Stakeholder Participation. Provide a very brief indication of the organizations collaboratively involved with the applicant in activities carried out through this proposal and explain their involvement.
Stakeholder Participation. Although extremely radical, might it be possible to open up the discourse at the national level and the European level, through court action? The Lisbon Treaty is not the end station, the continued evolution of the Union based on the rule of law, democracy, and protection of fundamental rights – at European and national level – will need to be further negotiated. Even the ECJ, as Xxxxxx notes,205 although it has repeatedly stated that European citizenship is destined to become the fundamental status of the Union’s individual members, “has steadfastly limited its jurisprudence to the realm of free movement and to an apolitical concept of citizens. There is much scope for a new essential jurisprudence in this area.” For citizens of EU Member States, periodic parliamentary elections and occasional referenda are unable to fill the lacunae adequately. Could not an opening up of the European constitutional order to litigation –in the same way as the Art. 267 TFEU reference procedure has achieved – at the national and supranational levels actually provoke the negotiation where EU citizens could exercise more control over or more participation in providing input into these negotiations? Xxxxxxxx has articulated the xxxxxx000 of migration of constitutional ideas and has argued that these migrations do not necessarily mean a one-way traffic from West to East. His reasoning is one with which the present author agrees and identifies the proposal set out below with Xxxxxxxx’x philosophy on championing migration from “East” to West. The proposal is admittedly radical and invests EU citizens, national constitutional courts and the ECJ with greater degrees of responsibility in the discourse on the continued evolution of the concept of sovereignty at both national and European levels. The jurisdiction of neither the FCC nor the CT includes the possibility of the actio popularis available before the HCC.207 Yet in all these states, the understanding of the “essential core of sovereignty” or “constitutional identity” – what Xxxxxxxx has referred to as the “conservatory elements of statehood”208 – has come from national constitutional court case decisions on the application of the rule of law, democracy, separation of powers or fundamental human rights to concrete cases (usually on reference from an ordinary court) or on the limitations to the transfer of the exercise of national powers to the EU in these areas. Could not the broadening of standing at the national level befor...
Stakeholder Participation. IBM has been working to develop a Stakeholder’s group to develop an FPA for the project to develop a site specific process exemption for the copper plating rinsewaters and evaluate IBM Burlington’s plan and progress in implementing the process changes to achieve the reduction of the global warming gas emissions. IBM has contacted four individuals to participate as direct participants. Each has indicated an interest in participating in the project, but no specific commitments have been made at this time: Xxxxxxx Xxxxxxxxx: Member of the Vermont Law School Staff and former Deputy Administrator of the USEPA. Xxxxxxxxx Xxxxxxxx: Executive Director of the Vermont Natural Resources Council and former Chair of the Vermont Environmental Board. Xxx Xxxxxx: Chief Operator of the Essex Junction Wastewater Treatment Plant Xxxx Xxxxx: Director of the Technical Assistance Division of the Vermont Department of Environmental Conservation. Xx XxXxxxxx, a professor of Natural Resources at UVM, has tentatively agreed to participate as a commentor. All of these people were contacted twelve to eighteen months ago. Their interest will be reaffirmed once the Project XL is accepted. Efforts will also be taken to add additional members, either as direct participants or as Commentors. IBM is planning to contact additional potentially interested parties to complete the Stakeholders group. In addition, IBM will make public notice of the Project XL and Stakeholder’s Group in the local newspaper once the project is accepted by the USEPA for development of a Final Project Agreement (FPA). IBM envisions holding a minimum of three meetings with the Stakeholders. The first meeting will be an orientation session at which IBM will explain the various aspects of the project: an introduction to the Project XL process, an explanation of the semiconductor manufacturing process, the specific processes of interest to this XL project, and the regulatory issues that the project application is addressing. IBM also plans to have a draft FPA prepared to provide to the Stakeholder’s group to review for the next meeting. The second meeting would cover any orientation issues not addressed in the first meeting and begin a discussion of the FPA. It is expected that two to three meetings will be required to review and reach agreement on the FPA, though the dynamics of the stakeholders group may require more meetings. IBM will also work individually with the Stakeholders as appropriate to address and resolve ...
