type: other

jurisdiction: US

text: b"September 2005\nReport No. 05-038\n\n\nDivision of Supervision and Consumer\nProtection\xe2\x80\x99s Risk-focused Compliance\nExamination Process\n\x0c Report No. 05-038\n September 2005\n Division of Supervision and Consumer Protection\xe2\x80\x99s\n Risk-Focused Compliance Examination Process\n Results of Audit\n\nBackground and We found that DSC examiners generally complied with the policies and\nPurpose of Audit procedures related to risk-scoping compliance examinations and that the Risk\n Profile and Scoping Memorandums prepared by examiners provided an adequate\nThe FDIC is responsible for\n basis for planned examination coverage. The examiners reviewed bank policies,\nevaluating financial institution procedures, disclosures, and forms for compliance with consumer protection\ncompliance with consumer laws and regulations for each examination we reviewed and planned for\nprotection laws and transaction testing or spot checks in all compliance areas over the course of two\nregulations. To evaluate consecutive examinations \xe2\x80\x93 a period of 2 to 6 years, depending on an\ncompliance, the FDIC institution\xe2\x80\x99s size and ratings. Additionally, examiners conducted transaction\nconducts examinations of testing or spot checks in those areas for which violations had been found at\ninstitutions\xe2\x80\x99 compliance previous compliance examinations.\npractices. In June 2003, the\nFDIC\xe2\x80\x99s Division of However, we found that examination documentation did not always show the\nSupervision and Consumer transaction testing or spot checks conducted during the on-site portion of the\nProtection (DSC) revised its examinations, including testing to ensure the reliability of the institutions\xe2\x80\x99\nprogram for examining compliance review functions. Examiners also did not always document whether\ninstitutional compliance with the examination reviewed all the compliance areas in the planned scope of\nconsumer protection laws and review. As a result, DSC cannot assure that the extent of testing was appropriate\nregulations. Under the new except for those areas in which examiners had identified violations and included\nprogram, DSC compliance them in Reports of Examination.\nexaminations combine a risk-\nbased examination process\nwith an in-depth evaluation of Recommendation and Management Response\nan institution\xe2\x80\x99s compliance\nmanagement system, resulting We recommended that DSC clarify and reinforce requirements that examiners\nin a top-down, risk-focused adequately document the scope of the work performed, including transaction\napproach to examinations. testing and spot checks of the reliability of the institutions\xe2\x80\x99 compliance review\n functions, during the on-site portions of compliance examinations. FDIC\nThe overall audit objective management agreed with the recommendation and has taken corrective action.\nwas to determine whether\nDSC\xe2\x80\x99s risk-focused Consumer Protection Laws and Regulations\ncompliance examination Lending Specialty\nprogram results in Truth in Lending Community Reinvestment Act Technical Requirements\nexaminations that are Equal Credit Opportunity Act Advertising of Membership\n Flood Insurance Branch Closings\nadequately planned and Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act Right to Financial Privacy\neffective in assessing financial Fair Credit Reporting Privacy of Consumer Financial Information\ninstitution compliance with Credit Practices Rule Non-Deposit Products\n Fair Housing Act Electronic Banking\nconsumer protection laws and Homeownership Counseling Fair Debt Collection Practices\nregulations. Homeowners Protection Act Interstate Banking & Branching Efficiency Act\n Home Mortgage Disclosure Act Children\xe2\x80\x99s Online Privacy Protection Act\n Preservation of Consumer Claims and Defenses\n Consumer Leasing\n Deposit\n_____________________ Electronic Funds Transfer\n Truth in Savings\n__ Expedited Funds Availability\nTo view the full report, go to Interest on Deposits\nwww.fdicig.gov/2005reports.asp Source: DSC Compliance Examination Manual.\n\x0c TABLE OF CONTENTS\nBACKGROUND 1\n\nRESULTS OF AUDIT 3\n\nDOCUMENTATION OF ON-SITE TESTING PERFORMED DURING 5\nCOMPLIANCE EXAMINATIONS\n\n Documenting Compliance Examination Findings and Transaction 5\n Testing\n\n Documenting Reviews of Institutions\xe2\x80\x99 Compliance Review Functions 6\n\n Examiner Documentation of On-site Transaction Testing and 6\n Spot Checks\n\n Recommendation 7\n\nCORPORATION COMMENTS AND OIG EVALUATION 7\n\nAPPENDIX I: OBJECTIVE, SCOPE, AND METHODOLOGY 8\n\nAPPENDIX II: RISK-FOCUSED COMPLIANCE EXAMINATION 11\n GUIDELINES\n\nAPPENDIX III: SIGNIFICANT VIOLATIONS CONTAINED IN THE 12\n REPORTS OF EXAMINATION FOR THE SAMPLE\n BANKS\n\nAPPENDIX IV: CORPORATION COMMENTS 13\n\nAPPENDIX V: MANAGEMENT RESPONSE TO 15\n RECOMMENDATION\n\nTABLES\nTable 1: Consumer Protection Laws and Regulations 2\nTable 2: Audit Results on Risk-focused Compliance Examinations 4\n\x0cFederal Deposit Insurance Corporation Office of Audits\n801 17th Street NW, Washington, DC 20434 Office of Inspector General\n\n\nDATE: September 23, 2005\n\n\nMEMORANDUM TO: Christopher J. Spoth, Acting Director\n Division of Supervision and Consumer Protection\n\n\n\nFROM: Russell A. Rau [Electronically produced version; original signed by Russell A. Rau]\n Assistant Inspector General for Audits\n\n\nSUBJECT: Division of Supervision and Consumer Protection\xe2\x80\x99s Risk-focused\n Compliance Examination Process\n (Report No. 05-038)\n\n\nThis report presents the results of our audit of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC)\nDivision of Supervision and Consumer Protection\xe2\x80\x99s (DSC) process for risk-focused compliance\nexaminations of FDIC-supervised institutions. The overall audit objective was to determine\nwhether DSC\xe2\x80\x99s risk-focused compliance examination process results in examinations that are\nadequately planned and effective in assessing financial institution compliance with consumer\nprotection laws and regulations. Specifically, we determined whether DSC examiners are\nadequately risk-scoping compliance examinations, conducting appropriate levels of transaction\ntesting, and making sound risk-scoping decisions in relying on the work of the financial\ninstitutions\xe2\x80\x99 internal or external compliance review functions. Appendix I of this report\ndiscusses our objective, scope, and methodology in detail.