alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Re: questions about extrusion facilities

Douglas Tolar to: Rynda Kay 05/22/2012 08:43 AM

From: Douglas Tolar <dtolar@baaqmd.gov>

To: Rynda Kay/R9/USEPA/US@EPA

History: This message has been replied to and forwarded.

Rynda,

I am out of the office until May 30. I will try to call you again when I 

return. I did look into your questions some before leaving. I think here was 

one facility with an extrusion process step subject to the standard but that 

facility is now closed - It's been a few years. I don't recall how they 

complied with the standard then.

I try to find more information when I return.

Thanks, Doug

Sent from my HTC smartphone on the Now Network from Sprint!

----- Reply message -----

From: "Rynda Kay" <Kay.Rynda@epamail.epa.gov>

Date: Thu, May 17, 2012 4:10 pm

Subject: questions about extrusion facilities

To: "Douglas Tolar" <dtolar@baaqmd.gov>

Hi Doug,

It seems we are having trouble catching each other on the phone. I am hoping 

perhaps you can answer some of my questions via email or we can schedule a 

time to talk?

I am reviewing San Joaquin's Rule 4682 re: polystyrene production. They have 

a compliance option for extrusion facilities in their rule of 2.4 pounds/100 

pounds of total material processed, as averaged on a monthly basis.

I am trying to compare this with BAAQMD Reg 8-52 and get a feel for how 

extrusion facilities comply with your rule.

Looking at your inventory from CARBs database it seems this source is quite 

small. Do you have any extrusion facilities that comply using the emission 

limit requirement of 2.4 pounds/100 pounds of total material processed? How do 

they comply with your rule in terms of source testing/record-keeping?

I am in the office until 3:30 today and then available tomorrow. I am working 

from home tomorrow, so if you email with a time I can call you back to you 

then.

Thanks much,

Rynda

_____________________

Rynda Hudman Kay, Ph.D.

Air Division, US EPA

75 Hawthorne St.

San Francisco, CA 94105

P: 415.947.4118 | F: 415.947.3579
§ 650.5 What does a fellowship award include? The Secretary awards fellowships consisting of the following: ( a ) A stipend paid to the fellow, based upon an annual determination of the fellow's financial need, as described in § 650.42.
( b ) An annual payment made to the institution in which the fellow is enrolled as described in § 650.41.
(Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1134b)
§ 361.715 How are one-stop infrastructure costs funded in the local funding mechanism? ( a ) In the local funding mechanism, the Local WDB, chief elected officials, and one-stop partners agree to amounts and methods of calculating amounts each partner will contribute for one-stop infrastructure funding, include the infrastructure funding terms in the MOU, and sign the MOU. The local funding mechanism must meet all of the following requirements: ( 1 ) The infrastructure costs are funded through cash and fairly evaluated non-cash and third-party in-kind partner contributions and include any funding from philanthropic organizations or other private entities, or through other alternative financing options, to provide a stable and equitable funding stream for ongoing one-stop delivery system operations;
( 2 ) Contributions must be negotiated between one-stop partners, chief elected officials, and the Local WDB and the amount to be contributed must be included in the MOU;
( 3 ) The one-stop partner program's proportionate share of funding must be calculated in accordance with the Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards in 2 CFR part 200 based upon a reasonable cost allocation methodology whereby infrastructure costs are charged to each partner in proportion to its use of the one-stop center, relative to benefits received. Such costs must also be allowable, reasonable, necessary, and allocable;
( 4 ) Partner shares must be periodically reviewed and reconciled against actual costs incurred, and adjusted to ensure that actual costs charged to any one-stop partners are proportionate to the use of the one-stop center and relative to the benefit received by the one-stop partners and their respective programs or activities.
( b ) In developing the section of the MOU on one-stop infrastructure funding described in § 361.755, the Local WDB and chief elected officials will: ( 1 ) Ensure that the one-stop partners adhere to the guidance identified in § 361.705 on one-stop delivery system infrastructure costs.
( 2 ) Work with one-stop partners to achieve consensus and informally mediate any possible conflicts or disagreements among one-stop partners.
( 3 ) Provide technical assistance to new one-stop partners and local grant recipients to ensure that those entities are informed and knowledgeable of the elements contained in the MOU and the one-stop infrastructure costs arrangement.
( c ) The MOU may include an interim infrastructure funding agreement, including as much detail as the Local WDB has negotiated with one-stop partners, if all other parts of the MOU have been negotiated, in order to allow the partner programs to operate in the one-stop centers. The interim infrastructure funding agreement must be finalized within 6 months of when the MOU is signed. If the interim infrastructure funding agreement is not finalized within that timeframe, the Local WDB must notify the Governor, as described in § 361.725.
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

