Review of Decision Within sixty (60) days after the Secretary’s receipt of a request for review, he or she will review the Company’s determination. After considering all materials presented by the Claimant, the Secretary will render a written opinion, written in a manner calculated to be understood by the Claimant, setting forth the specific reasons for the decision and containing specific references to the pertinent provisions of this Agreement on which the decision is based. If special circumstances require that the sixty (60) day time period be extended, the Secretary will so notify the Claimant and will render the decision as soon as possible, but no later than one hundred twenty (120) days after receipt of the request for review.
Review of Agreement Each party acknowledges that it has had time to review this agreement and, as desired, consult with counsel. In the interpretation of this agreement, no adverse presumption shall be made against any party on the basis that it has prepared, or participated in the preparation of, this agreement.
ADB’s Review of Procurement Decisions 11. All contracts procured under international competitive bidding procedures and contracts for consulting services shall be subject to prior review by ADB, unless otherwise agreed between the Borrower and ADB and set forth in the Procurement Plan.
Review Procedures a. In consultation with the Illinois SHPO, NRCS shall identify those undertakings with little to no potential to affect historic properties and list those undertakings in Appendix A. Upon the determination by the CRS that a proposed undertaking is included in Appendix A, the NRCS is not required to consult further with the SHPO for that undertaking. A list of undertakings with the potential to affect historic properties comprises Appendix B.
b. The lists of undertakings provided in Appendices A and B may be modified through consultation and written agreement between the NRCS State Conservationist and the SHPO without requiring an amendment to this Illinois Prototype Agreement. The NRCS State Office will maintain the master list and will provide an updated list to all consulting parties with an explanation of the rationale for classifying the practices accordingly.
c. Undertakings identified in Appendix B shall require further review as outlined in Stipulation V.
a. The NRCS shall consult with the SHPO to define the undertaking’s APE, identify and evaluate historic properties that may be affected by the undertaking, assess potential effects, and identify strategies for resolving adverse effects prior to implementing the undertaking.
1) NRCS may provide its proposed APE, identification of historic properties and/or scope of identification efforts, and assessment of effects in a single transmittal to the SHPO, provided this documentation meets the substantive standards in 36 CFR Part 800.4-5 and 800.11.
2) The NRCS shall attempt to avoid adverse effects to historic properties whenever possible; where historic properties are located in the APE, NRCS shall describe how it proposes to modify, buffer, or move the undertaking to avoid adverse effects to historic properties.
3) Where the NRCS proposes a finding of "no historic properties affected" or "no adverse effect" to historic properties, the SHPO shall have 30 calendar days from receipt of this documented description and information to review it and provide comments. The NRCS shall take into account all timely comments.
i. If the SHPO, or another consulting party, disagrees with NRCS' findings and/or determination, it shall notify the NRCS within the thirty (30) calendar daytime period. The NRCS shall consult with the SHPO or other consulting party to attempt to resolve the disagreement. If the disagreement cannot be resolved through this consultation, NRCS shall follow the dispute resolution process in Stipulation VIII below.
ii. If the SHPO does not respond to the NRCS within the thirty (30) calendar day period and/or the NRCS receives no objections from other consulting parties, or if the SHPO concurs with the NRCS' determination and proposed actions to avoid adverse effects, the NRCS shall document the concurrence/lack of response within the review time noted above and may move forward with the undertaking.
4) Where a proposed undertaking may adversely affect historic properties, NRCS shall describe proposed measures to minimize or mitigate the adverse effects, and follow the process in 36 CFR Part 800.6, including consultation with other consulting patties and notification to the ACHP, to develop a Memorandum of Agreement to resolve the adverse effects. Should the proposed undertaking have the potential to adversely affect a known NHL, the NRCS shall, to the maximum extent possible, undertake such planning and actions that may be necessary to minimize harm to the NHL in accordance with 54 U.S.C. § 306107 of the NHPA and 36 CFR Part 800.6 and 800.10, including consultation with the ACHP and respective National Park Service, Regional National Historic Landmark Program Coordinator, to develop a Memorandum of Agreement.
d. NRCS will conduct archaeological surveys and will submit reports and other documentation to SHPO for review and comment. When no archaeological sites have been located by the archaeological survey, NRCS may proceed with the proposed undertaking. Reports for negative surveys must be submitted to SHPO on a quarterly basis. All positive and negative reports submitted to SHPO will be sent digitally for submission to the Inventory of Illinois Archaeological Sites (IAS) data file maintained by staff at the Illinois State Museum (ISM) housed under the Illinois Department of Natural Resources (IDNR). The NRCS further agrees that access to specific site location data will be restricted to the CRS, the NRCS field personnel installing conservation practices adjacent to the cultural resource, and the landowner. Specific site location information for individual projects will be maintained in a secure cultural resources file kept in the field offices and will not be available to the public.
e. Curation: NRCS personnel will not collect artifactual material during routine field inspections. However, if a professional survey, evaluation testing, or mitigation is required, NRCS shall ensure that all materials and records resulting from cultural resources surveys or data recovery activities on federal or state property are curated by the Illinois State Museum. The NRCS shall ensure that all records resulting from cultural resource surveys or data recovery activities on private property are curated by the Illinois State Museum or an equivalent curation facility in accordance with 36 CFR Part 79. Subject to the landowner's permission, all objects resulting from cultural resources surveys or data recovery activities are maintained by the Illinois State Museum or equivalent research institution until their analysis is complete and they are returned to their owner(s). Although landowners will be encouraged to donate artifactual material, it is understood that objects collected on private land remain the property of the landowner(s) unless the landowner(s) donates the material to the Illinois State Museum or equivalent research institution. This excludes burial goods, as stipulated by XXXXXX.
AUDIT REVIEW PROCEDURES Any dispute concerning a question of fact arising under an interim or post audit of this AGREEMENT that is not disposed of by agreement, shall be reviewed by ALAMEDA CTC’s Deputy Executive Director of Finance and Administration. Not later than thirty (30) calendar days after issuance of the final audit report, CONSULTANT may request a review by ALAMEDA CTC’s Deputy Executive Director of Finance and Administration of unresolved audit issues. The request for review will be submitted in writing. Neither the pendency of a dispute nor its consideration by ALAMEDA CTC will excuse CONSULTANT from full and timely performance, in accordance with the terms of this AGREEMENT. CONSULTANT and subconsultants’ contracts, including cost proposals and ICRs, may be subject to audits or reviews such as, but not limited to, an AGREEMENT Audit, an Incurred Cost Audit, an ICR Audit, or a certified public accountant (“CPA”) ICR Audit Workpaper Review. If selected for audit or review, the AGREEMENT, cost proposal and ICR and related workpapers, if applicable, will be reviewed to verify compliance with 48 CFR, Chapter 1, Part 31 and other related laws and regulations. In the instances of a CPA ICR Audit Workpaper Review it is CONSULTANT’s responsibility to ensure federal, state, or local government officials are allowed full access to the CPA’s workpapers including making copies as necessary. The AGREEMENT, cost proposal, and ICR shall be adjusted by CONSULTANT and approved by ALAMEDA CTC to conform to the audit or review recommendations. CONSULTANT agrees that individual terms of costs identified in the audit report shall be incorporated into the contract by this reference if directed by ALAMEDA CTC at its sole discretion. Refusal by CONSULTANT to incorporate audit or review recommendations, or to ensure that the federal, state, or local governments have access to CPA workpapers, will be considered a breach of contract terms and cause for termination of the AGREEMENT and disallowance of prior reimbursed costs.
Limitation on Out-of-State Litigation - Texas Business and Commerce Code § 272 This is a requirement of the TIPS Contract and is non-negotiable. Texas Business and Commerce Code § 272 prohibits a construction contract, or an agreement collateral to or affecting the construction contract, from containing a provision making the contract or agreement, or any conflict arising under the contract or agreement, subject to another state’s law, litigation in the courts of another state, or arbitration in another state. If included in Texas construction contracts, such provisions are voidable by a party obligated by the contract or agreement to perform the work. By submission of this proposal, Vendor acknowledges this law and if Vendor enters into a construction contract with a Texas TIPS Member under this procurement, Vendor certifies compliance.
Review Procedure If the Plan Administrator denies part or all of the claim, the claimant shall have the opportunity for a full and fair review by the Plan Administrator of the denial, as follows:
Final Decision Concessionaire covenants that the decision of the Commissioner of Department, relative to the performance of the terms and conditions of this Agreement, shall be final and conclusive.
Review and Procedure Limitations The Asset Representations Reviewer will have no obligation (i) to determine whether a Delinquency Trigger has occurred, (ii) to determine whether the required percentage of Noteholders has voted to direct a Review, (iii) to determine which Receivables are subject to a Review, (iv) to obtain or confirm the validity of the Review Materials, (v) to obtain missing or insufficient Review Materials (except to the extent set forth in Section 3.04), or (vi) to take any action or cause any other party to take any action under any of the Basic Documents to enforce any remedies for breaches of any Eligible Representations. The Asset Representations Reviewer will only be required to perform the Tests provided in Exhibit A and will have no obligation to perform additional testing procedures on any ARR Receivables or to consider any additional information provided by any party. The Asset Representations Reviewer will have no obligation to provide reporting or information in addition to that described in Section 3.07. However, the Asset Representations Reviewer may review and report on additional information that it determines in good faith to be material to its performance under this ARR Agreement and may re-perform a Review with respect to an ARR Receivable as contemplated by Section 3.09. The Issuing Entity expressly agrees that the Asset Representations Reviewer is not advising the Issuing Entity or any Noteholder or any investor or future investor concerning the suitability of the Notes or any investment strategy. The Issuing Entity expressly acknowledges and agrees that the Asset Representations Reviewer is not an expert in accounting, tax, regulatory, or legal matters, and that the Asset Representations Reviewer is not providing legal advice as to any matter.
Claim Decision Upon receipt of such claim, the Plan Administrator shall respond to such claimant within ninety (90) days after receiving the claim. If the Plan Administrator determines that special circumstances require additional time for processing the claim, the Plan Administrator can extend the response period by an additional ninety (90) days for reasonable cause by notifying the claimant in writing, prior to the end of the initial ninety (90) day period, that an additional period is required. The notice of extension must set forth the special circumstances and the date by which the Plan Administrator expects to render its decision. If the claim is denied in whole or in part, the Plan Administrator shall notify the claimant in writing of such denial. The Plan Administrator shall write the notification in a manner calculated to be understood by the claimant. The notification shall set forth:
(i) The specific reasons for the denial;
(ii) The specific reference to pertinent provisions of the Agreement on which the denial is based;
(iii) A description of any additional information or material necessary for the claimant to perfect the claim and an explanation of why such material or information is necessary;
(iv) Appropriate information as to the steps to be taken if the claimant wishes to submit the claim for review and the time limits applicable to such procedures; and
(v) A statement of the claimant’s right to bring a civil action under ERISA Section 502(a) following an adverse benefit determination on review.