\n\nBACKGROUND\n\nThe FDIC is responsible for evaluating FDIC-supervised financial institutions\xe2\x80\x99 compliance with\nfederal consumer protection laws and regulations, including institutional performance under the\nCommunity Reinvestment Act (CRA). To evaluate compliance, the FDIC conducts\nexaminations of institutional practices regarding fair lending, privacy, and other consumer\nprotection laws. During the compliance examination, examiners must ensure that institutions\nhave adequately addressed all areas related to the rules and regulations listed in Table 1 on the\nfollowing page.\n\x0cTable 1: Consumer Protection Laws and Regulations\n Lending Specialty\n Truth in Lending Community Reinvestment Act Technical Requirements\n Equal Credit Opportunity Act Advertising of Membership\n Flood Insurance Branch Closings\n Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act Right to Financial Privacy\n Fair Credit Reporting Privacy of Consumer Financial Information\n Credit Practices Rule Non-Deposit Products\n Fair Housing Act Electronic Banking\n Homeownership Counseling Fair Debt Collection Practices\n Homeowners Protection Act Interstate Banking & Branching Efficiency Act\n Home Mortgage Disclosure Act Children\xe2\x80\x99s Online Privacy Protection Act\n Preservation of Consumer Claims and Defenses\n Consumer Leasing\n Deposit\n Electronic Funds Transfer\n Truth in Savings\n Expedited Funds Availability\n Interest on Deposits\n Source: DSC Compliance Examination Manual.\n\n\n\nNoncompliance with these laws and regulations by financial institutions can result in civil\nliability and negative publicity as well as the FDIC\xe2\x80\x99s imposition of formal or informal\nsupervisory corrective actions to correct the identified violations. Some consumer protection\nlaws and regulations require financial institutions to provide consumers with information\nintended to help in making informed decisions about financial services and products. As part of\nthe compliance examination process, the FDIC reviews the information and disclosures that are\nprovided to consumers by FDIC-supervised institutions in accordance with consumer protection\nlaws and regulations. Also, DSC considers an institution's compliance with fair lending, privacy,\nand other consumer protection laws and its performance under the CRA when reviewing an\ninstitution's application for entry into or expansion within the insured depository institution\nsystem. During the 2-year period from July 1, 2003 through June 30, 2005, DSC conducted\n4,153 compliance and CRA examinations.\n\nIn June 2003, DSC revised its program for examining institutions for compliance with consumer\nprotection laws and regulations. Under the Revised Compliance Examination Procedures\n(Transmittal No. 2003-021, dated June 6, 2003), DSC compliance examinations combined a risk-\nbased examination process with an in-depth evaluation of an institution\xe2\x80\x99s compliance\nmanagement system (CMS),1 resulting in a top-down, risk-focused approach to examinations.\nThe risk-focused approach is intended to make the examination process more effective and\nefficient and reduce the examination burden on banks. The risk-focused approach also helps\nexaminers in determining the depth of review of each functional area and improves the\nconsistency of analysis across regional and field offices. The risk-focused approach recognizes\nthat the banking industry\xe2\x80\x99s compliance responsibilities continue to grow and become more\ncomplex with changes in financial products and services. Moreover, the focus on an institution\xe2\x80\x99s\n\n1\n A financial institution uses its CMS to identify, monitor, and manage its compliance responsibilities and risks. A\nCMS includes (1) management and director oversight; (2) a compliance program (policies and procedures, training,\nmonitoring, and complaint response); and (3) audit procedures applied by the institution\xe2\x80\x99s internal or external\ncompliance review function.\n 2\n\x0ccompliance program places emphasis on the institution\xe2\x80\x99s responsibility to ensure it complies with\nconsumer protection laws.\n\nEffective June 30, 2004, DSC made additional modifications to the examination procedures as\nthey relate to the contents of the Report of Examination and the risk-focused planning documents\n\xe2\x80\x93 the Risk Profile and Scope Memorandum (RPSM) and the Compliance Information and\nDocument Request (CIDR). Appendix II provides a detailed description of these modifications.\n\nCompliance examinations are conducted every 12 to 36 months, depending on an institution\xe2\x80\x99s\nsize and the compliance and CRA ratings assigned at the most recent examination.2 Each\ncompliance regulation and law is not reviewed at every compliance examination. If no\ntransaction testing in a particular regulatory area has been conducted in the previous\nexamination, a spot check should be conducted at the current examination, even if there are no\nrisk indicators.3 For reporting purposes, the risk-focused examination approach combines the\nresults of the CRA evaluation and the compliance examination into one report when CRA\nperformance is evaluated at alternate examinations. The single report focuses on an institution\xe2\x80\x99s\nCMS and includes only significant violations. (Appendix III provides the significant violations\nfound during the compliance examinations for the banks in our sample.) Examiners identify\nother violations separately to bank management, and they are tracked by the FDIC.\n\n\nRESULTS OF AUDIT\n\nWe found that DSC examiners generally complied with the policies and procedures related to\nrisk-scoping compliance examinations and that the RPSMs prepared by examiners provided an\nadequate basis for planned examination coverage. The examiners reviewed bank policies,\nprocedures, disclosures, and forms for compliance with consumer protection laws and\nregulations for each examination we reviewed and planned for transaction testing or spot checks\nin all compliance areas over the course of two consecutive examinations \xe2\x80\x93 a period of 2 to\n6 years, depending on an institution\xe2\x80\x99s size and ratings.\n\nHowever, we found that examination documentation did not always show the transaction testing\nor spot checks conducted during the on-site portion of the examinations, including testing to\nensure the reliability of the institutions\xe2\x80\x99 compliance review functions. Also, examiners did not\nalways document whether the examination had reviewed all the compliance areas in the planned\nscope of review. As a result, DSC cannot assure that the extent of testing was appropriate except\nfor those areas in which examiners had identified violations and included them in Reports of\nExamination. Table 2 on the next page shows the components of a risk-focused compliance\nexamination and our related audit results.