alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Mrs. Marguerite Lawson, widow of Silas ROBINSON v. PROVIDENCE MAUSOLEUM, INC.

No. 9301.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Fourth Circuit.

June 7, 1978.

Sidney L. Shushan (Guste, Barnett & Shushan), New Orleans, for plaintiff-appellant.

Laurence E. Larmann (Hailey, McNamara, McNamara & Hall), Metairie, for defendant-appellee.

*1318Before REDMANN, LEMMON and BOUTALL, JJ.

REDMANN, Judge.

Plaintiff by this appeal seeks increase in quantum of a judgment for $100 damages from the burial of her husband in the wrong grave. We affirm.

The cemetery realized its mistake the next morning and, without consulting plaintiff, exhumed the casket to reinter it in plaintiff’s plot. Meanwhile plaintiff, who had “noticed” at the original interment that the grave was not her own plot, returned for an explanation and learned of the error and of the casket’s having already been exhumed for reinterment. Plaintiff saw the casket, in the condition one must expect from interment in New Orleans: wet and muddied, with its top cracked from the weight of the earth and part of its cloth covering loosened by moisture and movement. Plaintiff waited almost an hour while her own plot was prepared and rein-terment was accomplished.

Plaintiff was, most naturally, “shocked” and upset at the distressing and inexplicable failure by defendant to perform its contractual obligation to prepare the correct site for her husband’s burial, and the less-than-ideal remedying of the error. (As a minimum, the widow should have been informed beforehand of the discovery of the error and of the proposal to remedy it. Because both graves were unused, she might have preferred to swap plots, if the other owner would consent.) But plaintiff had no medical expenses and no loss of earnings as a result of her shock. Already heavy-burdened by the loss of her husband, she appears to have borne the shock of his necessary disinterment and reburial admirably well.

This is not a case of outrage, as in the deliberate profanation of graves for profit, *Humphreys v. Bennett Oil Corp.,*1940, 195 La. 531, 197 So. 222 ($20,000 reduced to $3,000); or the negligent performing of an autopsy over the widow’s expressed objection, *French v. Ochsner Clinic,*La.App. 4 Cir. 1967, 200 So.2d 371, writ refused 251 La. 34, 202 So.2d 652 ($500 increased to $1,500; “the primary consideration . is the effect of the [breach of duty] on the feelings and emotions” of the survivors, 200 So.2d at 373); or the refusal by a mortician to return a corpse to the family, *Morgan v. Richmond,*La.App. 1 Cir. 1976, 336 So.2d 342 ($250). Nor is it a case of accidental destruction of the body, preventing a normal funeral, as in *Blanchard*v. *Brawley,*La.App. 1 Cir. 1954, 75 So.2d 891 ($2,000 and $1,000 reduced to $800 and $250 for decedent’s mother and siblings).

We concede that the award of $100 may be minimal but, because there were no aggravating circumstances and no dire consequences to the widow, we conclude that the award is within the trial judge’s “much discretion”, C.C. 1934(3).

Affirmed.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

EASTERN DISTRICT

IN THE INTEREST OF: S.G. A MINOR

PETITION OF: L.G., FATHER

:

:

:

:

:

No. 410 EAL 2023

Petition for Allowance of Appeal 

from the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 2nd day of February, 2024, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal

is DENIED.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE

JAPHIS LAMPKINS, SR.
,
Defendant Below
, Appellant,

v.

STATE OF DELAWARE
,
Plaintiff Below, Appellee. § § § No. 44, 2018 § § Court Below

— Superior Court § of the State of Delaware § § C r. ID No. 80001076DI (N ) § § §

Submitted: February 5, 2018 Decided: February 28 , 2018

Before STRINE , Chief Justice; VALIHURA and TRAYNOR , Justices.

