Question 4. The interim final rule permits deposits to Unemployment Insurance Trust Funds, or using funds to pay back advances, up to the pre- pandemic balance. What, if any, conditions should be considered to ensure that funds repair economic impacts of the pandemic and strengthen unemployment insurance systems?
Question 4. Do you live in the same household with, or have you had close contact with someone who in the past 14 days was diagnosed with COVID-19 or had a test confirming they have the virus? Check One: □ Yes □ No • Question 5: Within the last 10 days have you been diagnosed with COVID-19 or had a test confirming you have the virus? Check One: □ Yes □ No
Question 4. Several drawings contain proprietary markings and instructions to contact the contractor point of contact to obtain copies of the drawings. Please provide an updated point of contact that can provide the missing information. Examples of these drawings are: 8591694_NOR 001 (MVLS2-4068).docx 8591694rev-.docx 8591694rev-PL.docx 8591696_NOR 001 (MVLS2-4071).docx 8591696rev-.docx 8591696rev-PL.docx RESPONSE: Drawings related to the Control Modules required by LSEQ drawing 7104340 Find Numbers 3 and 4 are not required. The Government will provide the Control Modules as GFP to the contract awardee.
Examples of Question 4 in a sentence
GUIDELINES: Question 4 asks whether the Executive’s Budget Proposal or its supporting documentation presents expenditures for the budget year organized by economic classification.
Name of individual(s) or entity(ies) seeking a contract with the city (i.e. parties to the contract) (Required: Maximum 4000 characters allowed) Question 4.
If no risks have been identified in Attachment 1 then note “No Risks Identified” and skip to Question 4 and Select “Low Risk”.
List any business entity(ies) that is a partner, parent, subsidiary business entity(ies) of the individual or entity listed in Question 3 If you selected Not Applicable on Question 4, skip this section.
Funding Plan – Question 4 – Response BeginsSubmitter expects to serve the following specific populations: Funding Plan – Question 4 – Response Ends 5.
More Definitions of Question 4
Question 4. Can a distributor who carries multiple brands of pizza bid and receive an SFA’s pizza contract if the distributor wrote the SFA’s pizza specification? Answer: No. 2 CFR 200.319(d) prohibits an SFA from entering into a contract with a potential contractor who develops or drafts specifications, requirements, statements of work, invitations to bid (IFBs), requests for proposal (RFPs), contract terms and conditions, or other documents for use in conducting a procurement. Regardless of the number of pizza products available through the distributor, if a distributor wrote the specification used in the SFA’s pizza bid, the distributor is not eligible for the award. However, if the distributor simply provided information to the SFA about all or only one of its pizza products and the SFA wrote its own pizza product specifications, the distributor would still be eligible to compete for the procurement. 2 CFR 200.319(d) is not concerned with potential contractors who simply provide information, but rather with those individuals and firms that are actually writing specifications, evaluation criteria, and other contract terms and conditions. SFAs must have sufficient information to develop well-written specifications and procurement solicitations. SFAs can obtain adequate and pertinent information through a variety of sources, including trade shows, market research, conferences, and discussions with manufacturers and suppliers. Using all of these resources allows the SFA to develop a well-written solicitation that promotes full and open competition, which in turn leads to competitive responses and the best products and services at the best price.
Question 4. Do expert patients mention their own experiences in sessions? Expert patients shared at least some of their own experiences in 93% of the sessions (agree- ment between raters was 100%).
Question 4. What kind of study is this? ☐Multi-Site selected.
Question 4. Who must sign the SF 3 1 2? Answer: Executive Order 12958 dated April 17, 1995, requires that a person may have access to classified information provided that that person meets three require- ments, one of which is signing an approved nondisclosure agreement. National Security Decision Directive No. 84, dated March 11, 1983, also provides that: “All persons with authorized access to classified information shall be required to sign a nondisclosure agreement as a condition of access.” Therefore, each person at the time that he or she is cleared for access to classified information, or each person who has been cleared previously and continues to require access to classified infor- mation must sign the SF 312, unless he or she has previously executed one or more of the following:
Question 4. If the population density in a landslide-prone area of your country increases by 50%, what change do you expect in the frequency of landslides triggered (fully or partially) by human activity? Please check one box only. No increase or reduction because of more attention and better engineering 0 – 10% 10 – 25% 25 – 50% 50 – 100% > 100%
Question 4. A State’s community colleges are authorized by State law, but not by name. Would the State’s Department of Education need to provide some documentation of their individual authority — by name —to grant postsecondary credentials in the State? Answer 4: As discussed in the preamble to the final regulations (see generally 75 FR 66867 (Oct. 29, 2010)), to the extent a public community college is a State institution, it is an instrumentality of a State government and is by definition compliant with section 600.9(a)(1)(i).
Question 4. As indicated above thus far ISDA has obtained legal opinions indicating that bilateral and multibranch close-‐out netting would be enforceable in a number of jurisdictions. However, we would like you to confirm that your answers to questions 1, 2 and 3 immediately above remain the same, notwithstanding possible actions that could be taken by an insolvency official or court in another jurisdiction where close-‐out netting may be unenforceable (the “Non-‐Netting Jurisdiction”). Such actions taken by an insolvency official of a Non-‐Netting Jurisdiction include the following scenarios: