Table 1a Sample Clauses

Table 1a. Allocation of Commonwealth supported places for designated courses of study for 20141 Cluster No. Funding cluster Number of designated undergraduate places (excluding medical places) for 2014 grant year (EFTSL)2 Number of undergraduate medical places for 2014 grant year (EFTSL) Number of non- research postgraduate places (excluding medical places) for 2014 grant year (EFTSL)3 Number of postgraduate medical places for 2014 grant year (EFTSL) Total number of Commonwealth supported places for 2014 grant year (EFTSL)

Table 1a. Summary of Significant Intercept Drill-hole Collars and Survey information Drill Hole ID Drill Type Prospect Easting (m) Northing (m) Azimuth (deg) Dip (deg) RL (m) Total Depth (m) Assays Table 1b: Summary of Significant Intercept Drill-hole Assays Drill Hole ID From (m) To (m) Interval (m) Au (g/t) Drill Hole ID From (m) To (m) Interval (m) Au (g/t) Annexure D Tenement Schedule Table 1c: Summary of acquisition tenements Tenement Status Grant Expiry Expenditure Rent

Table 1a. Emissions limits for the Type 1 test which apply to the emissions from the 4 phases of a WLTP test Reference mass (RM) (kg) Limit values Mass of carbon monoxide (CO) Mass of total hydrocarbons (THC) Mass of non- methane hydrocarbons (NMHC) Mass of oxides of nitrogen (NOx) Combined mass of hydrocarbons and oxides of nitrogen (THC + NOx) Mass of particulate matter (PM) Particle Number (PN) L1 (mg/km) L2 (mg/km) L3 (mg/km) L4 (mg/km) L2 + L4 (mg/km) L5 (mg/km) L6 (#/km) Category Class PI CI PI CI PI CI PI CI PI CI PI1 CI PI1, CI M ² All 1,000 500 100 ² 68 ² 60 80 ² 170 4.5 4.5 6.0 × 1011 6.0 × 1011 N1 I 50 ” 1,000 500 100 ² 68 ² 60 80 ² 170 4.5 4.5 6.0 × 1011 6.0 × 1011 II 5 1,810 630 130 ² 90 ² 75 105 ² 195 4.5 4.5 6.0 × 1011 6.0 × 1011 III 1,760 < RM 2,270 740 160 ² 108 ² 82 125 ² 215 4.5 4.5 6.0 × 1011 6.0 × 1011 N2 ² All 2,270 740 160 ² 108 ² 82 125 ² 215 4.5 4.5 6.0 × 1011 6.0 × 1011 PI Positive Ignition CI Compression Ignition 1 Positive ignition particulate mass and number limits shall apply only to vehicles with direct injection engines.

Table 1a. Characteristics of Colorectal Cancer Screening-­‐ Eligible Domain* (Weighted) Characteristics Total sample n=1,735 Ever Screened n=1,157 Never Screened n=539 p-­‐value n (%) or M (se) n (%) or M (se) n (%) or M (se) ExposurePsychological Xxxxxxxx 0.000 Xxxx 0000 (64.37) 782 (67.65) 331 (58.51) Any 472 (28.74) 293 (25.07) 169 (35.75) Age (cont.) 62.97 (0.15) 64.12 (0.31) 60.45 (0.50) 0.051 Gender 0.872 Male 703 (45.19) 477 (45.50) 213 (44.93) Female 1001 (53.35) 669 (53.55) 320 (54.18) Race/Ethnicity 0.789 Hispanic 197 (9.62) 116 (9.05) 79 (11.09) Non Hispanic White 1016 (67.07) 697 (68.61) 303 (65.84) Non Hispanic Black 233 (7.58) 157 (7.67) 68 (7.25) Non Hispanic Other 86 (3.93) 59 (3.79) 25 (3.48) Education <0.001 Less than High School 205 (15.87) 121 (13.46) 78 (19.49) High School Graduate 437 (24.43) 278 (22.14) 144 (29.47) Some College 488 (33.29) 315 (34.07) 161 (31.77) College Graduate or More 590 (25.85) 434 (29.72) 150 (18.80) Household Income <0.001 Less than $20,000 411 (20.23) 225 (16.02) 177 (28.93) $20,000 to <$50,000 455 (25.36) 304 (24.26) 138 (26.40) $50,000 to <$75,000 230 (14.17) 158 (14.53) 68 (13.89) $75,000 or More 385 (26.55) 293 (31.46) 85 (16.78) Occupation Status 0.001 Employed 721 (43.88) 440 (40.04) 265 (51.33) Unemployed 103 (5.12) 52 (4.75) 49 (6.09) Other (retired, disabled, homemaker, student, other) 877 (48.98) 643 (53.23) 213 (40.36) Marital Status 0.214 Married or living as married 874 (63.26) 607 (65.28) 251 (58.93) Divorced or Separated 374 (13.74) 239 (13.72) 125 (13.71) Widowed 268 (12.18) 174 (10.57) 86 (15.33) Single, never married 195 (9.85) 120 (9.33) 70 (11.28) Note. Due to missing data, the percentages may not add up to 100 percent *Colorectal cancer screening-­‐ eligible domain included respondents 50 years or older with no previous diagnosis of cancer Table 1a. Characteristics of Colorectal Cancer Screening-­‐ Eligible Domain* (Weighted), continued Characteristics Total sample n=1,735 Ever Screened n=1,157 Never Screened n=539 p-­‐value n (%) or M (se) n (%) or M (se) n (%) or M (se) Health Related VariablesRegular Healthcare Provider <0.001 Yes 1267 (74.00) 918 (80.18) 326 (62.21) No 435 (24.61) 216 (18.32) 203 (36.53) Healthcare Insurance 0.001 Yes 1481 (85.05) 1042 (88.79) 406 (77.11) No 230 (13.77) 98 (9.88) 128 (22.18) Self Rating of Health 0.049 Very good or excellent 718 (41.30) 505 (43.62) 198 (36.28) Good, fair, or poor 965 (55.88) 615 (53.36) 329 (61.52) Comorbidities (cont.) 1.66 (0.05) 1.74 (0.05) ...