ORDER
Having considered t he notice to show cause and the appellant’s response, the

Court concludes that :
(1) On January 23, 2018 , the appellant
, Japhis Lampkins, Sr.
, filed a notice
of appeal from a Superior Court order, dated and docketed on December 20, 2017
, denying his motion for correction of sentence

. Under Supreme Court Rule 6(a)(iv),
a timely notice of appeal should have been filed on or before January 19, 2018

. The
Senior Court Clerk issued a notice directing Lampkins to show cause why this appeal

should not be dismissed as untimely filed under Supreme Court Rule 6

. (2) In his response to the notice to show cause
, Lampkins states that he
mailed the notice of appeal on January 18, 2018, two days before the deadline.2

Lampkins further states that he had difficulty preparing a respo nse because he was
unable to use the law library and his legal papers were confiscated due to disciplinary
problems

. (3) Time is a jurisdictional requirement. 1 A notice of appeal must be
received by the Office of the Clerk of this Court within the applicable time period in

order to be effective. 2 An appellant’s pro se status does not excuse a failure to
comply strictly with the jurisdictional requirements of Supreme Court Rule 6. 3

Unless an appellant can demonstrate that the failure to file a time ly notice of appeal

is attributable to court

- related personnel, an untimely appeal cannot be considered. 4

(4) The record does not reflect that Lampkins ’ failure to file a timely notice
of appeal is attributable to court

- related personnel

. Prison personnel are not court

related personnel. 5 Consequently, this case does not fall within the exception to the
general rule that mandates the timely filing of a notice of appeal. T his appeal must

be dismissed.

1 Carr v. State , 554 A.2d 778, 779 (Del. 1989).
2 Supr. Ct. R. 10(a). 3 Smith v. State , 47 A.3d 481, 486

- 87 (Del. 2012)

. 4 Bey v. State , 402 A.2d 362, 363 (Del. 1979). 5 Jones v. State , 2014 WL 1512805, at *1 (Del. Apr. 15, 2014).3

NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED, under Supreme Court Ru le 29 (b ),

that this appeal is DISMISSED.

BY THE COURT: /s/ Leo E. Strine, Jr.
Chief Justice
EXHIBIT 32.1

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

I, Vanessa Gillis, 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,
Guru Health Inc.'s Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q/A for the quarter ended August
31, 2011 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that

     (1)  The Report 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 result of operations of
          the Company.


Date: October 20, 2011                     /s/ Vanessa Gillis
                                           -------------------------------------
                                    Name:  Vanessa Gillis
                                    Title: President, Chief Executive Officer,
                                           Director
NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

2009-1115, -1246

GEORGE E. KERSEY,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

COMMISSIONER OF PATENTS AND TRADEMARKS,

Defendant-Appellee.

Appeals from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia in

case nos. 1:06-MC-416 and 1:07-MC-302, Judge Emmett G. Sullivan.

Before MOORE, Circuit Judge.

ORDER

The court considers whether to waive the filing fee for these appeals.

In the above-captioned appeals, George E. Kersey seeks review of orders of the

United States District Court for the District of Columbia denying his motions for leave to

proceed in forma pauperis. The court determines that under these circumstances,

waiver of the filing fee is warranted.

Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED THAT:

The filing fee is waived for each of the above-captioned appeals.

FOR THE COURT

APR 1 2009

/s/ Jan Horbaly

Date

cc:	George E. Kersey

Alan Burch, Esq.

s17

Jan Horbaly

Clerk FILED

U.S. COURT Or APPEALS FOR

THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT

APR 0 1 2009

CLERK
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 97-6167

BART DANIEL MILLIRONS,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

FRANK DREW; D. D. NOHA; J. P. MCINTIRE; J.

OCHS,

Defendants - Appellees,

and

NURSE LEBO,

Defendant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Claude M. Hilton, Chief District

Judge. (CA-94-1212)

Submitted: March 17, 1998 Decided: April 3, 1998

Before NIEMEYER and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
2

Bart Daniel Millirons, Appellant Pro Se. Charles Everett Malone,

CLARK & STANT, P.C., Virginia Beach, Virginia, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).

PER CURIAM:

Appellant appeals from the district court's order denying

relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1994) complaint. We have reviewed

the record and the district court's opinion and find no reversible

error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district

court. Millirons v. Drew, No. CA-94-1212 (E.D. Va. Jan. 2, 1997)

We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the

court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
I

103D CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 2997

To amend title 38, United States Code, to codify the addition by the Secretary

of Veterans Affairs of certain additional diseases to the list of diseases

occurring in veterans that are considered to be service-connected.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

AUGUST 6, 1993

Mr. SLATTERY (for himself, Mr. MONTGOMERY, Mr. STUMP, Mr. APPLEGATE,

Mr. BILIRAKIS, Mr. EVANS, Mr. EVERETT, Mr. KENNEDY, Mr. STEARNS,

Mr. SANGMEISTER, Mr. TEJEDA, and Mr. KING) introduced the following

bill; which was referred to the Committee on Veterans’ Affairs

A BILL

To amend title 38, United States Code, to codify the addition

by the Secretary of Veterans Affairs of certain additional

diseases to the list of diseases occurring in veterans

that are considered to be service-connected.

