Übersetzung für "informative value " (Englisch → Französisch) :

fair value disclosures | disclosures about fair value | fair value information

VALUE II | Value subprogramme II on R&D computer communications networks-Action on integrity and confidentiality requirements of Community RTD information

archival value [ historical value | continuing value | enduring value | secondary value | long-term value | permanent value | indefinite value | lasting value | research value | evidential-archival value ]

information content [ information value ]

exploitable value | exploitation value | liquidation value | realisation value | realization value | utilization value

gross calorific value [ GCV | high heating value | gross heating value | higher calorific value | gross energy value | higher heating value | upper heating value | gross specific energy | upper calorific value ]

low calorific value | low heat value | lower heating value | net calorific value | net heating value | net specific energy | LHV [Abbr.] | NCV [Abbr.]

value to the firm | deprival value | entity value | entity-specific value | opportunity value | retention value | value to the business

information content | information value

Definition: This block contains a wide variety of disorders that differ in severity and clinical form but that are all attributable to the use of one or more psychoactive substances, which may or may not have been medically prescribed. The third character of the code identifies the substance involved, and the fourth character specifies the clinical state. The codes should be used, as required, for each substance specified, but it should be noted that not all fourth character codes are applicable to all substances. Identification of the psychoactive substance should be based on as many sources of information as possible. These include sel ...[+++]f-report data, analysis of blood and other body fluids, characteristic physical and psychological symptoms, clinical signs and behaviour, and other evidence such as a drug being in the patient's possession or reports from informed third parties. Many drug users take more than one type of psychoactive substance. The main diagnosis should be classified, whenever possible, according to the substance or class of substances that has caused or contributed most to the presenting clinical syndrome. Other diagnoses should be coded when other psychoactive substances have been taken in intoxicating amounts (common fourth character .0) or to the extent of causing harm (common fourth character .1), dependence (common fourth character .2) or other disorders (common fourth character .3-.9). Only in cases in which patterns of psychoactive substance-taking are chaotic and indiscriminate, or in which the contributions of different psychoactive substances are inextricably mixed, should the diagnosis of disorders resulting from multiple drug use (F19.-) be used. | Modifiers The following fourth-character subdivisions are for use with categories F10-F19: Code Title .0 Acute intoxication A condition that follows the administration of a psychoactive substance resulting in disturbances in level of consciousness, cognition, perception, affect or behaviour, o ...

(7) In order to achieve EU air quality objectives and to ensure a continuous effort to reduce vehicle emissions, the power to adopt delegated acts in accordance with Article 290 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFUE) should be delegated to the Commission in respect of the detailed rules on the application of Regulation (EC) No 715/2007 to vehicles of categories M1, M2, N1 and N2 with a reference mass exceeding 2 610 kg but with a maximum vehicle mass not exceeding 5 000 kg, the specific procedures, tests and requirements for type approval, the requirements for the implementation of the prohibition on the use of defeat devices that reduce the effectiveness of emission control systems, the measures necessary for the imp ...[+++]lementation of the obligation of a manufacturer to provide unrestricted and standardised access to vehicle repair and maintenance information, the replacement of the information on the mass of CO2 emissions in the certificate of conformity with information on total mass of CO2 emissions equivalents, the increase or removal of the limit value of total hydrocarbons emissions for positive ignition vehicles, the amendment of Regulation (EC) No 715/2007 for the purposes of recalibrating the particulate mass based limit values and introducing particle number based limit values that would correlate broadly with the petrol and diesel mass limit values, the adoption of a revised measurement procedure for particulates and a particle number limit value, a limit value for emissions of NO2 and limits for tailpipe emissions at cold temperatures for vehicles approved as complying with the Euro 6 emission limits.

(Return tabled) Question No. 849 Mr. Matthew Kellway: With regard to the F-35 JSF Program: (a) what is the total Canadian dollar value of benefits received by Canadian industry from Canada’s participation in the F-35 JSF Program (i) from the start of the program until December 1, 2011, (ii) from December 2, 2011 to June 22, 2012; (b) what is the projected value of future contracts, from June 22, 2012, onwards, that come as a result of Canada’s participation in the JSF program; (c) for the contracts in (a), what is the value of each contract that was awarded and on what date was each contract signed; (d) what methodology was used to de ...[+++]termine the value of (i) the contracts in (a), (ii) the contracts in (b); (e) was there industry involvement in determining the values of (i) the contracts in (a), (ii) the contracts in (b); (f) do these valuations include analysis related to the global supply chain; (g) do these valuations include and/or anticipate changes in the domestic supply chain; (h) is the information used in the valuations updated periodically and, if yes, how frequently; (i) was the methodology used to arrive at the values in (a) and (b) independently audited and, if yes, by whom and what was the result of the audit; (j) since the start of the program, have there been discrepancies between projected and actual value of benefits received by Canadian industry; (k) if the answer to (j) is in the affirmative, what are the specific instances and contracts where discrepancies occurred, including (i) the value of each discrepancy, (ii) the name of each company that was meant to receive the benefit; (l) what, if any, changes have been made to the valuations and projection processes used to determine all and any cost projections related to the F-35 JSF program in response to the recommendations in the April 2, 2012, Auditor General's report; (m) for the contracts in (a), is there a means of ensuring that the contracts are being fulfilled as stated in terms ...

(Return tabled) Question No. 225 Ms. Manon Perreault: With respect to the Enabling Accessibility Fund: (a) how many applications were successful and received funding under this program, and how many applications were rejected through calls for proposals, since the start of the program; (b) with respect to successful applications, what was the location and value of each project, broken down by province and federal electoral district, through calls for proposals since the start of the program; (c) what is the total cost of administering the program thus far for each year since the start of the program; (d) how much funding is left; (e) ...[+++] how many major projects under this program will go to or went to expanding existing centres; (f) what is the value of the successful major projects applications that went to (i) the construction of new centres, (ii) the expanding of existing centres; (g) how many of the successful Mid-Sized Projects Enabling Accessibility Fund applications went to (i) renovating buildings, (ii) modifying vehicles, (iii) making information and communications more accessible; (h) what is the value of the successful Small Projects Enabling Accessibility Fund applications that went to (i) renovating buildings, (ii) modifying vehicles, (iii) making information and communications more accessible; (i) what is the reason most often given for rejecting an application; (j) what are the reasons given for rejecting an application and what is the frequency of each reason; (k) will the program be renewed next year; and (l) when will the next call for proposals be issued?

Following the publication of the General Disclosure document the CCME and a Chinese exporter argued that the Commission was still violating of Articles 2.4, 6.2 and 6.4 of the WTO Anti-Dumping Agreement by not providing timely information on the basis of which the export price and normal value was compared and invited the Commission to disclose comprehensive information on the normal value product types used in order to meet its obligation to provide the opportunities to the Chinese exporting producers to ensure the defence of their i ...[+++]nterest, present their case on a fully informed basis and ensure a fair comparison between export prices and the normal value.