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.
Compliance Agreement A written agreement between Plant Protection and Quarantine and a person engaged in the business of growing, handling, or moving regulated articles, in which the person agrees to comply with the pro- visions of this subpart and any condi- tions imposed pursuant to such provi- sions.
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.
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.
Agreement Deviation/Compliance Does the vendor agree with the language in the Vendor Agreement?
DBE/HUB Compliance The Engineer’s subcontracting program shall comply with the requirements of Attachment H of the contract (DBE/HUB Requirements).
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.
Compliance Audit LEA shall have the right but shall be under no obligation to conduct audit(s), from time to time, of Provider’s records concerning its compliance obligations as set forth in this Article V. Provider shall make such records and other documents available to LEA upon request.
Compliance Monitoring Grantee must be subject to compliance monitoring during the period of performance in which funds are Expended and up to three years following the closeout of all funds. In order to assure that the program can be adequately monitored, the following is required of Grantee:
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.
