EXTRADITION Treaty on extradition. Signed at Buenos Aires June 10, 1997; entered into force June 15, 2000. TIAS ; 2159 UNTS 129. FINANCE Agreement relating to investment guaranties under section 413(b)(4) of the Mutual Security Act of 1954, as amended. Signed at Buenos Aires December 22, 1959; entered into force provisionally December 22, 1959; definitively May 5, 1961. 12 UST 955; TIAS 4799; 411 UNTS 41. Agreement regarding the consolidation and re- scheduling of certain debts owed to, xxxxxx- xxxx by or insured by the United States Gov- ernment and its agencies, with annexes. Signed at Buenos Aires April 8, 1986; entered into force May 19, 1986. NP Swap agreement between the United States Treasury and the Central Bank of the Argen- tine Republic/Government of the Argentine Republic, with related letter and amendment. Signed at Washington and Buenos Aires Feb- ruary 23, 1988; entered into force February 23, 1988. TIAS Swap agreement between the United States Treasury, the Central Bank of the Argentine Republic/Government of the Argentine Repub- lic, with memorandum of understanding. Signed at Washington and Buenos Aires Octo- ber 19, 1988; entered into force October 19, 1988. TIAS Agreement regarding the consolidation and re- scheduling or refinancing of certain debts owed to, guaranteed by, or insured by the United States Government and its agencies, with annexes. Signed at Buenos Aires Decem- ber 14, 1989; entered into force January 22, 1990. NP Agreement regarding the consolidation and re- scheduling of certain debts owed to, xxxxxx- xxxx by, or insured by the United States Gov- ernment and its agencies, with annexes. Signed at Buenos Aires December 5, 1990; entered into force January 16, 1991. NP Agreement regarding the consolidation and re- scheduling or refinancing of certain debts owed to, guaranteed by or insured by the United States Government and its agencies, with annexes. Signed at Washington December 6, 1991; entered into force February 10, 1992. NP Agreement regarding the consolidation and re- scheduling of certain debts owed to, xxxxxx- xxxx by or insured by the United States Gov- ernment and its agencies, with annexes. Signed at Washington January 13, 1993; entered into force March 8, 1993. NP Agreement regarding the reduction of certain debts related to foreign assistance owed to the Government of the United States and its agen- cies, with appendices. Signed at Washington and Buenos Aires January 13 and 15, 1993; entered into force February 14, 1993. NP
After Substantial Completion § 12.2.2.1 In addition to the Contractor’s obligations under Section 3.5, if, within one year after the date of Substantial Completion of the Work or designated portion thereof or after the date for commencement of warranties established under Section 9.9.1, or by terms of any applicable special warranty required by the Contract Documents, any of the Work is found to be not in accordance with the requirements of the Contract Documents, the Contractor shall correct it promptly after receipt of notice from the Owner to do so, unless the Owner has previously given the Contractor a written acceptance of such condition. The Owner shall give such notice promptly after discovery of the condition. During the one-year period for correction of Work, if the Owner fails to notify the Contractor and give the Contractor an opportunity to make the correction, the Owner waives the rights to require correction by the Contractor and to make a claim for breach of warranty. If the Contractor fails to correct nonconforming Work within a reasonable time during that period after receipt of notice from the Owner or Architect, the Owner may correct it in accordance with Section 2.5.
