Sample Calculations. Size employment/appointment size (in hours) Full-time actual working week & pro rata (in hours) Overall vacation- leave (in hours) excluding age-hours Mandatory vacation (in hours) Freely employable hours 38 40 338 130 208 34.2 36 304.2 117 187 30.4 32 270.4 104 166 19 20 169 65 104 Application week-variant: An employee who chooses an actual working week of 36 hours (each week 4 9-hour working days or alternates one week 4 8-hour days and the other week 5 8-hour days) and 38 hours of employment, should annually write off 52 x 4 = 208 hours (i.e., the difference between 36 and 40 hours) of his vacation-leave. On the other hand this employee only has to write off the actual hours he should work when he takes a week off (in this case 36 hours).
Sample Calculations. 7.1. Product 1: Integrated Access Device (IAD) with a DOCSIS 3.0 24x4 Cable WAN connection and the following LAN connections:
Sample Calculations. The input values used in the sample calculations set out in Exhibit 2.3 to the STAR Technical Schedule relating to the principles set forth in this Article 3 are for purposes of illustration only. Any Party may propose additional sample calculations which, if agreed to by all Parties, acting reasonably, will be added to Exhibit 2.3 to the STAR Technical Schedule.
Sample Calculations. Assume that you are awarded a PSU award that involves a Target Number of 1,000 PSUs. Example 1. Assume that the Company TSR during the Performance Period is 22% and the Index TSR is 20%. The PMP, which will be between 80% and 100%, is determined by adding to the PMP of 80% an additional 8% calculated as follows: (100% - 80%) x ((22% -20%)/(5%)) =8% In this example, the difference between the relevant PMPs (100% - 80%) is multiplied by a fraction whose numerator is the difference between the Company’s actual performance (22%) and the performance that corresponds to an 80% PMP (20%), and denominator is the amount of performance improvement that would increase the PMP from 80% to 100% (5 percentage points). Finally, multiply the 1,000 target PSUs by the 88% PMP to get 880 earned PSUs. Example 2. Assume that the Company TSR during the Performance Period is 36% and the Index TSR is 20%. The PMP, which will be between 100% and 200%, is determined by adding to the PMP of 100% an additional 44% calculated as follows: (200% - 100%) x ((36% - 25%)/(25%)) =44% In this example, the difference between the relevant PMPs (200% - 100%) is multiplied by a fraction whose numerator is the difference between the Company’s actual performance (36%) and the performance that corresponds to a 100% PMP (25%), and denominator is the amount of performance improvement that would increase the PMP from 100% to 200% (25 percentage points [30-5]). Finally, multiply the 1,000 target PSUs by the 144% PMP to get 1,440 earned PSUs. Example 3. Assume that the Company TSR during the Performance Period is 16% and the Index TSR is 20%. The PMP, which will be between 40% and 80%, is determined by adding to the PMP of 40% an additional 24% calculated as follows: (80% - 40%) x ((16% - 10%)/(10%)) = 24% In this example, the difference between the relevant PMPs (80% - 40%) is multiplied by a fraction whose numerator is the difference between the Company’s actual performance (16%) and the performance that corresponds to a 40% PMP (10%), and denominator is the amount of performance improvement that would increase the PMP from 40% to 80% (10 percentage points). Finally, multiply the 1,000 target PSUs by the 64% PMP to get 640 earned PSUs.
Sample Calculations. Sample calculations of the pre-payment (including applicable discount rate factors) and credit exhaustion methods are set forth in Attachments C and D hereto. Licensee shall not be entitled to any discount from the Royalty rate set forth in this Article III except as expressly provided by this Article III. Attachment G shows an example of the amount of Royalties to be paid for a specified amount of Net Sales of Covered Terminal Units achieved under example assumptions displayed therein, which include Licensee taking discounts available through the exercise of prepayment options throughout the Term of this License Agreement.
