Table 5 definition
Table 5. FSR Submission Schedule
Table 5. Top Five Government or Education Customers Line Item 24. Provide a list of your top five government, education, or non-profit customers (entity name is optional), including entity type, the state or province the entity is located in, scope of the project(s), size of transaction(s), and dollar volumes from the past three years. Entity Name Entity Type * State / Province * Scope of Work * Size of Transactions * Dollar Volume Past Three Years *
Table 5. Core HIA Process: Boundaries and Interfaces with Councils Activity Shared Service Councils
Examples of Table 5 in a sentence
Subscription Services are provided for Red Hat Enterprise Virtualization only when used for its supported Use Case in accordance with the terms of this Exhibit and Table 5 below.
The interchange percentage for each NY-NJ PAR is listed in Table 5.
The remaining in-service NY-NJ PARs will continue to be assigned the interchange percentages specified in Table 5.
The MW value of the telemetered real-time Rockland Electric Company Load to be delivered over a NY-NJ PAR shall be calculated as real-time RECo Load times the RECo Load percentage listed in Table 5.
The University must obtain the Commonwealth’s prior written approval if the University proposes to enrol Commonwealth supported students in a course of study that is, or is to be undertaken, primarily at an educational facility, other than one of the University campuses listed below in Table 4 or approved educational facilities listed below in Table 5.
More Definitions of Table 5
Table 5. Wilcoxon Rank Test and Sign Test. Wilcoxon Rank Test Sign Test ORS Element Wilcoxon p-value Ho: p value observed ≤ interview Ho: p value collected ≥ interview Crawling 1.00 0.66 0.66 Crouching 0.86 0.50 0.59 Kneeling 0.08 0.97 0.05 Stooping <.01 <.01 1.00 Reaching overhead 0.57 0.81 0.25 Reaching At/Below Shoulder Level <.01 <.01 1.00 Communicating Verbally 0.07 0.95 0.07 Keyboarding 0.78 0.68 0.44 Keyboarding- Touchscreen 0.56 0.35 0.79 Keyboarding- 10key 0.41 0.29 0.87 Keyboarding- Other 0.01 <.01 1.00 Fine Manipulation <.01 <.01 1.00 Gross Manipulation <.01 <.01 1.00 Pushing/Pulling with Hands and Arms <.01 <.01 1.00 Pushing/Pulling with Feet and Legs 0.21 0.22 0.84 Pushing/Pulling with Feet 0.02 0.02 1.00 Climbing Ramps/Stairs 0.07 0.98 0.05 Climbing Ladders/Ropes/Scaffolding 0.14 0.96 0.21 The variables with longer duration associated with observation are stooping, reaching at or below the shoulder, other keyboarding, fine manipulation, gross manipulation, pushing and/or pulling with hands and arms, and pushing and pulling with feet. When we measure the modes of these elements, only one shows a difference in mode between the collected and observed values – reaching at or below the shoulder. The value of the mode for this element is occasionally (2% up to one-third of the day) in the interview data and constantly in the job observation data (two- thirds or more of the day). We noted earlier that missing duration was identified as an issue with ORS pre-production. In the case of reaching at or below the shoulder, 53 of the job observation duration measures were unable to be compared with interview duration data due to missing duration. It is notable that among the 53 missing quotes in pre-production, the job observation test recorded durations of frequently or constantly in 64% of the quotes. This is a common pattern among those elements where the sign test rejected the null of observation duration equal or below pre-production – the missing data in pre-production align with observed durations above the median and mode. From this, it appears that the “underestimate” of duration from the interview data is due to the missing duration being more likely to correlate with long duration observed. As a counter-example, 46 observed quotes had reaching overhead categorized as present with unknown duration in pre-production and only one of these was classified as frequently or constantly in the observation test.