Stakeholder Participation. There will be two significant opportunities for stakeholder participation: • The workgroup will provide information to and solicit comment from the recommendations, and also engage in consultation with other federal agencies, tribes, states, local governments, and other interested persons through an active exchange of information and opinion during review and before the workgroup makes a recommendation(s). Workgroup members will use this same process in their periodic review of BLM and FS IOPs and recommendations therefor. The MOU will outline appropriate means for conducting outreach, which may include listening sessions/information sharing, web postings/comments, or other appropriate means. • Any land use plan amendments that consider workgroup recommendations will require evaluation under NEPA in accordance with applicable law, regulations, and agency policy and guidance. The agencies agree to a robust public involvement process and will ensure that: o The NEPA process follows agency procedures, including all applicable opportunities for stakeholder, tribal, state, and local government participation; o All potentially interested parties are provided opportunities to participate in scoping and the environmental review process as required by agency procedures; o Opportunities for full involvement of minority populations, low- income communities, and tribes are promoted and provided by the agencies.
Stakeholder Participation. The School has processes in place that ensure stakeholder input regarding the School’s effectiveness in such areas as student discipline, parent (guardian) involvement, community engagement, and motivation of students toward high academic achievement and good citizenship. The governing board communicates regularly with all stakeholders regarding student achievement and progress toward meeting the School’s goals.
Stakeholder Participation. Any Person may attend public meetings, and any Person may submit comments to materials published on the NorthernGrid Website for public comment according to the instructions included with the materials. NorthernGrid is to post notice of public meetings on the NorthernGrid Website at least seven (7) calendar days in advance of such meetings. The meeting notices will identify the date, time, and location of the meetings.
Stakeholder Participation. Stakeholders have access to the regional planning process through NTTG’s public planning meetings, other sub-regional planning groups, and WECC at their discretion.
Stakeholder Participation. Involvement
5.1 Government at Different Levels
Stakeholder Participation. There has been strong stakeholder interest and engagement on trade and environment issues under the PTPA, particularly with respect to the Forest Annex. USTR and other U.S. Government colleagues understand the great importance and value of stakeholder input, and have had dozens of meetings with stakeholders leading up to and following entry-into-force of the PTPA through both formal public sessions, meetings with the Trade and Environment Policy Advisory Committee (TEPAC), and informal briefings and discussions. Stakeholders have also sent letters to USTR outlining concerns, in some cases requesting formal action. In April 2012, USTR received a petition from an environmental group requesting audits and verifications under the Forest Annex of certain timber shipments, producers, and exporters of big- leaf mahogany and Spanish cedar. The Interagency Committee on Trade in Timber Products from Peru thoroughly reviewed and analyzed the information in the petition and sought additional information from Peru. Over a six-month period, the Committee met 15 times to determine the appropriate course of action. The Committee determined that it would not invoke the audit or verification procedures under the Forest Annex based on information collected in its review demonstrating that inter alia Peru had cancelled, suspended or otherwise taken action to address all of the 29 timber concessions that were listed in the petition. The Committee’s decision was further influenced by the fact that total exports of big-leaf mahogany and Spanish cedar from Peru to the United States, as well as exports from the two exporters named in the petition, declined significantly in 2011-2102 from 2009-2010, the period analyzed in the Petition. The Committee instead determined the best course of action would be to build upon ongoing cooperative efforts with Peru to focus efforts in a forward-looking manner, and to take action to address the specific challenges identified in the petition. Within one month of the Committee issuing its decision, representatives from USTR and the Department of State travelled to Peru and reached agreement on a five-point bilateral Action Plan.
Stakeholder Participation. 1.5.9.1 The Regional Planning Process is open to any interested party.
1.5.9.2 Participants in the Regional Planning Process ("Regional Participants") shall:
1.5.9.2.1 adhere to FERC's Standards of Conduct requirements in all discussions of the Regional Planning Process;
1.5.9.2.2 propose and select the Regional Studies to be evaluated;
1.5.9.2.3 provide comments on the scope elements of Regional Studies, including study assumptions, criteria, and methodology; case development and technical analyses; problem identification, assessment, and development of solutions (including proposing alternative solutions for evaluation); comparison and selection of the preferred solution options; and Regional Study reports; and