Substantial Completion “Substantial Completion” means the stage in the progress of the Work when the Work, or designated portions thereof, may still require minor modifications or adjustments but, in the Owner’s opinion, the Work has progressed to the point such that all parts of the Work under consideration are fully operational and usable for intended purposes, as evidenced by a Certificate of Substantial Completion approved by the Owner. If a Certificate of Occupancy is required by public authorities having jurisdiction over the Work, said certificate shall be issued before the Work or any portion thereof is considered substantially complete. When the Contractor considers that the Work, or a portion thereof which the Owner agrees to accept separately, is substantially complete, the Contractor shall notify Owner’s Designated Representative (sometimes referred to as the “ODR”) and request a determination as to whether the Work or designated portion thereof is substantially complete. If the ODR does not consider the Work substantially complete, the ODR will notify the Contractor giving reasons therefore. Failure on the Owner’s part to list a reason does not alter the responsibility of the Contractor to complete all Work in accordance with the terms of this Agreement. After satisfactorily completing items identified by Owner’s Designated Representative, the Contractor shall then submit another request for the ODR to determine Substantial Completion. If The ODR considers the Work substantially complete, The ODR will prepare and deliver a certificate of Substantial Completion which shall establish the date of Substantial Completion, shall include a punch list of items to be completed or corrected before final completion and final payment, shall establish the time within which the Contractor shall finish the punch list, and shall establish responsibilities of the Owner and the Contractor for security, maintenance, heat, utilities, damage to the Work, warranty and insurance. Failure to include an item on the punch list does not alter the responsibility of the Contractor to complete all Work in accordance with the terms and conditions of this Agreement. The certificate of Substantial Completion shall be signed by the Owner and the Contractor to evidence acceptance of the responsibilities assigned to them in such certificate. Substantial Completion (as defined in this agreement) for all stages of the Work shall be achieved on or before the following Substantial Completion date: DATE FOR SUBSTANTIAL COMPLETION: TBD Under no circumstances will the time for Substantial Completion exceed this date without a written amendment to this Agreement. THE TIMES SET FORTH IN THE CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENTS ARE AN ESSENTIAL ELEMENT OF THE AGREEMENT. TIME LIMITS STATED IN THE CONTRACT DOCUMENTS ARE OF THE ESSENCE OF THIS AGREEMENT.
Business Continuity Registry Operator shall maintain a business continuity plan, which will provide for the maintenance of Registry Services in the event of an extraordinary event beyond the control of the Registry Operator or business failure of Registry Operator, and may include the designation of a Registry Services continuity provider. If such plan includes the designation of a Registry Services continuity provider, Registry Operator shall provide the name and contact information for such Registry Services continuity provider to ICANN. In the case of an extraordinary event beyond the control of the Registry Operator where the Registry Operator cannot be contacted, Registry Operator consents that ICANN may contact the designated Registry Services continuity provider, if one exists. Registry Operator shall conduct Registry Services Continuity testing at least once per year.
Caching The Participating Institutions and the Authorized Users are authorized in the course of an automatic process of an internet browser or any other software to make temporary local digital copies of the Licensed Materials in order to ensure proper operation and use of such internet browser or for proper functioning of such software. For the avoidance of doubt, the cached copy is not a derivative work.
Substantial Performance This Contract shall be deemed to be substantially performed only when fully performed according to its terms and conditions and any written amendments or supplements.
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.
History The two Boards approved a "Proposed Plan to Further Simplify and Facilitate Transfer of Credit Between Institutions" at their meetings in February 1996. This plan was submitted as a preliminary report to the Joint Legislative Education Oversight Committee in March 1996. Since that time, significant steps have been taken toward implementation of the transfer plan. At their April 1996 meetings, the Boards appointed their respective sector representatives to the Transfer Advisory Committee to direct, coordinate, and monitor the implementation of the proposed transfer plan. The Transfer Advisory Committee membership is listed in Appendix D. Basic to the work of the Transfer Advisory Committee in refining transfer policies and implementing the transfer plan has been the re-engineering project accomplished by the North Carolina Community College System, especially common course names, numbers, credits, and descriptions. The Community College Combined Course Library includes approximately 3,800 semester-credit courses written for the associate degree, diploma, and certificate programs offered in the system. Colleges select courses from the Combined Course Library to design all curriculum programs. Of approximately 700 arts and sciences courses within the Combined Course Library, the faculty and administrators of the community colleges recommended approximately 170 courses as appropriate for the general education transfer core. The Transfer Advisory Committee then convened a meeting on May 28, 