alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION v HOFFMAN

Ohio Appeals, 8th Dist, Cuyahoga Co

No 10570.

Decided May 19, 1930

Raymond D. Metzner, Cleveland, for Commission.

Joseph H. Mellen, Cleveland, for Hoffman.

*380SULLIVAN, J.

In the face of these facts in the record the claim that there is no evidence of any nature to support the contention of the plaintiff is without foundation because its very essence is evidence of a circumstantial nature at least and corroborated by the direct testimony of plaintiff that the hernia resulted from the injury complained of.

The record discloses, in our unanimous judgment, that it is not a question as to no evidence but a question as to whether the judgment is clearly and manifestly against the weight of the evidence and from the record there is credible evidence of both a direct and circumstantial nature which, in our judgment, under the rules which a reviewing court is bound to follow, supports the judgment and it would .be an invasion by the reviewing court to pass upon the facts as to their credibility when its province is to determine whether there is credible evidence on the material issues and if so not to disturb the judgment.

Thus holding, the judgment of the common pleas court is hereby affirmed.

Vickery, PJ, and Levine, J, concur.
**UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY** NATIONAL VEHICLE AND FUEL EMISSIONS LABORATORY

2000 TRAVERWOOD ROAD ANN ARBOR, MI 48105 - 2498 OFFICE OF AIR AND RADIATION DATE : November 19, 2010 MEMORANDUM SUBJECT: Meeting with Hino Representatives FROM: Houshun Zhang, Mechanical Engineer TO: Docket EPA - HQ - OAR- 2010 - 0162 This m emorandum documents a meeting held on Friday , November 19, 2010 between Seiichi Yamaguchi, Yoshihide Takenaka, Akira Harada, Chikako Sato, Richard Gezelle of HinoMotors, Ltd and By

ron Bunker, Cleophas Jackson, Chien Sze, Soduk Lee , and Houshun Zhang of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). The meeting mainly discussed HEV related certific ation o n greenhouse g as regulation. Hino provided a detailed overview on hardware in the loop simulation (HIL S) certification that could be potentially used in Japan. The meeting also discussed the possibility of evaluation of HILS at EPA if Hino would like to provide the pro cedure and guideline including a copy of software to EPA.
Product Proposed Rule 

Transition Date Final Rule Transition Date*

HFC-125 January 2016 January 2016

HFC-227ea and blends January 2016 1 year from date of publication

HFC-134a January 2016 1 year from date of publication/ 

January 1, 2018

HFC-134a in New Light-Duty Systems MY 2021 MY 2021**

HCFC & HFC Containing Blends in New Light-Duty Systems MY 2017 MY 2017

Retrofitted Supermarket Systems January 2016 1 year from date of publication

New Supermarket Systems January 2016 January 2017

Retrofitted Remote Condensing Units January 2016 1 year from date of publication

New Remote Condensing Units January 2016 January 2018

Retrofitted Vending Machines January 2016 January 2016

New Vending Machines January 2016 January 2019

Retrofitted Stand-Alone Retail Food Refrig. Equipment January 2016 January 2016

New Stand-Alone Small Medium-Temperature Units, Large Medium

Temperature Units, and Low-Temperature Units January 2016 January 2019 / January 2020

Rigid Polyurethane Appliance Foam January 2017 January 2020

Rigid Polyurethane Commercial Refrigeration and Sandwich Panels January 2017 January 2020

Rigid Polyurethane Slabstock and Other January 2017 January 2019

Rigid Polyurethane and Polyisocyanurate Laminated Boardstock January 2017 January 2017

Flexible Polyurethane January 2017 January 2017

Integral Skin Polyurethane January 2017 January 2017

Polystyrene Extruded Sheet January 2017 January 2017

Polystyrene Extruded Boardstock and Billet (XPS) January 2017 January 2021

Polyolefin January 2017 January 2020

Phenolic Insulation Board and Bunstock January 2017 January 2017

Polyurethane Marine Flotation Foam January 2017 January 2020

Rigid Polyurethane Spray Foam January 2017 No status change finalized

Applicability of Status Change to Closed Cell Foams Not finalized

* Refer to Final Rule for Specific end-uses and dates

****narrowed use limits apply until January 1, 2022 for military and space uses

Foams 

SNAP RULE - EO_12866 SNAP Status Change 2060-AS18 FRM 20150327

Based on Passback Submitted to OMB June 15, 2015

Aerosols** 

** certain technical and medical uses remain acceptable

Refrigeration and Air Conditioning -- Motor Vehicle Air Conditioning

*** narrowed use exception for export to countries without servicing infrastructure through MY 2025

Refrigeration and Air Conditioning -- Retail Food Refrigeration and Vending Machines
§ 1911.15 Nature of hearing. ( a ) ( 1 ) The legislative history of section 6 indicates that Congress intended informal rather than formal rulemaking procedures to apply. See the Conference Report, H. Rept. No. 91-1765, 91st Cong., second sess., 34 (1970). The informality of the proceedings is also suggested by the fact that section 6(b) permits the making of a decision on the basis of written comments alone (unless an objection to a rule is made and a hearing is requested), the use of advisory committees, and the inherent legislative nature of the tasks involved. For these reasons, the proceedings pursuant to § 1911.10 or § 1911.11 shall be informal.
( 2 ) Section 6(b)(3) provides an opportunity for a hearing on objections to proposed rulemaking, and section 6(f) provides in connection with the judicial review of standards, that determinations of the Secretary shall be conclusive if supported by substantial evidence in the record as a whole. Although these sections are not read as requiring a rulemaking proceeding within the meaning of the last sentence of 5 U.S.C. 553(c) requiring the application of the formal requirements of 5 U.S.C. 556 and 557, they do suggest a congressional expectation that the rulemaking would be on the basis of a record to which a substantial evidence test, where pertinent, may be applied in the event an informal hearing is held.
( 3 ) The oral hearing shall be legislative in type. However, fairness may require an opportunity for cross-examination on crucial issues. The presiding officer is empowered to permit cross- examination under such circumstances. The essential intent is to provide an opportunity for effective oral presentation by interested persons which can be carried out with expedition and in the absence of rigid procedures which might unduly impede or protract the rulemaking process.
( b ) Although any hearing shall be informal and legislative in type, this part is intended to provide more than the bare essentials of informal rulemaking under 5 U.S.C. 553. The additional requirements are the following: ( 1 ) The presiding officer shall be a hearing examiner appointed under 5 U.S.C. 3105.
( 2 ) The presiding officer shall provide an opportunity for cross-examination on crucial issues.
( 3 ) The hearing shall be reported verbatim, and a transcript shall be available to any interested person on such terms as the presiding officer may provide.
[37 FR 8664, Apr. 29, 1972, as amended at 37 FR 12231, June 21, 1972]
§ 2570.44 Withdrawal of exemption applications. ( a ) An applicant may withdraw an application for an exemption at any time by oral or written (including electronic) notice to the Department. A withdrawn application generally shall not prejudice any subsequent applications for the same exemption transaction submitted by an applicant.
( b ) Upon receiving an applicant's notice of withdrawal regarding an application for an individual exemption, the Department will issue a final denial letter in accordance with § 2570.41(e) and will terminate all proceedings relating to the application. If a notice of proposed exemption has been published in the Federal Register, the Department will publish a notice in the Federal Register withdrawing the proposed exemption.
( c ) Upon receiving an applicant's notice of withdrawal regarding an application for a class exemption or an individual exemption that is being considered with other applications as a request for a class exemption, the Department will inform any other applicants for the exemption of the withdrawal. The Department will continue to process other applications for the same exemption. If all applicants for a particular class exemption withdraw their applications, the Department may either terminate all proceedings relating to the exemption or propose the exemption on its own motion.
( d ) If, following the withdrawal of an exemption application, an applicant decides to reapply for the same exemption, they may contact the Department in writing (including electronically) to request the Department to reinstate the application. The applicant should refer to the application number assigned to the original application. If, at the time the original application was withdrawn, any additional information required to be submitted to the Department under § 2570.39 was outstanding, that information must accompany the request for reinstatement of the application. The applicant must also update all previously furnished information to the Department in connection with a withdrawn application.
( e ) Any request for reinstatement of a withdrawn application submitted in accordance with paragraph (d) of this section will be granted by the Department, and the Department will take whatever steps remained to process the application when the applicant withdrew the application.
( f ) Following the withdrawal of an exemption application, the administrative record will remain subject to public inspection and copy pursuant to § 2570.51.
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 97 (Thursday, May 18, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Page 31552]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-12521]



[[Page 31552]]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[FRL-6701-2]


National Drinking Water Advisory Council; Contaminant Candidate 
List and 6-Year Review of Existing Regulations Working Group; Notice of 
Open Meeting

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency.

ACTION: Notice.

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

    Under Section 10(a)(2) of Public Law 92-423, ``The Federal Advisory 
Committee Act,'' notice is hereby given that a meeting of the 
Contaminant Candidate List (CCL) Regulatory Determination and 6-Year 
Review of Existing Regulations Working Group of the National Drinking 
Water Advisory Council established under the Safe Drinking Water Act, 
as amended (42 U.S.C. S300f et seq.), will be held June 5-6, 2000, from 
8:30 a.m.-5:00 p.m. ET (approximately), at RESOLVE, 1255 23rd Street, 
NW, Suite 275, Washington, DC 20037. The meeting is open to the public 
to observe and statements will be taken from the public as time allows. 
Seating is limited.
    This is the first of three scheduled meetings to address the 6-Year 
Review of Existing Regulations. The purpose of the meeting is to begin 
the process of developing a protocol for selecting existing National 
Primary Drinking Water Regulation (NWPDRs) for possible revision. As a 
starting point, the Working Group will review a strawman protocol 
developed by U.S. EPA. Final recommendations will be forwarded to the 
full NDWAC for further consideration.
    For more information, contact April McLaughlin, Designated Federal 
Officer, Contaminant Candidate List and Regulatory Determination and 6-
Year Review of Existing Regulations Working Group, U.S. EPA (4607), 
Office of Ground Water and Drinking Water, 401 M Street SW, Washington, 
DC 20460. The telephone number is 202-260-5524, fax 202-401-6135, and 
e-mail <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#83eee0efe2f6e4ebefeaedade2f3f1eaefc3e6f3e2ade4ecf5"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="513c323d302436393d383f7f302123383d113421307f363e27">[email protected]</span></a>.

    Dated: May 8, 2000.
Janet Pawlukiewicz,
Acting Designated Federal Officer, National Drinking Water Advisory 
Council.
[FR Doc. 00-12521 Filed 5-17-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
<PAGE>   1
                                                                      Exhibit 23

                         CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS


We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements
(Form S-8 No. 33-62443, Form S-8 No. 33-12585, Form S-8 No. 333-46953, Form S-8
No. 333-61911 and Form S-8 No. 33-65795) pertaining to the Nonemployee Directors
Stock Option Plan, the Deferred Compensation Plan for Nonemployee Directors, The
Lamson & Sessions Co. Deferred Savings Plan, the 1998 Incentive Equity Plan and
the 1988 Incentive Equity Performance Plan, respectively, of The Lamson &
Sessions Co. and the Registration Statement (Form S-3) of The Lamson & Sessions
Co. and in the related Prospectus of our report dated January 28, 1999, with
respect to the consolidated financial statements and schedule of The Lamson &
Sessions Co. included in the Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended
January 2, 1999, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission.


                                                               ERNST & YOUNG LLP


Cleveland, Ohio
March 10, 1999
Exhibit 11.
 Statement Regarding Computation of Per Share Earnings
<TABLE>


 For the periods ended September 30
<CAPTION>

                                                               3rd Qtr.                       Nine months
                                                         1999              1998          1999           1998

 Diluted earnings per common share:
<S>                                                  <C>              <C>           <C>             <C>
   Average common shares outstanding                    643,053         106,386       548,694         106,386


 Net income (loss)                                   $ (355,964)      $(159,896)    $(307,368)      $(152,577)
 Diluted earnings (loss) per share:                     $ (0.55)         $(1.50)       $(0.56)         $(1.43)
 Basic earnings (loss) per share:                       $ (0.55)         $(1.50)       $(0.56)         $(1.43)
</TABLE>
<PAGE>

                                                                  Exhibit 32.2


                          CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                           18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                           AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


In connection with the Annual Report of K-V Pharmaceutical Company (the
"Company") on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended March 31, 2006, as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
"Report"), I, Gerald R. Mitchell, Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
of 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:

         (1)      The Report fully 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 respects, the financial condition and
                  results of operations of the Company.









Date:    June 14, 2006                       /s/ Gerald R. Mitchell
     ----------------------        ------------------------------------------
                                               Gerald R. Mitchell
                                   Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
                                         (Principal Financial Officer)
**Exhibit 23.1**

**Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm**

The Boardof Directors 

K-V Pharmaceutical Company: 

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the registration statements (Nos. 33-44927, 333-00199, 333-48252 and 333-85516) on Form S-8 and the registration statements (Nos. 333-87402 and333-106294) on Form S-3 of K-V Pharmaceutical Company (the Company) of our reports dated March 25, 2010, with respect to the consolidated balance sheets of K-V Pharmaceutical Company as of March 31, 2009 and 2008, and the related consolidatedstatements of operations, comprehensive income (loss), shareholders’ equity, and cash flows for each of the years in the three-year period ended March 31, 2009, and the related financial statement schedule for the years then ended, and theeffectiveness of internal control over financial reporting as of March 31, 2009, which reports appear in the March 31, 2009 annual report on Form 10-K of K-V Pharmaceutical Company. 

Our report dated March 25, 2010 on the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting as of March 31, 2009 expresses ouropinion that K-V Pharmaceutical Company did not maintain effective internal control over financial reporting as of March 31, 2009 because of the effect of material weaknesses in the areas of entity-level controls (control awareness, personnel,identification and addressing risks, monitoring of controls, remediation of deficiencies and communication of information), financial statement preparation and review procedures (manual journal entries, account reconciliations, spreadsheets,customer and supplier agreements, stock-based compensation, Medicaid rebates and income taxes) and the application of accounting principles (inventories, property and equipment, employee compensation, reserves for sales allowances and financingtransactions). 

Our report dated March 25, 2010 on the consolidated financial statements contains an explanatory paragraphthat states the Company has suspended the shipment of all products manufactured by the Company and must comply with a consent decree with the FDA before approved products can be reintroduced to the market. Significant negative impacts on operatingresults and cash flows from these actions including the potential inability of the Company to raise capital; suspension of manufacturing; significant uncertainties related to litigation and governmental inquiries; and debt covenant violations raisesubstantial doubt about the Company’s ability to continue as a going concern. The consolidated financial statements and schedule do not include any adjustments that might result from the outcome of that uncertainty. 