\n\n\n\n\n2\n Regional Director Memorandum No. 00-001 entitled, Revisions to the Compliance and CRA Examination\nFrequency Schedule, dated September 19, 2000, revised the examination frequency schedule for compliance and\nCRA examinations to address statutory changes contained in the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act of 1999.\n3\n Transaction testing involves reviewing a sample of transactions, while spot checks involve reviewing a few\ntransactions.\n 3\n\x0cTable 2: Audit Results on Risk-focused Compliance Examinations\n Risk-focused\n Compliance\n Component Description Results of Audit\n Examination\n Component\n Examiners generally complied with policies\n In preparing for a compliance examination,\n examiners send each bank a Compliance and procedures related to risk-scoping\n Information and Document Request that compliance examinations, in that:\n provides examiners with sufficient (1) justification for the extent of the work to\n be conducted for each compliance area was\n information to begin an off-site evaluation\n of an institution\xe2\x80\x99s compliance managementprovided in the RPSMs, (2) a justification\n for areas not tested during the examination\n system. At this point, emphasis is placed on\nOff-site CMS Review was documented, (3) areas not tested at the\n reviews of written practices, policies, and\n previous examination were included in the\n procedures; bank forms and disclosures; and\n bank audit data. This off-site review current examination scope for transaction\n testing or spot checks, and (4) areas for\n provides the initial assessment of the quality\n which violations had been found at previous\n of an institution\xe2\x80\x99s CMS in light of the risks\n compliance examinations were included in\n associated with the level and complexity of\n the institution\xe2\x80\x99s business operations andthe scope of the current examination for\n product and service offerings. transaction testing or spot checks.\n Examiners generally complied with risk-\n The results of the off-site assessment of the\n CMS, to include the proposed on-site scoping documentation requirements, as\n testing plan, are documented in the RPSM.follows: (1) requirements for preparing the\n The RPSM is designed to assess the CMS, RPSM were met for the banks in our\n operational areas, and issues to be sample; and (2) the RPSMs provided an\n adequate analysis of the bank\xe2\x80\x99s CMS and\n investigated or targeted. In addition, the\n RPSM contains the Risk Profile Matrix, were broad enough to provide an\n understanding of the organizational\n which summarizes perceived risk in each of\n the CMS elements regarding major structure of an institution, its related\nDevelopment of the\n activities, and compliance risks associated\n operational areas. Examiners use the matrix\nRPSM\n with each of the institution\xe2\x80\x99s activities. In\n to develop a compliance risk profile for an\n institution, using various sources of addition, the use of RPSMs as a planning\n tool provides examiners an adequate\n information about the institution\xe2\x80\x99s business\n method for making an initial off-site\n lines, organizational structure, operations,\n and past supervisory performance. assessment of whether the institutions\xe2\x80\x99\n management and board of directors identify,\n understand, and adequately control the\n compliance risks facing the financial\n institution.\n During the on-site portion of the risk- There is insufficient evidence in\n focused compliance examination, examiners examination workpapers or reports for DSC\n determine actual bank practice through to assure that the extent of on-site\n extensive discussions with bank transaction testing and spot checks was\n management and staff, reviews of relevant appropriate. Compliance examination\n documents, and testing of selected bank workpapers were not always maintained in\n transactions. The extent of transaction a manner that ensures the work performed\nOn-site Transaction\n testing and spot checks is based on the during the on-site portion of the review is\nTesting and Spot\n examiner\xe2\x80\x99s assessment of the institution\xe2\x80\x99s adequately documented, including\nChecks\n compliance risk profile, such as whether an transaction testing and spot checks to ensure\n operational area is determined to be high the reliability of the institution\xe2\x80\x99s compliance\n risk or the institution\xe2\x80\x99s compliance review function. Also, examiners did not\n management efforts appear weak. always document whether the examination\n reviewed all the compliance areas in the\n planned scope of review.\nSource: DSC Compliance Examination Manual and Office of Inspector General (OIG) audit results.\n\n\n\n 4\n\x0cDOCUMENTATION OF ON-SITE TESTING PERFORMED DURING\nCOMPLIANCE EXAMINATIONS\n\nExaminers did not adequately document the scope of the work performed during the on-site\nportion of the compliance examinations. Specifically, for the examinations we reviewed,\nexamination workpapers did not always contain sufficient information to identify examiner\ntransaction testing or spot checks conducted during the on-site portion of examinations or\nwhether the examination reviewed all areas in the planned scope of review. Documentation is\nlacking because examiners did not comply with DSC policy that requires they document their\nwork. As a result, DSC cannot assure that the extent of testing was appropriate for assessing\ninstitutional compliance with regulations except for those areas in which examiners had\nidentified violations and included them in Reports of Examination.\n\nDocumenting Compliance Examination Findings and Transaction Testing\n\nDSC\xe2\x80\x99s June 2003 Revised Compliance Examination Procedures (Transmittal No. 2003-021,\ndated June 6, 2003) section entitled, Documenting Examination Findings, states that examination\ndocumentation should demonstrate a clear trail of decisions and supporting logic within a\nspecified area. Documentation should provide a written record of the examiner\xe2\x80\x99s decisions and\nanalysis and provide support for facts or opinions in the Report of Examination. A well-\nconstructed examination documentation file provides sufficient information to reconstruct the\nexaminer\xe2\x80\x99s decision process for each step of the examination. The information should provide\nsupport for the examiner\xe2\x80\x99s decision to include or exclude a regulation or area of review from the\nscope of the examination and for significant findings. Additionally, examiners should conduct\non-site transaction testing for the operational areas included in the scope of the review.4 The\nnumber of transactions and the particular regulatory requirements to be reviewed should be\ncarefully tailored to weaknesses identified in the CMS as it relates to specific operational areas.\nIn addition, the revised procedures instruct examiners to prepare an examiner summary\nworkpaper for each regulation or area reviewed. This summary, in conjunction with the RPSM,\nshould allow subsequent examiners to clearly identify the scope of work performed and the basis\nfor the examiner\xe2\x80\x99s conclusion.\n\nDSC\xe2\x80\x99s Compliance Examination Manual, Appendix H, entitled, Sampling Guidelines for\nCompliance and CRA, instructs examiners to use judgment in determining the number of loans to\nbe reviewed, depending upon specific circumstances. In addition, not all loan types or\ncharacteristics must be sampled at each examination; however, \xe2\x80\x9cemphasis should be placed on\nthose types of loans that evidenced concerns in the past and those that could result in\nreimbursable violations.\xe2\x80\x9d The policy also states that (1) statistical sampling is the preferred\nmethod and should be used to the greatest extent possible; (2) the examiner should clearly\n\n\n\n4\n According to the Revised Compliance Examination Procedures, after analyzing the CMS elements in relationship\nto a bank\xe2\x80\x99s operational risks, examiners decide the necessary transaction sampling and testing. The severity of CMS\nweaknesses and operational risk will dictate the intensity of transaction testing; greater weakness and higher risk\nwill generally lead to the review of more transactions. If the examiner finds a moderate degree of risk, then\nsufficient testing should be done to show support for a conclusion. If no transaction testing in a particular regulatory\narea was done in the previous examination, then examiners should perform a spot check of transactions at the\ncurrent examination, even if there are no risk indicators.\n\n 5\n\x0cdocument in the workpapers the sampling method utilized, loan universe and sample size(s), and\nsampling results; and (3) examiners should select independent loan samples for the compliance,\nCRA, and fair lending portions of the examination.\n\nIn June 2004, DSC issued Updated Compliance Examination Procedures, Transmittal\nNo. 2004-032, effective June 30, 2004. According to the June 2004 procedures, the RPSM will\nbe used solely for pre-examination planning. Examiners should no longer update the RPSM to\nreflect changes in the examination scope or to duplicate findings contained in the Report of\nExamination. However, examination workpapers need to reflect any material changes in scope\nand the support for those changes. Material increases or reductions in the examination scope\nmust also be noted in examination workpapers.\n\nDocumenting Reviews of Institutions\xe2\x80\x99 Compliance Review Functions\n\nThe Updated Compliance Examination Procedures require examiners to conduct documentation\nreviews and to interview management regarding the assessment of a bank\xe2\x80\x99s compliance review\nfunctions. The procedures provide a list of questions for the interview and a list of documents\nthat should be reviewed. Based on the interviews and materials reviewed, examiners are to\ndevelop and document a preliminary assessment of the institution\xe2\x80\x99s performance related to\ncompliance reviews and determine whether the institution\xe2\x80\x99s compliance review function is\ngenerally strong, adequate, or weak and the assumptions on which the assessment is based. This\ndetermination is initially made off-site by an examiner and is based on the examiner\xe2\x80\x99s\nassessment of the scope and frequency of the institution\xe2\x80\x99s compliance reviews, the adequacy of\nwritten compliance reports, board of director and senior management responses to those reports,\nand the institution\xe2\x80\x99s follow-up procedures to verify that the corrective actions were lasting and\neffective. In addition, the section of the Compliance Examination Manual entitled, Transaction\nSampling and Testing, states that depending on the importance of a component, the examiner\nmay find it appropriate to spot check a few transactions to show support for a favorable\nconclusion by the compliance review function. If no transaction testing in a particular regulatory\narea has been done in the previous examination, then spot checks should be done at the current\nexamination, even if there are no risk indicators. If testing is not considered necessary to support\nconclusions about an element of the CMS or with respect to a particular operational area,\nexaminers should retain appropriate documentation in the workpapers and include comments in\nthe RPSM and/or the compliance examination report to support this conclusion.\n\nExaminer Documentation of On-site Transaction Testing and Spot Checks\n\nOur review of compliance examination workpapers showed that for 20 of the 36 examinations\nwe reviewed, examiners had not documented the extent of transaction testing or spot checks they\nperformed during the on-site portion of the examination. Some of the Reports of Examination\ncontained comments related to the transaction testing and spot checks conducted. However, the\ncomments related only to areas of violations identified during the examination and did not\naddress the entire scope of the examination. As a result, we could not determine whether all\nareas included in the planned examination scope had been reviewed or to what extent examiners\ntested or spot checked transactions unless examiners had identified violations in compliance\nareas in the Report of Examination.\n\n\n\n 6\n\x0cAs a result of the lack of documentation to support on-site transaction testing and spot checks\nconducted during compliance examinations, DSC cannot assure that the extent of testing was\nappropriate except for those areas in which examiners identified violations and included them in\nReports of Examination. In addition, the lack of examination documentation can affect\nsubsequent examinations in that it will be more difficult for examiners to decide the appropriate\nscope of those examinations. DSC management plans to reassess the revised compliance\nexamination procedures in relation to using the RPSM solely for pre-examination planning.