Route Review Methodology Sample Clauses

Route Review Methodology. Contractor shall develop a hauler route review methodology that complies with the requirements of 14 CCR Sections 18984.5(b). Contractor shall submit its proposed hauler route review methodology for the coming contract year (July – June) to the City no later than July 1 of each year, describing its proposed methodology for the calendar year and schedule for performance of each hauler route review. Company’s proposed hauler route review methodology shall include its plan for container inspections and shall also include its plan for prioritizing the inspection of customers that are more likely to be out of compliance. City shall review, comment on, and approve the proposed methodology. Contractor may commence with the proposed methodology upon approval. If the City notifies the Contractor that the methodology is inadequate to meet the requirements of SB 1383, Contractor shall, at its sole expense, revise the methodology and, after obtaining City approval, conduct additional hauler
Sample 1
AutoNDA by SimpleDocs
Route Review Methodology. Contractor shall develop a Hauler Route review methodology that complies with the requirements of 14 CCR Section 18984.5(b) and this Section. Contractor shall submit its proposed Hauler Route review methodology for the coming year to the City no later than January 15 of each year describing its proposed methodology for the calendar year and schedule for performance of each Hauler Route’s annual review. Contractor’s proposed Hauler Route review methodology shall include its plan for conducting Container inspections in compliance with the Section, the Contractor’s process for identifying Prohibited Container Contaminants, and its plan for prioritizing the inspection process to reflect any pattern of contamination on specific routes or portions of routes. City shall review, comment on, and approve the proposed methodology. Contractor may commence with the proposed methodology upon approval. If the City notifies the Contractor that the methodology is inadequate to meet the requirements of SB 1383 or this Agreement, Contractor shall, at its sole expense, revise the methodology and, after obtaining City approval, conduct additional Hauler Route reviews, increased Container inspections, or implement other changes using the revised procedure.
Sample 1

Related to Route Review Methodology

  • Claims Review Methodology ‌‌ a. C laims Review Population. A description of the Population subject‌‌ to the Quarterly Claims Review.

  • Review Protocol A narrative description of how the Claims Review was conducted and what was evaluated.

  • 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.

  • 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:

  • 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.

  • Selection Criteria Each Contract is secured by a new or used Motorcycle. No Contract has a Contract Rate less than 1.00%. Each Contract amortizes the amount financed over an original term no greater than 84 months (excluding periods of deferral of first payment). Each Contract has a Principal Balance of at least $500.00 as of the Cutoff Date.

  • Selection Procedure 10.2.4.1 Internal applicants shall be defined as all applicants with seniority in accordance with Article 12.5. 10.2.4.2 In filling a posted vacancy, first consideration shall be given to internal applicants who meet the stated qualifications. All Faculty members who meet the stated qualifications for the posted vacancy shall be interviewed by the Selection Committee. Past service and evaluations shall be considered by the Committee. The best qualified candidate shall be recommended for appointment to the position. 10.2.4.3 Where the qualifications of two or more of the applicants are relatively equal, the applicant with the greatest seniority shall be recommended for appointment to the position. 10.2.4.4 In establishing the qualifications, and in evaluating the qualifications and past performance of the applicants, the committee shall act in good faith, in a fair and reasonable manner, and shall not act in an arbitrary or discriminatory fashion. 10.2.4.5 Following the interviews, the committee will submit its recommendations containing a list of qualified candidates in order of preference, through the appropriate Xxxx to the President or delegate. 10.2.4.6 New faculty members shall be appointed only when there are no qualified internal applicants. 10.2.4.7 If there are no qualified internal applicants, the selection committee may consider external applications, in accordance with the procedure outlined above. 10.2.4.8 Internal applicants will be advised as soon as possible of the selection committee's decision that the committee will be considering external applications in accordance with Article 10.2.4.7.

  • Methodology 1. The price at which the Assuming Institution sells or disposes of Qualified Financial Contracts will be deemed to be the fair market value of such contracts, if such sale or disposition occurs at prevailing market rates within a predefined timetable as agreed upon by the Assuming Institution and the Receiver. 2. In valuing all other Qualified Financial Contracts, the following principles will apply:

  • Benchmarking 19.1 The Parties shall comply with the provisions of Framework Schedule 12 (Continuous Improvement and Benchmarking) in relation to the benchmarking of any or all of the Goods and/or Services.

  • Claims Review Population A description of the Population subject to the Claims Review.

Draft better contracts in just 5 minutes Get the weekly Law Insider newsletter packed with expert videos, webinars, ebooks, and more!