Chief Essential Air Service 

### & DomesticAnalysis Division U.S. Department ofTransportation 1200 New Jerseys Ave, SE Washington, DC 20590 Dear Mr. Schlemmer: As we approach another milestone date in determining what airline will provide continuing Essential Air Serviceto Kalaupapa, Hawaii, the communitywanted to again express its strong support for the continuation ofEAS services by Makani Kai Air. As you know, the Federal Aviation Administrationhas advertised for an Essential Air Service (EAS) provider for service to and from Kalaupapa Settlement onthe Island ofMolokai in Hawaii, Order 2013-10-3 for service beginning in May, 2014. File:

EAS has provided the opportunityfor Kalaupaparesidents and visitors to travel to and from the Settlement. The economythe EAS has brought to the price oftickets has been essential to connect the ageingpatient population and growing support population with the outside world and to bring guests to this very significant historical and religious Hawaiian site. As the community has stated previously and would like to state againtoday, Makani Kai has provided superior service to the Kalaupapa Settlement for the past2 years. Makani Kai worked closely with the community to provide optimum service and allowed a residentrate for travel thathas allowed and encouraged connectionto bothtopside Molokai and Honolulu. Both locations are vital links to medical services, nonnal government services and other shopping and entertainment activities. Please give yourmost serious considerationto Makani Kai's fme record operating under the EAS and award thenew contract to them for the foreseeable future. 

### ft is imperative for the health and welfare ofthis communitythat you do so to provide long term security to this community for access to and from Kalaupapa Settlement. Sincerely,

Mark Miller Administrator Kalaupapa Settlement and (attached) residents

### The Patients and Residents of Kalaupapa support Makani Kai and the EAS for their continued great service to Kalaupapa.
PRINT NAME



## 5HA:LG i fSc)Rf.-)Efll

# </:1/le~ CtZ;c:p-e.l

# ~ SIGNATURE DATE 

# 5/1!

# /;<J
lt f< /.(



## :> ·- 

## (? - L-C/(' 

# 'f

3_/31)1.!


### The Patients and Residents of Kalaupapa support Makani Kai and the EAS for their continued greatservice to Kalaupapa.

PRINT NAME 

### SIGNATURE 

### DATE 

### -3 - Jl**~**

# :;oI-/ 3-**/I~** z_.oll

### The Patients and Residents of Kalaupapa support Makani Kai and the EAS for their continued great service to Kalaupapa.

PRINT NAME SIGNATURE DATE

# ~ b

## 1(1111bV\

# ~

# Ci.IJSLt- 

# <7 fL.

### The Patients and Residents of Kalaupapa support Makani Kai and the EAS for their continued great service to Kalaupapa.


### PRINT NAME SIGNATURE DATE
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1999
<CASH>                                               0
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                       0
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           13,460
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         1,860
<OTHER-SE>                                     (2,535)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                         0
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                 (12,000)
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (12,000)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (12,000)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (12,000)
<EPS-BASIC>                                    (0.007)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0


</TABLE>
#### Alden Burr GORHAM, Jr. v. Margaret Jones GORHAM.

No. 11713.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana, First Circuit.

Dec. 28, 1977.

Rehearing Denied Feb. 13, 1978.

Robert B. Chopin and Jeanne M. Roques, Slidell, for plaintiff-appellant.

Thomas S. Derveloy, Jr., Covington, for defendant-appellee.

Before LOTTINGER, EDWARDS and PONDER, JJ.

PONDER, Judge.

Plaintiff appealed from the denial of a change of custody of a minor child.

The issues are the burden to be borne by one seeking a change of custody; the claimed abuse of the court’s discretion and the constitutionality of the maternal preference rule.

We affirm.

The defendant was awarded custody of the minor children in a divorce granted in Florida. Only one child, now eight years old, is involved in these proceedings, the others having reached maturity.

Plaintiff first asserts that the “double burden”,1 should not have been imposed since the Florida decree was not a “considered” one.

*656It is true that the lower court spoke in terms of the custody having been set and the necessity to show a change for the better on the one part and for the worse on the other part. We held recently in *McCarstle v. McCarstle*(1st Cir. 1977) that the best interest of the child was the main consideration, and that a heavy burden was demanded of one who seeks to change custody, relying upon Monsour v. *Monsour,*La., 347 So.2d 203 (1977); *Estes v. Estes,*261 La. 20, 258 So.2d 857 (1972); and *Fulco v. Fulco,*259 La. 1122, 254 So.2d 603 (1971).

The lower court examined the welfare of the child quite thoroughly despite the reference to the double burden and concluded that the child’s long term welfare was best served by continuing the custody in the mother even though temporarily his welfare might be best served by allowing the father temporary custody. This finding is entitled to great weight; it will not be disturbed in the absence of a clear showing of abuse. We find no abuse.

The plaintiff also contends that the lower court applied the maternal preference rule, and that this rule is unconstitutional. We find no evidence that the court applied the rule. At any rate, since the plaintiff failed to raise this issue at the trial, he cannot raise it on appeal. *Summerell v. Phillips,*258 La. 587, 247 So.2d 542 (1971) and *Greer v. Greer,*346 So.2d 846 (La.App. 1st Cir. 1977), writs refused September 30, 1977.