\n\nRECOMMENDATION\n\nWe recommend that the Director, DSC, clarify and reinforce requirements that examiners\nadequately document the scope of the work performed, including transaction testing and spot\nchecks of the reliability of the institutions\xe2\x80\x99 compliance review functions, during the on-site\nportion of compliance examinations.\n\n\nCORPORATION COMMENTS AND OIG EVALUATION\n\nOn September 16, 2005, the Acting Director, DSC, provided a written response to the draft\nreport. The response is presented in Appendix IV of this report. We did not include the\nattachments to DSC\xe2\x80\x99s response in Appendix IV, which were excerpts from Regional Director\nMemorandum No. 2005-035, Revised Compliance Examination Procedures, dated August 18,\n2005. DSC concurred with the recommendation, stating that guidance had been issued related\nto:\n\n\xc2\xbe documenting changes in the scope of an examination,\n\xc2\xbe documenting spot checks of regulations,\n\xc2\xbe providing cross checks to additional information available in Examiner Summaries, and\n\xc2\xbe providing descriptions of examination procedures used to conduct the examination.\n\nThis guidance was distributed to all DSC staff on August 31, 2005.\n\nOIG Evaluation: We determined that the agreed-to corrective action has been completed and is\neffective. This recommendation is resolved, dispositioned, and closed.\n\nAppendix V contains a summary of management\xe2\x80\x99s response to the recommendation and the\nstatus of the recommendation as of the date of this report.\n\n\n\n\n 7\n\x0c APPENDIX I\n\n OBJECTIVE, SCOPE, AND METHODOLOGY\n\nObjective\n\nThe overall objective of this audit was to determine whether DSC\xe2\x80\x99s risk-focused compliance\nexamination process results in examinations that are adequately planned and effective in\nassessing financial institution compliance with consumer protection laws and regulations.\nSpecifically, we determined whether DSC examiners are adequately risk-scoping compliance\nexaminations and conducting appropriate levels of transaction testing and making sound risk-\nscoping decisions when relying on the work of the financial institutions\xe2\x80\x99 internal or external\ncompliance review functions. We performed our audit from October 2004 through August 2005\nin accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards.\n\nScope and Methodology\n\nThe scope of the audit was limited to a review of banks examined under the revised DSC risk-\nfocused compliance examination policies and procedures in the Revised Compliance\nExamination Procedure, dated June 30, 2004. To accomplish our objective, we reviewed the\nmost current and the prior compliance examination reports and corresponding examination\nworkpaper files, policies, and procedures related to the compliance review function, prior OIG\naudit reports and DSC Internal Review reports, laws and regulations, and management tracking\nreports for each examination. We also interviewed DSC management officials and staff at FDIC\nheadquarters and three regional offices.\n\nThe judgmental sample included 36 FDIC-supervised banks for which compliance examinations\nhad been conducted from August 2003 through November 2004 at 3 FDIC regional offices. Our\nsample included 14 \xe2\x80\x9c1\xe2\x80\x9d rated banks, 14 \xe2\x80\x9c2\xe2\x80\x9d rated banks and 8 \xe2\x80\x9c3\xe2\x80\x9d rated banks.5 The asset sizes\nof the banks ranged from $8.5 million to $1.2 billion. The compliance examinations in our\nsample resulted in 11 banks whose compliance ratings were downgraded, 7 banks whose ratings\nwere upgraded, and 18 banks whose ratings remained the same. Of the 36 banks, 8 had\ncorrective supervisory actions imposed on them as a result of the compliance examinations:\n2 banks were issued Memorandums of Understanding, and 6 banks were encouraged to adopt\nBank Board Resolutions.6 The eight banks had a compliance examination rating of \xe2\x80\x9c3.\xe2\x80\x9d\n\nPertinent Laws and Regulations\n\nCompliance examinations are the primary means the FDIC uses to determine whether a financial\ninstitution is meeting its responsibilities to comply with the requirements of federal consumer\nlaws and regulations. DSC has established policies and procedures for risk-focused compliance\nexaminations in the FDIC Compliance Examination Manual. For the banks in our sample, the\nprocedures generally were followed, although examination workpapers did not always contain\nsufficient information to identify examiner transaction testing or spot checks conducted during\n\n\n5\n The FDIC follows the Uniform Interagency Consumer Compliance Rating System approved by the Federal\nFinancial Institutions Examination Council in 1980.\n6\n Informal actions such as Bank Board Resolutions and Memorandums of Understanding are voluntary\ncommitments made by the board of directors of a financial institution. They are neither publicly disclosed nor\nlegally enforceable.\n 8\n\x0c APPENDIX I\n\nthe on-site portion of examinations or whether the examination reviewed all areas in the planned\nscope of review. Our review did not find any instances of FDIC noncompliance with pertinent\nlaws and regulations.\n\nReliance on Computer-based Data, Government Performance and Results Act, Fraud and\nIllegal Acts, and Internal Control\n\nValidity and Reliability of Data from Computer-based Systems\n\nWe used computer-based data for background information and in generating a universe of\nexaminations from which to select our sample. We reviewed examination records that supported\ndata from the DSC System of Uniform Reporting of Compliance and CRA Examinations\n(SOURCE)7 and the Scheduling, Hours, and Reporting Package (SHARP)8 reporting systems to\ndetermine the accuracy of data used during the audit. The SOURCE system is used to:\n(a) generate examination schedules that support workload projections by incorporating quarterly\nplanning and benchmark hours, (b) capture examination summary information, (c) store\nexamination documents for divisional sharing and historical reference, and (d) support\nlegislatively mandated reporting. The SHARP system is an hours-based tracking system that\nprovides uniformity in collecting examination hours information. Based on our review, we\nfound that the SHARP system does not provide detailed information on work conducted by\nexaminers. Also, the SHARP system does not have time codes for all of the regulations\nreviewed during compliance examinations. According to our discussions with DSC staff,\nSHARP is not used to track or monitor examination coverage of regulations \xe2\x80\x93 the system is more\nuseful for field office management.\n\nPerformance Measures\n\nIn fulfilling its primary supervisory responsibilities, the FDIC pursues two strategic goals:\nFDIC-supervised institutions are safe and sound and consumers\xe2\x80\x99 rights are protected, and FDIC-\nsupervised institutions invest in their communities.9\n\nTwo strategic objectives support the consumer rights strategic goals. The first strategic objective\nis that consumers have access to easily understood information about their rights and the\ndisclosures due them under consumer protection and fair lending laws. The FDIC\xe2\x80\x99s annual\nperformance goals related to this objective are:\n\n\xc2\xbe Provide effective outreach and technical assistance on topics related to the CRA, fair lending,\n and community development.\n\n\xc2\xbe Meet the statutory mandate to investigate and respond to consumer complaints about FDIC-\n supervised financial institutions.\n\n7\n SOURCE is a management support and decision tool that replaced the Banking Information Tracking System\n(BITS) Compliance Statistical System as the system of record for the compliance and CRA examination program\nand is extensively used by compliance field supervisors, examiners, review examiners, and Washington office policy\nstaff. SOURCE differs from its predecessor BITS in that SOURCE is used not only to support reporting\nrequirements and a system of record, but also to provide substantial task support for examination staff.\n8\n All DSC employees use SHARP to track examination hours.\n9\n The goals are stated in the FDIC 2005-2010 Strategic Plan and the FDIC 2005 Annual Performance Plan.\n 9\n\x0c APPENDIX I\n\nThe second strategic objective is that FDIC-supervised institutions comply with consumer\nprotection, CRA, and fair lending laws. The FDIC\xe2\x80\x99s annual performance goals related to this\nobjective are:\n\n\xc2\xbe Conduct CRA and compliance examinations in accordance with the FDIC\xe2\x80\x99s examination\n frequency policy.\n\n\xc2\xbe Take prompt and effective supervisory action to monitor and address problems identified\n during compliance examinations of FDIC-supervised institutions that receive a \xe2\x80\x9c4\xe2\x80\x9d or \xe2\x80\x9c5\xe2\x80\x9d\n rating for compliance with consumer protection and fair lending laws.\n\nNone of the strategic goals, strategic objectives, or performance goals related directly to the\nobjectives of our audit.\n\nFraud and Illegal Acts\n\nOur audit program did include steps for providing reasonable assurance of detecting fraud or\nillegal acts. We did not identify any illegal acts or abuse or potential areas susceptible to illegal\nacts or abuse.\n\nInternal Controls Reviewed\n\nDuring the audit, we gained an understanding of relevant control activities related to compliance\nexaminations by examining DSC policies and procedures as presented in the DSC\xe2\x80\x99s Compliance\nExamination Manual and Regional Directors Memoranda. We identified DSC\xe2\x80\x99s internal controls\nrelated to the risk-focused examination process for compliance examinations. Specifically, we\nreviewed the systems used for measuring, monitoring, and reporting program performance;\ncompliance with laws, regulations, policies, and procedures; and the reliability of computer-\nbased data. We also reviewed the results of DSC Internal Control Reviews related to compliance\nexaminations. We identified documentation weaknesses related to the on-site portion of\ncompliance examinations as discussed in the finding section of this report.\n\nSummary of Prior Audit Coverage\n\nOn March 26, 2002, the OIG issued Audit Report 02-009, Division of Compliance and\nConsumer Affairs\xe2\x80\x99 Risk-Scoping Process for Fair Lending Examinations, on the fair lending\nexamination risk-scoping process as conducted by the Division of Compliance and Consumer\nAffairs.10 The objective of the audit was to assess: (1) the adequacy of the Federal Financial\nInstitutions Examination Council (FFIEC) Interagency Fair Lending Examination Procedures for\nthe FDIC\xe2\x80\x99s pre-examination planning for fair lending examinations of small banks, (2) the\nFDIC\xe2\x80\x99s implementation of the FFIEC interagency procedures as they relate to identifying fair\nlending risks during the off-site pre-examination planning phase of the fair lending reviews, and\n(3) the related DCA internal controls. The 2002 audit focused on the FDIC\xe2\x80\x99s application of the\nFFIEC Interagency Fair Lending Procedures and did not directly relate to the scope of our audit.\n\n\n10\n Effective June 30, 2002, the FDIC\xe2\x80\x99s Division of Supervision and Division of Compliance and Consumer Affairs\n(DCA) were merged to form the new DSC.\n 10\n\x0c APPENDIX II\n\n RISK-FOCUSED COMPLIANCE EXAMINATION GUIDELINES\n\nEffective June 30, 2003, DSC implemented revised procedures to enhance the FDIC's\ncompliance examination process by focusing increased attention on an institution\xe2\x80\x99s compliance\nmanagement system. As noted in the DSC Memorandum entitled, Revised Compliance\nExamination Procedures, Transmittal No. 2003-021, dated June 6, 2003, the revised procedures\ncombined the risk-based examination process with an in-depth evaluation of an institution\xe2\x80\x99s\nCMS. Examiners were required to evaluate how well an institution\xe2\x80\x99s compliance responsibilities\nare administered and managed, consistent with the level and complexity of its operations. The\npurpose of this approach was to allow examiners to devote more attention to those institutions\nrequiring additional supervisory attention to help improve weak compliance functions and reduce\nthe risks of future noncompliance. The new procedures did not change existing fair lending\nexamination procedures or CRA performance evaluations. According to the revised procedures,\nall financial institutions would benefit from a comprehensive assessment of compliance\nmanagement systems. The examiner\xe2\x80\x99s identification of root causes of compliance management\ndeficiencies and regulatory violations would serve as a blueprint for helping institution\nmanagement improve its operations. Moreover, the revised compliance examination procedures\nwould elevate the importance of comprehensive compliance risk management by institutions of\nall sizes.\n\nEffective June 30, 2004, DSC updated the compliance examination procedures. As noted in the\nDSC Memorandum entitled, Updated Compliance Examination Procedures, Transmittal\nNo. 2004-032, dated June 30, 2004, modifications to the examination procedures were centered\nin three distinct components of the compliance examination program: Report of Examination\ncomments, the RPSM, and the CIDR.