Exclusion Review Notwithstanding any provision of Title 42 of the United States Code or Title 42 of the Code of Federal Regulations, the only issues in a proceeding for exclusion based on a material breach of this CIA shall be whether Good Shepherd was in material breach of this CIA and, if so, whether:
a. Good Shepherd cured such breach within 30 days of its receipt of the Notice of Material Breach; or
b. the alleged material breach could not have been cured within the 30-day period, but that, during the 30-day period following Good Shepherd’s receipt of the Notice of Material Breach: (i) Good Shepherd had begun to take action to cure the material breach; (ii) Good Shepherd pursued such action with due diligence; and (iii) Good Shepherd provided to OIG a reasonable timetable for curing the material breach. For purposes of the exclusion herein, exclusion shall take effect only after an ALJ decision favorable to OIG, or, if the ALJ rules for Good Shepherd, only after a DAB decision in favor of OIG. Good Shepherd’s election of its contractual right to appeal to the DAB shall not abrogate OIG’s authority to exclude Good Shepherd upon the issuance of an ALJ’s decision in favor of OIG. If the ALJ sustains the determination of OIG and determines that exclusion is authorized, such exclusion shall take effect 20 days after the ALJ issues such a decision, notwithstanding that Good Shepherd may request review of the ALJ decision by the DAB. If the DAB finds in favor of OIG after an ALJ decision adverse to OIG, the exclusion shall take effect 20 days after the DAB decision. Good Shepherd shall waive its right to any notice of such an exclusion if a decision upholding the exclusion is rendered by the ALJ or DAB. If the DAB finds in favor of Good Shepherd, Good Shepherd shall be reinstated effective on the date of the original exclusion.
Log Reviews All systems processing and/or storing PHI COUNTY discloses to 11 CONTRACTOR or CONTRACTOR creates, receives, maintains, or transmits on behalf of COUNTY 12 must have a routine procedure in place to review system logs for unauthorized access.
Position Review 18.3.1 Either an employee or the University may request an audit of the duties and responsibilities of a position he/she/it believes is not allocated to the proper class. Employees requesting such an audit are expected to notify the Union at the time of their request.
18.3.2 Job audits will be performed and reclassification decisions will be made by the University’s Human Resources Services staff according to the University’s Classification Process. The affected employee(s) and the Union will be notified of the outcome of a job audit in writing. In the event of a reallocation that results in removal of a position from the bargaining unit, the written notice will describe the manner in which the bargaining unit work is being distributed, including the classification and position(s) of any employee(s) absorbing work from the reallocated position.
18.3.3 If an employee disagrees with a classification decision made by the Human Resources staff, the employee may request review of that decision through the Director of OFM/State Human Resources within 30 (thirty) calendar days of receiving the final allocation decision from the University. Should the employee disagree with the Director’s decision, the employee may further appeal the matter to the Washington Personnel Resources Board within 30 (thirty) calendar days of being provided the written decision of the Director. The Board will render a decision, which will be final and binding. Decisions regarding appropriate classification will be reviewed in accordance with this Section and will not be subject to the grievance procedure specified in Article 40 of this Agreement.
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) (eff. Apr. 1, 2025, Section 544.0106, pursuant to House Bill 4611, Acts 2023, 88th Leg., R.S.) is applicable to this Contract, Contractor affirms that it possesses the necessary occupational licenses and experience.
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