Table I definition

Table I and “Table II” means the correspondingly numbered lists of substances annexed to this Convention, as amended from time to time in accordance with article 12;
Table I. Targeted schedule and timeline for Phase I
Table ISchool Funding System Weights Weighted Group Description of the Weighted Group Weight Weighted Group Description of the Weighted Group Weight Weighted Group Description of the Weighted Group Weight Table II: Portion of LEA Funding Allocated Through System Row 1 Column A Column B Column C Column D Column E Row 2 Funds Fiscal Year Total Funding Amount of Funds Allocated Through System Percentage of Funds Allocated Through System

Examples of Table I in a sentence

  • The cut off month for reckoning ‘Period of Assessment’ shall be the 3rd Month preceding the month corresponding to ‘latest date of bid submission’, in the following manner:(Note: For example, if ‘latest date of bid submission’ is in Jan 2017, then the ‘performance’ shall be assessed for a 6 months’ period up to and inclusive of Oct 2016 (i.e. from May 2016 to Oct 2016), for all the unit wise identified packages (refer Table I)) i).

  • Refer to Table I, inflation Multipliers, and find the multipliers which correspond with the base number you have calculated.

  • For table of comparisons of the 1939 Code to the 1986 Code, see Table I preceding section 1 of this title.

  • For a miscellaneous metal part or miscellaneous plastic part coating that does not meet the coating categories listed in Table I, II, VI or VII, the VOC content limit or VOC emission rate limit shall be determined by classifying the coating as a general one component coating or general multicomponent coating.

  • Delivered product having a flash point below that specified in Table I or Table II, but not greater than twenty (20) degrees Fahrenheit less shall be adjusted in price as specified elsewhere herein for NON-COMPLYING PRODUCT.


More Definitions of Table I

Table ISchool Funding System Weights
Table I. Means and Standard Deviations of the MSL for the Three Configurations Closest to the MSL and FWHM Thresholds CROSSING OVER THE THREE FREQUENCY BANDS, AS [180 Hz, 600 Hz] (LOW), [600 Hz, 1250 Hz] (MEDIUM), AND [1250 Hz, 2 kHz] (HIGH) −− Fig. 3. Array configurations for different geometries within the mean MSL/mean FWHM space. Each marker represents an array shape: conical tip up (CU), conical tip down (CD), cylindrical four circles (C4), spherical (Sp), and cylindrical two circles (C2). The frequency bands used for averaging are [160 Hz, 2 kHz] for the MSL and [180 Hz, 2 kHz] for the FWHM. represents both the MSL and FWHM thresholds given in Section II-A. frequency band for all of the tested cases, to yield the solution that has the most uniform performance. This is a requirement for the array, as wideband signal recordings are expected as input. This method allows visual and synthetic representation of the performance of various array configurations, by plotting each one in the mean MSL/mean FWHM space, as seen in the array conception in Section IV. Consequently, the array that approaches the nearest to the thresholds defined in Section II can be easily selected from this synthesized view of the array performances.
Table I. The following are the applicable coverage percentages for the cost of a Covered
Table I. Means, standard deviations, Cronbachalphas, and correlations among variablesstudied a(N varies from 251 to 281) M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 91. LMX 3.79 0.59 (0.77)2. Transformational leadership 3.49 0.72 ****0.62 (0.88)3. Value system congruence 0.70 0.20 **0.14 ****0.294. Assertiveness 2.30 0.68 0.08 0.07 0.01 (0.65)5. Bargaining 2.42 0.88 0.01 0.05 0.10 ****0.46 (0.72)6. Coalition 2.98 1.05 0.03 0.06 0.09 ****0.35 ****0.35 (0.59)7. Friendliness 3.26 0.64 ***0.16 ***0.19 0.01 **0.12 ****0.30 ****0.22 (0.53)8. Higher authority 2.01 0.67 ** 0.15 ** 0.12 0.04 ****0.51 ****0.41 ****0.30 ***0.19 (0.56)9. Reasoning 3.99 0.67 ****0.31 ****0.21 0.01 ****0.28 *0.11 ***0.19 ****0.24 0.06 (0.59)Notes : a Cronbach alpha is in parentheses along diagonal.*= p 0.10. **= p 0.05. ***= p 0.01. ****= p 0.001related to perceived value system congruence. I followed the procedure suggested by Baron and Kenny (1986) to test my Hypothesis 1 that transformational leadership would mediate the relationship between LMX and leader-follower value system congruence. Transformational leadership was first regressed on LMX; the model was significant at 0.001 level (R-Square 0.38) and the parameter estimate of LMX was 0.75 (t 13.13,Impact of transformationalleadership
Table I. I: Projected Impact of HHK subsidies on the LPG subsector and the economy Year (A) HHK 10% of Actual Additional Total (F) % Increase Subsidy in HHK 12.5kg 12.5kg to be =D+E (G) Billion Naira (B) Subsidy to be Used (C) Figures (D) Generated by Subsidy (E)
Table I. Means (standard deviations) of selected variables IJM 25,3/4
Table I. Milestone Chart and Schedule