Collocation Swift Communication Eligibility Determination
Collocation Swift Communication Eligibility Determination Sample Clauses
Related to Collocation Swift Communication Eligibility Determination
Eligibility Determination The State or its designee will make eligibility determinations for each of the HHSC HMO Programs.
Interconnection Customer Compensation for Actions During Emergency Condition The CAISO shall compensate the Interconnection Customer in accordance with the CAISO Tariff for its provision of real and reactive power and other Emergency Condition services that the Interconnection Customer provides to support the CAISO Controlled Grid during an Emergency Condition in accordance with Article 11.6.
T ermination In the event that either party seeks to terminate this DPA, they may do so by mutual written consent and as long as any service agreement or terms of service, to the extent one exists, has lapsed or has been terminated. The LEA may terminate this DPA and any service agreement or contract with the Provider if the Provider breaches any terms of this DPA.
HHS Single Audit Unit will notify Grantee to complete the Single Audit Determination Form If Grantee fails to complete the form within thirty (30) calendar days after receipt of notice, Grantee maybe subject to sanctions and remedies for non-compliance.
Salary Determination 12.5.1 A unit member shall receive a salary not less than the minimum salary nor more than the maximum salary (Articles 12.3 and 12.4) for the rank to which appointed, except as provided in Articles 4.15, 5.6, 10.6.1 or Article 10.6.1.1. The effective dates for salaries shall be the appropriate dates specified in Article 12.2.2.
Benefit Level Two Health Care Network Determination Issues regarding the health care networks for the 2017 insurance year shall be negotiated in accordance with the following procedures:
Unbundled Network Terminating Wire (UNTW) 2.8.3.1 UNTW is unshielded twisted copper wiring that is used to extend circuits from an intra-building network cable terminal or from a building entrance terminal to an individual End User’s point of demarcation. It is the final portion of the Loop that in multi-subscriber configurations represents the point at which the network branches out to serve individual subscribers.
Contract Renegotiation, Suspension, or Termination Due to Change in Funding If the funds DSHS relied upon to establish this Contract or Program Agreement are withdrawn, reduced or limited, or if additional or modified conditions are placed on such funding, after the effective date of this contract but prior to the normal completion of this Contract or Program Agreement:
CONTRACT MANAGEMENT AND EARLY TERMINATION 14 8.1 Contract Remedies. 14 8.2 Termination for Convenience 14 8.3 Termination for Cause 14 ARTICLE IX. MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS 15 9.1 Amendment 15 9.2 Insurance 15 9.3 Legal Obligations 15 9.4 Permitting and Licensure 16 9.5 Indemnity 16 9.6 Assignments 16 9.7 Independent Contractor 17 9.8 Technical Guidance Letters 17 9.9 Dispute Resolution 17 9.10 Governing Law and Venue 17 9.11 Severability 17 9.12 Survivability 18 9.13 Force Majeure 18 9.14 No Waiver of Provisions 18 9.15 Publicity 18 9.16 Prohibition on Non-compete Restrictions 19 9.17 No Waiver of Sovereign Immunity 19 9.18 Entire Contract and Modification 19 9.19 Counterparts 19 9.20 Proper Authority 19 9.21 E-Verify Program 19 9.22 Civil Rights 19 9.23 System Agency Data 21 v. 2 16.1 Effective 03/26/2019 HHSC Grantee Uniform Terms and Conditions Page 3 of 21
Penalty Determination H&SC section 39619.7 requires CARB to provide information on the basis for the penalties it seeks. This Agreement includes this information, which is also summarized here. The provision of law the penalty is being assessed under and why that provision is most appropriate for that violation. The penalty provision being applied in this case is H&SC section 42402 et seq. because IIT sold, supplied, offered for sale, consumer products for commerce in California in violation of the Consumer Products Regulations (17 CCR section 94507 et seq.). The penalty provisions of H&SC section 42402 et seq. apply to violations of the Consumer Products Regulations because the regulations were adopted under authority of H&SC section 41712, which is in Part 4 of Division 26. The manner in which the penalty amount was determined, including aggravating and mitigating factors and per unit or per vehicle basis for the penalty. H&SC section 42402 et seq. provides strict liability penalties of up to $10,000 per day for violations of the Consumer Product Regulations with each day being a separate violation. In cases like this, involving unintentional violations of the Consumer Products Regulations where the violator cooperates with the investigation, CARB has obtained penalties for selling uncertified charcoal lighter material in California. In this case, the total penalty is $7,500 for selling uncertified charcoal lighter material in California. The penalty in this case was reduced because this was a strict liability first-time violation and IIT made diligent efforts to cooperate with the investigation. To come into compliance, IIT no longer offers Safegel BBQ & Fireplace Lighting Gel Fire Starter for commerce in California. Final penalties were determined based on the unique circumstances of this matter, considered together with the need to remove any economic benefit from noncompliance, the goal of deterring future violations and obtaining swift compliance, the consideration of past penalties in similar negotiated cases, and the potential cost and risk associated with litigating these particular violations. The penalty reflects violations extending over a number of days resulting in quantifiable harm to the environment considered together with the complete circumstances of this case. Penalties in future cases might be smaller or larger on a per ton basis. The final penalty in this case was based in part on confidential financial information or confidential business information provided by IIT that is not retained by CARB in the ordinary course of business. The penalty in this case was also based on confidential settlement communications between CARB and IIT that CARB does not retain in the ordinary course of business. The penalty also reflects CARB’s assessment of the relative strength of its case against IIT, the desire to avoid the uncertainty, burden and expense of litigation, obtain swift compliance with the law and remove any unfair advantage that IIT may have secured from its actions. Is the penalty being assessed under a provision of law that prohibits the emission of pollution at a specified level, and, if so a quantification of excess emissions, if it is practicable to do so. The Consumer Product Regulations do not prohibit emissions above a specified level, but they do limit the concentration of VOCs in regulated products. In this case, a quantification of the excess emissions attributable to the violations was not practicable.
