Infeasibility. In the event that Business Associate determines in its sole reasonable discretion that returning or destroying the Practice PHI is infeasible, Business Associate shall extend the protections of this Addendum A to such PHI and limit further uses and disclosures of Practice PHI to those purposes that make the return or destruction infeasible, for so long as Business Associate maintains Practice PHI. Without limiting the generality of the foregoing, Covered Entity acknowledges and agrees that: (i) it is infeasible for Business Associate to delete Practice PHI from its backup tapes or other backup systems; and (ii) it is infeasible for Business Associate to delete all Practice PHI during an ongoing investigation in connection with a Security Incident or Breach of Unsecured PHI, and that temporarily retaining certain Practice PHI may be necessary for such investigation.
Infeasibility. (a) In accordance with 24 C.F.R. Part 92 Section 301(a)(3), the County may, in its sole discretion, determine that impediments to the construction of the Development exist that are beyond the reasonable control of Borrower (such act, a determination of “Infeasibility”). The County may make a determination of Infeasibility upon the occurrence of any of the following conditions:
Infeasibility. An otherwise valid contract can be canceled if it is not possible to perform. Certain personal services contracts, for example, depend on the unique capabilities of one person which cannot be substituted by someone else. If such a person dies or is sufficiently disabled, the contract is cancelable.
Infeasibility. If the parties find the project to be infeasible for reasons not limited to insoluble physical problems, excessive cost (the reasonable anticipated project costs exceed the funding commitments of the parties at the end of the final design period or after the construction-bid process), or intractable permit problems, CAW will be released from its obligations under the (future) project agreement(s), and the other parties may withdraw from that agreement or those agreements as well. In that case, CAW may pursue other options to address the concerns of DSOD, subject to all Exhibit 6: Memorandum of Understanding regarding Dam Removal and Conveyance of Real Property, San Clemente Dam, Carmel River, Monterey County, California Exhibit 6: Memorandum of Understanding regarding Dam Removal and Conveyance of Real Property, San Clemente Dam, Carmel River, Monterey County, California Exhibit 6: Memorandum of Understanding regarding Dam Removal and Conveyance of Real Property, San Clemente Dam, Carmel River, Monterey County, California Exhibit A Diagram of real property owned by CAW MOU: Removal of San Clemente Dam Exhibit B Real Property to Be Conveyed by CAW Summary Description The parcels of land owned by California American Water that are proposed to be transferred as part of the San Clemente Dam By-Pass Project have a total area of approximately 928 acres. There are a total of four parcels, and they generally include the area proximate to San Clemente Dam, as well as land bordering the Carmel River upstream (or south ) of San Clemente Dam. The parcels are also generally contiguous. The first parcel (Parcel # 1) is identified as APN 417051004000, and has an approximate area of 409.3 acres. This parcel is generally located to the northwest and west of San Clemente Dam, and includes a portion of the San Clemente Creek drainage area. The second parcel (Parcel # 2) is identified as APN 417051005000, and has an approximate area of 295.0 acres. This parcel is located immediately east of Parcel # 1 (described above), and includes the actual dam, the reservoir area, and generally land that is located slightly northeast of San Clemente Dam. The third parcel (Parcel # 3) is identified as APN 417051011000, and has an approximate area of 179.4 acres. This parcel is immediately south of Parcel # 1 (described above), and is generally located west of the Carmel River. This parcel’s northern boundary adjoins the southern boundary of Parcel # 1. The fourth parcel (Parcel # 4) is ide...
Infeasibility. Notwithstanding Section 8.2.1, if reconstruction of the Leasehold Improvements following any casualty is physically infeasible because of physical conditions of the Property, or if the City or any other
Infeasibility. If the Parties mutually agree that the Project is no longer feasible or otherwise mutually determine not to proceed with the Project, then the Parties shall cooperate and use all reasonable efforts to terminate any contracts to which the Project LLC is a party or by which it may be bound, to mitigate any damages or liabilities of the Project LLC, and to salvage any assets held or owned by the Project LLC, provided that the net amounts received by the Project LLC or the Parties in connection with such efforts shall be applied first to repay any outstanding Allegheny Advances and if no such Advances are outstanding, distributed to the Parties equally.
Infeasibility. In the 2012 to 2013 planning period PJM was required, per the PJM OATT
Infeasibility. Upon termination of this Agreement for any reason, the DCC will identify, and the DCC will ensure that Data Users identify, any Data and Query Results from DATA OWNER, including any that the DCC and/or Data User(s) have disclosed to subcontractors or agents, that cannot feasibly be returned to DATA OWNER or destroyed and the DCC will explain, and the DCC will require Data User(s) to explain, why return or destruction is infeasible. Where DATA OWNER agrees that such return or destruction is infeasible, the DCC will limit and ensure that Data User(s) limit, their further Use or Disclosure of such information to those purposes that make return or destruction of such information infeasible (such as an ongoing research project). The DCC will not include DATA OWNER’s Data in any further research initiatives, and the DCC shall prohibit Data Users from doing the same. The DCC will, by its written contracts with any subcontractor or agent to which the DCC discloses DATA OWNER’s Data, require such subcontractor or agent to limit its further use or disclosure of DATA OWNER’s Data that such subcontractor or agent cannot feasibly return or destroy to those purposes that make the return or destruction of such information infeasible. The DCC will complete these obligations as promptly as possible, but not later than forty-five (45) days following the effective date of the termination or other conclusion of the Agreement. The DCC will ensure Data Users’ compliance with the obligations of this Subsection 6.e.
Infeasibility. A solution can be infeasible if the load of the tours exceed the vehicles capacity. To move the search to other neighborhoods, exploring the infeasible region is allowed. The parameter δ is used to control the behavior when infeasible. Two strategies have been implemented for this. The parameter α gives the weight of infeasibility in the move evaluation function. The two di erent strategies implemented concerns the way this parameter is adjusted during the search. Xxxxxxx et al. (2001) propose a geometrical adjustment of α where α is multiplied or divided with the value of δ. For this thesis, δ has been extended with separate values denoted δ+ and δ−. Oppen and L kketangen (2006) use an arithmetical adjustment where the value of δ+ is added and δ− is subtracted to/from the current value of α. Using di erent values for δ+ and δ− could help the α being more rapidly decreased than increased, meaning that it will guide the search quickly out of the infeasible region. Test results show that the approach proposed by Xxxxxxx et al. (2001) works best for both solvers. For the CVRP solver, testing also shows that when using two di erent values for the adjustment of α, the best values for δ+ and δ− is found to be 1.5 and 5. The best initial value of α has proven to be α = 10. For the TDVRP solver these values are δ+ = 1.02, δ− = 1.5 and initial value α = 5.
Infeasibility. Paragraph 20 of Amendment #4 is hereby deleted in its entirety and replaced as follows: Except in the event of a substantial and material finance crisis, the City, the Agency and the Redeveloper hereby agree that notwithstanding the provisions of Article XVI of the LDA, the Redeveloper may not be relieved of any obligation to perform under the LDA as modified by this Amendment #5. The Project shall at all times remain Mixed Use, which term shall have the same meaning set forth in the Urban Renewal Plan, which for the avoidance of doubt, means a project that incorporates a Public Realm component, as set forth in the Urban Renewal Plan, and one other use of either retail, hotel, office, or residential. The provisions of this Section 20 shall be subject to Section 18.13 (Force Majeure) of the LDA.