The judgment is affirmed. The plaintiff is cast with all costs of this appeal.

JUDGMENT AFFIRMED.

1

. .it is incumbent upon the party requesting the modification to prove that the conditions under which the children are living are detrimental to their interests and further that the applicant can and will provide a good home and better environment if given their custody.” *Decker v. Landry,*227 La. 603, 80 So.2d 91, 92 (1955).
1 In The



### Court of Appeals

Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont

__________________
N O . 09

- 22

- 00105

- CV

__________________ KALLOP ENTERPRISES, LLC, OFFSHORE EXPRESS, INC., OFFSHORE SPECIALTY FABRICATORS, LLC, OFFSHORE INTERNATIONAL GROUP, OFFSHORE SHIPBUILDING, INC., AVID, LLC , AVID AIR, LLC, FAIRWAYS, INC., FAIRWAYS EXPLORATION AND PRODUCTION, LLC, PISCO PORTON, LLC, AND FS AIR SERVICES, INC. , Appellant s

V.

KLEIN INVESTIGATIONS AND CONSULTING, A DIVISION OF KLEIN INVESTMENTS, INC. , Appellee

____ ______________________________________________________________ On Appeal from the 60th District Court Jefferson County, Texas Trial Cause No. B

- 199,953

- A

__________________________________________________________________
MEMORANDUM OPINION

Kallop Enterprises, LLC, Offshore Express, Inc., Offshore Specialty

Fabricators, LLC, Offshore International Group, Offshore Shipbuilding, Inc., Avid,

LLC
, Avid Air, LL C, Fairways, Inc., Fairways Exploration and Production, LLC,

Pisco Porton, LLC, and FS Air Services, Inc.

, Appellant s , filed an unopposed motion2 to dismiss this appeal with prejudice

. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.1(a)(1). Appellant s filed

the motion before the a ppellate court issued a decision in the appeal. We grant the

motion and dismiss the appeal. See Tex. R. App. P. 43.2(f).

APPEAL DISM I SSED.

PER CURIAM

Submitted on September 14, 2022 Opinion Delivered September 15, 2022

Before Golemon, C.J., Kreger and Horton, JJ.
AAM-11-195-E 

May 31, 2011 

 Exemption No. 10275 

 Regulatory Docket No. FAA-2011-0537 

Mr. Joseph Todd Degidio 

Paradigm Helicopters, LLC 

11811 North Brantly, Suite 206A 

Houston, TX 77034 

Dear Mr. Degidio: 

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

decision, explains its basis, and gives you the conditions and limitations of the exemption, 

including the date it ends. 

The Basis for Our Decision 

By submission dated May 18, 2011, you petitioned the Federal Aviation Administration 

(FAA) on behalf of Paradigm Helicopters, LLC (Paradigm) for an exemption from part 120 to 

allow Paradigm, which is operating under separate parts of Title 14, Code of Federal 

Regulations (14 CFR), to cover its safety-sensitive employees under one drug testing 

program. 

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

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

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

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

those presented in your petition. In Grant of Exemption No. 9703 (copy enclosed), the FAA 

found that Solid Edge’s § 91.147 air tour operations were closely connected to its part 135 

operations. The FAA also found that combining the petitioner’s two testing programs into one 

would be in the public interest and would maintain an equivalent level of safety to that 

provided by the current regulations. Thus, the FAA concluded it was unnecessary to burden 

the petitioner by requiring it to conduct two separate testing programs. 
2 

Having reviewed your reasons for requesting an exemption, I find that— 

 they are similar in all material respects to relief previously requested in the enclosed Grant 

of Exemption No. 9703; 

 the reasons stated by the FAA for granting the enclosed Grant of Exemption No. 9703 

also apply to the situation you present; and 

 a grant of exemption is in the public interest. 

Our Decision 

Under the authority contained in 49 U.S.C. 40113 and 44701, which the FAA Administrator 

has delegated to me, I hereby grant Paradigm Helicopters, LLC an exemption from part 120 

to the extent necessary to allow Paradigm, which is operating under separate parts of the 

regulations, to cover its safety-sensitive employees under one testing program, subject to the 

conditions and limitations described below. 

Conditions and Limitations 

1. Employees of Paradigm are subject to the drug and alcohol regulations at all times 

while conducting operations under part 135 or part 91. 

2. The drug and alcohol testing program must be implemented under the auspices of 

the Paradigm part 135 operation, not under part 91. 

This exemption terminates on June 30, 2013 unless sooner superseded or rescinded. 

Sincerely, 

/s/ 

James R. Fraser, M.D. 

Deputy Federal Air Surgeon 

Enclosure
##### 



EXHIBIT 32.1 CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
CET SERVICES, INC.
PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350 I hereby certify that, to the best of my knowledge, the Annual Report on Form 10-KSB of
CET Services, Inc. for the period ending December 31, 2004: (1) complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934; and (2) the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material aspects, the
financial condition and results of operations of CET Services, Inc. /s/ Steven H. Davis  
 A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002 has been provided to CET Services, Inc. and will be retained by CET Services, Inc. and
furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission upon request.