Timing Belt Tensioner
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
Load more
Recommended publications
-
Disability Classification System
CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM FOR STUDENTS WITH A DISABILITY Track & Field (NB: also used for Cross Country where applicable) Current Previous Definition Classification Classification Deaf (Track & Field Events) T/F 01 HI 55db loss on the average at 500, 1000 and 2000Hz in the better Equivalent to Au2 ear Visually Impaired T/F 11 B1 From no light perception at all in either eye, up to and including the ability to perceive light; inability to recognise objects or contours in any direction and at any distance. T/F 12 B2 Ability to recognise objects up to a distance of 2 metres ie below 2/60 and/or visual field of less than five (5) degrees. T/F13 B3 Can recognise contours between 2 and 6 metres away ie 2/60- 6/60 and visual field of more than five (5) degrees and less than twenty (20) degrees. Intellectually Disabled T/F 20 ID Intellectually disabled. The athlete’s intellectual functioning is 75 or below. Limitations in two or more of the following adaptive skill areas; communication, self-care; home living, social skills, community use, self direction, health and safety, functional academics, leisure and work. They must have acquired their condition before age 18. Cerebral Palsy C2 Upper Severe to moderate quadriplegia. Upper extremity events are Wheelchair performed by pushing the wheelchair with one or two arms and the wheelchair propulsion is restricted due to poor control. Upper extremity athletes have limited control of movements, but are able to produce some semblance of throwing motion. T/F 33 C3 Wheelchair Moderate quadriplegia. Fair functional strength and moderate problems in upper extremities and torso. -
1-+ W / T:M/Rt=A-~
aker Environmental, Inc. Airport Office Park, Building 3 420 Rouser Road Coraopolis, Pennsylvania 15108 ( 412) ;s9-6000 FAX (412) 269-2002 October 29, 1998 ;}Lj I <D I ~ b ?_D _/ ~ pt - Mr. Wen C. Huang, P.E. 1-+ W/ Minnesota/Wisconsin Section t:m/Rt=A-~ RCRA Permitting Branch HRP-8J RegionS 77 West Jackson Boulevard Chicago, Illinois 60604-3590 Subject: Technical Scope ofWork and Proposed Project Schedule Tank Farm Area Closure PPG Industries, Inc. Oak Creek, Wisconsin WID 059 972 935 Dear Mr. Huang: As per your correspondence to Mr. Tom Yurick ofPPG dated October 8, 1998 attached please find a copy of the Teclmical Scope of Work (including an attached addendum) for the Tank Farm Area Closure (i.e., UST closure and soil and groundwater remediation) at PPG's Oak Creek Wisconsin facility. The proposed project schedule is presented below: Activity/Description Bids for Tank Fann Area Closure Received by PPG 1119/98 Contract Award 11/25/98 USTs Removed from Service 12/22/98 Field Mobilization of Tank Farm Area Closure Contractor 1/4/99* Submission of CMS Workplan to EPA 2/1/99 Tank Cleaning, Removal, and In-Place Closure Complete 3/1/99* Soil and Groundwater Remediation Start-up 4/1/99* Soil and Groundwater Remediation Complete 12/1/99* Activity dates assigned an asterisk are target dates which will be confinned upon the acceptance of the schedule proposed by the successful bidder. PPG will submit a revised schedule to EPA subsequent to a contract being awarded. PPG will submit a progress and monitoring report bi-monthly to EPA and with copies to Wisconsin DNR for the duration of Tank Farm Area Clos~re activities. -
Ifds Functional Classification System & Procedures
IFDS FUNCTIONAL CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM & PROCEDURES MANUAL 2009 - 2012 Effective – 1 January 2009 Originally Published – March 2009 IFDS, C/o ISAF UK Ltd, Ariadne House, Town Quay, Southampton, Hampshire, SO14 2AQ, GREAT BRITAIN Tel. +44 2380 635111 Fax. +44 2380 635789 Email: [email protected] Web: www.sailing.org/disabled 1 Contents Page Introduction 5 Part A – Functional Classification System Rules for Sailors A1 General Overview and Sailor Evaluation 6 A1.1 Purpose 6 A1.2 Sailing Functions 6 A1.3 Ranking of Functional Limitations 6 A1.4 Eligibility for Competition 6 A1.5 Minimum Disability 7 A2 IFDS Class and Status 8 A2.1 Class 8 A2.2 Class Status 8 A2.3 Master List 10 A3 Classification Procedure 10 A3.0 Classification Administration Fee 10 A3.1 Personal Assistive Devices 10 A3.2 Medical Documentation 11 A3.3 Sailors’ Responsibility for Classification Evaluation 11 A3.4 Sailor Presentation for Classification Evaluation 12 A3.5 Method of Assessment 12 A3.6 Deciding the Class 14 A4 Failure to attend/Non Co-operation/Misrepresentation 16 A4.1 Sailor Failure to Attend Evaluation 16 A4.2 Non Co-operation during Evaluation 16 A4.3 International Misrepresentation of Skills and/or Abilities 17 A4.4 Consequences for Sailor Support Personnel 18 A4.5 Consequences for Teams 18 A5 Specific Rules for Boat Classes 18 A5.1 Paralympic Boat Classes 18 A5.2 Non-Paralympic Boat Classes 19 Part B – Protest and Appeals B1 Protest 20 B1.1 General Principles 20 B1.2 Class Status and Protest Opportunities 21 B1.3 Parties who may submit a Classification Protest -
Reducts in Multi-Adjoint Concept Lattices
Reducts in Multi-Adjoint Concept Lattices Maria Eugenia Cornejo1, Jes´usMedina2, and Elo´ısa Ram´ırez-Poussa2 1 Department of Statistic and O.R., University of C´adiz.Spain Email: [email protected] 2 Department of Mathematics, University of C´adiz.Spain Email: fjesus.medina,[email protected] Abstract. Removing redundant information in databases is a key issue in Formal Concept Analysis. This paper introduces several results on the attributes that generate the meet-irreducible elements of a multi-adjoint concept lattice, in order to provide different properties of the reducts in this framework. Moreover, the reducts of particular multi-adjoint concept lattices have been computed in different examples. Keywords: attribute reduction, reduct, multi-adjoint concept lattice 1 Introduction Attribute reduction is an important research topic in Formal Concept Analysis (FCA) [1, 4, 10, 15]. Reducts are the minimal subsets of attributes needed in or- der to compute a lattice isomorphic to the original one, that is, that preserve the whole information of the original database. Hence, the computation of these sets is very interesting. For example, they are useful in order to obtain attribute implications and, since the complexity to build concept lattices directly depend on the number of attributes and objects, if a reduct can be detected before com- puting the whole concept lattice, the complexity will significantly be decreased. Different fuzzy extensions of FCA have been introduced [2, 3, 9, 14]. One of the most general is the multi-adjoint concept lattice framework [11, 12]. Based on a characterization of the meet-irreducible elements of a multi-adjoint concept lattice, a suitable attribute reduction method has recently been presented in [6]. -
Field Indicators of Hydric Soils
United States Department of Field Indicators of Agriculture Natural Resources Hydric Soils in the Conservation Service United States In cooperation with A Guide for Identifying and Delineating the National Technical Committee for Hydric Soils Hydric Soils, Version 8.2, 2018 Field Indicators of Hydric Soils in the United States A Guide for Identifying and Delineating Hydric Soils Version 8.2, 2018 (Including revisions to versions 8.0 and 8.1) United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service, in cooperation with the National Technical Committee for Hydric Soils Edited by L.M. Vasilas, Soil Scientist, NRCS, Washington, DC; G.W. Hurt, Soil Scientist, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL; and J.F. Berkowitz, Soil Scientist, USACE, Vicksburg, MS ii In accordance with Federal civil rights law and U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) civil rights regulations and policies, the USDA, its Agencies, offices, and employees, and institutions participating in or administering USDA programs are prohibited from discriminating based on race, color, national origin, religion, sex, gender identity (including gender expression), sexual orientation, disability, age, marital status, family/parental status, income derived from a public assistance program, political beliefs, or reprisal or retaliation for prior civil rights activity, in any program or activity conducted or funded by USDA (not all bases apply to all programs). Remedies and complaint filing deadlines vary by program or incident. Persons with disabilities who require alternative means of communication for program information (e.g., Braille, large print, audiotape, American Sign Language, etc.) should contact the responsible Agency or USDA’s TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TTY) or contact USDA through the Federal Relay Service at (800) 877-8339. -
Classified Activities
Federal Accounting Standards Advisory Board CLASSIFIED ACTIVITIES Statement of Federal Financial Accounting Standards Exposure Draft Written comments are requested by March 16, 2018 December 14, 2017 THE FEDERAL ACCOUNTING STANDARDS ADVISORY BOARD The Secretary of the Treasury, the Director of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), and the Comptroller General of the United States established the Federal Accounting Standards Advisory Board (FASAB or “the Board”) in October 1990. FASAB is responsible for promulgating accounting standards for the United States government. These standards are recognized as generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP) for the federal government. Accounting standards are typically formulated initially as a proposal after considering the financial and budgetary information needs of citizens (including the news media, state and local legislators, analysts from private firms, academe, and elsewhere), Congress, federal executives, federal program managers, and other users of federal financial information. FASAB publishes the proposed standards in an exposure draft for public comment. In some cases, FASAB publishes a discussion memorandum, invitation for comment, or preliminary views document on a specific topic before an exposure draft. A public hearing is sometimes held to receive oral comments in addition to written comments. The Board considers comments and decides whether to adopt the proposed standards with or without modification. After review by the three officials who sponsor FASAB, the Board publishes adopted standards in a Statement of Federal Financial Accounting Standards. The Board follows a similar process for Statements of Federal Financial Accounting Concepts, which guide the Board in developing accounting standards and formulating the framework for federal accounting and reporting. -
Use Class A1, A2, A3, A4 and A5 Shops, High
Use Class A1, A2, A3, A4 and A5 Shops, High Street Offices, Restaurants, Drinking Establishments and Takeaways Car Parking Cycle parking Car Parking Car Parking Standards Location Standards Servicing Requirements Threshold levels standards (minimum) Standards (minimum) (other requirements) (maximum) City Centre Primary Staff: One covered and Allocated parking is not Allocated parking Not applicable Servicing may be possible Retail Area secure cycle parking permitted is not permitted from the street for smaller space per 100m2 stores (under 2000m2) but Travel Plan 1,000m2 Customers: Where many areas have (or may Travel Information possible, the provision become) time restricted Plan 200m2 of one cycle space per access and existing off Transport Statement 50m2 within the street servicing should be - 1,000 m2 Primary City Centre retained. Developments over Transport Retail Area will 2000m2 will normally require Assessment- normally be required. off street service bays unlikely to be The TS or TA should capable of handling likely required inform the level of service vehicle generation, provision on larger including provision for developments articulated vehicles. Elsewhere in the City Staff: One covered and Allocated parking is not Allocated parking Car parking will only be Servicing may be permitted Centre Parking Area secure cycle parking permitted is not permitted permitted where this replaces on street where safe and space per 100m2 pro-rata identified public practicable. Otherwise a bay Customers: One cycle parking spaces in the city capable of holding a rigid 2 space per 50m2 centre and is available for use 11m vehicle required. Travel Plan 1,000m 2 Travel Information adjacent to principal by the general public consistent Developments over 1,000m 2 entrances or nearby if with the requirements of Policy will normally require off Plan 200m Transport Statement on highway DM29 street service bays capable 2 The TS or TA should of handling likely service - 1,000 m inform the level of 5% of total. -
A1 A2 A3 A4 A5
GUIDE TO USE CLASSES ORDER IN ENGLAND IN FORCE 6 APRIL 2016 The table below is intended as general guidance only. Reference needs to be made to the Town and Country Planning (Use Classes) Order 1987 (as amended) and The Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 2015 (as amended), for limitations (e.g floorspace maxima), restrictions, conditions and details of any requirements for any application for determination as to whether the prior approval of the local planning authority will be required, (which may include the prior approval of building operations). USE CLASS USE PERMITTED CHANGE Shops, retail warehouses, post Permitted change to or from a mixed use as A1 or A2 & up to 2 flats offices, ticket and travel Temporary permitted change (2 years) for up to 150 sqm to A2, A3, B1 (interchangeable agencies, sale of cold food for with notification) consumption off premises, A1 Permitted change of A1 or mixed A1 and dwellinghouse to C3 (subject to prior approval) hairdressers, funeral directors, SHOPS hire shops, dry cleaners, internet Permitted change to A2 cafés Permitted change to A3 (inclusive of buildings and other operations subject to prior approval) Permitted change to D2 (subject to prior approval) Banks, building societies, estate Permitted change to A1 where there is a display window at ground floor level. and employment agencies, Permitted change to or from a mixed use for any purpose within A2 and up to 2 flats and professional services (not health for A1 and up to 2 flats, where there is a display window -
Part a LCA Calculation Rules and Report Requirements
SM Transparency Report™ / EPD Framework Part A LCA calculation rules and report requirements Version 2017 | January 2017 Program Operator Consortium programoperators.org Version 2017 | January, 2017 Sustainable Minds Transparency Report™ / EPD Framework Part A: LCA calculation rules and report requirements Table of contents 1. INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................................ 3 1.1 GENERAL ......................................................................................................................................... 3 1.2 SCOPE ............................................................................................................................................ 3 1.3 OBJECTIVES ..................................................................................................................................... 4 1.4 PRINCIPLES ..................................................................................................................................... 4 2. REFERENCES ................................................................................................................................... 5 3. TERMS, DEFINITIONS AND ABBREVIATIONS ............................................................................... 6 3.1 TERMS AND DEFINITIONS .................................................................................................................. 6 3.2 ABBREVIATIONS ............................................................................................................................ -
Nebraska Highway 12 Niobrara East & West
WWelcomeelcome Nebraska Highway 12 Niobrara East & West Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Section 404 Permit Application Public Open House and Public Hearing PPurposeurpose & NNeedeed What is the purpose of the N-12 project? - Provide a reliable roadway - Safely accommodate current and future traffi c levels - Maintain regional traffi c connectivity Why is the N-12 project needed? - Driven by fl ooding - Unreliable roadway, safety concerns, and interruption in regional traffi c connectivity Photo at top: N-12 with no paved shoulder and narrow lane widths Photo at bottom: Maintenance occurring on N-12 PProjectroject RRolesoles Tribal*/Public NDOR (Applicant) Agencies & County Corps » Provide additional or » Respond to the Corps’ » Provide technical input » Comply with Clean new information requests for information and consultation Water Act » Provide new reasonable » Develop and submit » Make the Section 7(a) » Comply with National alternatives a Section 404 permit decision (National Park Service) Environmental Policy Act application » Question accuracy and » Approvals and reviews » Conduct tribal adequacy of information » Planning, design, and that adhere to federal, consultation construction of Applied- state, or local laws and » Coordinate with NDOR, for Project requirements agencies, and public » Implementation of » Make a decision mitigation on NDOR’s permit application * Conducted through government-to-government consultation. AApplied-forpplied-for PProjectroject (Alternative A7 - Base of Bluff s Elevated Alignment) Attribute -
Spinal Fractures Classification System an Aospine Knowledge Forum Initiative
Spinal Fractures Classification System an AOSpine Knowledge Forum initiative Subaxial Spine Fractures Thoracolumbar Spine Fractures Sacral Spine Fractures AOSpine–the leading global academic community for innovative education and research in spine care, inspiring lifelong learning and improving patients’ lives. Spinal Fractures Classification System 2 Spinal Fractures Classification System an AOSpine Knowledge Forum initiative CONTENT AOSpine Classification and Injury Severity System ................ 04 for Traumatic Fractures of the Subaxial Spine AOSpine Classification and Injury Severity System ................. 37 for Traumatic Fractures of the Thoracolumbar Spine AOSpine Classification and Injury Severity System .................55 for Traumatic Fractures of the Sacral Spine Spinal Fractures Classification System 3 AOSpine Knowledge Forum AOSpine Classification and Injury Severity System for Traumatic Fractures of the Subaxial Spine This is the present form of the classification the AOSpine Knowledge Forum (KF) SCI & Trauma is working on. It is the aim of the KF to develop a system, which can in the future be used as a tool for scientific research and a guide for treatment. This system is being subjected to a rigorous scientific assessment. Project members Aarabi B, Bellabarba C, Chapman J, Dvorak M, Fehlings M, Kandziora F, Kepler C, (in alphabetic order) Oner C, Rajasekaran S, Reinhold M, Schnake K, Vialle L and Vaccaro A. Disclaimer 1. Vaccaro, A. R., J. D. Koerner, K. E. Radcliff, F. C. Oner, M. Reinhold, K. J. Schnake, F. Kandziora, M. G. Fehlings, M. F. Dvorak, B. Aarabi, S. Rajasekaran, G. D. Schroeder, C. K. Kepler and L. R. Vialle (2015). “AOSpine subaxial cervical spine injury classification system.” Eur Spine J. 2. International validation process to be completed in 2015. -
Document Owner Suela Kodra Data Classification Confidential
Document Classification: Public Statement of Applicability, Version 2.0, 4 May 2021 Legend for Reasons for Controls Selection LR: Legal Requirements,CO: Contractual Obligations,BR/BP: Business Requirements/Adopted Best Practices,RRA: Results of Risk Assessment Section Information security control Reference Applicable A5 Information security policies A5.1 Management direction for information security Information_Security_Policy; ISMS Yes A5.1.1 Policies for information security Manual; Security Concept A5.1.2 Review of the policies for information security Document_and_Policy Management Yes A6 Organization of information security A6.1 Internal organization ISMS Manual; Information_Security_Policy; Job Yes A6.1.1 Information security roles and responsibilities descriptions ISMS Manual; Information_Security_Policy; Yes A6.1.2 Segregation of duties Access_Control_Policy Computer_Security_Incident_Respon Yes A6.1.3 Contact with authorities se_Plan (Annex II) Computer_Security_Incident_Respon Yes A6.1.4 Contact with special interest groups se_Plan (Annex II) Information Security Risk Management Policy; Software Yes A6.1.5 Information security in project management Development Process A6.2 Mobile devices and teleworking A6.2.1 Mobile device policy Mobile_Device_Policy Yes A6.2.2 Teleworking Teleworking_Policy Yes A7 Human resource security A7.1 Prior to employment A7.1.1 Screening On_Off Boarding Checkliste Yes A7.1.2 Terms and conditions of employment Safety io Arbeitsvertrag_AT Yes A7.2 During employment Information_Security_Policy; ISMS Yes