№ lp_1_2_67571
File format: docx
Character count: 74546
File size: 197 KB
This document provides administrative guidelines for managing Nonpoint Source Pollution grants under the Maine Department of Environmental Protection.
Year:
2016
Region / City:
Maine
Topic:
Environmental Protection
Document Type:
Administrative Guidelines
Organization / Institution:
Maine Department of Environmental Protection
Author:
Maine Department of Environmental Protection
Target Audience:
Grantees, Environmental Agencies
Effective Period:
December 2016 onwards
Approval Date:
December 2016
Modification Date:
None
Price: 8 / 10 USD
The file will be delivered to the email address provided at checkout within 12 hours.
The file will be delivered to the email address provided at checkout within 12 hours.
Don’t have cryptocurrency yet?
You can still complete your purchase in a few minutes:- Buy Crypto in a trusted app (Coinbase, Kraken, Cash App or any similar service).
- In the app, tap Send.
- Select network, paste our wallet address.
- Send the exact amount shown above.
The final amount may vary slightly depending on the payment method.
The file will be sent to the email address provided at checkout within 24 hours.
The product description is provided for reference. Actual content and formatting may differ slightly.
Year:
2025-2030
Region:
California
Topic:
Nonpoint Source Pollution
Document Type:
Program Implementation Plan
Agency:
State Water Resources Control Board, Regional Water Quality Control Boards, California Coastal Commission
Author:
State Water Resources Control Board, Regional Water Quality Control Boards, California Coastal Commission
Target Audience:
General Public, Local Agencies, Tribes, Non-Governmental Organizations
Period of Implementation:
July 2025 - June 2030
Approval Date:
Not specified
Amendment Date:
Not specified
Context:
Detailed program plan for addressing nonpoint source pollution in California from July 2025 to June 2030, including public engagement and outreach strategies.
Note:
Year
Organization / Institution:
Northrop Grumman
Note:
Year
Subject:
Use of Free and Open Source Software (FOSS) in Non-Production Materials
Document Type:
Approval Document
Authority / Organization:
Daimler Truck AG
Target Audience:
Contractors, Software Developers
Note:
Year
Note:
Year of report
Jurisdiction:
Florida
Regulatory framework:
Florida Administrative Code Chapter 62-210 and 62-213
Type of document:
Regulatory reporting form and instructions
Issuing authority:
Department of Environmental Protection, Division of Air Resource Management
Form number:
DEP Form No. 62-210.900(5)
Subject matter:
Air pollutant emissions reporting
Facility type:
Air pollutant emitting facilities
Applicability:
Title V sources and specified non-Title V sources
Reporting deadline:
April 1 following the reporting year
Fee coverage:
Title V source emissions fees
Certification requirement:
Owner or responsible official certification
Reporting scope:
Facility information, emissions units, emissions data, fee calculation
Year:
Not specified
Region / City:
Not specified
Topic:
Testing procedures for CS 9600 X-ray source boards
Document Type:
Work Instruction
Organization / Institution:
Carestream Dental, LLC
Author:
Not specified
Target Audience:
Testing Lab personnel, Hardware and Systems Specialist, Technical Solutions Engineer
Effective Period:
Not specified
Approval Date:
Not specified
Date of Changes:
Not specified
Contextual Description:
A work instruction detailing the testing process for returned CS 9600 X-ray source boards, including testing, calibration, and evaluation procedures.
) and join the S1NET. For guides with in depth examinations of performance measure definitions, go to:
https://www.milsuite.mil/book/docs/DOC-129783
Table of Contents (Hyperlinks to Sections):
Developing ‘Significant Duties and Responsibilities’ OER Narratives: Notes, Rules, and Instructions OER Narrative Prohibited Techniques, Inconsistencies, No-Go’s: Negative Comment Rules Referred OERs Narrative Comment Examples Block a. APFT and HT/WT Block b. Overall Performance Block c. Character (to include SHARP comments) Block d. Presence Block e. Intellect Block f. Leads Block g. Develops Block h. Achieves Senior Rater Potential Senior Rater Narrative Examples Senior Rater Narrative Comment Examples (for potential, promotion, school, etc.) Successive Assignments Other SR Comments (explanations of anything unusual about OER) Effective Words for Evaluations JUNIOR OFFICER PLATE (DA FORM 67-10-1) NOTE: 2LTs who have NOT completed BOLC, will not receive an OER until they complete BOLC (AC and ARNG; USAR officers can receive an OER before completing BOLC). The FROM date will be their commissioning date. All time until their BOLC graduation will be NONRATED on their first OER. OER PROFILING: OERs: Rater and Senior Rater Profiles are CONSTRAINED, meaning Officers are only allowed to grant 49% of each rank they rate with either an “EXCELS” (as Rater) or “MOST QUALIFIED” (as Senior Rater). HOWEVER, if you have an immature profile, and have only just begun rating/senior rating Officers of a certain rank, you are allowed a ONE TIME option of giving one of the first two evaluations you make at a particular grade, an “EXCELS” (as Rater) or “MOST QUALIFIED” (as Senior Rater). OER (OER SUPPORT FORM) PART III: Developing ‘Significant Duties and Responsibilities’ (blocks a., b., and c.): Refer to DA PAM 611-21 (https://www.milsuite.mil/book/groups/smartbookdapam611-21
) and DA PAM 600-3 (Commissioned Officer Professional Development and Career Management), to assist in the development of PART III, block d. As a minimum, the duty description will include pr:
- Number of personnel supervised, - Amount of resources under the rated officer’s control, - Scope of responsibilities. 3) Descriptions must be clear and concise with emphasis on specific functions required. 4) Note conditions unique to the assignment; e.g. RA officers assigned to FT support duties with RC units or USAR officers assigned to RA units OER NARRATIVES: Notes, Rules, and Instructions Rater and Senior Rater Narratives: - Requires candor and courage; frank and accurate assessment. - Quantify officer’s value relative to peers and do so in concert with rater/senior rater box check. - Are short; tell a simple story about the quality of officer being evaluated. - Are interesting and compelling. - Are looked at by selection board members when they are looking for in-depth information about a rated officer’s performance and potential. - Numbers; 1-10, write them out (e.g. one, two, ten). 11 or higher, write the number; e.g. 11, 15, 105. Exception, when a 1-10 is WITH an 11 or higher; e.g. “5 tool kits with 20 tools each.” - Fashion the narrative to the officer; double check use of “he/his” vs. “she/hers.” - Awards: Awards and/or special recognition received during the rating period may be cited in evaluation comments (for example, “received the Humanitarian Service Medal” or “named the Instructor of the Year”). - Raters and SR CAN use the officer’s name in the narrative; e.g. “1LT Joe was ….” Rater and Rater Narratives: - Focus on PERFORMANCE; explaining what the rated officer did and how well he/she did it. - Focus on specifics to quantify and qualify performance. - Raters should advocate the rated officer to the SR. - When there is no SR (due to lack of qualifications), rater’s narrative provides the input on both performance and potential. Senior Rater (SR) and SR Narrative (see SR Rater Narrative section for examples): - Focus on POTENTIAL, 3-5 years out (promotions, command, school, & assignments). - Can amplify box checks by using the narrative to clearly send the appropriate message to selection boards. - CANNOT mention Box Check. - Additional information for when SR is also Rater can be found in DA PAM 623-3, pg. 26, “DA Form 67–10–1, part VI: block c—Senior Rater Narrative.” OER Narrative Prohibited Techniques, Inconsistencies, No-Go’s: - School/Course Comments: Bullets about how a Soldier did in a school or course are ONLY allowed if that school did not produce an AER/DA Form 1059. - Narratives are not a laundry list of superlatives – more is not necessarily better. - Brief, unqualified superlatives or phrases, particularly if they may be considered trite. - Excessive use of technical acronyms, or phrases not commonly recognized. - Techniques aimed at making specific words, phrases, or sentences stand out from the rest of the narrative; e.g. excessive use of capital letters; unnecessary quotation marks; repeated use of exclamation points; wide spacing between selected words, phrases, or sentences to include double spacing within a paragraph or between paragraphs. - Inappropriate references to box checks; e.g “Would be TOP BLOCK if profile allowed” or “absolutely far exceeded the standard”. - Trying to quantify (e.g. “top 2% of my captains”) with a small population. - Stay in your lane/level; avoid comments like “Best 1LT in the Army” unless you’re the Army CoS. - Stating “the best ever”; having 10 in the population, 50 in the profile. - Using overused phrases and clichés that are counterproductive or overused; e.g. stellar, historic, “delivered a dazzling performance,” “hit the ground running,” consummate professional, and unlimited potential. - Using specific selection board-type language. Examples of this include, “definitely a 6+ Soldier”. - Don’t exaggerate; “If I could prove it, CPT X is an LTC disguised as a CPT.” - Be mindful of what IS NOT said; it can have the same impact as what is said; e.g. NOT having numbers, or quantifiable points. - Don’t say the sa
Note:
en
Topic:
Officer Evaluation, Narrative Guidelines
Document Type:
Guide
Target Audience:
Raters, Senior Raters
Note:
Year
Subject:
Procurement
Document Type:
Form
Institution:
University of Michigan Procurement Services
Target Audience:
Procurement officers, departments, suppliers
Year:
2025
Region / city:
United Kingdom
Subject:
Environmental Permitting, Groundwater Activities
Document Type:
Consultation Paper
Organization:
Environment Agency
Author:
Environment Agency
Target Audience:
Operators, trade associations, businesses, other regulators, the public, community groups, NGOs interested in environmental issues
Validity Period:
Consultation from 1 April 2025 to 24 June 2025
Approval Date:
1 April 2025
Date of Changes:
Not specified
Document type:
Form
Domain:
Railway signalling
Purpose:
Assurance and correlation of source design records and as-built information
Project identifiers:
NAN number, Project Number, Cost Code
Roles involved:
