Project Review and Processing Clause Samples

Project Review and Processing. A. Project Development and Preapplication Process: As described in the MOA, Corps personnel shall make all reasonable efforts to attend and participate in the preapplication and the project development and planning phases of a project provided sufficient notice and materials are submitted in accordance with VI.A.a below. The preapplication phase of a project is seen as a critical time in which to focus on opportunities to avoid and minimize the proposed project's impacts to the aquatic ecosystem. PENNDOT personnel shall make all reasonable efforts to provide relevant information to the Corps and other resource agencies during the preapplication process. The Corps shall engage in the process and provide feedback to PENNDOT or their contractors, as appropriate. When conflicting priorities exist, mutual agreement regarding the prioritization of projects shall be reached. a. PENNDOT staff and contractors shall notify Corps staff at least 15 working days prior to the scheduled, coordinated date of a preapplication or project development meeting or site inspection. All relevant information shall be forwarded by hard copy or electronic copy at least 5 working days prior to the meeting. b. Attendance at Agency Coordination Meetings (ACM) is required of Corps Project Managers and/or the Liaison when agenda items include relative project specific discussions or presentations from Regional or Metropolitan Planning Organizations (RPOs and MPOs).
View SourceView Similar (2)

Related to Project Review and Processing

  • Project Review A. Programmatic Allowances 1. If FEMA determines that the entire scope of an Undertaking conforms to one or more allowances in Appendix B of this Agreement, with determinations for Tier II Allowances being made by SOI-qualified staff, FEMA shall complete the Section 106 review process by documenting this determination in the project file, without SHPO review or notification. 2. If the Undertaking involves a National Historic Landmark (NHL), FEMA shall notify the SHPO, participating Tribe(s), and the NPS NHL Program Manager of the NPS Midwest Regional Office that the Undertaking conforms to one or more allowances. FEMA shall provide information about the proposed scope of work for the Undertaking and the allowance(s) enabling FEMA’s determination. 3. If FEMA determines any portion of an Undertaking’s scope of work does not conform to one or more allowances listed in Appendix B, FEMA shall conduct expedited or standard Section 106 review, as appropriate, for the entire Undertaking in accordance with Stipulation II.B, Expedited Review for Emergency Undertakings, or Stipulation II.C, Standard Project Review. 4. Allowances may be revised and new allowances may be added to this Agreement in accordance with Stipulation IV.A.3, Amendments. B. Expedited Review for Emergency Undertakings

  • Review Systems The Asset Representations Reviewer will maintain and utilize an electronic case management system to manage the Tests and provide systematic control over each step in the Review process and ensure consistency and repeatability among the Tests.

  • REVIEW OF WORK The Consultant shall permit the City, its agents and/or employees to review, at any time, all work performed pursuant to the terms of this Agreement at any stage of the work;

  • Periodic Review of Costs of Environmental Compliance In the ordinary course of its business, the Company conducts a periodic review of the effect of Environmental Laws on the business, operations and properties of the Company and its subsidiaries, in the course of which it identifies and evaluates associated costs and liabilities (including, without limitation, any capital or operating expenditures required for clean-up, closure of properties or compliance with Environmental Laws or any permit, license or approval, any related constraints on operating activities and any potential liabilities to third parties). On the basis of such review and the amount of its established reserves, the Company has reasonably concluded that such associated costs and liabilities would not, individually or in the aggregate, result in a Material Adverse Change.

  • Review Scope The parties confirm that the Asset Representations Review is not responsible for (a) reviewing the Receivables for compliance with the representations and warranties under the Transaction Documents, except as described in this Agreement or (b) determining whether noncompliance with the representations and warranties constitutes a breach of the Eligibility Representations. For the avoidance of doubt, the parties confirm that the review is not designed to determine why an Obligor is delinquent or the creditworthiness of the Obligor, either at the time of any Asset Review or at the time of origination of the related Receivable. Further, the Asset Review is not designed to establish cause, materiality or recourse for any Test Fail (as defined in Section 3.05).