1996, at which six University of North Carolina faculty in each of ten general education discipline areas met with six of their professional counterparts from the community colleges. Through a very useful and collegial dialog, these committees were able to reach consensus on which community college courses in each discipline were acceptable for transfer to University of North Carolina institutions as a part of the general education core. This list of courses was distributed to all University of North Carolina and community college institutions for their review and comments. Considering the recommendations of the general education discipline committees and the comments from the campuses, the Transfer Advisory Committee established the list of courses that constitutes the general education transfer core. This general education core, if completed successfully by a community college student, is portable and transferable as a block across the community college system and to all University of North Carolina institutions. With the establishment of the general education core as a foundation, joint academic disciplinary committees were appointed to draw up guidelines for community college curricula that will prepare students for intended majors at University of North Carolina institutions. Each committee consisted of representatives from each UNC institution offering such major programs and eight to ten representatives from community colleges. The Transfer Advisory Committee distributed the pre- majors recommended by the faculty committees to all University of North Carolina and community college institutions for their review and comments. Considering the faculty committee recommendations and the campus comments, the Transfer Advisory Committee established pre-majors which have significant numbers of transfers from the community colleges to the University of North Carolina institutions. The special circumstances surrounding transfer agreements for associate in applied science programs, which are not designed for transfer, require bilateral rather than statewide articulation. Special circumstances include the different accreditation criteria for faculty in transfer and non-transfer programs, the different general education requirements for transfer and non-transfer programs, and the workforce preparedness mission of the technical/community college AAS programs. A major element in the proposed transfer plan adopted by the two boards in February 1996 is the transfer information system. Simultaneously with the work being done on the general education and professional specialization (major) components of the transfer curriculum, the joint committee on the transfer information system laid out a plan, approved by the Boards of The University of North Carolina and the North Carolina Community College System, "to provide students with accurate and understandable information regarding the transfer of credits...[and] to increase the adequacy and availability of academic counseling for students who are considering a college transfer program." In addition to the printed publications currently being distributed to students, transfer counselors, admissions directors, and others, an electronic information network provides (1) electronic access to the articulation database which will include current transfer policies, guidelines, and on-line catalogs for public post-secondary institutions; (2) computerized common application forms, which can be completed and transmitted electronically along with transcripts and other education records; and (3) an electronic mail network for transfer counselors and prospective transfer students. Access to the e-mail network is available in the transfer counselors' offices and other selected sites on campuses. The final element of the transfer information system is the Transfer Student Academic Performance Report. This report, recently refined with suggestions from community college administrators, is sent annually to each community college and to the State Board of Community Colleges. These data permit the rational analysis of transfer issues and are beneficial to students and to educational and governmental decision-makers. This performance report provides the important assessment component necessary for evaluating and improving the transfer process. Appendix C Transfer Advisory Committee Procedures Articulation between the North Carolina Community College System and The University of North Carolina is a dynamic process. To ensure the currency of the Comprehensive Articulation Agreement (CAA), occasional modifications to the CAA may be necessary. These modifications may include the addition, deletion, and revision of courses on the transfer list, development and/or revision of pre- majors, and changes in course designation (i.e. additions to UGETC list or changing a course from general education to elective). The TAC will receive requests for modification only upon the recommendation of the chief academic officer of the NCCCS or UNC. Additions, deletions, and modifications may be subject to faculty review under the direction of the TAC. Because the modification process involves faculty and administrative review, this process may require up to 12 months for final action. Additions to the Universal General Education Transfer Component Courses currently included on the approved transfer course list may be considered for inclusion as a Universal General Education Transfer Component (UGETC) course through the following procedures:
Trainings iv. Appointment of any length involving two (2) or more Consumers who might need to split up to join different trainings, group discussions, etc.
Tardiness Tardiness shall be defined as reporting to work eight (8) or more minutes after clock in time. For each three (3) occurrences of tardiness in a school year shall constitute grounds for the issuance of progressive discipline as defined in Article 15.
