Log Reviews All systems processing and/or storing PHI COUNTY discloses to 11 CONTRACTOR or CONTRACTOR creates, receives, maintains, or transmits on behalf of COUNTY 12 must have a routine procedure in place to review system logs for unauthorized access.
TRUNK FORECASTING 57.1. CLEC shall provide forecasts for traffic utilization over trunk groups. Orders for trunks that exceed forecasted quantities for forecasted locations will be accommodated as facilities and/or equipment are available. Sprint shall make all reasonable efforts and cooperate in good faith to develop alternative solutions to accommodate orders when facilities are not available. Company forecast information must be provided by CLEC to Sprint twice a year. The initial trunk forecast meeting should take place soon after the first implementation meeting. A forecast should be provided at or prior to the first implementation meeting. The semi-annual forecasts shall project trunk gain/loss on a monthly basis for the forecast period, and shall include: 57.1.1. Semi-annual forecasted trunk quantities (which include baseline data that reflect actual Tandem and end office Local Interconnection and meet point trunks and Tandem-subtending Local Interconnection end office equivalent trunk requirements) for no more than two years (current plus one year); 57.1.2. The use of Common Language Location Identifier (CLLI-MSG), which are described in Telcordia documents BR 000-000-000 and BR 000-000-000; 57.1.3. Description of major network projects that affect the other Party will be provided in the semi-annual forecasts. Major network projects include but are not limited to trunking or network rearrangements, shifts in anticipated traffic patterns, or other activities by CLEC that are reflected by a significant increase or decrease in trunking demand for the following forecasting period. 57.1.4. Parties shall meet to review and reconcile the forecasts if forecasts vary significantly.
Review Protocol A narrative description of how the Claims Review was conducted and what was evaluated.
Program Evaluation The School District and the College will develop a plan for the evaluation of the Dual Credit program to be completed each year. The evaluation will include, but is not limited to, disaggregated attendance and retention rates, GPA of high-school-credit-only courses and college courses, satisfactory progress in college courses, state assessment results, SAT/ACT, as applicable, TSIA readiness by grade level, and adequate progress toward the college-readiness of the students in the program. The School District commits to collecting longitudinal data as specified by the College, and making data and performance outcomes available to the College upon request. HB 1638 and SACSCOC require the collection of data points to be longitudinally captured by the School District, in collaboration with the College, will include, at minimum: student enrollment, GPA, retention, persistence, completion, transfer and scholarships. School District will provide parent contact and demographic information to the College upon request for targeted marketing of degree completion or workforce development information to parents of Students. School District agrees to obtain valid FERPA releases drafted to support the supply of such data if deemed required by counsel to either School District or the College. The College conducts and reports regular and ongoing evaluations of the Dual Credit program effectiveness and uses the results for continuous improvement.
Claims Review Methodology a. C laims Review Population. A description of the Population subject to the Quarterly Claims Review.
LEAD WARNING STATEMENT Housing built before 1978 may contain lead-based paint. Lead from paint, paint chips and dust pose health hazards if not managed properly. Lead exposure is especially harmful to young children and pregnant women. Before renting pre-1978 housing, OWNERS must disclose the presence of known lead-based paint hazards in the dwelling. RESIDENTS must also receive a federally approved pamphlet on lead poisoning prevention.
Literature Review A-E shall conduct a literature review to determine which species have been identified as special status by state, federal, and local resources agencies and organizations, and have a potential to occur on the project site or in the immediate vicinity. Sources to be reviewed include: (1) special status species lists from the California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG), United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), and California Native Plant Society (CNPS); (2) database searches of the California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB) and the Electronic Inventory of the CNPS; (3) the most recent Federal Register listing package and critical habitat determination for each federally Endangered or Threatened species potentially occurring on the project site; (4) the CDFG Annual Report on the status of California’s listed Threatened and Endangered plants and animals; and (5) other biological studies conducted in the vicinity of the project site.
Conformity Assessment Procedures 1. Each Party shall give positive consideration to accepting the results of conformity assessment procedures of other Parties, even where those procedures differ from its own, provided it is satisfied that those procedures offer an assurance of conformity with applicable technical regulations or standards equivalent to its own procedures. 2. Each Party shall seek to enhance the acceptance of the results of conformity assessment procedures conducted in the territories of other Parties with a view to increasing efficiency, avoiding duplication and ensuring cost effectiveness of the conformity assessments. In this regard, each Party may choose, depending on the situation of the Party and the specific sectors involved, a broad range of approaches. These may include but are not limited to: (a) recognition by a Party of the results of conformity assessments performed in the territory of another Party; (b) recognition of co-operative arrangements between accreditation bodies in the territories of the Parties; (c) mutual recognition of conformity assessment procedures conducted by bodies located in the territory of each Party; (d) accreditation of conformity assessment bodies in the territory of another Party; (e) use of existing regional and international multilateral recognition agreements and arrangements; (f) designating conformity assessment bodies located in the territory of another Party to perform conformity assessment; and (g) suppliers’ declaration of conformity. 3. Each Party shall exchange information with other Parties on its experience in the development and application of the approaches in Paragraph 2(a) to (g) and other appropriate approaches with a view to facilitating the acceptance of the results of conformity assessment procedures. 4. A Party shall, upon request of another Party, explain its reasons for not accepting the results of any conformity assessment procedure performed in the territory of that other Party.
Marketing Plan The MCOP shall submit an annual marketing plan to ODM including all planned activities for promoting membership in or increasing awareness of the MCOP. The marketing plan submission shall include an attestation by the MCOP that the plan is accurate and is not intended to mislead, confuse, or defraud the eligible individuals or ODM.
Loop Testing/Trouble Reporting 2.1.6.1 Telepak Networks will be responsible for testing and isolating troubles on the Loops. Telepak Networks must test and isolate trouble to the BellSouth portion of a designed/non-designed unbundled Loop (e.g., UVL-SL2, UCL-D, UVL-SL1, UCL-ND, etc.) before reporting repair to the UNE Customer Wholesale Interconnection Network Services (CWINS) Center. Upon request from BellSouth at the time of the trouble report, Telepak Networks will be required to provide the results of the Telepak Networks test which indicate a problem on the BellSouth provided Loop. 2.1.6.2 Once Telepak Networks has isolated a trouble to the BellSouth provided Loop, and had issued a trouble report to BellSouth on the Loop, BellSouth will take the actions necessary to repair the Loop if a trouble actually exists. BellSouth will repair these Loops in the same time frames that BellSouth repairs similarly situated Loops to its End Users. 2.1.6.3 If Telepak Networks reports a trouble on a non-designed or designed Loop and no trouble actually exists, BellSouth will charge Telepak Networks for any dispatching and testing (both inside and outside the CO) required by BellSouth in order to confirm the Loop’s working status. 2.1.6.4 In the event BellSouth must dispatch to the end-user’s location more than once due to incorrect or incomplete information provided by Telepak Networks (e.g., incomplete address, incorrect contact name/number, etc.), BellSouth will xxxx Xxxxxxx Networks for each additional dispatch required to repair the circuit due to the incorrect/incomplete information provided. BellSouth will assess the applicable Trouble Determination rates from BellSouth’s FCC or state tariffs.