Insubstantial non-compliance Sample Clauses

Open Split View

Download

Share

Cite

Insubstantial non-compliance. The Parties agree that no Default will arise under clause 25.1 or 25.2:

Sample 1Sample 2See All (4)

Save

Copy

Related to Insubstantial non-compliance

• Significant Non-Compliance a) A Competent Authority shall notify the Competent Authority of the other Party when the first-mentioned Competent Authority has determined that there is significant non-compliance with the obligations under this Agreement with respect to a Reporting Financial Institution in the other jurisdiction. The Competent Authority of such other Party shall apply its domestic law (including applicable penalties) to address the significant non-compliance described in the notice.

• 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.

• Sanctions for Noncompliance In the event of a contractor’s noncompliance with the Non- discrimination provisions of this contract, the sponsor will impose such contract sanctions as it or the Federal Aviation Administration may determine to be appropriate, including, but not limited to:

• Consequences for Non-Compliance If the Department has reason to believe that the District is not in substantial compliance with one or more of the statutory or regulatory requirements applicable to the District, the Department shall notify the District that it has ninety (90) days after the date of notice to come into compliance. If, at the end of the ninety-day period, the Department finds the District is not substantially in compliance with the applicable statutory or regulatory requirements, meaning that the District has not yet taken the necessary measures to ensure that it meets the applicable legal requirements as soon as practicable, the District may be subject to the interventions specified in sections 00-00-000 through 00-00-000, C.R.S. If the District has failed to comply with the provisions of article 44 of title 22 or article 45 of title 22, the District does not remedy the noncompliance within ninety (90) days and loss of accreditation is required to protect the interests of the students and parents of students enrolled in the District public schools, the Department may recommend to the State Board that the State Board remove the District’s accreditation. If the Department determines that the District has substantially failed to meet requirements specified in this accreditation contract and that immediate action is required to protect the interests of the students and parents of students enrolled in the District’s public schools, the Department may lower the District’s accreditation category.

• Non-Compliance Any Products or Services that are not in conformity with the requirements of an Order (“Non-Complying Products” and “Non-Complying Services”, respectively), may be returned at DXC’s option at Supplier’s risk and expense. DXC may procure similar Products or Services in substitution for the Non-Complying Products or Services, and Supplier shall refund the cost of the Non-Complying Products and Service and reimburse DXC upon demand for all additional costs incurred by DXC.

• Compliance with Executive Orders Concerning Ethics The Contractor warrants that he and his firm have complied in all respects with the Governor’s Executive Orders concerning ethics matters, including, but not limited to, Executive Order dated January 13, 2003 (establishing Code of Ethics for Executive Branch Officers and Employees, including provisions governing former officers and employees); Executive Order dated October 1, 2003 (governing vendors to state agencies and disclosure and registration of lobbyists); and O.C.G.A. Sections 21-5-70(5), 21-5-71 and 21-5-73, all as amended effective January 9, 2006 (requiring registration and disclosure filings by state agency vendor lobbyists). In this regard, the Contractor certifies that any lobbyist employed or retained by the Contractor or his firm has both registered and made the required disclosures required by the Executive Orders, as amended.

• Notification of Non-Compliance If Seller is unable to comply with the obligations stated in this Section, Seller shall promptly notify Apple, and Apple may take any one or more of the following actions: (i) suspend the transfer of Confidential Data to Seller; (ii) require Seller to cease processing Confidential Data; (iii) demand the secure return or destruction of Confidential Data; and/or (iv) immediately terminate this Agreement.

• Noncompliance Standards The AGENCY shall be responsible for adhering to all terms and conditions of this Contract. Noncompliance may result in penalties as stipulated in Attachment “C”.

• Consequences of non-compliance If a beneficiary breaches any of its obligations under this Article, the grant may be reduced (see Article 43). Such breaches may also lead to any of the other measures described in Chapter 6.

• Xxxxxxxxx for Noncompliance In the event of the Engineer's noncompliance with the Nondiscrimination provisions of this contract, the State will impose such contract sanctions as it or the FHWA may determine to be appropriate, including, but not limited to: