Scenario 2. PTC exploits the Programme Intellectual Property on a For-Profit Basis through outlicensing of a Product to a Third Party on a worldwide, exclusive basis prior to Regulatory Approval.
Scenario 2. TOMs applicable to Support and Professional Offerings provided via remote access tools provided and controlled by Siemens.
Scenario 2. As a second example, say you are looking at the same pasture as in Scenario 1, but you have 75 bred Holstein heifers that you want to gain at least 1.75lbs/head/day by calving time in the fall. In order to achieve this rate of gain, it will be necessary to divide the pasture into 30 paddocks with movable electric fencing which you will have to provide. It will also require you to move fences and animals daily. In this scenario, the fencing costs, and time and labor costs will be significant. Someone who doesn’t have the available time, or doesn’t have the necessary fencing supplies on-hand, may decide that it makes more sense to pay someone else to raise the heifers for them. As an alternative to raising them yourself, the landowner offers to raise the heifers for a fee of $2.50/head/day (without offering a guaranteed rate of gain). This cost includes the land rental and the grazing management—the land rental fee equals $1.11 per day (from scenario 1) so the grazing management would be $1.39/head/day. As the owner of the heifers, you’d need to consider whether this is a grazing management cost you can beat by supplying your own subdividing fence materials and labor for daily moves. These scenarios serve to illustrate things that need to be considered in negotiating a pasture lease, including: What is the forage production potential of the pasture; is it composed of diverse and productive grasses and forbs or weedy Kentucky Blue grass? What is the fertility status of the ground and who will be responsible for the additional fertilizer needed? What is the soil type? Is it good loam, or xxxxx and rocky with little water holding capacity? Who will pay for supplemental feed if required in time of drought? What is the water supply and quality in the pasture and the location of the water source? Will different fencing plans work with the water available? What happens if the water supply dries up in late summer? Who is responsible to provide water? The landowner is usually responsible for providing effective perimeter fences. The fencing for subdividing the pasture into multiple paddocks in a more intensive system is usually the renter’s option and responsibility. Whether it is a rental agreement or a true lease, the agreement should be put in writing with the guidance of legal counsel. The agreement should include the names of the parties involved, legal description of the land involved, length of the agreement, pay provisions and all of the other the...
Examples of Scenario 2 in a sentence
This will be updated depending on further RAN1 assessment and RAN2 decision on the time chart Scenario 1: Beam indication before cell switch command Scenario 2: Beam indication together with cell switch command Scenario 3: Beam indication after cell switch command Interested companies are encouraged to further study the validity of the scenarios and the potential spec impact.
Scenario 1 – Upward Trend Scenario 2 – Downward Trend Scenario 3 – Volatile Market Description of Air Bag MechanismThe Certificates integrate an “Air Bag Mechanism” which is designed to reduce exposure to theUnderlying Stock during extreme market conditions.When the Air Bag triggers, a 30-minute period starts.
Scenario 1 – Upward Trend Scenario 2 – Downward Trend Scenario 3 – Volatile Market Description of Air Bag MechanismThe Certificates integrate an “Air Bag Mechanism” which is designed to reduce exposure to the Underlying Stock during extreme market conditions.When the Air Bag triggers, a 30-minute period starts.
Scenario 2 shows the environmental results in case of material recycling considering avoided primary EPS material.
Two cost scenarios are analyzed:• Scenario 1 represents publicly‐owned buildings, considers initial costs, energy costs, maintenance costs, and replacement costs without borrowing or taxes.• Scenario 2 represents privately‐owned buildings and includes the same costs as Scenario 1 plus financing of the incremental first costs through increased borrowing with tax impacts including mortgage interest and depreciation deductions.
More Definitions of Scenario 2
Scenario 2. Cases where a Participating Institution decides to terminate its participation in the SMART IRB Agreement, and the Institution has current ceded Research under the SMART IRB Agreement for which they are the Reviewing IRB or are participating as a Relying Institution.
Scenario 2. If the Final Price is greater than the Cap Price, then: (Floor Price + ((Final Price—Cap Price) * (1—Participation Percentage))) / Final Price
Scenario 2. Large Lookback without LRAs: models the arguments by the COUs that BPA should limit its determinations of reconstructed REP benefits to the analysis, data, assumptions, and methodologies BPA established in the WP-02 case. • Scenario 3 – Large Lookback with LRAs: models a combination of the COUs’ argument that BPA should limit reconstructed REP benefits to the WP-02 rate record assumptions (i.e., $48 million) and the COUs’ argument that the LRAs are invalid and therefore not protectable in the Lookback Amount calculation.
