Streamlined Project Review Sample Clauses

Streamlined Project Review. For Undertakings not falling under VII. A. or VII. B, USACE shall ensure that the following project review steps are implemented. In the interest of streamlining, USACE may combine some or all of these steps during consultation in accordance with 36 CFR § 800.3(g).
AutoNDA by SimpleDocs
Streamlined Project Review. Programmatic Allowances are identified under this Agreement as types of projects that have been determined to have low potential to affect historic properties if implemented as specified in Appendix B Programmatic Allowances. These projects will not require further Section 106 review or consultation. The PQI will screen projects to verify whether the project is on either of the Tier 1 or Tier 2 Allowances lists and meets specified criteria. If the PQI determines that any portion of a project’s scope of work does not conform to the Tier 1 or Tier 2 lists, the DOT&PF shall conduct a delegated Section 106 process for the entire project in accordance with Appendix D Delegated Section 106 Process.

Related to Streamlined Project Review

  • Project Review A. Programmatic Allowances

  • Utilization Review We review health services to determine whether the services are or were Medically Necessary or experimental or investigational ("Medically Necessary"). This process is called Utilization Review. Utilization Review includes all review activities, whether they take place prior to the service being performed (Preauthorization); when the service is being performed (concurrent); or after the service is performed (retrospective). If You have any questions about the Utilization Review process, please call the number on Your ID card. The toll-free telephone number is available at least 40 hours a week with an after-hours answering machine. All determinations that services are not Medically Necessary will be made by: 1) licensed Physicians; or 2) licensed, certified, registered or credentialed health care professionals who are in the same profession and same or similar specialty as the Provider who typically manages Your medical condition or disease or provides the health care service under review. We do not compensate or provide financial incentives to Our employees or reviewers for determining that services are not Medically Necessary. We have developed guidelines and protocols to assist Us in this process. Specific guidelines and protocols are available for Your review upon request. For more information, call the number on Your ID card or visit Our website at xxx.xxxxxxx.xxx.

  • Systems Review The Construction Administrator will conduct reviews of proposed roof, structural, mechanical, electrical, plumbing, conveyance, sprinkler, telecommunications, and life safety systems, and will consider initial cost, availability, impact on the overall program, comfort and convenience, long-term maintenance and operating costs, and impacts on schedule.

  • Validation Review In the event OIG has reason to believe that: (a) Good Shepherd’s Claims Review fails to conform to the requirements of this CIA; or (b) the IRO’s findings or Claims Review results are inaccurate, OIG may, at its sole discretion, conduct its own review to determine whether the Claims Review complied with the requirements of the CIA and/or the findings or Claims Review results are inaccurate (Validation Review). Good Shepherd shall pay for the reasonable cost of any such review performed by OIG or any of its designated agents. Any Validation Review of Reports submitted as part of Good Shepherd’s final Annual Report shall be initiated no later than one year after Good Shepherd’s final submission (as described in Section II) is received by OIG. Prior to initiating a Validation Review, OIG shall notify Good Shepherd of its intent to do so and provide a written explanation of why OIG believes such a review is necessary. To resolve any concerns raised by OIG, Good Shepherd may request a meeting with OIG to: (a) discuss the results of any Claims Review submissions or findings; (b) present any additional information to clarify the results of the Claims Review or to correct the inaccuracy of the Claims Review; and/or (c) propose alternatives to the proposed Validation Review. Good Shepherd agrees to provide any additional information as may be requested by OIG under this Section III.D.3 in an expedited manner. OIG will attempt in good faith to resolve any Claims Review issues with Good Shepherd prior to conducting a Validation Review. However, the final determination as to whether or not to proceed with a Validation Review shall be made at the sole discretion of OIG.

  • Program Review The Contracting Officer or other authorized government representative may hold semi- annual program review meetings. Such meetings will be held via telecom or video teleconferencing. However, the Government reserves the right to request a meeting in person. The meetings will include all BPA holders, representatives from prospective customer agencies, a combination of current and prospective customer agencies, or individual BPA holders. Some Federal Government Agencies and any approved State, Local and Tribal agencies may establish a central program management function. Such users may require their primary suppliers to participate in agency program review meetings on a periodic basis, at no additional cost to the Government.

  • Post-Commercial Operation Date Testing and Modifications Each Party shall at its own expense perform routine inspection and testing of its facilities and equipment in accordance with Good Utility Practice as may be necessary to ensure the continued interconnection of the Large Generating Facility with the Participating TO’s Transmission System in a safe and reliable manner. Each Party shall have the right, upon advance written notice, to require reasonable additional testing of the other Party’s facilities, at the requesting Party’s expense, as may be in accordance with Good Utility Practice.

  • Commercial Operation Date Testing and Modifications Prior to the Commercial Operation Date, the Connecting Transmission Owner shall test the Connecting Transmission Owner’s Attachment Facilities and System Upgrade Facilities and System Deliverability Upgrades and Developer shall test the Large Generating Facility and the Developer Attachment Facilities to ensure their safe and reliable operation. Similar testing may be required after initial operation. Developer and Connecting Transmission Owner shall each make any modifications to its facilities that are found to be necessary as a result of such testing. Developer shall bear the cost of all such testing and modifications. Developer shall generate test energy at the Large Generating Facility only if it has arranged for the injection of such test energy in accordance with NYISO procedures.

  • Readiness Review Includes all plans to be implemented in one or more Service Areas on the anticipated Operational Start Date. At a minimum, the HMO shall, for each HMO Program:

  • Project Completion Report At the completion of construction and once a Project is placed in service, the Subrecipient must submit a Project Completion Report that includes the total number of units built and leased, affordable units built and leased, DR-MHP units built and leased, an accomplishment narrative, and the tenants names, demographics and income for each DR-MHP unit.

  • Annual Work Plan and Budget 1. The Recipient shall, not later than November 30th of each year, prepare and furnish to the Association an annual work plan and budget (“Annual Work Plan and Budget”) for the Project for the subsequent year, said Annual Work Plan and Budget of such scope and detail as the Association shall have reasonably requested.

Time is Money Join Law Insider Premium to draft better contracts faster.