Sample Calculations a. High Schools, Parent Choice Schools, Specialized Academic Instruction Base Grant x Average Daily Attendance / School Year = Daily per Student / Periods per day = (Base Grant X 92%)/180/6 = Per Pupil Rate
Sample Calculations. Product 1: Integrated Access Device (IAD) with a DOCSIS 3.0 24x4 Cable WAN connection and the following LAN connections: (1) Four 1GigE ports and (2) Dual- band simultaneous wireless router using three receive streams of 5GHz 802.11ac and two receive streams of 2.4GHz 802.11n (both low power). Feature Tier 2 Allowance (xxxxx) Tier 3 Allowance (xxxxx) DOCSIS 3.0 base configuration (4x4) 6.0 4.5 DOCSIS 3.0 Simultaneous WAN (each 4 DS channels above 4x4) 6.5 (5 x 1.3) 5.0 (5 x 1.0) Four 1GigE ports 0.8 (4 x 0.2) 0.8 (4 x 0.2) TIER 2: Wi-Fi IEEE 802.11n radio at 2.4 GHz or at 5GHz with a conducted output power up to 200 mW per chain (up to 2x2, i.e. 400 mW) 1.0 TIER 3: Wi-Fi 2.4 GHz radio with a conducted output power of less than 200 mW per chain up to 2x2 1.0 TIER 2: Wi-Fi, IEEE 802.11ac radio at 5 GHz with a conducted output power up to 200 mW per chain (up to 2x2, i.e. 400 mW) 1.8 TIER 3: Additional allowance per RF chain above 2x2 MIMO at 5 GHz up to 80 MHz channel bandwidth with a conducted output power of less than 200 mW per chain 0.1 Total 16.4 13.0 Product 2: Advanced Local Network Equipment (LNE) wireless router with a 1GigE WAN interface to connect to a modem and the following additional features: (1) Four 1GigE LAN ports; (2) Dual-band simultaneous wireless access point using 3 transmitters at 2.4 GHz and 3 transmitters at 5 GHz, supporting 802.11n at 2.4 GHz and 5 GHz, and 802.11ac at 5 GHz. (higher power radios that operate at > 200 mW conducted output power per chain); (3) USB 2.0; and (4) USB 3.0. Feature Tier 2 Allowance (xxxxx) Tier 3 Allowance (xxxxx) Advanced LNE 3.5 3.2 FIVE 1GigE ports 1.0 (5 x 0.2) 1.0 (5 x 0.2) TIER 2: Wi-Fi IEEE 802.11n radio at 2.4 GHz or at 5 GHz with a conducted output greater than or equal to 200 mW per chain (up to 2x2, i.e. 400 mW) 1.1 TIER 3: Wi-Fi 2.4 GHz radio with a conducted output power of greater than or equal to 200 mW per chain up to 2x2 1.1 TIER 2: Wi-Fi, IEEE 802.11ac radio at 5 GHz with a conducted output power greater than or equal to 200 mW per chain (up to 2x2, i.e. 400 mW) 2.2 TIER 3: Wi-Fi 5 GHz radio up to 80 MHz channel bandwidth with a conducted output power of greater than or equal to 200 mW per chain up to 2x2 2.1 TIER 2: Additional allowance per RF chain above a 2x2 MIMO configuration (e.g., for 3x3 and 4x4) with a conducted output power greater than or equal to 200 mW per chain 0.6 (2x0.3) TIER 3: Additional allowance per RF chain above 2x2 MIMO at 5 GHz up to 80 MHz channel bandwidth wit...
Sample Calculations. Sample calculations of the Annual Fee are included in Exhibit D‐1 attached hereto. Additionally, the chart attached hereto as Exhibit D‐2 shows the Annual Fee that would be payable in each Operating Year if the CPI Index never increased by more than 3% during any given Operating Year.
