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.
HIPAA Compliance If this Contract involves services, activities or products subject to the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPAA), the Contractor covenants that it will appropriately safeguard Protected Health Information (defined in 45 CFR 160.103), and agrees that it is subject to, and shall comply with, the provisions of 45 CFR 164 Subpart E regarding use and disclosure of Protected Health Information.
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.
Compliance with Environmental Laws Except as otherwise described in the Prospectus, and except as would not, individually or in the aggregate, result in a Material Adverse Change (i) neither the Company nor any of its subsidiaries is in violation of any federal, state, local or foreign law or regulation relating to pollution or protection of human health or the environment (including, without limitation, ambient air, surface water, groundwater, land surface or subsurface strata) or wildlife, including without limitation, laws and regulations relating to emissions, discharges, releases or threatened releases of chemicals, pollutants, contaminants, wastes, toxic substances, hazardous substances, petroleum and petroleum products (collectively, “Materials of Environmental Concern”), or otherwise relating to the manufacture, processing, distribution, use, treatment, storage, disposal, transport or handling of Materials of Environmental Concern (collectively, “Environmental Laws”), which violation includes, but is not limited to, noncompliance with any permits or other governmental authorizations required for the operation of the business of the Company or its subsidiaries under applicable Environmental Laws, or noncompliance with the terms and conditions thereof, nor has the Company or any of its subsidiaries received any written communication, whether from a governmental authority, citizens group, employee or otherwise, that alleges that the Company or any of its subsidiaries is in violation of any Environmental Law; (ii) there is no claim, action or cause of action filed with a court or governmental authority, no investigation with respect to which the Company has received written notice, and no written notice by any person or entity alleging potential liability for investigatory costs, cleanup costs, governmental responses costs, natural resources damages, property damages, personal injuries, attorneys’ fees or penalties arising out of, based on or resulting from the presence, or release into the environment, of any Material of Environmental Concern at any location owned, leased or operated by the Company or any of its subsidiaries, now or in the past (collectively, “Environmental Claims”), pending or, to the Company’s knowledge, threatened against the Company or any of its subsidiaries or any person or entity whose liability for any Environmental Claim the Company or any of its subsidiaries has retained or assumed either contractually or by operation of law; and (iii) to the best of the Company’s knowledge, there are no past or present actions, activities, circumstances, conditions, events or incidents, including, without limitation, the release, emission, discharge, presence or disposal of any Material of Environmental Concern, that reasonably could result in a violation of any Environmental Law or form the basis of a potential Environmental Claim against the Company or any of its subsidiaries or against any person or entity whose liability for any Environmental Claim the Company or any of its subsidiaries has retained or assumed either contractually or by operation of law.
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:
OSHA Compliance To the extent applicable to the services to be performed under this Agreement, Contractor represents and warrants, that all articles and services furnished under this Agreement meet or exceed the safety standards established and promulgated under the Federal Occupational Safety and Health Law (Public Law 91-596) and its regulations in effect or proposed as of the date of this Agreement.
Policy Compliance Violations The Requester and Approved Users acknowledge that the NIH may terminate the DAR, including this Agreement and immediately revoke or suspend access to all controlled-access datasets subject to the NIH GDS Policy at any time if the Requester is found to be no longer in agreement with the principles outlined in the NIH GDS Policy, the terms described in this Agreement, or the Genomic Data User Code of Conduct. The Requester and PI agree to notify the NIH of any violations of the NIH GDS Policy, this Agreement, or the Genomic Data User Code of Conduct data within 24 hours of when the incident is identified. Repeated violations or unresponsiveness to NIH requests may result in further compliance measures affecting the Requester. The Requester and PI agree to notify the appropriate DAC(s) of any unauthorized data sharing, breaches of data security, or inadvertent data releases that may compromise data confidentiality within 24 hours of when the incident is identified. As permitted by law, notifications should include any known information regarding the incident and a general description of the activities or process in place to define and remediate the situation fully. Within 3 business days of the DAC notification(s), the Requester agrees to submit to the DAC(s) a detailed written report including the date and nature of the event, actions taken or to be taken to remediate the issue(s), and plans or processes developed to prevent further problems, including specific information on timelines anticipated for action. The Requester agrees to provide documentation verifying that the remediation plans have been implemented. Repeated violations or unresponsiveness to NIH requests may result in further compliance measures affecting the Requester. All notifications and written reports of data management incidents should be sent to the DAC(s) indicated in the Addendum to this Agreement. NIH, or another entity designated by NIH may, as permitted by law, also investigate any data security incident or policy violation. Approved Users and their associates agree to support such investigations and provide information, within the limits of applicable local, state, tribal, and federal laws and regulations. In addition, Requester and Approved Users agree to work with the NIH to assure that plans and procedures that are developed to address identified problems are mutually acceptable and consistent with applicable law.
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.
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”.
DBE/HUB Compliance The Engineer’s subcontracting program shall comply with the requirements of Attachment H of the contract (DBE/HUB Requirements).
