Assessment Methodology. This compliance assessment involved activities before, during, and following the onsite visit by the monitoring team and the Parties. The team consists of Xx. Xxxxxxx X. Ray, X.Xx., Monitor; Xxxxxxx Xxxxxxxx, MD, Psychiatrist; and, Xxxxxx Xxxxxxx, MD, Correctional Medicine. Pre-visit activities ensured involvement and input from officials and legal counsel representing the Territory (defendant) and the United States (plaintiff) in the planning of the site visit. Pre- visit activities included conference calls and exchange of relevant documents intended to maximize clarity and mutual understanding for baseline assessment visit purposes and scheduling, and monitoring expectations in general. Pursuant to Section X.D.1 of the 2013 Settlement Agreement, the Monitor provided the following information to the Territory and Department of Justice officials for review and comment. This information intended to provide to the Parties: 1) the description of how compliance with the Agreement will be assessed; 2) how information necessary for on and off site assessment work will be gathered; and, 3) what information the Monitor will require the defendants to routinely report and with what frequency.
Assessment Methodology. Prior to undertaking the initial inspection you are required to complete the Manufacturer’s section of the Check list for the initial inspection or monitoring of the factory production control according to the applicable standard and submit supporting evidence. TÜV UK will undertake an Initial Inspection of the Factory and Factory Production Control System and undertake Continuous surveillance of the FPC system in accordance with the requirements of the applicable standard.
Assessment Methodology. 12.2.1 This heritage impact assessment follows the criteria and guidelines stipulated in Annexes 10 and 19 of the TM on EIA Process together with the other guidelines and requirements discussed above. This assessment focuses on the potential impact on the cultural and historical heritage of proposed development in the vicinity of SEKD.
Assessment Methodology. 5.1 – Global Performance - Objective: Eligible (Green) Indicator – Demonstrates in Eligible (Green), With Restrictions (Yellow) and Ineligible (Red) the results of the analysis of the topics listed in the table. As of August 14, each one of Xxxx’x Production Buildings will assess the Supplier, and therefore, if the Supplier supplies to more than one Building, the Supplier will receive information on the global performance of each one of Xxxx’x Production Buildings. The Production Buildings are divided into the following Purchase Organizations registered in our ERP: • 1001 AM - kits /third parties • 1002 CPM • 1003 P6 • 1004 P4 and P5 • 1005 MOGI-MIRIM Global Performance is calculated based on the following detailed criteria:
Assessment Methodology. This task establishes the drivers and feasible alternatives within the MCA framework. It is assumed that District staff provided comments on weighting and drivers before this task commences.
Assessment Methodology. Consultant will develop and confirm a prioritized list of criteria along with scoring and weightings approach to provide a basis for evaluating the merits of each alternative and allow methodical comparison. Consultant will also provide a guidance document to help ensure a consistent thought process in applying the MCA criteria and score. Consultant will seek endorsement for the MCA framework from the District prior to the next task.
Assessment Methodology. The SPA methodology herein is based on the standard CMS methodology and is described in the Framework for Independent Assessment of Security and Privacy Controls. The Auditor must prepare and Web-broker must submit a Security Privacy Controls Assessment Test Plan (SAP) that describes the Auditor’s scope and methodology of the assessment. Web-broker must submit the Auditor-prepared SAP at least thirty (30) Days prior to commencing the assessment. The assessment methods may include examination of documentation, logs, and configurations; interviews of personnel; and/or testing of technical controls. The SPA must provide an accurate depiction of the security and privacy controls in place, as well as potential security and privacy risks, by identifying the following:
Assessment Methodology. 9.3.1 As required in the study brief, the assessment areas cover within 300m beyond the Project area and the Victoria Harbour WCZ. The marine environment of the assessment area comprises the Kowloon Bay, Victoria Harbour, Kai Tak Approach Channel (KTAC) and two typhoon shelters at To Kwa Wan (TKWTS) and Xxxx Xxxx (KTTS). Drawing 9.1 indicates the locations of ecological surveys conducted within the assessment area under previous literatures and also under the present EIA study.
Assessment Methodology. 5.5.3.1 Dust impact assessment has been undertaken using the EPD approved Fugitive Dust Model (FDM). It is a well-known Gaussian Plume model designed for computing air dispersion for fugitive dust sources. Modelling parameters including dust emission factors, particles size distributions, surface roughness, etc are referred to EPD’s “Guideline on choice of models and model parameters” and USEPA AP-42. The density of dust is assumed to be 2.5g/cm3. The 5-year annual averaged TSP concentration of 73µg/m3 is taken as the background concentrations of this study. A surface roughness of 100 cm is assumed in the model to represent the terrain.
Assessment Methodology. Vehicular Emission Determination of the Assessment Year