Sample Calculations. I. Boilers or Thermal Oxidizers Air pollution emission for the boilers and thermal oxidizers were calculated using a combination of the US EPA’s published emission factors (as found in EPA AP-42) and South Coast Air Quality Management District’s (SCAQMD’s) emission factors. Natural gas fired boilers and thermal oxidizer emissions were calculated as shown below. Assume a boiler rated at 52 MMBTU/hr combusts 152 MMscf of natural gas during the year. Equation 1 used for these processes is: Ei = UFi Where: Ei = Emission of Species i, lb/yr U = Usage of Fuel, MMscf/yr (MMscf = million standard cubic feet) Fi = Emission Factor for Species i, lb/MMscf Estimated Emissions: ECO = 152 mmscf/yr * 84 lb/mmscf ECO = 12,768 lb/yr = 6.4 tons/year Table B-1 Emission Factors for External Natural Gas Combustion Pollutant Emission Factor (lb/MMscf) PM10 7.6 SO2 0.6 NOX 100 CO 84 VOC 5.5 (Low NOx burners) 50 APPENDIX B Sample Calculations
Sample Calculations. Ei = Emissions of Species i, lb/yr W = Vapor Generation Rate, lb/yr M = Molecular Weight of Species i, lb/lbmol A = Bath Surface Area, ft2 P R = = Partial Pressure of the Volatile Chemical (Species i) in the Mixture, psia Universal Gas Constant, psia-ft3/ °R- lbmol = 10.73 psia-ft3/ °R- lbmol T = Temperature, °R K = Gas-phase Mass Transfer Coefficient, ft/s U = = 0.00438(U)0.78(18/M)0.333 Speed of Air Across Liquid Sur face, miles/hr = 1.7 miles/hr (EPA suggested data) 3600 = Conversion Factor from lb/s to lb/hr t = Annual Hours of Operation, hrs/yr F = Emission Factor, dimensionless = 0.2 (covered tank) Assume a bath of 49% hydrofluoric acid is kept at a constant 68 °F for a total of 168 hours per week, 52 weeks per year. Assume the bath has an area of 1.72 ft2 and is covered. M = Molecular Weight of Hydrochloric Acid = 20 lb/mol T = Temperature, °R, (68 °F + 460 = 528 °R) t = Annual Hours of Operation, hrs/yr, (168 hr/wk)(52 wk/yr) = 8736 hrs/yr According to the MSDS the partial pressure is 25 mmHg: 25 mmHg * 1 atm/ 760 mmHg * 14.7 psia/ 1 atm = 0.48 psia The bath surface area: 1.72 ft2 The gas-phase mass transfer coefficient is: K = 0.00438 * (U)0.78 * (18/M)0.333 K = 0.00438 * (1.7)0.78 * (18/20)0.333 = 0.0064 Estimated emissions: EHF = W = 3600 *0.2* 8736 * (20*0.0064*1.72*0.48/ 10.73*528) EHCl = W = 117 lbs/ yr ATTACHMENT 3 Screening Analysis For Air Emissions At the Ocotillo Site In cooperation with Maricopa County Environmental Services Department ("MCESD") and the stakeholders involved in Project XL, Intel agreed to analyze the potential effects associated with the scenario of any single hazardous air pollutant ("HAP")1 being emitted during routine operations from the Ocotillo Site to the full limit of the relevant plant site emission limit ("PSEL"). This is accomplished utilizing a SCREEN3 dispersion model to determine the property line and maximum onsite air concentration of the chemical which is compared to the Arizona Ambient Air Quality Guidance (AAAQG) level2. In addition, as set out in the Final Project Agreement ("FPA"), Intel and MCESD conducted this screening analysis for a number of non-HAP chemicals which have been assigned an AAAQG. Any new chemicals introduced at the Ocotillo Site which produce air emissions will also undergo this screening analysis. This analysis provides additional evidence that the PSELs set out in this FPA are protective of human health within the limitations and uncertainties associated with the analytical techn...
