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.
Non-Grievability No dispute over a claim for any benefits extended by this Health and Welfare Fund shall be subject to the grievance procedure.
Loop Testing/Trouble Reporting 2.1.6.1 Think 12 will be responsible for testing and isolating troubles on the Loops. Think 12 must test and isolate trouble to the BellSouth portion of a designed/non- designed unbundled Loop (e.g., UVL-SL2, UCL-D, UVL-SL1, UCL-ND, etc.) before reporting repair to the UNE Customer Wholesale Interconnection Network Services (CWINS) Center. Upon request from BellSouth at the time of the trouble report, Think 12 will be required to provide the results of the Think 12 test which indicate a problem on the BellSouth provided Loop.
Justification and Anticipated Results The Privacy Act requires that each matching agreement specify the justification for the program and the anticipated results, including a specific estimate of any savings. 5 U.S.C. § 552a(o)(1)(B).
Contractor Requirements and Procedures For Business Participation Opportunities For New York State Certified Minority- and
Disturbance Analysis Data Exchange The Parties will cooperate with one another and the NYISO in the analysis of disturbances to either the Large Generating Facility or the New York State Transmission System by gathering and providing access to any information relating to any disturbance, including information from disturbance recording equipment, protective relay targets, breaker operations and sequence of events records, and any disturbance information required by Good Utility Practice.
Testing/Trouble Reporting 1.15.1 TWTC will be responsible for testing and isolating troubles on Network Elements. TWTC must test and isolate trouble to the AT&T network before reporting the trouble to the Network Elements Customer Wholesale Interconnection Network Services (CWINS) Center. Upon request from AT&T at the time of the trouble report, TWTC will be required to provide the results of the TWTC test which indicate a problem on the AT&T network. Version: 4Q06 Standard ICA 11/30/06
Course Materials The adoption of any course materials, print or electronic, after a Course Agreement is signed will require an agreed and signed addendum.
Failure to Supply Workmen or Materials or to Prosecute the Work A Notice of Non-Compliant Work may be issued for failure of the Contractor to supply enough workers or enough materials or proper materials to prosecute the Work. A Notice of Non-Compliant Work in such event may be based on Article 3.3.2 (Competent Management of Time), and upon the definition of Work as set forth under Paragraph 1.1.9.58.
Technical Standards Applicable to a Wind Generating Plant i. Low Voltage Ride-Through (LVRT) Capability A wind generating plant shall be able to remain online during voltage disturbances up to the time periods and associated voltage levels set forth in the standard below. The LVRT standard provides for a transition period standard and a post-transition period standard.