\n\n\xc2\xbe The Report of Examination changes included guidance to: (a) reduce examination scope\n comments, (b) consolidate examiner recommendations and management\xe2\x80\x99s commitment to\n corrective action, (c) consolidate the summary assessment of compliance management, and\n (d) omit the Supervisory Comments page in most instances.\n\n\xc2\xbe The RPSM requirements were changed to ensure that the RPSM would be used solely for\n pre-examination planning. Upon completion of the RPSM, the Examiner-in Charge is\n required to submit it to the Field Supervisor for review and approval. Once the RPSM is\n approved by the Field Supervisor, examiners no longer need to update the RPSM to reflect\n changes in examination scope or to duplicate findings contained in the Report of\n Examination.\n\n\xc2\xbe To better tailor the CIDR to the unique circumstances of each institution, the following\n approaches were made available for examiners when requesting information from banks. For\n compliance examinations of large, complex banking organizations, examiners should use the\n existing CIDR. For compliance examinations of smaller, less complex institutions,\n examiners should use the \xe2\x80\x9cInterview Sheet\xe2\x80\x9d and a revised Compliance Information and\n Documentation Request (CIDR II) to simplify the information-gathering process by\n removing tables and separating information requests from document requests.\n\n\n\n\n 11\n\x0c APPENDIX III\n\n SIGNIFICANT VIOLATIONS CONTAINED IN THE REPORTS OF\n EXAMINATION FOR THE SAMPLE BANKS\nSignificant violations found during the compliance examinations for the 36 banks in our sample\nare identified below. Significant violations are defined as deficiencies that may adversely impact\nthe financial institution. We found that 75.6 percent of the total significant violations related to\nseven regulations: Truth in Lending, Equal Credit Opportunity, Real Estate Settlement\nProcedures Act, Truth in Savings, Home Mortgage Disclosure Act, Flood Insurance, and\nExpedited Funds Availability. The scope of this audit did not include a detailed review of the\nsignificant violations; however, we plan to include an audit of supervisory actions taken for\ncompliance-related violations in our Fiscal Year 2006 Assignment Plan.\n\n Lending Regulation Violations # of Banks\n Truth in Lending (TIL) 17\n Equal Credit Opportunity Act (ECOA) 17\n Flood Insurance 11\n Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act (RESPA) 17\n Fair Credit Reporting 4\n Credit Practices Rule 0\n Fair Housing Act 2\n Homeownership Counseling 1\n Homeowners Protection Act (HPA) 1\n Home Mortgage Disclosure Act (HMDA) 13\n Preservation of Consumer Claims and Defenses (PCCD) 0\n Consumer Leasing 0\n Deposit Regulation Violations # of Banks\n Electronic Funds Transfer (EFT) 7\n Truth in Savings (TIS) 16\n Expedited Funds Availability (EFA) 11\n Interest on Deposits 2\n Specialty Regulation Violations # of Banks\n Community Reinvestment Act Technical Requirements 4\n Advertising of Membership 1\n Branch Closings 0\n Right to Financial Privacy Act 4\n Privacy of Consumer Financial Information 2\n Non-Deposit Products 5\n Electronic Banking 0\n Consumer Complaints 0\n Fair Debt Collection Practices 0\n Interstate Banking & Branching Efficiency Act (IBBEA) 0\n Children\xe2\x80\x99s Online Privacy Protection Act (COPPA) 0\n\n\n\n\n 12\n\x0c Appendix IV\n\n\n\nCORPORATION COMMENTS\n\x0c APPENDIX 1V\n\n\n\n\n14\n\x0c APPENDIX V\n\n\n MANAGEMENT RESPONSE TO RECOMMENDATION\n This table presents the management response on the recommendation in our report and the status of the recommendation as of the date\n of report issuance.\n Open\n Completion Date Monetary Resolved:a Dispositioned:b or\n Corrective Action for Benefits Yes or No Yes or No Closedc\n Recommendation: Taken or\n Planned/Status\n DSC concurred with the\n recommendation. DSC clarified and\n reinforced requirements that examiners\n adequately document the scope of the\n work performed, including transaction\n testing and spot checks of the\n reliability of the institutions\xe2\x80\x99 August 31, 2005 None Yes Yes Closed\n compliance review functions, during\n15\n\n\n\n\n the on-site portion of compliance\n examinations. This clarification was\n provided in a written memorandum\n entitled, Revised Compliance\n Examination Procedures, which was\n issued to all DSC personnel.\n\n a\n Resolved \xe2\x80\x93 (1) Management concurs with the recommendation, and the planned corrective action is consistent with the recommendation.\n (2) Management does not concur with the recommendation, but planned alternative action is acceptable to the OIG.\n (3) Management agrees to the OIG monetary benefits, or a different amount, or no ($0) amount. Monetary benefits are considered resolved as long as\n management provides an amount.\n b\n Dispositioned \xe2\x80\x93 The agreed-upon corrective action must be implemented, determined to be effective, and the actual amounts of monetary benefits achieved\n through implementation identified. The OIG is responsible for determining whether the documentation provided by management is adequate to disposition the\n recommendation.\n c\n Once the OIG dispositions the recommendation, it can then be closed.\n\x0c"


type: wikipedia

text:
Carlos Santana (født 20. juli 1947 i Autlán de Navarro) er en mexicansk rock-guitarist, som blev kendt i 1960'erne med sit band Santana.
 Carlos Santanas far var mariachi-violinist, og den unge Carlos lærte først at spille violin, men skiftede til guitar, da han var otte år gammel. Da familien flyttede Tijuana, begyndte Santana at spille i klubber og barer; han blev i Tijuana, da familien flyttede til San Francisco i USA, men fulgte snart selv efter. I 1966 var han med til at grundlægge Santana Blues Band, hvis navn med tiden blev forkortet til Santana. Bandet begyndte at spille i Fillmore West, hvor mange store San Francisco-bands startede. Santanas pladedebut var på The Live Adventures of Mike Bloomfield and Al Kooper med Al Kooper og Mike Bloomfield.
 Santana fik hurtigt en pladekontrakt med Columbia Records og udgav albummet Santana; gruppen bestod på dette tidspunkt af Carlos Santana (guitar), Gregg Rolie (keyboard og sang), David Brown (basguitar), Michael Shrieve (trommer), Jose Areas (slagtøj) og Michael Carabello (slagtøj). På turneen, der fulgte pladeudgivelsen, spillede bandet på Woodstockfestivalen, hvor en legendarisk optræden øgede deres popularitet voldsomt. Efter de tre pladesuccesser Santana, Abraxas (1970) og Santana III (1971) blev gruppen opløst. Rolie var siden med til at starte Journey.
