Formal Application Review
Formal Application Review Sample Clauses
Related to Formal Application Review
Program Review The State ECEAP Office will conduct a review of each contractor’s compliance with the ECEAP Contract and ECEAP Performance Standards every four years. The review will involve ECEAP staff and parents. After the Program Review, the State ECEAP Office will provide the contractor with a Program Review report. The contractor must submit an ECEAP Corrective Action Plan for non-compliance with ECEAP Performance Standards. The Plan must be approved by the State ECEAP Office.
New Application for Licensure Any time after the three-month period has lapsed from the Effective Date of this Agreement and Respondent has paid the Administrative Penalty set forth in Section III, Paragraph 1 of this Order, Respondent may apply for a new mortgage loan originator license or, as applicable, petition for the reinstatement of an MLO Activity Endorsement in any or all of the Participating States with the understanding that each State Mortgage Regulator reserves the rights to fully investigate such application for licensure or petition for reinstatement of an MLO Activity Endorsement and may either approve or deny such application or petition pursuant to the normal process for such licensing or endorsement investigations. No license application or petition described in this paragraph will be denied solely based on the facts, circumstances, or consensual resolution provided for in this Agreement. Respondent further agrees that Respondent must satisfy the Administrative Penalty provision prior to submitting an application for a new mortgage loan originator license or, as applicable, petition for the reinstatement of an MLO Activity Endorsement.
Commercialization Reports Throughout the term of this Agreement and during the Sell-Off Period, and within thirty (30) days of December 31st of each year, Company will deliver to University written reports of Company’s and Sublicensees’ efforts and plans to develop and commercialize the innovations covered by the Licensed Rights and to make and sell Licensed Products. Company will have no obligation to prepare commercialization reports in years where (a) Company delivers to University a written Sales Report with active sales, and (b) Company has fulfilled all Performance Milestones. In relation to each of the Performance Milestones each commercialization report will include sufficient information to demonstrate achievement of those Performance Milestones and will set out timeframes and plans for achieving those Performance Milestones which have not yet been met.
Utilization Review NOTE: The Utilization Review process does not apply to Services that are not covered by Blue Shield because of a coverage determination made by Medicare. State law requires that health plans disclose to Subscribers and health plan providers the process used to authorize or deny health care services un- der the plan. Blue Shield has completed documen- tation of this process ("Utilization Review"), as required under Section 1363.5 of the California Health and Safety Code. To request a copy of the document describing this Utilization Review pro- cess, call the Customer Service Department at the telephone number indicated on your Identification Card.
BID SUBMISSION All Bids are to be packaged, sealed and submitted to the location stated in the Bid Specifications. Bidders are solely responsible for timely delivery of their Bids to the location set forth in the Bid Specifications prior to the stated Bid opening date/time. A Bid return envelope, if provided with the Bid Specifications, should be used with the Bid sealed inside. If the Bid response does not fit into the envelope, the Bid envelope should be attached to the outside of the sealed box or package with the Bid inside. If using a commercial delivery company that requires use of their shipping package or envelope, Bidder’s sealed Bid, labeled as detailed below, should be placed within the shipper’s sealed envelope to ensure that the Bid is not prematurely opened. All Bids must have a label on the outside of the package or shipping container outlining the following information: “BID ENCLOSED (bold print, all capitals) • Group Number • IFB or RFP Number • Bid Submission date and time” In the event that a Bidder fails to provide such information on the return Bid envelope or shipping material, the receiving entity reserves the right to open the shipping package or envelope to determine the proper Bid number or Product group, and the date and time of Bid opening. Bidder shall have no claim against the receiving entity arising from such opening and such opening shall not affect the validity of the Bid or the procurement. Notwithstanding the receiving agency’s right to open a Bid to ascertain the foregoing information, Bidder assumes all risk of late delivery associated with the Bid not being identified, packaged or labeled in accordance with the foregoing requirements. All Bids must be signed by a person authorized to commit the Bidder to the terms of the Bid Documents and the content of the Bid (offer).
Office of Inspector General Investigative Findings Expert Review In accordance with Senate Bill 799, Acts 2021, 87th Leg., R.S., if Texas Government Code, Section 531.102(m-1)(2) is applicable to this Contract, Contractor affirms that it possesses the necessary occupational licenses and experience.
Development Plan document specifying the work program, schedule, and relevant investments required for the Development and the Production of a Discovery or set of Discoveries of Oil and Gas in the Concession Area, including its abandonment.
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.
Classification Review Grand Valley State University and APSS shall jointly determine the review assessment survey instrument to be used at Grand Valley State University. The parties shall maintain a Joint Review Committee, composed of three members appointed by the Human Resources Office and three members appointed by the Alliance. Bargaining unit members questioning the assigned classification of their position may do so by using the following procedure: A. Meet with the Employment Manager in the Human Resources Office to discuss the review process, changes in their job responsibilities, duties and any other process questions they may have. B. PSS member will fill out the assessment survey and email to the Employment Manager along with any other documentation that supports the request. The survey instrument will be jointly administered/reviewed by the Assessment Team (consisting of the Employment Manager and an Alliance member of the Joint Review Committee). A meeting with the PSS is scheduled for a verbal review of the documentation and to answer any questions the Assessment Team may have. The supervisor or appointing officer is encouraged to attend. If the Assessment Team believes a job site visit is warranted as a result of the survey information, they will schedule a time for a joint visit. C. The completed survey instrument shall be coded. The survey results, as determined by the Assessment Team, shall be shared with the survey participant. D. After receiving the survey results, the survey participant, if they so choose shall have the opportunity to meet with the Joint Review Committee for additional input and appeal. Any additional information shall be reviewed by the Committee, and where the Committee feels it is necessary, the survey will be recoded, in a manner mutually agreeable. E. The Joint Review Committee shall then deliberate as to the merit of the upgrade requested by the participant. If the Committee is not able to reach a consensus, the University will decide on the classification. The Alliance may appeal that decision through the arbitration procedure of the collective bargaining agreement. Professional Support Staff members may engage in the review process no more than once per year. Supervisors questioning the assigned classification of a staff member’s position shall provide supporting rationale, complete an assessment survey instrument and discuss with Manager of Employment. The Manager of Employment shall notify an Alliance Representative that a Supervisor is reviewing a staff member’s classification. The review and outcome shall be completed within 45 working days unless the Alliance Representative and Manager of Employment mutually agreed to an extension. The Alliance will be provided with the scored instrument and any supporting rationale.
Project Review A. Programmatic Allowances 1. If FEMA determines that the entire scope of an Undertaking conforms to one or more allowances in Appendix B of this Agreement, with determinations for Tier II Allowances being made by SOI-qualified staff, FEMA shall complete the Section 106 review process by documenting this determination in the project file, without SHPO review or notification. 2. If the Undertaking involves a National Historic Landmark (NHL), FEMA shall notify the SHPO, participating Tribe(s), and the NPS NHL Program Manager of the NPS Midwest Regional Office that the Undertaking conforms to one or more allowances. FEMA shall provide information about the proposed scope of work for the Undertaking and the allowance(s) enabling FEMA’s determination. 3. If FEMA determines any portion of an Undertaking’s scope of work does not conform to one or more allowances listed in Appendix B, FEMA shall conduct expedited or standard Section 106 review, as appropriate, for the entire Undertaking in accordance with Stipulation II.B, Expedited Review for Emergency Undertakings, or Stipulation II.C, Standard Project Review. 4. Allowances may be revised and new allowances may be added to this Agreement in accordance with Stipulation IV.A.3, Amendments. B. Expedited Review for Emergency Undertakings
