Standard Drafting Team Review of Comments Sample Clauses

Standard Drafting Team Review of Comments. SERC staff shall forward all comments received to the RSS. The RSS shall review the comments received and revise the draft SERC Regional Reliability Standard as needed. The RSS shall develop a written response to each comment received using the Consideration of Comments Form Template (see Appendix F). The SERC Consideration of Comments Form Template can be downloaded from the SERC website (xxx.xxxx0.xxx). The completed Consideration of Comments Form will be posted on the SERC web site. The RSS shall summarize comments that were rejected by the RSS and the reason(s) that these comments were rejected, in part or whole. The RSS shall submit to the SC the summary of comments rejected, the completed Consideration of Comments form, and any resulting revisions to the draft SERC Regional Reliability Standard. If needed, a second draft of the SERC Regional Reliability Standard (along with the summary of comments rejected and the Consideration of Comments from the previous posting) will be posted for another comment period. Such comment period shall be for thirty (30) calendar days. A notice of the posting for comment will be sent to all SERC Standing Committees representatives and alternates. In addition, the notice will be sent (via e-mail) to NERC, the regional standards area of the other Regional Entities, individuals listed as entity contacts in the SERC Compliance Registry, and the SERC Registered Ballot Body representatives to seek input on the revised draft SERC Regional Reliability Standard. Based on comments received to the posting, Step 7 will be repeated as necessary until the RSS and the SC agree that no additional comments posting periods are warranted. The SERC Manager of Reliability Standards will then request the NERC regional standards staff to make arrangements for a formal quality review of the draft standard. The RSS will develop responses to any recommendations from that review, including developing revisions to the draft standard if appropriate. The SDT and SC must agree on those responses prior to taking one of the two following actions:  Submit the draft standard for an additional comment posting period (Step 7); or  Submit the draft standard to the SERC Ballot Body for approval (Step 9). The SC will determine if an additional NERC formal quality review will be requested for a draft standard which has been revised based on responses to an addition comments posting period.
AutoNDA by SimpleDocs

Related to Standard Drafting Team Review of Comments

  • 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.

  • 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 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.

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

  • Review of Personnel File Upon written authority from an employee, OC shall permit the President of the Union or their designate to review that employee's personnel file in the office in which the file is normally kept in order to facilitate the proper investigation of a grievance.

  • Project Team To accomplish Owner’s objectives, Owner intends to employ a team concept in connection with the construction of the Project. The basic roles and general responsibilities of team members are set forth in general terms below but are more fully set forth in the Design Professional Contract with respect to the Design Professional, in the Program Management Agreement with any Program Manager, and in this Contract with respect to the Contractor.

  • HUB Subcontracting Plan The Owner has adopted Exhibit H, Policy on Utilization of Historically Underutilized Business ("Policy"), which is incorporated herein by reference. Contractor, as a provision of the Agreement must comply with the requirements of the Policy and adhere to the HUB Subcontracting Plan submitted with Contractor's Proposal and attached as Exhibit I. No changes to the HUB Subcontracting Plan can be made by the Contractor without the prior written approval of the Owner in accordance with the Policy.

  • Review of Personnel Files Every member shall be allowed to review any of his/her personnel files except "confidential law enforcement records" and "trial preparation records" as defined in Ohio Revised Code Section 149.43 at any time, upon request and reasonable notice. Such request shall be made to the supervisor directly responsible for maintenance of such files. Review of the files shall be made in the presence of such supervisor or the supervisor's designated representative. For the Division master personnel file, the request shall be made to the member's Subdivision Deputy Chief or his/her designated representative. Any member, or the member's Lodge representative, may copy documents in the member's file. The City may levy a charge for such copying, which charge shall bear a reasonable relationship to actual costs. A member will be notified in writing any time records within his/her personnel, background, IAB, and/or payroll file(s) are requested, as a public records request pursuant to Ohio Revised Code Section 149.43, provided the City determines that the request is proper under applicable law. A member may request copies of any records provided under this paragraph, and these copies shall be provided at no cost to the member.

  • Review Scope The parties confirm that the Asset Representations Review is not responsible for (a) reviewing the Receivables for compliance with the representations and warranties under the Transaction Documents, except as described in this Agreement or (b) determining whether noncompliance with the representations and warranties constitutes a breach of the Eligibility Representations. For the avoidance of doubt, the parties confirm that the review is not designed to determine why an Obligor is delinquent or the creditworthiness of the Obligor, either at the time of any Asset Review or at the time of origination of the related Receivable. Further, the Asset Review is not designed to establish cause, materiality or recourse for any Test Fail (as defined in Section 3.05).

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