Scope of Analysis. In connection with this Opinion, we have made such reviews, analyses and inquiries, as we have deemed necessary and appropriate under the circumstances. Our due diligence with regards to the Revised Prentice Transaction included, but was not limited to, the items summarized below. In connection with this Opinion, we have considered various drafts of the relevant documents. In instances where Xxxx & Xxxxxx relied upon draft documents, the Company and its legal advisors represented that such drafts were substantially similar to the final, executed copies. Below is a representative listing of the various documents considered:
Scope of Analysis. The scope of analysis described in this Environmental Assessment (EA) is based on the issues discussed in Section 1.8.3, Table 1-1. The scope of analysis focuses on the LBA tract and areas of surface disturbance associated with preparation of coal, waste disposal, and mine infrastructure (Map 2). It is anticipated that coal produced from the tract would be hauled to Port of Keota located on Xxxx Reservoir for transportation to the end user. As a result, the Port of Keota and the reasonably foreseeable transportation route to it are also included in the scope of analysis (Map 3) on an issue-specific basis. From Xxxx Reservoir, coal would be transported via barge to the confluence with the Mississippi River. Past this point, coal mined from the tract could be transported in one or more of several directions depending on coal market economics and available end users at the time of sale of mined coal. The coal contained within the tract is metallurgical grade bituminous coal and is anticipated for use in steel making. The market for metallurgical coal is international in nature and it is anticipated that coal mined from the tract could be marketed and sold across the globe including within the U.S. A summary of coal haulage and possible end users is provided in Section 2.2.4. The scope of analysis does not include coal haulage past the Port of Keota or the end use of the coal other than as it relates to Issue 1 (see Table 1-1). In the analysis of Issue 1, coal haulage to the end user based on assumed routes and end use of the coal are included despite the fact that the ultimate end user is unknown at this time. Coal haulage past the Port of Keota and end use of the coal are not included in the scope of analysis of the other issues. This is the case for the following reasons: the end user for coal mined from the tract has not been determined or even narrowed down to a small number of possible end users; because the end user is unknown it is not possible to identify specific reasonably foreseeable routes for delivery of coal mined from the tract to the end user; and transportation routes via river and open ocean are heavily used for transportation of numerous commodities (including coal) in the international marketplace, and the coal mined from this tract would make up less than 1% of total U.S. exports of metallurgical coal alone (e.g., excluding other commodities also exported from the U.S. and transported using similar transportation routes) (see Sectio...
Scope of Analysis. The price is based on the proposed scope of analysis. If new technical issues, alternatives, field surveys, modeling, or analysis is identified after contract execution, a budget amendment would be warranted.
Scope of Analysis from regulatory decisions to implementation So far, theories of regulatory competition have focused entirely on the stage of policy introduction and standard setting and have neglected subsequent phases in the policy cycle and the opportunities that arise for cost evasion or protectionist measures. The case studies in this book identify this as a major defect in the theory leading to an underestimation of the impact of regulatory competition, most notably the anticipated race to the bottom. We can identify three forms of ‘post-decisional’ races to the bottom. First, countries may attempt to evade the costs resulting from high reg- ulatory standards during the implementation phase. This is a major cause behind implementation gaps and hence no surprise – at least not from the perspective of implementation research. Yet from the perspective of con- vergence the failure to acknowledge deficits in the implementation phase leads to an overestimation of the scope and degree of convergence. In particular the socio-economic dimension of convergence, which appeared rather limited on the basis of policy adoption records, re-emerges if the analysis is extended to the full policy cycle. Turning to our cases, the study on industrial discharges into surface water revealed that in Hun- xxxx and Mexico the adoption of strict standards was partly neutralised by lax implementation and enforcement (Chapter 3). The acceptance of high standards in these countries can be explained by their quest for international legitimacy. While lax implementation may partly be related to deficient administrative and financial capacities, the cases show evi- dence that the willingness to agree to strict standards was directly linked to discriminatory enforcement practices focusing on the performance of large – typically international – companies while neglecting the (poor) performance of domestic SMEs. Generally, it is likely that this mecha- nism is more common in less developed or transition countries where a strong pressure to protect domestic industries is combined with scarce resources for implementation and an underdeveloped culture of legal enforcement. Second, in several of our cases the acceptance of high standards was compensated by domestic protectionism and regulatory exemptions for Complex causation in cross-national policy convergence 285 affected industries. For instance, in Chapter 5 Pesendorfer describes how Mexico resisted the application of common international noise standar...
