Failures Across SLRs Sample Clauses

Failures Across SLRs. ‌ If there are failures across five (5) or more SLRs in any one month, on SLRs that are assigned a Weighting Factor of zero percent (0%), then an automatic Charge Reduction will be invoked at ten percent (10%) of one twelfth (1/12) of the Annual At-Risk Amount.
AutoNDA by SimpleDocs

Related to Failures Across SLRs

  • Purchase Order Flip via Ariba Network (AN) The online process allows suppliers to submit invoices via the AN for catalog and non- catalog goods and services. Contractors have the ability to create an invoice directly from their Inbox in their AN account by simply “flipping” the purchase order into an invoice. This option does not require any special software or technical capabilities. For the purposes of this section, the Contractor warrants and represents that it is authorized and empowered to and hereby grants the State and the third-party provider of MFMP the right and license to use, reproduce, transmit, distribute, and publicly display within the system the information outlined above. In addition, the Contractor warrants and represents that it is authorized and empowered to and hereby grants the State and the third-party provider the right and license to reproduce and display within the system the Contractor’s trademarks, system marks, logos, trade dress, or other branding designation that identifies the products made available by the Contractor under the Contract.

  • Loop Provisioning Involving Integrated Digital Loop Carriers 2.6.1 Where EveryCall has requested an Unbundled Loop and BellSouth uses Integrated Digital Loop Carrier (IDLC) systems to provide the local service to the end user and BellSouth has a suitable alternate facility available, BellSouth will make such alternative facilities available to EveryCall. If a suitable alternative facility is not available, then to the extent it is technically feasible, BellSouth will implement one of the following alternative arrangements for EveryCall (e.g. hairpinning):

  • Foreign-Owned Companies in Connection with Critical Infrastructure If Texas Government Code, Section 2274.0102(a)(1) (relating to prohibition on contracts with certain foreign-owned companies in connection with critical infrastructure) is applicable to this Contract, pursuant to Government Code Section 2274.0102, Contractor certifies that neither it nor its parent company, nor any affiliate of Contractor or its parent company, is: (1) majority owned or controlled by citizens or governmental entities of China, Iran, North Korea, Russia, or any other country designated by the Governor under Government Code Section 2274.0103, or (2) headquartered in any of those countries.

  • Processing Transactions 2 2.1 Timely Pricing and Orders.................................... 2 2.2

  • SERVICE MONITORING, ANALYSES AND ORACLE SOFTWARE 11.1 We continuously monitor the Services to facilitate Oracle’s operation of the Services; to help resolve Your service requests; to detect and address threats to the functionality, security, integrity, and availability of the Services as well as any content, data, or applications in the Services; and to detect and address illegal acts or violations of the Acceptable Use Policy. Oracle monitoring tools do not collect or store any of Your Content residing in the Services, except as needed for such purposes. Oracle does not monitor, and does not address issues with, non-Oracle software provided by You or any of Your Users that is stored in, or run on or through, the Services. Information collected by Oracle monitoring tools (excluding Your Content) may also be used to assist in managing Oracle’s product and service portfolio, to help Oracle address deficiencies in its product and service offerings, and for license management purposes.

  • Disaster Recovery and Business Continuity The Parties shall comply with the provisions of Schedule 5 (Disaster Recovery and Business Continuity).

  • Trunk Group Connections and Ordering 5.2.1 For both One-Way and Two-Way Interconnection Trunks, if Onvoy wishes to use a technically feasible interface other than a DS1 or a DS3 facility at the POI, the Parties shall negotiate reasonable terms and conditions (including, without limitation, rates and implementation timeframes) for such arrangement; and, if the Parties cannot agree to such terms and conditions (including, without limitation, rates and implementation timeframes), either Party may utilize the Agreement’s dispute resolution procedures.