Signal design engineer/designer, signal maintenance engineer, signal design manager
Record systems referenced:
DMS
As-built records:
Circuit Book, Signal Plan, Control Tables, Track Insulation Plan, Drivers Diagram, Detailed Site Survey
As-built data records:
CBI Data, LX Predictor Data, LX Monitor Data, Axle Counter Data, Telemetry Data, Phoenix Maps
Correlation stages:
Desk top correlation, Site correlation
Verification activities:
Equipment check, Wire and null count, Wire hand trace, Book out and bell test, Clearance point measurement
Approval and endorsement:
Technical review endorsement, submission of as-built records
Administrative fields:
Names, positions, signatures, dates
Year:
1961
Region / city:
India
Subject:
Taxation
Document type:
Certificate
Organization:
Government of India
Author:
Not specified
Target audience:
Employees and employers in India
Period of validity:
N/A
Approval date:
Not specified
Modification date:
Not specified
Year:
2023
Region / City:
United States
Topic:
Environmental Protection, Air Quality Regulations
Document Type:
Government Proposal
Agency / Organization:
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
Author:
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
Target Audience:
Industry stakeholders, environmental advocates, government agencies
Effective Period:
45 days from the date of publication
Approval Date:
[INSERT DATE OF PUBLICATION IN FR]
Date of Amendments:
N/A
Note:
Year
Year:
2023
Region / City:
Iowa State University
Subject:
Procurement Services
Document Type:
Request Form
Institution:
Iowa State University
Author:
Procurement Services
Target Audience:
University Staff, Procurement Agents
Period of Validity:
N/A
Approval Date:
N/A
Modification Date:
N/A
Document type:
Normative technical requirements document
Standard reference:
ECSS-E-ST-20-08
Related standards:
ECSS-E-ST-10
Abbreviation:
SCD-BSC
Applicable domain:
Space solar cell hardware
Subject matter:
Bare solar cell qualification and acceptance requirements
Scope:
Project-dependent requirements for bare solar cells
Input to:
Qualification plan
Cell types covered:
Silicon solar cells; single- and multi-junction III-V solar cells
Test categories:
Acceptance tests; qualification tests
Key technical areas:
Materials; dimensions and weight; electrical performance; optical properties; environmental tests; mechanical tests
Source authority:
European Cooperation for Space Standardization
Intended use:
Specification and control of bare solar cell characteristics
Year:
2022
Region / City:
United States
Topic:
COVID-19 Prevention, Infection Control
Document Type:
Guide
Institution:
Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS), Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC)
Author:
N/A
Target Audience:
Healthcare personnel, residents, visitors, vendors
Period of Action:
Ongoing
Approval Date:
2022
Date of Changes:
September 23, 2022
Context:
A guide outlining source control measures and physical distancing protocols for healthcare facilities during the COVID-19 pandemic to prevent infection spread.
Year:
2023
Region / Country:
United States
Topic:
Law enforcement training and officer wellness
Document type:
Survey supporting statement
Agency / Institution:
Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS)
Author:
Bureau of Justice Statistics
Target audience:
Law enforcement agencies, policymakers, researchers
Survey period:
September 2023 – May 2024
Legal authority:
34 USC § 10132
Data collection agent:
RTI International
Sample size:
Approximately 3,500 general-purpose law enforcement agencies
Related programs:
Law Enforcement Core Statistics (LECS), LEMAS core survey, Census of Law Enforcement Training Academies (CLETA), Law Enforcement Suicide Data Collection (LESDC)
Year:
2024
Region / City:
Australian Capital Territory
Topic:
Records Management
Document Type:
Records Advice
Authority / Institution:
Territory Records Office
Author:
Australian Capital Territory
Target Audience:
Government Agencies
Effective Period:
Ongoing
Approval Date:
2024
Modification Date:
Not specified
Context:
Defines the guidelines for disposing of ephemeral, duplicate, or transitory materials under Normal Administrative Practice (NAP) in the Australian Capital Territory government.
Year:
2012/17
Region / City:
United States
Subject:
Postsecondary Education, Longitudinal Studies
Document Type:
Statistical Study
Agency / Institution:
National Center for Education Statistics, U.S. Department of Education
Author:
National Center for Education Statistics
Target Audience:
Researchers, Policymakers, Educational Institutions
Period of Action:
2017
Approval Date:
August 2016
Amendment Date:
April 2017
A document detailing the data collection procedures and methodology for the 2012/17 Beginning Postsecondary Students Longitudinal Study (BPS:
12/17) conducted by the U.S. Department of Education, including data collection instruments, testing, and confidentiality procedures.
Year:
2016
Region / City:
Australia
Subject:
Health practitioner regulation, professional misconduct, drug use
Document Type:
Tribunal Decision
Body / Institution:
ACT Civil & Administrative Tribunal
Author:
Medical Board of Australia
Target Audience:
Health professionals, legal professionals
Period of Validity:
N/A
Date of Approval:
8 March 2016
Date of Amendments:
N/A