(signed) KPMG LLP 

St. Louis, Missouri 

March 25, 2010
§ 2702.9 Fee schedule. ( a ) *Search fee.* The fee for searching for information and records shall be the salary rate (that is, basic pay plus 16%) of the employee making the search. This hourly rate is listed in the Commission's FOIA Guide at *https://www.fmshrc.gov/guides/foia-guide .* Fees for searches of computerized records shall be the actual cost to the Commission but shall not exceed $300 per hour. This fee includes machine time and that of the operator and clerical personnel. If search charges are likely to exceed $50, the requester shall be notified of the estimated amount of fees, unless the requester has indicated in advance his or her willingness to pay fees as high as those anticipated. Fees may be charged even if the documents are not located or if they are located but withheld on the basis of an exemption.
( b ) *Review fee.* The review fee shall be charged for the Chief FOIA Officer's initial examination of documents located in response to a request in order to determine if they may be withheld from disclosure, and for the deletion of portions that are exempt from disclosure, but shall not be charged for review by the Chair or the Commissioners. See § 2702.5. The review fee is the salary rate (that is, basic pay plus 16%) of the Chief FOIA Officer or the employee designated to perform the review. This hourly rate is listed in the Commission's FOIA Guide at *https://www.fmshrc.gov/guides/foia-guide .*
( c ) *Duplicating fee.* The copy fee for each page of paper up to 81 ⁄ 2′′ x 14′′, including the scanning of pages not routinely stored in electronic format, shall be $.20 per page. When the use of third-party services is required, the fee will be the actual direct cost incurred by the Commission. For copies of records produced on tapes, disks, or other media, the Commission shall charge the direct costs of production of the material, including operator time. For other methods of reproduction or duplication, the Commission will charge the actual direct costs of producing the document(s). If duplication charges are likely to exceed $50, the requester shall be notified of the estimated amount of fees, unless the requester has indicated in advance his or her willingness to pay fees as high as those anticipated.
#### § 2200.57 [Reserved]
Editorial Note on Part 20
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 20 appear at 57 FR 31451, July 16, 1992.

§ 20.77 Agency responsibilities. ( a ) Each Department of Labor agency which has delinquent debts owed under its program and administrative activities is responsible for collecting its claims by means of salary offset, in accordance with guidelines established by the Chief Financial Officer.
( b ) Before collecting a claim by means of salary offset, the responsible agency should be satisfied that salary offset is feasible, allowable and appropriate, and, as otherwise provided in these regulations, must notify the debtor of the Department's policies for collecting a claim by means of salary offset.
( c ) Whether collection by salary offset is feasible is a determination to be made by the creditor agency on a case-by-case basis, in the exercise of sound discretion. Agencies shall consider not only whether salary offset can be accomplished, both practically and legally, but also whether offset is best suited to further and protect all of the Government's interests. In appropriate circumstances, agencies may give due consideration to the debtor's financial condition, and are not required to use offset of the full or partial amount of the claim in every instance in which there is an available source of funds.
( d ) Before advising the debtor that the delinquent debt will be subject to salary offset, the agency head (or designee) responsible for administering the program under which the debt arose shall review the claim and determine that the debt is valid and overdue. In the case where a debt arises under the programs of two or more Department of Labor agencies, or in such other instances as the Chief Financial Officer, or his or her designee, may deem appropriate, the Chief Financial Officer, or his or her designee, may determine which agency (or agencies), or official (or officials), shall have responsibility for carrying out the provisions of this subpart.
( e ) Agencies may not initiate offset to collect a debt more than 10 years after the Government's right to collect the debt first accrued, unless facts material to the right to collect the debt were not known and could not reasonably have been known by the official of the Agency who was charged with the responsibility to discover and collect such debts. When the debt first accrued should be determined according to existing laws regarding the accrual of debts, such as under 28 U.S.C. 2415.
# L_2005278EN.01000901.xml

| 21.10.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 278/9 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.10.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 278/9

---

THE EURO-MEDITERRANEAN AGREEMENT

establishing an association between the European Communities and their Member States, of the one part, and the Republic of Tunisia, of the other part

The Agreement is drawn up in 11 official languages of the European Union (Spanish, Danish, Greek, English, French, Italian, Dutch, Portuguese, Finnish and Swedish) was published in OJ L 97, 30.3.1998, p. 2. The Czech, Estonian, Lithuanian, Hungarian, Maltese, Polish, Slovak and Slovene language versions are published in this Official Journal.

---