Scenario 2. If the guarantor becomes uncreditworthy for the guarantee, or its credit rating is downgraded to below investment grade by either Xxxxx’x or Standard & Poor’s or Fitch then default could be triggered; provided that the Seller may prevent such trigger by providing another form of credit within ten (10) Business Days. 4.2.9 Efficiency Performance Obligations and Compliance The Efficiency Performance Obligation shall apply as incorporated into the final CHP RFO PPA, and the 60% efficiency in the Optional As-Available PPA. Failure to meet the Efficiency requirement in the CHP PPA throughout the Term shall be, at the Buyer’s election, an Event of Default under the PPA. The failure to meet the annual Efficiency requirement may be determined by the Seller’s report to CARB (CARB GHG Emissions Reduction Report), the Seller’s report to the IOUs pursuant to the CHP QF Compliance Monitoring Program, or other information available to the IOU, such as the loss of a thermal host. If the Seller is out of compliance with the Efficiency Performance Obligation, Buyer shall issue to Seller a written notice of an Efficiency Performance Deficiency. Within three (3) months of its receipt of the notice, Seller will provide Buyer with a plan to cure the Efficiency Performance Deficiency. Buyer shall accept or reject the plan within 30 days of receipt. From the date of written notice from the Buyer of acceptance of the Seller’s cure plan, Seller shall have six (6) months to execute the plan and cure the Efficiency Performance Deficiency. If Xxxxx rejects the cure plan, then Buyer and Seller shall confer to resolve the issues. A Seller meeting these cure provisions shall not incur a default under the PPA. If a Seller fails to provide an adequate showing that it cured the Efficiency Performance Deficiency within the six (6) month cure period, and does not secure a waiver from the IOU, that Seller is subject to the otherwise applicable default provisions in the PPA. Seller may have up to two cure periods during the term of the applicable PPA for no more than two Efficiency Performance Deficiencies. A second cure period is available to Seller only if Seller is able to cure the first Efficiency Performance Deficiency. A third Efficiency Performance Deficiency is, at the election of Buyer, an Event of Default pursuant to section 6.2 of the applicable PPA and there is no applicable cure period.
Scenario 2. One Mobility Group with 9 Participants: Nine Participants on a 14-day Mobility to Austria (Group 2) = £11,844 Request: Add one Participant. Process: This would cost an additional £1,316 in the learner cost of living support category. This would need our approval, as the overall amount for the category will have increased by over 10%, as well as the number of Participants being increased by over 10%. Schools Scenario 1: Project with 200 total Participants. The Organisational Support budget is £4,950. Request: Decrease the Organisational Support budget by £400 to go towards exceptionally expensive travel, which has a budget of £5,000. Process: £400 would decrease the Organisational Support budget by less than 10% and increase the exceptionally expensive travel budget by under 10%, therefore this change would not need our approval.
Scenario 2. Two Mobility Groups with different start months: Mobility Group starting in January 23: 10 Participants on a six-week Mobility to Japan (Group 1) = £8,175 Mobility Group starting in September 22: 10 disadvantaged Participants on a six-week Mobility to Kenya (Group 3) = £8,850 Request: Removing two disadvantaged Participants from the Kenya Mobility Group and adding two disadvantaged Participants to the Japan Mobility Group. Process: The Participant number for both Mobility Groups is affected by more than 10%. This change would need approval. FE/VET Scenario 1: Two Mobility Groups with the same start month: Five Participants on a two-month Mobility to New Zealand (Group 1) = £25,110 Three Participants on a one-month Mobility to Bulgaria (Group 3) = £7, 116 Overall learner cost of living support budget for the Mobility Group start month: £25,110 + £7,116 = £32,226 Request: Increase the duration of the New Zealand Mobility by one week. Process: Five Participants for an additional week would cost an additional £2,660 – this change can be made without approval as it is less than 10% of the overall learner cost of living support Grant for this Mobility Group start month.
Scenario 2. 68 Year Old Joint Covered Person with a 63 Year Old Spouse 10YR Rate = 6.0% Benefit Base = $80,000 10 YR (6.0%) x Age Adjustment [(.70)] x .90 = 3.78% XXX = $3,024 ($80,000 x 3.78%)