Scenario 3. PTC exploits the Programme Intellectual Property on a For-Profit Basis by retaining development/commercialization rights to Product in some regions of the World or with respect to some uses of the Product (either alone or in a collaboration with a Distributor or marketing/sales agent under which PTC retains overall control of commercialization)), and outlicenses the Product on an exclusive basis in other regions of the World or with respect to other uses of the Product.
Scenario 3. If you have a balance of £510, and: your credit limit is £500; your arrears are £50; the minimum payment we ask you for in your statement is £70; and there is a refund to your account of £200 between your statement date and your payment due date; then we will still require you to pay the full minimum payment of £70. We will use both the £200 refund and your £70 payment to reduce your balance.
Scenario 3. If the total of the Adjusted Amounts for all Claimants with Valid Claims is equal to the Net Settlement Fund, Claimants with Valid Claims shall be paid their Adjusted Amounts. If the total of the Adjusted Amounts for all Claimants with Valid Claims exceeds the Net Settlement Fund, then the Adjusted Amount for each Claimant with a Valid Claim shall be the Adjusted Amount decreased to a lower percentage, on a pro-rata basis, until the total of the Adjusted Amounts equals the Net Settlement Fund. In this event, the Adjusted Amounts for each Payment Group will be reduced in a manner that maintains the 10 / 5 / 3 ratio of percentages between Payment Groups 1, 2, and 3, respectively, as specified in Section 2.4.3 (i-iii) above. To illustrate, if the total of the Adjusted Amounts for all Valid Claims were twice the Net Settlement Fund, Claimants in Payment Group 1 would receive 50% of their Amounts Allegedly Withheld, Claimants in Payment Group 2 would receive 25% of their Amounts Allegedly Withheld, and Claimants in Payment Group 3 would receive 15% of their Amounts Allegedly Withheld.
Scenario 3 vulnerability in a critical device (ICS) ICS (Industrial Control Systems) is a general term that describes industrial automation systems responsible for data acquisition, visualization and control of industrial processes. They are very common in industrial sectors and Critical Infrastructures. They play a critical role not only in maintaining the continuity of industrial processes but also to ensure functional and technical safety, to prevent personal damage and damage to property. According to the report “Analysis of ICS-SCADA Cyber Security Maturity Levels in Critical Sectors “by ENISA, the ICS-SCADA environment is a key component for the European Critical Infrastructures. Most sectors rely on ICS-SCADA to ensure process control and safety which ensure continuity of national critical functions. A vulnerability in this kind of devices, could have a huge impact in a Critical Infrastructure and there have been several cases where malicious actors have been targeting ICS such as the Triton malware or the notorious Stuxnet worm. This seems a likely scenario within the transportation industry, where many assets are controlled by ICS/SCADA. Figure 25 shows the process of how a hardware provider reports a vulnerability in his products and this information is shared and extended among the different stakeholders within the railway sector (CERT’s, IM’s, RO’s): Figure 25: Scenario 3 – Vulnerability identified within a critical service
Scenario 3. NN’s payment to IPH of royalties on Net Sales of any Niche Candidate with respect to which NN has exercised its Buy-In-Option and IPH has exercised its opt out option pursuant to Subsection 6.5.2 shall be as follows:
Scenario 3. Same population, different data sources Estimates for a given population, from different data sources. Here as well, it is useful to distinguish two important subtypes.
Scenario 3. TCCA has issued a design approval to a Canadian DAH and EASA validation is in progress. The procedure for continued validation is:
Scenario 3. Scenario 3 describes 5 km x 5 km region of Xxxxxx in Berlin which is typical residential area. The expected volume of data traffic in this region is estimated relative low compared with other scenarios. Therefore, MCS density refers the lowest value respectively ~0.56 MCSs/km2 . Accordingly, 260 SCSs are considered to be deployed in this scenario resulting in low density of ~10 SCSs/km2.
Scenario 3. For scenario 3, the selection was made in view of the fact, that the Carbon4PUR polyol production shall be constructed as an add-on to a steel mill, i.e., the place where the CO/CO2 waste gases emerge. Thus, the transport of these gases can be avoided. On the other hand the epoxide availability was set as non-mandatory. However, at least an olefin source (chemical site or olefin pipeline) had to be near the steel mill. The distance between the CO source and the olefin source was allowed to be up to 30 km. With these inclusion criteria, five European regions have been identified to be feasible replication sites. These regions are: The Port of Marseille, which has already been identified in scenario 1 and 2. This location is for sure the most attractive option from the point of view of the Carbon4PUR project partners, as all considerations and studies are focussed on this location, where the industrial partners are co-located. The nominal annual polyol production capacity can be more than 5-fold (277 kt/a) compared to the intended capacity. Both CO/CO2 gas streams and the needed epoxides are available and there is no need to construct an olefin-to-epoxide oxidation plant. The ArcelorMittal steel mill in the region of Zeeland (Terneuzen/Gent) has a nominal annual polyol production capacity, which is about 25% higher than the ArcelorMittal FOS steel mill at the Port of Marseille. However the distance to the next epoxide source, i.e., DOW Benelux N.V., is about 18 km. The Duisburg/Essen region has the highest nominal annual polyol production capacity of 685 kt/a and 433 kt/a with emissions from Hüttenwerke Xxxxx Mannesmann GmbH and thyssenkrupp Steel Europe XX Xxxx Schwelgern, respectively. However, the epoxides are only available at a distance of about 45 km, where the Covestro Deutschland AG polyol plant is located. On the other hand, olefins would be available at shorter distance (5-20 km) from the nearby pipelines. However, this would require the construction of an olefin-to-epoxide oxidation plant. The regions of Amsterdam and Hall are ranked at the lowest within this scenario, as the distance between CO and olefin source are 25 km and 32 km, respectively. As there are no epoxide sources in the near vicinity, the construction of an olefin-to- epoxide oxidation plant would be necessary. Scenarios 2 and 3 are hard to rank against each other. On the one hand, scenario 2 has selected only sites where the epoxides are already available. Thus, the constr...