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

3 SECTION 1. CODIFICATION OF CERTAIN ADDITIONAL SERV4 ICE-CONNECTED PRESUMPTIONS.

5 Section 1116(a)(2) of title 38, United States Code,

6 is amended by adding at the end the following new sub7 paragraphs:
2

•HR 2997 IH

1 ‘‘(D) Hodgkin’s disease becoming manifest to a

2 degree of 10 percent or more.

3 ‘‘(E) Porphyria cutanea tarda becoming mani4 fest to a degree of 10 percent or more.’’.

5 SEC. 2. EFFECTIVE DATE.

6 The amendment made by section 1 shall take effect

7 on the date on which a final regulation prescribed by the

8 Secretary of Veterans Affairs as required by section

9 1116(c) of title 38, United States Code, takes effect estab10 lishing a presumption of service connection for the disabil11 ities specified in that amendment.

Æ
Exhibit 31.2
 Certification of Chief Financial Officer  Pursuant to Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002
 I, Colleen M. Brown, certify that:1.
    
    I have reviewed this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Standard Financial Corp.;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 registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this
report;4.
    
    The registrants other certifying officer 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 registrant 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 registrant, 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 registrant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;c)
    
    disclosed in this report any change in the registrants internal control over
financial reporting that occurred during the registrants most recent fiscal quarter
(the registrants fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has
materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrants
internal control over financial reporting;
 5.
    
    The registrants other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent
evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrants auditors and the
audit committee of the registrant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 registrants ability to record, process, summarize and report financial
information; andb)
    
    any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees
who have a significant role in the registrants internal control over financial
reporting.
 Date February 11, 2011
    /s/ Colleen M. BrownColleen M. BrownSenior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer 30
Exhibit 32.1

















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 Quarterly Report of Auscrete Corporation (the “Company’) on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2013 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date here of (the “report”), I, John Sprovieri, Chief Executive Officer 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 this Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.





Dated this 30th day of December, 2013.








/s/John Sprovieri/s/John SprovieriChief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer
```

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 3031 Introduced in House (IH)]

103d CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 3031

To repeal the reduction in the deductible portion of business meals and 
     entertainment made by the Revenue Reconciliation Act of 1993.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           September 8, 1993

Mr. Zimmer (for himself, Mr. Lightfoot, and Mr. Portman) introduced the 
 following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Ways and Means

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To repeal the reduction in the deductible portion of business meals and 
     entertainment made by the Revenue Reconciliation Act of 1993.

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

SECTION 1. REPEAL OF REDUCTION IN DEDUCTIBLE PORTION OF BUSINESS MEALS 
              AND ENTERTAINMENT.

    Section 13209 of the Revenue Reconciliation Act of 1993 is hereby 
repealed, and the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 shall be applied and 
administered as if such section (and the amendments made thereby) had 
not been enacted.

                                 <all>
```
## I N T H E C O U R T O F C R I M I N A L A P P E A L S O F T E X A S

N O . P D
- 1 4 8 4
- 1 5

P H I L L I P D E V O N D E E N , A p p e l l a n t

v . T H E S T A T E O F T E X A S
O R D E R R E G A R D I N G R E P R E S E N T A T I O N

T A Y L O R C O U N T Y

T h i s o r d e r w a s d e l i v e r e d p e r c u r i a m . O R D E R
Appellant was convicted of possession of coca in e i n ca u s e number 9902-D in the 350th District Court of Tay lor County