DAY HIGH

 326

 325

 371

 409

 404

 413

 391

 386

 408

 414

 412

 410

 420

 416

 393

 246

 219

 193

 197

 182

 186

 173

 161

 153

 145

 166

 111

 104

 90

 74

 63

 212

 280

 297

 373

 369

 374

 325

 312

 317

 339

 300

 341

 380

 321

 228

 167

 166

 167

 181

 173

 173

 133

 113

 96

 82

 80

 86

 73

 69

 62

 50

 258

 300

 341

 391

 389

 395

 366

 361

 377

 382

 356

 379

 405

 367

 321

 207

 193

 176

 190

 178

 175

 161

 137

 121

 103

 125

 95

 89

 77

 66

 57

LOW MEAN

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

U.S. BUREAU OF RECLAMATION-CENTRAL VALLEY PROJECT-CALIFORNIA

MAY 2019 WATER QUALITY REPORT RUN DATE: June 3, 2019

ELECTRICAL CONDUCTIVITY, UMHOS 

TDS

 175

 201

 227

 258

 256

 260

 242

 239

 249

 252

 236

 250

 266

 243

 214

 144

 135

 125

 133

 126

 124

 115

 101

 91

 80

 93

 75

 71

 64

 57

 51

TOTAL 7,538

Comments:

0 reading indicates that the station was out of service.

DELTA MENDOTA CANAL AT CHECK 21
# J 

# 1I 

# H

US. Department of Energy June 1999 

### EMISSIONS RESULTS

- DRAFT The clothes washer environmental analysis uses a variant ofthe Energy Information Administration (EIA) National Energy Modeling System (NEMS), plus some exogenous analysis. First, results are reported to the year 2020 because this is the time frame ofNEMS-EPCA. Results are then extrapolated to the year 2030. Cumulative emissions savings for the power sector (electric and gas utilities) and households over the 18-yearperiod modelled (2003 -2020) are presented in Table 1below: 

### Table 1 CumulativeEmissions Reductions through 2020: Household and Power Sectors I t L mprovemen eve Emission 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 35% 40% 45% 50% Carbon (Mt) 2.8 9.3 17.1 20.7 39.3 56.7 57.2 63.5 67.4

NOx (kt) 9 30.1 55.4 67 127.4 183.4 184.8 202.6 214.9 S02 (kt) 0.7 2.8 5.9 7.4 13.4 16.l 16.l 15.7 15.9 Cumulative emissions savings for the power sector andhouseholds (excluding upstream emissions) withthe forecast extended through 2030 are inTable 2: 

### Table2 CumulativeEmissions Reductions through 2030: Household and Power Sectors

Emission Carbon (Mt)

NOx (kt) S02 (kt) 

### Extrapolation The current time frame ofNEMS-EPCAis 2020, yet most analyses ofthe appliance efficiency standards rulemaking extendto 2030. Itis not feasible to extendthe forecast period ofNEMSEPCA for the purposes ofthis analysis nor does EIAhave an approved method for extrapolation ofmany outputs beyond 2020; therefore, all extrapolations beyond 2020 presentedhere are simple replications ofthe year 2020 results. 1

1To get cumulative results for the year 2030, you simply add up IO years ofthe results for 2020 and add it to the cumulative result for the year 2020. 1
(No. 00127

#### In Re Application of Craig T. Hardie

*Opinion filed November 14, 1977.*

Per Curiam.

This claim, arising out of the death of a fireman allegedly killed in the line of duty, seeks payment of compensation to the decedent’s beneficiaries pursuant to the provisions of the “Law Enforcement Officers and Firemen Compensation Act,” (hereafter, the Act), Ill. Rev. Stat., ch. 48, Sec. 281 *et seq.,*1975.

The Court has carefully considered the application for benefits submitted on the form prescribed and furnished by the Attorney General; a written statement of the decedent’s supervising officer, and a report by the Illinois Attorney General’s Office which substantiates matters set forth in the application. Based upon these documents and other evidence submitted at a hearing before the Court on October 12, 1977, the Court finds that:

1. Craig T. Hardie, is the brother of the decedent and is the beneficiary who was designated by him as stated in his application for benefits.

