Finding. A Finding is defined as any Commission identified noncompliance with Agreement requirements that specifies that an activity or action did not take place. The Commission will document in writing any and all findings of noncompliance with this Agreement and will afford the CNA the opportunity to work with the Commission to address any such findings. Attachment 3 – LIST OF LAWS, REGULATIONS, AND POLICIES The following regulations and policies are documents the CNA shall follow when developing their processes and procedures for performing work under the AbilityOne Program and in accordance with this agreement:
Finding. A Finding is defined as any Commission identified noncompliance with Agreement requirements that specifies that an activity or action did not take place. The Commission will document in writing any and all findings of noncompliance with this Agreement and will afford the CNA the opportunity to work with the Commission to address any such findings.
Finding. No differences arose from the comparisons listed above. The result of the above recomputation ('chargeable' personnel costs) in all cases did not exceed the actual costs as recorded in the accounting records. Overheads/ Indirect costs
Finding. The dates given by the Beneficiary are consistent with the management information provided by the Beneficiary.
Finding. The amounts used in the costs calculation and those in the accounting records were the same. The costs consisted of standard salaries and statutory employers' costs, and did not include bonuses and confirmation was obtained from the Beneficiary that no special conditions exist for employees on EC projects.
Finding. The Companies appear to be in compliance with the terms of the Standard. RSA Standard 1.D.3: Agents are required to pass testing on each product before the agents may sell that product. The Companies reported meeting this Standard as of June 30, 2008. The examination review period was January 1, 2009 through December 31, 2009. In conjunction with Standard 1.A.1, the Examiners reviewed the Companies’ Agent Training Policies and Procedures. Testing was conducted on a sample of 64 new agents to determine whether the Companies are appointing recruits as agents prior to completion of TTACC/ACT testing and passing state licensure exams. Of the new agents tested, 1 of the agents had not passed the TTACC/ACT test prior to their appointment. Multi-State Examination of MEGA, Mid-West & Chesapeake The Companies have a policy and procedure in effect which requires agents to pass the product test prior to selling that Company offered product, however, the testing of the new agent sample revealed that all agents are not required to complete that test prior to selling that product. However, the error rate is below the threshold of 10% as stated in the RSA. Finding: The Companies appear to be in compliance with the terms of this Standard. RSA Standard 1.D.4: Inappropriately submitted applications are rejected and not underwritten. The Companies reported meeting this Standard as of December 31, 2008. The examination review period was January 1, 2009 through December 31, 2009. The Examiners were provided and reviewed the Companies’ Underwriting Policies and Procedures. New business testing was conducted to determine if applications for a new insurance policy were appropriately accepted by the Companies. A cancellation population comprised of 95,055 MEGA, Mid-West and Chesapeake new business policies were provided by the Companies for the period January 1, 2010 through December 31, 2010. There was one sample of 119 new business policies selected which included MEGA, Midwest and Chesapeake claims. The sample was weighted based on each Company’s claim population. No exceptions were found during the testing. Finding: The Companies appear to be in compliance with the terms of this Standard. RSA Standard 1.D.5: Trainees are asked to provide written or on-line evaluations of the training programs and the trainer(s). The Companies reported meeting this Standard as of June 30, 2009. The examination review period was July 1, 2009 through December 31, 2010. The Examiners found that tr...
Finding. The Companies appear to be in compliance with the terms of this Standard. Multi-State Examination of MEGA, Mid-West & Chesapeake RSA Standard 5.C.2: Documentation in each Company’s file is such that a reviewer can determine from the documentation: • The actions taken by the Company with regard to a claim; • The status of the claim related to that Company; and • If a Company has denied and closed a claim because coverage exists under the Customer’s policy with another of the Companies, a reviewer can tell from the first company’s documentation which Company’s records to search to find subsequent developments on the claim. The Companies reported meeting this Standard as of December 31, 2009. The examination review period was January 1, 2010 through December 31, 2010. Based on the certification provided by the Companies dated April 6, 2011, the Companies appear to be in compliance with the terms of the Standard.
Finding. As required by the Act, we considered the five factors in assessing whether the Crescent Dunes aegialian scarab, Crescent Dunes serican scarab, large aegialian scarab, and Xxxxxxxx’x dune scarab are endangered or threatened throughout all of their ranges. We examined the best scientific and commercial information available regarding the past, present, and future threats faced by these four beetle species. To ensure that this finding is based on the latest scientific and commercial information on the species, their habitat, and threats occurring, or likely to occur, we examined the petition, information in our files, and other published and unpublished literature. We solicited information from the public, but did not receive any response. We consulted with species and habitat specialists from the BLM, the Service, and NNHP. We evaluated whether the Crescent Dunes aegialian scarab, Crescent Dunes serican scarab, large aegialian scarab, and Xxxxxxxx’x dune scarab were affected by mining, solar development, and ORV use; however, these impacts are either limited in scope or significant uncertainty exists about if or how they may impact these species. The inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms to prevent any of the above factors is not a threat because BLM, by following their policy and through NEPA, has been successful in minimizing manmade impacts to these four beetle species. The best available information does not indicate that overutilization, predation, disease, stochastic events, or climate change is a threat to the continued existence of any of these four beetle species now or in the foreseeable future. There is also no evidence to indicate that synergistic or cumulative effects between the factors would result in significant threats to any of these four beetle species. Based on our review of the best available scientific and commercial information, the effects of these impacts on the four beetle species do not indicate that the Crescent Dunes aegialian scarab, Crescent Dunes serican scarab, large aegialian scarab, or Xxxxxxxx’x dune scarab is in danger of extinction (endangered) or likely to become endangered within the foreseeable future (threatened), throughout all of its range. Therefore, we find that listing any of these four beetle species as an endangered or threatened species throughout its range is not warranted at this time. Significant Portion of Its Range Having determined that the Crescent Dunes aegialian scarab, the Crescent Dunes ser...
Finding. If the organisation carries out activities other than research (e.g., manufacturing, education etc), This breakdown did not contain costs relating to direct project activity, such as these indirect costs are transparently separated via cost accounting and do not form part of the the cost of research personnel, project consumables and expenses;
Finding. 4. Program Modifications, provided that it is deemed necessary to conduct environmental monitoring