Table 1a. Adapted XxxXXX table of sectors and activities in your SMA.

Table 1a. Geographical distribution of the Lesser Flamingo ……………………………………….. 4 Figure 1. Distribution Map …………………………………………………………………………. 5

Table 1a. World Bank, “Benefits, Costs, Net Benefits, and Rates of Return 145 on the End of Selected NTDs, Best Estimates Table 2A. Results-Based Financing Approaches and Key Characteristics 146 Table 3A. List of Impact Bond Working Group Members as of July 2018 147

Table 1a. Required Analyses for Fiscal year 2012-2013 (July 1, 2012 – June 30, 2013) Table 1B – Required Analyses for Fiscal year 2013-2014 (July 1, 2013 – June 30, 2014) Table 1C – Required Analyses for Fiscal year 2014-2015 (July 1, 2014 – June 30, 2015) Table 2 – Organics List for Yolo County Central Landfill Attachment A Sample Agreement Attachment B Monitoring Reporting Program, selected pages Attachment C County’s current required EDD format Attachment D Cost Proposal Form CATEGORY COMPOUND ANALYTICAL METHOD 1 GDS TOTAL LAND- FILL BIO- REACTOR STORM WATER DOMESTIC WELL Septic Residuals NO. OF ANALYSES Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs) 2 8260B 12 126 3 0 0 0 141 Secondary Organic Compounds (SOCs) 3 500 Series 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 COC Organics Semivolatile Organic Compounds 3 8270C 0 12 3 0 0 0 15 Organophosphorus Compounds 3 8141A 0 12 3 0 0 0 15 Chlorinated Herbicides 3 8151A 0 12 3 0 0 0 15 Misc. Metals Dissolved Boron 4 6010B 26 0 0 0 0 0 26 Dissolved Chromium (VI) 4 7196A 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Inorganics Ammonia 350.1 0 118 3 0 0 0 121 Bicarbonate 2320B 2 118 3 0 1 0 124 Carbonate 2320B 0 34 3 0 1 0 38 Chemical Oxygen Demand 410.4 0 6 3 0 0 0 9 Chloride 300.0A 2 118 3 0 1 0 124 Nitrate (as Nitrogen) 300.0A 2 118 3 0 1 0 124 Sulfate 300.0A 2 118 3 0 1 0 124 Sulfide 9030 1 17 3 0 0 0 21 Total Alkalinity 2320B 0 118 3 0 1 0 122 Total Dissolved Solids 160.1 22 118 3 0 1 0 144 Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen 351.2 0 113 3 0 0 0 116 CATEGORY COMPOUND ANALYTICAL METHOD 1 GDS TOTAL LAND- FILL BIO- REACTOR STORM WATER DOMESTIC WELL Septic Residuals NO. OF ANALYSES Total Organic Carbon 9060 0 0 3 10 0 0 13 Total Sulfide 376.2 1 0 3 0 0 0 4 SOIL - Inorganics pH - soil sample 4500A 3 0 0 0 0 0 3 LANDFILL GAS Volatile Organic Compounds - see Table 2 EPA 2 to 15 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 XXX = Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons COC = Constituents of Concern WDRs = Waste Discharge Requirements MRP = Monitoring and Reporting Program 1 = These methods or their equivalents should be used as specified for solid waste water quality monitoring methods.

Table 1a. Data Summary Part A Θ Wfuel MCave Qin Qout Category Run No Load % Capacity Target Load Actual Load Actual Load Test Duration Wood Weight as-fired Wood Moisture Heat Input Heat Output Btu/hr Btu/hr % of max hrs lb % DB Btu Btu I < 15% of xxx XX 16-24% of max III 25-50% of xxx XX Max capacity Table 1B. Data Summary Part B T2 Min ET E E Eg/hr Eg/kg ηdel ηSLM Category Run No Load % Capacity Min Return Water Temp. Total PM Emissions PM Output Based PM Output Based PM Rate PM Factor Delivered Efficiency Stack Loss Efficiency °F g lbs/MMBtu Out g/MJ g/hr g/kg % % I < 15% of xxx XX 16-24% of max III 25-50% of xxx XX Max capacity MANUFACTURER: MODEL NUMBER: 8-HOUR OUTPUT RATING: Qout-8hr Btu/hr 8-HOUR AVERAGE EFFICIENCY: ηavg-8hr (Using higher heating value) (Using lower heating value) ANNUAL EFFICIENCY RATING: ηavg (Using higher heating value) (Using lower heating value) PARTICLE EMISSIONS: Eavg GRAMS/HR (average) LBS/MILLION Btu OUTPUT Table 2. Year Round Use Weighting Category Weighting Factor (Fi) ηdel,i x Fi Eg/MJ,i x Fi Eg/kg,i x Fi Eslbs/MMBtu Out,i x Fi Eg/hr,i x Fi I 0.437 II 0.238 IV 0.050 Totals 1.000 Figure 2. Schematic of Test Equipment Set-up Note: Illustrated appliance pump location and flow path through the appliance are generic and may vary based on the unit being tested.

Table 1a. Indicative list of packaging materials and categories referred to in Article 6 Plastic PET rigid cat 7, 8 PE rigid, PP rigid, HDPE and PP rigid cat 10, 12, 14 Films/flexible cat 9, 11, 13, 18 PS, XPS, EPS cat 15, 16 Other rigid plastics cat 17 Biodegradable (rigid and flexible) cat 19 Paper/cardboard Paper/cardboard (except liquid packaging board) cat 2, 3 Liquid packaging board cat 3 Metal Aluminium cat 5, 6 Steel cat 4 Glass Glass cat 1 Wood Wood, cork cat 20 Others Textile, ceramics/porcelain and others cat 21, 22 Table 2: Recyclability performance grades Packaging recyclability shall be expressed in the performance grades A, B or C. From 2030, recyclability performance is based on Design for Recycling criteria. The Design for Recycling criteria shall ensure the circularity of the use of the resulting secondary raw materials of sufficient quality to substitute the primary raw materials. The assessment based on Design for Recycling criteria shall be carried out per each packaging category listed in Table 1 of Annex II, taking into account the methodology established under paragraphs 4 of Article 6, and the related delegated acts, as well as the parameters established in Table 2a of Xxxxx XX. After weighing the criteria per packaging unit, it will be classified into categories A, B or C. When a packaging unit’s recyclability performance grade is below 70%, it is considered to be non-compliant with the recyclability performance grades and therefore the packaging will be considered technically non-recyclable, and its placing on the market should be restricted. From 2035, a new factor shall be added to the assessment of the packaging recyclability, which is the “recycled at scale” assessment. Consequently, a new assessment will be carried out based on the quantity (weight) of the material effectively recycled from each of the packaging categories according to the methodology established in the implementing acts adopted under paragraph 6 of Article 6. The thresholds related to the annual recycled packaging materials for compliance with the recycled at scale assessment shall be defined taking into account the target set in Article 3(1)(32). Grade A higher or equal to 95 % Grade A higher or equal to 95 % Grade A RaS Grade A higher or equal to 95 % Grade A RaS Grade B higher or equal to 80% Grade B higher or equal to 80 % Grade B RaS Grade B higher or equal to 80 % Grade B RaS Grade C higher or equal to 70% Grade C higher or equal to 70% Grade C RaS Grade C CANN...