STREAMLINED REVIEW PROCESS Sample Clauses

STREAMLINED REVIEW PROCESS. If the Park Cultural Resources Program Manager determines, in coordination with the Park Section 106 Coordinator and other members of the CRM Team, that the following process is followed for a proposed undertaking, no further consultation is required.
Sample 1Sample 2
AutoNDA by SimpleDocs
STREAMLINED REVIEW PROCESS. The USACE may use a streamlined modification review process for changes to the Program reflecting Adaptive Management of the Program, Credit releases, changes in Credit Releases and Credit Release schedules, and changes that the USACE determines are not significant. In this event, the USACE will notify the IRT members and Program Sponsor of this determination and provide them with copies of the proposed modification. IRT members and Program Sponsor will have 30 days to notify the USACE if they have concerns with the proposed modification. If IRT members or Program Sponsor notify the USACE of such concerns, the USACE will attempt to resolve those concerns. The USACE will notify the IRT members and Program Sponsor of his intent regarding the proposed modification within 60 days of providing the notice to the IRT members. If no IRT member objects, by initiating the dispute resolution process (33 C.F.R. 332.8) within 15 days of receipt of the notification, the USACE will notify the Program Sponsor of its final decision and, if approved, arrange for it to be signed by the appropriate parties. RCRCD In-Lieu Fee Program C-2 As individual ILF Projects are proposed and Development Plans approved by formal Instrument Modifications per Exhibit C, they will be incorporated into Exhibit D as subparts beginning with Exhibit D1 and continuing sequentially. RCRCD In-Lieu Fee Program Exhibit D As individual ILF Projects are proposed and Interim Management Plans approved by formal Instrument Modifications per Exhibit C they will be incorporated into Exhibit E as subparts beginning with Exhibit E1and continuing sequentially. RCRCD In-Lieu Fee Program Exhibit E As individual ILF Projects are proposed and Long-Term Management Plans approved by formal Instrument Modifications per Exhibit C they will be incorporated into Exhibit F as subparts beginning with Exhibit F1and continuing sequentially. RCRCD In-Lieu Fee Program Exhibit F U.S. Army Corps of Engineers RCRCD letterhead [date] Los Angeles District – Regulatory Division 000 Xxxxxxxx Xxxx. Los Angeles, CA 90017 Subject: Statement of Sale for [Number] Credits from the RCRCD In-Lieu Fee Program to [Permittee Name] The Riverside-Corona Resource Conservation District has an agreement with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers – Los Angeles District to operate an In-Lieu-Fee Program. This letter confirms the sale of [Number of Credits] credits of [Resource Type A], and [Number of Credits] credits of [Resource Type B]. These credits ar...
Sample 1
STREAMLINED REVIEW PROCESS. If the HPO determines that the Undertaking does not meet the definition of exempt activities listed in APPENDIX C and requires Section 106 review, the HPO will follow the review process outlined below. A. Definition the APE and Identification of Historic Properties. 1. Per 36 C.F.R. § 800.4, the HPO will determine and document the APE for the undertaking, and will take the steps necessary to identify and evaluate historic properties within the APE.‌ 2. For ground-disturbing activities, the HPO will determine whether further archaeological survey is warranted, supported by existing information from previously conducted archaeological surveys.‌ a) If the HPO determines that no further efforts are warranted because the area has been previously surveyed for cultural resources and no historic properties are present, or due to the low potential for intact subsurface remains as delineated in the 2014 Archaeological Sensitivity Model attached to this Agreement as APPENDIX F - CONFIDENTIAL, that determination will be documented for inclusion in the annual report, and no additional consultation is required. b) If the HPO determines that further efforts are needed to identify archaeological sites in sensitive areas, the archaeological investigations will be sufficient to identify any potentially eligible sites present within the APE and determine conclusively their eligibility for listing in the NRHP. NASA will submit the investigation findings to the SHPO and seek concurrence on NASA’s determination of eligibility within 30 days of confirmed receipt of the request. 3. If, as a result of these investigations, the HPO determines that there are no historic properties within the APE, or that an undertaking has no possibility of affecting cultural resources, the HPO will document a determination of “No Historic Properties Affected” for the undertaking and include it in the Annual Report per Stipulation X, and NASA has no further obligations under Stipulation IV.‌ 4. If the HPO identifies historic properties within the APE, the HPO will continue to Stipulation IV.B. B. Assessment of Adverse Effects 1. The HPO will apply the criteria of adverse effects to historic properties (as defined in 36 C.F.R. § 800.5(a)(1)) and will make one of the following determinations:
Sample 1
STREAMLINED REVIEW PROCESS. Where the Park Section 106 Coordinator determines the following criteria are met for a proposed undertaking, no further consultation is required unless otherwise specifically requested by the SHPO/THPO, Federally recognized Indian Tribe(s) or Native Hawaiian organization(s), or the ACHP.
Sample 1
STREAMLINED REVIEW PROCESS. The proposed Project Undertaking must be an activity listed within this section. These undertakings shall be known as “streamlined activities” for purposes of reference. A reminder that most of the USMMA is within the boundary of the HD. The following undertakings shall not require further SHPO review:
Sample 1

Related to STREAMLINED REVIEW PROCESS

  • Review Process A/E's Work Product will be reviewed by County under its applicable technical requirements and procedures, as follows:

  • 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.

  • Asset Representations Review Process Section 3.01 Asset Representations Review Notices and Identification of Review Receivables. On receipt of an Asset Representations Review Notice from the Seller according to Section 5.7 of the Receivables Purchase Agreement, the Asset Representations Reviewer will start an Asset Representations Review. The Servicer will provide the list of Review Receivables to the Asset Representations Reviewer promptly upon receipt of the Asset Representations Review Notice. The Asset Representations Reviewer will not be obligated to start, and will not start, an Asset Representations Review until an Asset Representations Review Notice and the related list of Review Receivables is received. The Asset Representations Reviewer is not obligated to verify (i) whether the conditions to the initiation of the Asset Representations Review and the issuance of an Asset Representations Review Notice described in Section 7.6 of the Indenture were satisfied or (ii) the accuracy or completeness of the list of Review Receivables provided by the Servicer.

  • 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 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:

  • Program Review The State ECEAP Office will conduct a review of each contractor’s compliance with the ECEAP Contract and ECEAP Performance Standards every four years. The review will involve ECEAP staff and parents. After the Program Review, the State ECEAP Office will provide the contractor with a Program Review report. The contractor must submit an ECEAP Corrective Action Plan for non-compliance with ECEAP Performance Standards. The Plan must be approved by the State ECEAP Office.

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

  • Utilization Review NOTE: The Utilization Review process does not apply to Services that are not covered by Blue Shield because of a coverage determination made by Medicare. State law requires that health plans disclose to Subscribers and health plan providers the process used to authorize or deny health care services un- der the plan. Blue Shield has completed documen- tation of this process ("Utilization Review"), as required under Section 1363.5 of the California Health and Safety Code. To request a copy of the document describing this Utilization Review pro- cess, call the Customer Service Department at the telephone number indicated on your Identification Card.

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

  • 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.

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