  • PROPOSED MOBILITY PROGRAMME The proposed mobility programme includes the indicative start and end months of the agreed study programme that the student will carry out abroad. The Learning Agreement must include all the educational components to be carried out by the student at the receiving institution (in table A) and it must contain as well the group of educational components that will be replaced in his/her degree by the sending institution (in table B) upon successful completion of the study programme abroad. Additional rows can be added as needed to tables A and B. Additional columns can also be added, for example, to specify the study cycle-level of the educational component. The presentation of this document may also be adapted by the institutions according to their specific needs. However, in every case, the two tables A and B must be kept separated, i.e. they cannot be merged. The objective is to make clear that there needs to be no one to one correspondence between the courses followed abroad and the ones replaced at the sending institutions. The aim is rather that a group of learning outcomes achieved abroad replaces a group of learning outcomes at the sending institution, without having a one to one correspondence between particular modules or courses. A normal academic year of full-time study is normally made up of educational components totalling 60 ECTS* credits. It is recommended that for mobility periods shorter than a full academic year, the educational components selected should equate to a roughly proportionate number of credits. In case the student follows additional educational components beyond those required for his/her degree programme, these additional credits must also be listed in the study programme outlined in table A. When mobility windows are embedded in the curriculum, it will be enough to fill in table B with a single line as described below: Component code (if any) Component title (as indicated in the course catalogue) at the sending institution Semester [autumn / spring] [or term] Number of ECTS* credits Mobility window … Total: 30 Otherwise, the group of components will be included in Table B as follows: Component code (if any) Component title (as indicated in the course catalogue) at the sending institution Semester [autumn / spring] [or term] Number of ECTS* credits Course x … 10 Module y … 10 Laboratory work … 10 Total: 30 The sending institution must fully recognise the number of ECTS* credits contained in table A if there are no changes to the study programme abroad and the student successfully completes it. Any exception to this rule should be clearly stated in an annex of the Learning Agreement and agreed by all parties. Example of justification for non-recognition: the student has already accumulated the number of credits required for his/her degree and does not need some of the credits gained abroad. Since the recognition will be granted to a group of components and it does not need to be based on a one to one correspondence between single educational components, the sending institution must foresee which provisions will apply if the student does not successfully complete some of the educational components from his study programme abroad. A web link towards these provisions should be provided in the Learning Agreement. The student will commit to reach a certain level of language competence in the main language of instruction by the start of the study period. The level of the student will be assessed after his/her selection with the Erasmus+ online assessment tool when available (the results will be sent to the sending institution) or else by any other mean to be decided by the sending institution. A recommended level has been agreed between the sending and receiving institutions in the inter-institutional agreement. In case the student would not already have this level when he/she signs the Learning Agreement, he/she commits to reach it with the support to be provided by the sending or receiving institution (either with courses that can be funded by the organisational support grant or with the Erasmus+ online tutored courses). All parties must sign the document; however, it is not compulsory to circulate papers with original signatures, scanned copies of signatures or digital signatures may be accepted, depending on the national legislation. * In countries where the "ECTS" system it is not in place, in particular for institutions located in partner countries not participating in the Bologna process, "ECTS" needs to be replaced in all tables by the name of the equivalent system that is used and a weblink to an explanation to the system should be added. CHANGES TO THE ORIGINAL LEARNING AGREEMENT The section to be completed during the mobility is needed only if changes have to be introduced into the original Learning Agreement. In that case, the section to be completed before the mobility should be kept unchanged and changes should be described in this section. Changes to the mobility study programme should be exceptional, as the three parties have already agreed on a group of educational components that will be taken abroad, in the light of the course catalogue that the receiving institution has committed to publish well in advance of the mobility periods and to update regularly as ECHE holder. However, introducing changes might be unavoidable due to, for example, timetable conflicts. Other reasons for a change can be the request for an extension of the duration of the mobility programme abroad. Such a request can be made by the student at the latest one month before the foreseen end date. These changes to the mobility study programme should be agreed by all parties within four to seven weeks (after the start of each semester). Any party can request changes within the first two to five-week period after regular classes/educational components have started for a given semester. The exact deadline has to be decided by the institutions. The shorter the planned mobility period, the shorter should be the window for changes. All these changes have to be agreed by the three parties within a two-week period following the request. In case of changes due to an extension of the duration of the mobility period, changes should be made as timely as possible as well. Changes to the study programme abroad should be listed in table C and, once they are agreed by all parties, the sending institution commits to fully recognise the number of ECTS credits as presented in table C. Any exception to this rule should be documented in an annex of the Learning Agreement and agreed by all parties. Only if the changes described in table C affect the group of educational components in the student's degree (table B) that will be replaced at the sending institution upon successful completion of the study programme abroad, a revised version should be inserted and labelled as "Table D: Revised group of educational components in the student's degree that will be replaced at sending institution". Additional rows and columns can be added as needed to tables C and D. All parties must confirm that the proposed amendments to the Learning Agreement are approved. For this specific section, original or scanned signatures are not mandatory and an approval by email may be enough. The procedure has to be decided by the sending institution, depending on the national legislation.

  • CERTIFICATION REGARDING CERTAIN FOREIGN-OWNED COMPANIES IN CONNECTION WITH CRITICAL INFRASTRUCTURE (Texas law as of September 1, 2021) By submitting a proposal to this Solicitation, you certify that you agree to the following required by Texas law as of September 1, 2021: Proposing Company is prohibited from entering into a contract or other agreement relating to critical infrastructure that would grant to the company direct or remote access to or control of critical infrastructure in this state, excluding access specifically allowed by the Proposing Company for product warranty and support purposes. Company, certifies that neither it nor its parent company nor any affiliate of company or its parent company, is (1) owned by or the majority of stock or other ownership interest of the company is held or controlled by individuals who are citizens of China, Iran, North Korea, Russia, or a designated country; (2) a company or other entity, including governmental entity, that is owned or controlled by citizens of or is directly controlled by the government of China, Iran, North Korea, Russia, or a designated country; or (3) headquartered in China, Iran, North Korea, Russia, or a designated country. For purposes of this contract, “critical infrastructure” means “a communication infrastructure system, cybersecurity system, electric grid, hazardous waste treatment system, or water treatment facility.” See Tex. Gov’t Code § 2274.0101(2) of SB 1226 (87th leg.). The company verifies and certifies that company will not grant direct or remote access to or control of critical infrastructure, except for product warranty and support purposes, to prohibited individuals, companies, or entities, including governmental entities, owned, controlled, or headquartered in China, Iran, North Korea, Russia, or a designated country, as determined by the Governor.

  • Updated Information Submission by Interconnection Customer The updated information submission by the Interconnection Customer, including manufacturer information, shall occur no later than one hundred eighty (180) Calendar Days prior to the Trial Operation. The Interconnection Customer shall submit a completed copy of the Electric Generating Unit data requirements contained in Appendix 1 to the LGIP. It shall also include any additional information provided to the Participating TO and the CAISO for the Interconnection Studies. Information in this submission shall be the most current Electric Generating Unit design or expected performance data. Information submitted for stability models shall be compatible with the Participating TO and CAISO standard models. If there is no compatible model, the Interconnection Customer will work with a consultant mutually agreed to by the Parties to develop and supply a standard model and associated information. If the Interconnection Customer's data is materially different from what was originally provided to the Participating TO and the CAISO for the Interconnection Studies, then the Participating TO and the CAISO will conduct appropriate studies pursuant to the LGIP to determine the impact on the Participating TO’s Transmission System and affected portions of the CAISO Controlled Grid based on the actual data submitted pursuant to this Article 24.3. The Interconnection Customer shall not begin Trial Operation until such studies are completed and all other requirements of this LGIA are satisfied.

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