*3792. The decedent, David Hardie, age 27, was a full-time fireman, of the rank of “firefighter/paramedic,” employed by the City of Park Ridge Fire Department and engaged in the active performance of his duties within the meaning of Section 2(e) of the Act, on November 30,1976.

3. On said date, at approximately 2:30 p.m., during regularly assigned duty hours, Hardie accidentally fell from a ladder while painting the interior of a Park Ridge fire station; the painting had been previously directed by a superior officer. As a result of the fall, Hardie suffered a fractured left leg; he was taken, by ambulance, to a hospital; and, on December 2, 1976, surgery was performed on his leg. He was found dead, in his hospital bed, on the early morning of December 4, approximately 36 hours after his operation. An autopsy was performed, and the immediate cause of death was recited as a “pulmonary thrombo embolism in association with fracture of left femur.”

4. Section 2, subparagraph (e) of the Act provides, in relevant part, that “ ‘killed in the line of duty” means losing one’s life as a result of injury received in the active performance of duties as a law enforcement officer or fireman if the death occurs within one year from the date the injury was received and if that injury arose from violence or other accidental cause.”

5. The pulmonary thrombo embolism, which caused firefighter Hardie’s death, resulted from the broken leg accidentally sustained as recited.

6. Firefighter Hardie was killed in the line of duty as defined in Section 2(e) of the Act.

7. The proof submitted in support of this claim satisfies all of the requirements of the Act and the claim is therefore compensable thereunder.

*380It is hereby ordered that the sum of $20,000.00 be awarded to Craig T. Hardie, as brother and designated beneficiary of the deceased fireman, David Hardie.
From: Mark, Jeremy

To: aaron_l_szabo@omb.eop.gov

Subject: Part of E.O. 12866 Review: Interagency Discussion about TSDs for the Cross-State Air Pollution Rule for the 2008

 Ozone NAAQS [2060-AS05]

Date: Friday, October 16, 2015 5:14:00 PM

Attachments: EO12866_2008 O3 NAAQS CSAPR Update 2060 AS05 NPRM FRN_20150928 Preparation of Emissions

 Inventory.pdf

Aaron,

I discovered one document associated with the Air Quality Modeling TSD was not included in

yesterday’s message. I have attached it to this e-mail.

Jeremy Mark

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Clean Air Markets Division

Phone (202) 343-9087  Fax (202) 343-2359

Mail code 6204J

From: Mark, Jeremy

Sent: Thursday, October 15, 2015 6:34 PM

To: 'aaron_l_szabo@omb.eop.gov'

Subject: Part of E.O. 12866 Review: Interagency Discussion about TSDs for the Cross-State Air

Pollution Rule for the 2008 Ozone NAAQS [2060-AS05]

Aaron,

I have attached four Technical Support Documents for the Cross-State Air Pollution Rule for the 2008

Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards proposal (EO12866_2008 O3 NAAQS CSAPR Update

2060 AS05 NPRM FRN_20150928). Included are the:

1) Air Quality Modeling TSD (along with two attached appendices)

2) EGU NOX Mitigation Strategies TSD

3) Ozone Transport Policy TSD (along with 1 attached appendix)

4) Status of 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) SIPs TSD

Please let me know if you have any questions.

Jeremy Mark

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Clean Air Markets Division

Phone (202) 343-9087  Fax (202) 343-2359
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 12-7658

DICKINSON NORMAN ADIONSER,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA; UNITED STATES DRUG ENFORCEMENT 

ADMINISTRATION AGENCY,

Respondents - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

Maryland, at Greenbelt. Roger W. Titus, District Judge. (8:12-

cv-02524-RWT)

Submitted: November 20, 2012 Decided: November 27, 2012

Before TRAXLER, Chief Judge, and SHEDD and FLOYD, Circuit 

Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Dickinson Norman Adionser, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Dickinson Norman Adionser appeals the district court’s 

order denying relief on his civil complaint filed pursuant to 

the Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. § 552a (2006) and the 

Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2201 (2006). We have 

reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, 

we affirm. Adionser v. United States, No. 8:12-cv-02524-RWT (D. 

