Reportable Events Involving the Xxxxx Law Notwithstanding the reporting requirements outlined above, any Reportable Event that involves solely a probable violation of section 1877 of the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. §1395nn (the Xxxxx Law) should be submitted by Practitioner to CMS through the self-referral disclosure protocol (SRDP), with a copy to the OIG. If Practitioner identifies a probable violation of the Xxxxx Law and repays the applicable Overpayment directly to the CMS contractor, then Practitioner is not required by this Section III.G to submit the Reportable Event to CMS through the SRDP.
Independence from Material Breach Determination Except as set forth in Section X.D.1.c, these provisions for payment of Stipulated Penalties shall not affect or otherwise set a standard for OIG’s decision that CHSI has materially breached this CIA, which decision shall be made at OIG’s discretion and shall be governed by the provisions in Section X.D, below.
Status Substantial Compliance Analysis The Compliance Officer found that PPB is in substantial compliance with Paragraph 80. See Sections IV and VII Report, p. 17. COCL carefully outlines the steps PPB has taken—and we, too, have observed—to do so. Id. We agree with the Compliance Officer’s assessment. In 2018, the Training Division provided an extensive, separate analysis of data concerning ECIT training. See Evaluation Report: 2018 Enhanced Crisis Intervention Training, Training usefulness, on-the-job applications, and reinforcing training objectives, February 2019. The Training Division assessed survey data showing broad officer support for the 2018 ECIT training. The survey data also showed a dramatic increase in the proportion of officers who strongly agree that their supervisors are very supportive of the ECIT program, reaching 64.3% in 2018, compared to only 14.3% in 2015: The Training Division analyzed the survey results of the police vehicle operator training and supervisory in-service training, as well. These analyses were helpful in understanding attendees’ impressions of training and its application to their jobs, though the analyses did not reach as far as the ECIT’s analysis of post-training on- the-job assessment. In all three training analyses, Training Division applied a feedback model to shape future training. This feedback loop was the intended purpose of Paragraph 80. PPB’s utilization of feedback shows PPB’s internalization of the remedy. We reviewed surveys of Advanced Academy attendees, as well. Attendees were overwhelmingly positive in response to the content of most classes. Though most respondents agreed on the positive aspects of keeping the selected course in the curriculum, a handful of attendees chose options like “redundant” and “slightly disagree,” indicating that the survey tools could be used for critical assessment and not merely PPB self-validation. We directly observed PPB training and evaluations since our last report. PPB provided training materials to the Compliance Officer and DOJ in advance of training. Where either identified issues, PPB worked through those issues and honed its materials. As Paragraph 80 requires, PPB’s training included competency-based evaluations, namely: knowledge checks (i.e., quizzes on directives), in-class responsive quizzes (using clickers to respond to questions presented to the group); knowledge tests (examinations via links PPB sent to each student’s Bureau-issued iPhone); demonstrated skills and oral examination (officers had to show proficiency in first aid skills, weapons use, and defensive tactics); and scenario evaluations (officers had to explain their reasoning for choices after acting through scenarios). These were the same sort of competency-based evaluations we commended in our last report. In this monitoring period, PPB applied the same type of evaluations to supervisory-level training as well as in-service training for all sworn members. PPB successfully has used the surveys, testing, and the training audit.
Failure to Make Good a Deficiency If the Contractor does not make good a deficiency within a reasonable space of time fixed in a Notice of Non-Compliant Work, the Owner may do any of the following:
Staffing Levels to deal with Potential Violence The Employer agrees that, where there is a risk of violence, an adequate level of trained employees should be present. The Employer recognizes that workloads can lead to fatigue and a diminished ability both to identify and to subsequently deal with potentially violent situations.
Certification of Meeting or Exceeding Tobacco-Free Workplace Policy Minimum Standards A. Grantee certifies that it has adopted and enforces a Tobacco-Free Workplace Policy that meets or exceeds all of the following minimum standards of:
Application of Miscellaneous Proceeds upon Condemnation, Destruction, or Loss in Value of the Property In the event of a total taking, destruction, or loss in value of the Property, all of the Miscellaneous Proceeds will be applied to the sums secured by this Security Instrument, whether or not then due, with the excess, if any, paid to Borrower. In the event of a partial taking, destruction, or loss in value of the Property (each, a “Partial Devaluation”) where the fair market value of the Property immediately before the Partial Devaluation is equal to or greater than the amount of the sums secured by this Security Instrument immediately before the Partial Devaluation, a percentage of the Miscellaneous Proceeds will be applied to the sums secured by this Security Instrument unless Borrower and Lender otherwise agree in writing. The amount of the Miscellaneous Proceeds that will be so applied is determined by multiplying the total amount of the Miscellaneous Proceeds by a percentage calculated by taking (i) the total amount of the sums secured immediately before the Partial Devaluation, and dividing it by (ii) the fair market value of the Property immediately before the Partial Devaluation. Any balance of the Miscellaneous Proceeds will be paid to Borrower. In the event of a Partial Devaluation where the fair market value of the Property immediately before the Partial Devaluation is less than the amount of the sums secured immediately before the Partial Devaluation, all of the Miscellaneous Proceeds will be applied to the sums secured by this Security Instrument, whether or not the sums are then due, unless Borrower and Lender otherwise agree in writing.
Notification of Government Investigation or Legal Proceeding Within 30 days after discovery, Progenity shall notify OIG, in writing, of any ongoing investigation or legal proceeding known to Progenity conducted or brought by a governmental entity or its agents involving an allegation that Progenity has committed a crime or has engaged in fraudulent activities. This notification shall include a description of the allegation, the identity of the investigating or prosecuting agency, and the status of such investigation or legal proceeding. Progenity shall also provide written notice to OIG within 30 days after the resolution of the matter, and shall provide OIG with a description of the findings and/or results of the investigation or proceeding, if any.
Disclosure to FERC or its Staff Notwithstanding anything in this Section 17 to the contrary, and pursuant to 18 C.F.R. § 1b.20, if FERC or its staff, during the course of an investigation or otherwise, requests information from one of the Interconnection Parties that is otherwise required to be maintained in confidence pursuant to this Interconnection Service Agreement, the Interconnection Party, shall provide the requested information to FERC or its staff, within the time provided for in the request for information. In providing the information to FERC or its staff, the Interconnection Party must, consistent with 18 C.F.R. § 388.122, request that the information be treated as confidential and non-public by FERC and its staff and that the information be withheld from public disclosure. Interconnection Parties are prohibited from notifying the other Interconnection Parties prior to the release of the Confidential Information to the Commission or its staff. An Interconnection Party shall notify the other Interconnection Parties to the Interconnection Service Agreement when it is notified by FERC or its staff that a request to release Confidential Information has been received by FERC, at which time any of the Interconnection Parties may respond before such information would be made public, pursuant to 18 C.F.R. § 388.112.
Return or Destruction of Confidential Information If an Interconnection Party provides any Confidential Information to another Interconnection Party in the course of an audit or inspection, the providing Interconnection Party may request the other party to return or destroy such Confidential Information after the termination of the audit period and the resolution of all matters relating to that audit. Each Interconnection Party shall make Reasonable Efforts to comply with any such requests for return or destruction within ten days of receiving the request and shall certify in writing to the other Interconnection Party that it has complied with such request.