. Appellant was sentenc ed to confine ment for 4 y ear s. The court of
appea ls aff

irmed, as modified, the judgme nt of the trial court. Dee n v. State, No. 11-13-00271- CR, (Tex. App. — Eastland, delivere d October 15, 2015). The State’s petition for discretionar y revie w

was g rante d by this Court on Marc h 2, 20 1 6

. Appellant is entitled to repr esenta tion befor e this Court at this time. See Article 1.051(a) (d)( 2), V.A.C.C.P. I t appea rs that Appell an t is withoutDEEN - 2

repr esenta tion in this court. Ac co rdi ng ly , the trial court is order ed to deter mine if Appellant is

curr ently repr esente d by counsel, and i f s o , t o inform this court who repr esents Appellant. I f Appellant is not curr ently repr esente d by coun s el an d desires counsel, the trial court must first deter mine whether Appellant is indige nt. I f the trial court finds Appellant is indige nt, that court shall appoint an attorney to repr esent Appellant befor e thi s cou rt in reg ard to PDR No. P D-1484-15, in

acc ord with the provisions of Articles 1.051 and 26.04, V.A.C.C.P. Any hear ing conducte d pursuant
to this order shall be held within 30 day s of the date of this order

. The trial court' s order appointing counsel, any

finding s of fa ct, af

fidavits, or transc ription of the cour t reporte r' s notes and any other supplementation of the rec ord shall be returne d to this court within 45 day s of the date of this order

. I T I S SO ORDERED THI S THE 2 DAY OF MARCH, 2016 n d DO NOT PUBL I SH
# C_2013371EN.01001101.xml

| 18.12.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 371/11 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.12.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 371/11

---

Euro exchange rates (1)

1

17 December 2013

(2013/C 371/04)

1 euro =

1 euro =

| | Currency | Exchange rate |
| --- | --- | --- |
| USD | US dollar | 1,3749 |
| JPY | Japanese yen | 141,61 |
| DKK | Danish krone | 7,4607 |
| GBP | Pound sterling | 0,84560 |
| SEK | Swedish krona | 9,0412 |
| CHF | Swiss franc | 1,2206 |
| ISK | Iceland króna | |
| NOK | Norwegian krone | 8,4600 |
| BGN | Bulgarian lev | 1,9558 |
| CZK | Czech koruna | 27,657 |
| HUF | Hungarian forint | 299,30 |
| LTL | Lithuanian litas | 3,4528 |
| LVL | Latvian lats | 0,7030 |
| PLN | Polish zloty | 4,1790 |
| RON | Romanian leu | 4,4673 |
| TRY | Turkish lira | 2,8055 |
| AUD | Australian dollar | 1,5421 |
| CAD | Canadian dollar | 1,4557 |
| HKD | Hong Kong dollar | 10,6595 |
| NZD | New Zealand dollar | 1,6626 |
| SGD | Singapore dollar | 1,7289 |
| KRW | South Korean won | 1 448,07 |
| ZAR | South African rand | 14,2344 |
| CNY | Chinese yuan renminbi | 8,3477 |
| HRK | Croatian kuna | 7,6300 |
| IDR | Indonesian rupiah | 16 471,30 |
| MYR | Malaysian ringgit | 4,4714 |
| PHP | Philippine peso | 60,838 |
| RUB | Russian rouble | 45,2922 |
| THB | Thai baht | 44,165 |
| BRL | Brazilian real | 3,1891 |
| MXN | Mexican peso | 17,7864 |
| INR | Indian rupee | 85,0840 |

Currency

Exchange rate

USD

US dollar

1,3749

JPY

Japanese yen

141,61

DKK

Danish krone

7,4607

GBP

Pound sterling

0,84560

SEK

Swedish krona

9,0412

CHF

Swiss franc

1,2206

ISK

Iceland króna

NOK

Norwegian krone

8,4600

BGN

Bulgarian lev

1,9558

CZK

Czech koruna

27,657

HUF

Hungarian forint

299,30

LTL

Lithuanian litas

3,4528

LVL

Latvian lats

0,7030

PLN

Polish zloty

4,1790

RON

Romanian leu

4,4673

TRY

Turkish lira

2,8055

AUD

Australian dollar

1,5421

CAD

Canadian dollar

1,4557

HKD

Hong Kong dollar

10,6595

NZD

New Zealand dollar

1,6626

SGD

Singapore dollar

1,7289

KRW

South Korean won

1 448,07

ZAR

South African rand

14,2344

CNY

Chinese yuan renminbi

8,3477

HRK

Croatian kuna

7,6300

IDR

Indonesian rupiah

16 471,30

MYR

Malaysian ringgit

4,4714

PHP

Philippine peso

60,838

RUB

Russian rouble

45,2922

THB

Thai baht

44,165

BRL

Brazilian real

3,1891

MXN

Mexican peso

17,7864

INR

Indian rupee

85,0840

---

(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.