Table 5. The energy supply of Orkney Supply Capacity/ quantity Production Notes Wind onshore 48.3 MW 149.7 GWh [18], EnergyPLAN [1] PV 1.3 MW 1.2 GWh [18], [22] Transmission line / Import 40 MW 10.8 GWh [1], [18] Solar (thermal) collectors 150 m2 0.05 GWh Estimation, [10] Biomass > 500 t 2.0 GWh Estimation, [18] Oil (for heating and transport) > 48 kt 598.8 GWh EnergyPLAN output Natural Gas > 7 kt 71.5 GWh EnergyPLAN output Coal > 3 kt 21.1 GWh [18], [21] As presented in Table 5, the total share of renewable sources in the primary energy supply reaches 17%. While the wind power production is good on Orkney, the transport and heating sector still rely on other fuels, such as oils. For the hourly simulation in EnergyPLAN, the wind and solar productions are specified by their distribution profiles throughout the whole year with a one hour temporal resolution – here the reference year 2014. The following figures present these distribution profiles for wind power, PV power and solar thermal production. Since no measured production data is available, the distribution of the electricity production from wind and PV is modelled with a renewable energy simulation website [7], [8], resulting in Figure 12 and Figure 13. For the profile of wind power production, the turbine type Enercon E44 is used for modelling, as it is also a type common on Orkney. Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Figure 12: Wind energy production simulation for 2014 for Orkney [8] Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
Table 5. Survey Details What Who involved When Comment Survey on responses to recommendations from across the HBP DGWG, SPs working with data in different ways (5, 8, 11), ethics management SP12 Completed March 2017 This serves to orient the action plan in the status quo
Table 5 simplified chart about timing of activities 1 18 36 48 WP1 WP3 ( m) WP2 (Coordinated access of facilities: accreditation of users and selection of projects) WP5 (30 training courses offered during project to enhance the capabilities of our community) WP6 WP10 to WP7 WP19 (Prepare opening) (Opening: transnational access, 1200 days of acce s in total) WP20 to WP25 (Joint research to improv facilities; incorporated into facil ties for second batch of visitors or last year of on-line access) (Opening of the 4 new datasets to transnational access at end of period) WP8 WP9 (Develop harmonisation between datasets (2 layers of introduction of harmonised categories) Thematic integration of datasets conducted and opened at end of period For transnational access WP4 (Supp in the community about RISIS use and results) (Interactions with policymakers about RISIS developments)
Table 5. Study CMEK162B2301, Part 1: Overall survival interim results (cut-off date: 7 November 2017) Encorafenib + binimetinib n = 192 (Combo 450) Encorafenib n = 194 (Enco 300) Vemurafenib n = 191 (Vem) OS Figure 2 Study CMEK162B2301, Part 1: ▇▇▇▇▇▇-▇▇▇▇▇ plot of interim overall survival (cut-off date: 7 November 2017)
Table 5. Minimum HydroStraw® All In 1 Technology Bonded Fiber Matrix Application Rates Poor Soil Conditions 4,000 – 6,000 4,500 – 6,725
Table 5. Unit Operating Status Mapped to Codes and Descriptions in EIS Facility Widget Unit Operating Status EIS Operating Status Code EIS Description Planned Under Construction Operating OP Operating Seasonal OP Operating Temporarily Closed TS Temporarily Shutdown Permanently Closed PS Permanently Shutdown 4 Release Points Release points are entities located at a facility that release emissions to the environment. Release points are generally categorized as “stack” and “fugitive” releases, and there several types within those two general categories. Despite the name, release points are not all represented by a single point in space. Some fugitive release point types have attributes to describe their width, length, height, and orientation in the horizontal plane. Different release point types have different parameters. In this section, we include separate tables to provide definitions and mapping between FRS/CEDRI and EIS. Table 6 provides the definition and cross- walk to the EIS for the two release point fields that are needed for all release point types. Table 6: Release Point fields in the Facility Widget Shared by All Release Point Types, Definitions, and Associated EIS Data Field Names