Md. Aug. 30, 2012). 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
§ 603.20 Scope. ( a ) Pursuant to section 438(b) of the Higher Education Act of 1965 as amended by Pub. L. 92-318, the Secretary is required to publish a list of State agencies which he determines to be reliable authorities as to the quality of public postsecondary vocational education in their respective States for the purpose of determining eligibility for Federal student assistance programs administered by the Department.
( b ) Approval by a State agency included on the list will provide an alternative means of satisfying statutory standards as to the quality of public postsecondary vocational education to be undertaken by students receiving assistance under such programs.
(Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1087-1(b))
UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA

Richmond Division

IN RE:

LeClairRyan PLLC Case No.: 19-34574-KRH

Chapter 11

Debtor in Possession

OBJECTION OF SUPER-SERVER, LLC 

TO MOTION BY DEBTOR TO ASSUME EXECUTORY CONTRACTS

COMES NOW Super-Server, LLC d/b/a Proxios, by counsel (“Proxios”), and objects 

to the Debtor’s Motion to Assume Certain Executory Contracts [Docket #12]. Proxios has 

requested copies of the Executory Contracts for which the Debtor has sought Court Approval 

and agreed that such contracts could be subject to a protective order if necessary. The Debtor 

has not responded to the request for copies of the Executory Contracts. Without copies of the 

Contracts of which the Debtor seeks approval, no creditor or party in interest can evaluate the 

relief sought by the Debtor. 

In addition, Proxios supports the Motion filed by the U.S. Trustee to convert the case 

to Chapter 7 and for the Chapter 7 Trustee to evaluate the necessity of the services of Ms. 

Thompson and Mr. Lange and how they should be compensated for such services. 

Karen M. Crowley (VSB # 35881)

Joseph T. Liberatore (VSB #32302)

CROWLEY LIBERATORE P.C.

150 Boush Street, Suite 300

Norfolk, VA 23510

Telephone (757) 333-4500

kcrowley@clrbfirm.com

Counsel for Super Server, LLC

Case 19-34574-KRH Doc 88 Filed 09/19/19 Entered 09/19/19 15:23:30 Desc Main

 Document Page 1 of 2
1

WHEREFORE, for the reasons set forth above, Super-Server, LLC d/b/a Proxios 

requests that the Court deny the Motion unless the Executory Contracts are provided to the 

creditors and parties in interest, delay entry of a final order approving the Motion until such 

time as the Chapter 7 Trustee can evaluate the terms and grant it such other and further relief 

as is just. 

Date: September 19, 2019 Respectfully Submitted,

SUPER-SERVER, LLC

/s/ Karen M. Crowley

Of Counsel

Karen M. Crowley (VSB # 35881)

Joseph T. Liberatore (VSB #32302)

CROWLEY LIBERATORE P.C.

150 Boush Street, Suite 300

Norfolk, VA 23510

Telephone (757) 333-4500

kcrowley@clrbfirm.com

Counsel for Super Server, LLC

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing Objection was served on September 19, 

2019, by electronic mail, to those listed on the attached Core Service List with an e-mail address 

and by first class mail upon those listed on the attached Core Service List without an e-mail 

address. 

/s/ Karen M. Crowley

Case 19-34574-KRH Doc 88 Filed 09/19/19 Entered 09/19/19 15:23:30 Desc Main

 Document Page 2 of 2
Document headings vary by document type but may contain
                    the following: the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document
the number of the CFR title and the number of each part
                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly
                      related to
the agency docket number / agency internal file number
the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in
                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory
                      Actions See the
                    Document Drafting Handbook
                    for more details.
 Department of Energy Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
 Project No.Lock+ Hydro Friends Fund XLVII
13743-000FFP Missouri 16, LLC
13753-000Solia 7 Hydroelectric, LLC
13769-000Three Rivers Hydro LLC
13785-000
 
 
 On March 24, 2011, the Commission held a drawing to determine priority among competing preliminary permit applications with identical filing times. In the event that the Commission concludes that none of the applicants' plans are better adapted than the others to develop, conserve, and utilize in the public interest the water resources of the region at issue, the priority established by this drawing will serve as the tiebreaker. Based on the drawing, the order of priority is as follows: Project No.1. FFP Missouri 16, LLC
13753-0002. Lock+ Hydro Friends Fund XLVII
13743-0003. Solia 7 Hydroelectric, LLC
13769-0004. Three Rivers Hydro LLC
13785-000
 Dated: March 25, 2011. Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr., Deputy Secretary.


[FR Doc. 2011-7857 Filed 4-1-11; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Bridget M. McCormack,

 Chief Justice

David F. Viviano,

Chief Justice Pro Tem

Stephen J. Markman

Brian K. Zahra

Richard H. Bernstein

Elizabeth T. Clement

Megan K. Cavanagh,

Justices

I, Larry S. Royster, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

 M 

ay 24, 2019

Order 

Clerk

May 24, 2019

159566(98)

159567

YREVA MUHAMMAD, Personal Representative

of the ESTATE OF ROBERT MUHAMMAD, 

Plaintiff-Appellant,

SC: 159566, 159567

v COA: 341745, 343236

Kent CC: 16-001357-NO

WILLIAM GRESLEY, MATTHEW KAMPS,

SEBASTIEN LEBON, BERTRAND THIBAULT,

MICHAEL CHAMPRENAULT, DANIEL

MOORE, and NICOLAS PELFRENE,

Defendants-Appellees. 

__________________________________________/

On order of the Chief Justice, the motion of defendants-appellees to extend the time 

for filing their answer to the application for leave to appeal is GRANTED. The answer 

will be accepted as timely filed if submitted on or before July 3, 2019.
Exhibit 99.2

                            COLLEGE PARTNERSHIP, INC.

                                  CERTIFICATION

     In connection with the periodic report of College Partnership, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ended April 30, 2003, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission (the "Report"), I, John J. Grace, Chief
Financial Officer of the Company, hereby certify as of the date hereof, solely
for purposes of Title 18, Chapter 63, Section 1350 of the United States Code,
that to the best of my knowledge:

     (1) the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
15(d), as applicable, 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 at the dates and for the periods indicated.




Date: June 16, 2003                          /s/  John J. Grace
                                             -----------------------------------
                                                  John J. Grace
                                                  Chief Financial Officer
CENTRAL VALLEY OPERATIONS OFFICE

DELTA SMELT AND SPLITTAIL

January-09

Note: Bold numbers are not verified by DFG Preliminary Data - Subject to Change

Delta Smelt Splittail Longfin Pumping

Daily Total Daily Total

Daily Combined Daily Combined Daily In CFS In Acre Feet

DATE Total Daily 14-Day Total Daily 14-Day Total

SWP CVP Total Average SWP CVP Total Average SWP Larval Yor N CVP Larval Yor N

1-Jan-09 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2,985 2,796 5,781 5,920 5,546 11

2-Jan-09 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2,872 2,806 5,677 5,696 5,565 11

3-Jan-09 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2,908 2,831 5,740 5,769 5,616 11

4-Jan-09 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2,397 2,806 5,203 4,754 5,566 10

5-Jan-09 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2,191 2,826 5,016 4,345 5,605 9

6-Jan-09 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3,090 2,808 5,898 6,129 5,570 11

7-Jan-09 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2,471 2,830 5,301 4,901 5,613 10

8-Jan-09 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2,474 2,843 5,317 4,907 5,639 10

9-Jan-09 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2,384 2,171 4,555 4,728 4,306 9

10-Jan-09 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2,044 1,903 3,947 4,054 3,774 7

11-Jan-09 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1,943 1,902 3,845 3,854 3,772 7

12-Jan-09 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1,989 1,893 3,882 3,945 3,754 7

13-Jan-09 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2,299 1,898 4,197 4,561 3,764 8

14-Jan-09 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2,288 1,892 4,180 4,539 3,753 8

15-Jan-09 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2,454 1,895 4,349 4,868 3,759 8

16-Jan-09 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2,480 1,884 4,363 4,919 3,736 8

17-Jan-09 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2,482 1,888 4,370 4,923 3,745 8

18-Jan-09 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2,483 1,883 4,366 4,925 3,734 8

19-Jan-09 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2,434 1,888 4,322 4,828 3,744 8

20-Jan-09 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2,472 1,908 4,380 4,904 3,784 8

21-Jan-09 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1,984 1,272 3,256 3,935 2,523 6

22-Jan-09 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2,536 1,002 3,538 5,031 1,987 7

23-Jan-09 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2,601 1,004 3,605 5,159 1,991 7

24-Jan-09 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2,414 1,643 4,057 4,789 3,258 8

25-Jan-09 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2,446 1,930 4,376 4,852 3,828 8

26-Jan-09 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2,465 1,912 4,377 4,890 3,792 8

27-Jan-09 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2,512 1,912 4,424 4,982 3,793 8

28-Jan-09 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2,505 2,455 4,960 4,968 4,870 9

29-Jan-09 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2,521 2,674 5,194 5,000 5,303 10

30-Jan-09 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1,861 1,892 3,753 3,692 3,752 7

31-Jan-09 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1,253 994 2,247 2,485 1,972 4

Total 0 0 0 XXXX 0 0 0 XXXX 0 0 74,238 64,237 138,475 147,252 127,414 274

Banks Tracy Combined Banks Tracy Comb