1

Source

---
Attachment G 

Work Sheet used to Calculate Registrant Labor Costs 

This attachment is available as part of the electronic docket EPA-HQ-OPP-2009-0884 and is 

part of the ICR’s Supporting Statement.

NAICS: 325300 

Pesticide, Fertilizer, and Other Agricultural Chemical Manufacturing 

Labor Category: Formula Managerial Technical Clerical 

Unloaded Hourly Rate1 = W $51.01 $28.05 $16.67 

Benefits Percentage2 Lb = B/W 44% 44% 44%

Benefits per hour B = W*Lb $22.20 $12.21 $7.26 

Loaded Hourly Rate Wb = W + B = 

W(1+Lb) 

$73.21 $40.26 $23.93 

Overhead Percentage3 Lo = OH/Wb 50% 50% 50%

Overhead per hour OH = Wb*Lo $36.61 $20.13 $11.96 

Fully Loaded Hourly 

Rate 

Wf = Wb + OH

 = W + B + OH 

$109.82 $60.39 $35.89 

1. Data Source: BLS http://www.bls.gov/oes/current/naics4_325300.htm May 2008 data

 NAICS 325300 - Pesticide, Fertilizer, and Other Agricultural Chemical Manufacturing 

 Standard Occupational Codes: 

 Management: 11-0000, Management Occupations 

 Technical: 19-0000, Life, Physical, and Social Science Occupations 

 Clerical: 43-0000, Office and Administrative Support Occupations 

2. Fringe benefits/wage per hour. 

3. U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA Air Pollution Control Cost Manual, Sixth 

Edition, EPA-452-02-001, January 2002, pg. 2-34. The loading for indirect costs is within the 

range of 20-70% of the load labor rate (wage + benefits) suggested in EPA guidance.
#### In the Interest of D. S. and M. W., Children.

No. 72-551.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

Dec. 15, 1972.

J. Russell Hornsby of Law Offices of J. Russell Hornsby, Orlando, for appellant.

John. A. McEwan, II of Sanders, Mc-Ewan, Mims & McDonald, Orlando, for appellee-Bruce Williams.

Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Andrew I. Friedrich, Asst. Atty. Gen., West Palm Beach, for appel-lee-juvenile Court for Orange County.

PER CURIAM.

We affirm without prejudice to appellant’s right to apply for modification of the trial court’s custody order based upon any material changes in circumstances that may have since occurred, as appellant is advised.

Affirmed.

WALDEN, CROSS and MAGER, JJ., concur.
p. 1 

# OAR Box 1830 Prepped by Ollie Stewart



### Document

Number: 

# 63 ) IV-C-2

9 Docket Number: 

# A-87-1 1

Printed 11/13/20087:20:54 AM Sheet 63 of 232P. 2

.*>'« " "«* . 

# 15522/

*• • PRO** 0 UNITE D STATE S ENVIRONMENTA LPROTECTIO NAGENC Y WASHINGTON

, D.C . 20460 

### JA N

### I 5 

### 198 8 

### fi-QI-JLiOFFIC E O F AI RAN D RADIATIO N

Honorabl e Michae l G . Oxle y Hous e o f Representative s Washington , D C 2051 5 Dea r Mr . Oxley : Than k yo u fo r passing along the comment s o f Mr . Theodor e Schlute r an

d Mr . Geral d Clar k concerning EPA' s proposa l t o requir e onboar d refueling emissio n controls . B e assure d tha t thes e comment s wil l be considere d i n th e nex t phas e o f our " rulemaking process . W e wil l als o be placing themi n th e publi c docke t fo r the Rulemaking . Than k yo u agai n fo r you r concer n i n thi s matter .

Sincerel yyours , Richar d D . Wilso n Director , Offic e o f Mobil e Source s