Disaggregation. (i) Except as permitted by Section 7.02(b) hereof, preserve and maintain its existence, corporate or otherwise, material rights (statutory and otherwise) and franchises except where the failure to maintain and preserve such rights and franchises would not materially adversely affect the financial condition, properties, prospects or operations of such Borrower.
Disaggregation how reporting of the target will be broken down and measured by groups of Aboriginal and Xxxxxx Xxxxxx Islander people (for example males/females, or geographical areas). This allows us to understand where progress is being made and where greater effort is needed.
Disaggregation. In line with the classifications stipulated above, survey results can be disaggregated according to these general classes of institutions: • Type / Domain of institution / organisation: museum, library, etc. • Total annual budget of institution / organisation: <€10,000; €10,000-50,000, etc. • For international analysis/comparison purposes: Country where the institution is located.
Disaggregation. 2012-13 — State and territory by: remoteness (Australian Statistical Geography Standard (ASGS) Remoteness Structure). size of residential aged care facility (places). Some disaggregations may result in numbers too small for publication. Comments: Most recent data available for the 2014 Council of Australian Governments (COAG) Reform Council (CRC) report: 2012-13. Commencing services receive accreditation for one year in the first instance, and are excluded from consideration until their first re-accreditation occurs. Re-accreditation is provided for a period up to three years. Three year re- accreditation indicates that the facility: meets all or almost all 44 expected outcomes and/or does not have any failure to meet the standards that compromises the health, safety or wellbeing of the residents; has satisfied the Accreditation Agency that it will rectify any identified failure to meet the Accreditation Standards in a short timeframe; is not in breach of any other significant obligations under the Aged Care Act 1997 notified to the Accreditation Agency by the Department of Health and Ageing; and has satisfied the Accreditation Agency that it undertakes continuous improvement. Summary national and state/territory data appear in the annual report of the Aged Care Standards and Accreditation Agency and are also published in the annual Report on Government Services. Representational attributes Representation class: Percentage Data type: Real Unit of measure: Person Accountability attributes Reporting requirements: National Healthcare Agreement Organisation responsible for providing data: Department of Health and Ageing Source and reference attributes Relational attributes Related metadata references: Supersedes National Healthcare Agreement: PI 28-Proportion of residential aged care services that are three year re-accredited, 2013 Health, Superseded 30/04/2014 Has been superseded by National Healthcare Agreement: PI 28-Proportion of residential aged care services that are three year re-accredited, 2015
Disaggregation. An important provision for the objectives of SHARE is that given in EN 1998-1 3.2.21 (5), which relates to the controlling earthquake scenario for a given hazard level at a site. “When the earthquakes affecting the shape of the site are generated by widely differing sources, the possibility of using more than one shape of spectra should be considered to enable the design action to be adequately represented. In such circumstances, different values of ag will normally be required for each type of spectrum and earthquake” (EN 1998-1 3.2.2.1 (5)). Compliance with this provision clearly indicates the need for a means of identifying the controlling earthquake scenario or scenarios for a site. The most common means of achieving this is via disaggregation, possibly implemented as an online web database in the manner of USGS (2008) and INGV (2009). There is certainly a degree of criticism that can be levelled at the EN 1998-1 representation of the elastic response spectrum, and the anchoring to PGA. Whilst the introduction of a two- spectrum system does, in a crude manner, allow the code to accommodate differences between smaller and large magnitude events, this introduces another problem. Selection of the Type 1 or Type 2 spectrum is made on the basis of MS, where MS is the surface-wave magnitude of the controlling earthquake scenario. As such, for the code to be effectively implemented it is necessary to know the controlling earthquake scenario. Whilst simple in concept, this information may not be easy to constrain when mapping hazard over a region as large as Europe. The absence of clear provisions for obtaining the controlling earthquake scenario is common to all design codes. This may, in part, be a deliberate approach to allow a designer scope to use their judgement as to how an appropriate controlling scenario is defined. There may be precedent for defining the controlling earthquake as the maximum earthquake considered possible within a source region, the characteristic earthquake or perhaps a large historical event. An alternative approach, and one that has become increasingly common amongst seismic hazard analyses, is the use of disaggregation. This methodology, described in more detail shortly, closely reconciles the scenario earthquake with the probabilistic hazard formulation. It does so by considering the contribution of each event (or collection of events within a pre-defined magnitude and distance bin) to the probability of the ground motion at a g...
Disaggregation. Disaggregation of the seismic hazard (XxXxxxx, 1995; Bazzurro & Cornell, 1999), whilst rarely made explicit in seismic design codes, may be an inherent part of the seismic hazard process to meet other key provisions. In particular, specification of the “controlling [scenario] earthquake” is often necessary where provisions are made for the use of acceleration time histories in dynamic structural analysis. This is the case for Eurocode where controlling earthquake scenarios are required to define the type 1 (MS > 5) or type 2 (MS ≤ 5) spectrum, and also to guide the selection of acceleration time histories in terms of compatible magnitude, distance, fault mechanism and site type. The adoption of disaggregation output within seismic code provisions presents several challenges. The first challenge is that of disseminating the output. Hazard disaggregation typically presents the controlling earthquake in terms of a magnitude-distance-ε triple, where ε represents the number of standard deviations above the median ground motion. This information may be supplied by mapping each element (M, R and ε) separately, yet this approach is unwieldy and omits information about the probability distribution of each element, which may be of interest to engineers. A more transparent approach is the dissemination of the full disaggregation output using a web application, in the manner currently implemented via the scenario calculator compiled by United States Geological Survey. This allows the user to determine the disaggregation for the site, spectral period and return period of interest, even going so far as to disaggregate the epistemic uncertainty and identify controlling scenario for each ground-motion prediction model. Similar web-based disaggregation calculators have also been developed for Italy (INGV, 2008) and Canada (NBC, 2005). If the full disaggregation is supplied for a location there remains some ambiguity as to how it should be interpreted. For any given set of M-R-ε bins, the controlling earthquake may be taken to be the mean, the median or the modal scenario bin; the latter being relevant for selection of time histories. There is little consensus as to which should be preferred. The situation is complicated further when disaggregations display several modes. In these circumstances the mean or median scenario will not necessarily correspond to the modal bin, and it may be necessary to undertake dynamic analysis for separate scenarios corresponding to each of th...
Disaggregation. Each institution participating in XXXX shall annually report this data to NC-XXXX. The data shall be reported in the spring following the due date for institutions to make their fall enrollment reports to the federal government’s Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS).2 Institutions not participating in federal Title IV student assistance programs, and therefore not reporting to IPEDS, shall nevertheless report this data to NC- XXXX using the same schedule. NC-XXXX shall establish the exact reporting dates each year and will annually publish the NC-XXXX Data Reporting Handbook, providing detailed information. Data reporting for spring 2019 (both surveys) will begin on May 14, 2019 and conclude on June 4, 2019.
Disaggregation. Each report under this subsection shall disaggregate the information relating to households pro- vided under subparagraphs (A) through (F) of paragraph (1)
Disaggregation. Each report under this subsection shall disaggregate the information relating to households provided under subparagraphs (A) through (F) of paragraph (1) by the gender, race, and ethnicity of the primary applicant for assistance in such households.
Disaggregation. Employer may disaggregate a pre-paid contribution into different amounts and retain the same election options with respect to amortization inception dates and amortization periods, for each amount. However, no pre-paid contribution may be disaggregated into amounts less than $100,000.
