Technical Considerations. 5.1 [†]. † DESIGNATES PORTIONS OF THIS DOCUMENT THAT HAVE BEEN OMITTED PURSUANT TO A REQUEST FOR CONFIDENTIAL TREATMENT FILED SEPARATELY WITH THE COMMISSION
Technical Considerations. For digital photographic documentation, the minimum required is as follows: Use of a modern digital SLR camera. Use of perspective controlled (pc) lens is recommended. Take at least three (3) exposures of each view or angle and pick the best exposure. In order to capture details and allow for greater enlargement of the images, the photographs should be submitted in 3 formats: o RAW format o TIF format (minimum 360 ppi, 8 bit files – 16 bit files NOT accepted) o JPEG format (minimum 1024x1024 and 360 ppi) Images should be saved to a media that is designed for long-term (over 100 years) storage of sensitive data, video or music files. The media should be archivally labeled (using felt type and solvent free pen and no adhesive details). Proof sheets containing six (6) images per page that includes the name of the property and view should be submitted on archivally stable paper along with the media. PRODUCTION/PRESENTATION The following represents the minimum level of standards necessary for document retention at the SHPO. All paper and media included should be archivally stable. Reports should use headings to separate topics, include an index if applicable, and when and who prepared the report.
Technical Considerations. In this study, we utilized two different immunolabeling methods to test for colocalization. Because the antibody cocktail approach is not as widely used as the traditional double labeling method with gold and peroxidase to assess ultrastructural colocalization, a few technical issues must be discussed about the rationale for the use of this method in the present study, and the advantages or limitations of such an approach in the present material. The design of this method is based on the premise that each antibody used in a co-localization study labels a specific population of elements that selectively express the antigen of interest, and that the cocktail of both antibodies reveals all immunoreactive elements recognized by each individual antiserum. Thus, if the epitopes for these antibodies are not colocalized, the percent of labeled elements in the cocktail experiment would equal the sum of labeled elements recognized in each single labeling experiment. However, if there is some degree of overlap between the two antigens of interest, then the sum of labeled elements from each of the single antibody experiments will be greater than that obtained with the cocktail of antibodies. The benefit of using this approach is that the sensitivity of the marker used to localize each antigen (i.e. peroxidase) is the same for the different antibodies used in the co-localization study, thereby reducing the likelihood of false negative data due to the reduced sensitivity and poor tissue penetration of gold-conjugated antibodies. However, an important technical issue to consider is that the quantitative assessment of the total number of labeled elements in each experiment is based on the relative abundance of labeled and unlabeled structures encountered in the tissue under analysis, thereby assuming that unlabeled elements are genuinely devoid of significant immunoreactivity for the other antigen under study. To make sure this is the case, we sampled tissue taken only from the most superficial sections of the blocks where both antibodies have full access to their antigens. Taking into consideration the little inter-individual variability between animals used in the same group, we believe that our sample strategy was accurate and, most importantly, consistent across experiments. Another important advantage of the cocktail method is the fact that primary antibodies can be raised in the same species, i.e. the choice of antibodies to be used can be based solely on their sens...
Technical Considerations. 1. The Agency reported that the main station valve (which the Agency also refers to as “discharge header valve”) that caused the SSO is an eccentric plug valve made by XxXxxxx, a company whose namesake developed the valve in 1928. XxXxxxx’x website, xxxx://xxx.xxxxxxx.xxx/ currently makes available technical documentation for the most recent versions of the company’s eccentric plug valves, namely those designated as the PEC and PEF. Water Board staff references some of these documents for manufacturer installation and maintenance recommendations. Water Board staff consulted with Agency staff to confirm whether the documents were reasonably representative of the valves related to the SSO. Agency staff confirmed that the Pump Station 13 main station valve was the same type of valve though an older model, and that it was most similar to the current PEC model. Water Board staff acknowledges that the documentation may not be identical to that which would have applied to the actual station valve when it was installed around 1980. However, Water Board staff assumes that it is reasonable to apply the manufacturer’s most recent general installation precautions and maintenance recommendations in assessing the Agency’s actions because this type of valve has been in common industrial use for over 80 years. As of July 27, 2015, Water Board staff has not been able to acquire technical documentation for the actual main station valve, nor has Agency staff been able to provide the same. Notably, the references made herein are largely common to all of the XxXxxxx documents, with some minor differences in wording or presentation, which supports the idea of the subject matter being generally common among eccentric plug valves of this type. XxXxxxx documents referenced herein include (note abbreviated numbers used throughout the discussion): • XxXxxxx 4-20” PEC Eccentric Valves, Instruction D10021, April 2015 (D10021) • XxXxxxx 3-36” PEF 100% Port Eccentric Plug Valves, Instruction D10453, April 2015 (D10453) • XxXxxxx 4” (100mm) & Larger PEC Eccentric Plug Valves Technical Specifications, Bulletin 12.00-1D, February 2015 (12.00-1D) • XxXxxxx PEF 100% Port Eccentric Plug Valves Technical Specifications, Bulletin 12.60-1B, February 2012 (12.60-1B)
Technical Considerations. None noted. Policy Considerations None noted.
Technical Considerations. None noted.
Technical Considerations. The contractor (hereinafter referred to as “QIO”) undertaking this SOW shall comply with all technical requirements outlined in this contract. The QIO may meet the experience and expertise requirements for this SOW by documenting access to persons with relevant knowledge, skills, and abilities either within its own staff or by formal agreement with expert consultant(s) or other formal, documented partnership agreement(s). This documentation shall be made available to CMS upon request.
Technical Considerations. Information are provided here: xxxxx://xxxxxxxx.xxx-xxxxxx.xx/micro- b3/trac/wiki/WorkPackages/Wp6 The MicroB3_Viral_genomes_DB contains 5 files: MicroB3_Viral_genomes.fna MicroB3_Viral_nucleotides.fna MicroB3_Viral_proteins.faa MicroB3_Viral_summary readme Reference list Xxxxxxx, X.X., and Xxxxxx, F. (2005). Viral metagenomics. Nature Reviews Microbiology 3, 504–510. Xxxxxxx, X.X. (1999). Marine viruses and their biogeochemical and ecological effects. Nature 399, 541–548. Xxxx, A.M., Xxxxxxxxx, X., Xxxxx, X.X., and Xxxxxxxx, X.X. (2011). Virus Taxonomy: Ninth Report of the International Committee on Taxonomy of Viruses (Elsevier). Xxxxx, X., and Xxxxxxxx, X.-X. (2007). Unique genes in giant viruses: regular substitution pattern and anomalously short size. Genome Res. 17, 1353–1361. Xxxxxx, X.X. (2007). Marine viruses — major players in the global ecosystem. Nature Reviews Microbiology 5, 801–812.
Technical Considerations. 3.1. In general, it is the City's desire that all work on this project reflects engineering excellence, economy and use proven, up-to-date technology meeting applicable codes, engineering standards and be reasonably reflective of the established budget. It is understood the study phase investigations and analysis may develop information and/or solutions that could result in adjustment of the current budget to assure maximum cost-benefit from this Project.
Technical Considerations. For security reasons, preference is given to PHP and MySQL on a *XXX server with Apache as the web server. Furthermore, the hosting environment is to be secured to currently accepted security standards for public production websites. All code and interfaces are to follow current web development best practices. Pages accepting credit card details are to be secured with SSL, and any posting to the merchant gateway is to be done securely via cURL. No credit card details are to be stored in the database locally.