 Carlos Santana fortsatte med at bruge sit og gruppens navn, mens han spillede med en række skiftende musikere under en fortsat koncertturne i USA og under flere pladeudgivelser. I denne periode tog Carlos navnet "Devadip", som den spirituelle leder Sri Chinmoy havde givet ham.
 Mange album blev udgivet i 1970'erne, blandt andet i samarbejde med Willie Nelson, Herbie Hancock, Booker T. Jones, Wayne Shorter, Ron Carter og Fabulous Thunderbirds.
 Carlos Santana vendte tilbage til rampelyset i 1999 med udgivelsen af Supernatural, der indeholdt sange med blandt andre Rob Thomas, Eric Clapton, Everlast, Eagle-Eye Cherry, Maná og Lauryn Hill, et album, der vandt ni Grammy'er.
 Eksterne henvisninger
 Carlos Santana website
 Guitarister fra Mexico
 Hollywood Walk of Fame
 Har spillet på Roskilde Festival


text:
Αυτό το λήμμα αναφέρεται στον μυθογράφο. Για άλλες σημασίες δείτε Αίσωπος (αποσαφήνιση).
 Ο Αίσωπος (Μεσημβρία Ευξείνου Πόντου, 620 π.Χ. - Δελφοί, 560 π.Χ.) ήταν αρχαίος Έλληνας μυθοποιός και μυθογράφος. Θεωρείται ιδρυτής του λογοτεχνικού είδους που σήμερα ονομάζεται παραβολή ή αλληγορία. Για τη ζωή του δεν υπάρχουν ακριβείς και συγκεκριμένες πληροφορίες.
 Είναι ο διασημότερος από τους αρχαίους μυθοποιούς, αναμφισβήτητος πατέρας του αρχαίου μύθου. Θεωρείται επίσης ο κορυφαίος της λεγόμενης διδακτικής μυθολογίας. Δεν έγραψε κανέναν από τους μύθους αλλά τους διηγούταν προφορικά.
 Η ζωή του
 Τη βιογραφία του Αισώπου συνέγραψε τον 14ο μ.Χ. αιώνα ο μοναχός Μάξιμος Πλανούδης και περιέχονται σ' αυτή πολλά ανέκδοτα για τη ζωή και την εν γένει δράση του.
 Η γέννησή του τοποθετείται τον 7ο αιώνα π.Χ, η δράση του όμως τον 6ο αιώνα π.Χ. και όπως ακριβώς και με τον Όμηρο πολλές πόλεις και χώρες ερίζουν θέλοντάς τον δικό τους: τόπος καταγωγής του αναφέρεται η Φρυγία, ενώ σύμφωνα μ' άλλους γεννήθηκε στη Σάμο ή τη Θράκη, τις Σάρδεις, την Αίγυπτο ή και άλλες περιοχές της Αφρικής, όπως την Αιθιοπία, στηριζόμενοι στο ότι στις ιστορίες του εμφανίζονται ζώα άγνωστα τότε στην Ευρώπη και την Αφρική. Ο μεγάλος αριθμός των τόπων αυτών δικαιολογείται και από τα πολλά ταξίδια που φαίνεται να έκανε ο Αίσωπος.
 Μεταγενέστερες μαρτυρίες τον αναφέρουν να παίρνει μέρος στο συμπόσιο των Επτά σοφών και να ελέγχει με την ευφυολογία και τη σοφία του τους λόγους τους. Επίσης τον φέρουν στις Σάρδεις στην αυλή του βασιλιά Κροίσου, του οποίου ήταν ευνοούμενος και σύμβουλος.
 Ο Αίσωπος ήταν ταπεινής καταγωγής και πραγματικό τέρας ασχήμιας: μαυριδερός, καμπούρης, τραυλός, κοντόλαιμος, στραβοπόδης με μύτη πλακουτσωτή και κεφάλι τριγωνικό, αλλά παράλληλα ήταν ευφυέστατος. Παρ' ότι όσο ζούσε ήταν δούλος, οι Αθηναίοι του έστησαν αργότερα ανδριάντα, για να δείξουν έτσι ότι κάθε άνθρωπος αξίας πρέπει, ανεξάρτητα από τη καταγωγή του, να τιμάται.
 Ο Αίσωπος γεννήθηκε κατά πάσα πιθανότητα, από οικογένεια δούλων, το 625 π.Χ., στο Αμόριο της Φρυγίας, ήταν δούλος του φιλόσοφου Ιάδμονα, έζησε στη Σάμο, ταξίδεψε στην Αίγυπτο και την Ανατολή και πέθανε στους Δελφούς, όπου είχε σταλεί από το βασιλιά Κροίσο γα να λάβει χρησμό του μαντείου το 560 π.Χ. Κατηγορήθηκε για ιεροσυλία και καταδικάστηκε σε θάνατο από ιεροδικαστές. Γκρεμίστηκε δε από τη κορφή του Παρνασσού. Οι εκδοχές ως προς τους λόγους του θανάτου του, είναι αρκετές και διαφορετικές.
 Σύμφωνα με μια εκδοχή, στάλθηκε από τον Κροίσο με προσφορές δώρων στον ναό του Απόλλωνα στους Δελφούς, όπου, βλέποντας τις απάτες των εκεί ιερέων και την απληστία τους, τους κατηγόρησε με σαρκαστικό τρόπο. Εκείνοι, τότε, αποφάσισαν να τον θανατώσουν με δόλο. Πήραν λοιπόν από το ιερό του ναού μια χρυσή φιάλη και την έκρυψαν μες στις αποσκευές του. Στη συνέχεια τον κατηγόρησαν για κλέφτη κι ιερόσυλο. Έτσι με τη σκηνοθετημένη κατηγορία τον καταδίκασαν σε θάνατο και τον σκότωσαν ρίχνοντας τον στον γκρεμό από την κορυφή του Παρνασσού, Υάμπεια. Αμέσως μετά τον θάνατό του έπεσε πείνα και δυστυχία στον τόπο.
 Με βάση μία άλλη εκδοχή, ο Αίσωπος ήταν δούλος κάποιου κτηματία που τον χρησιμοποιούσε σαν βοσκό. Μια μέρα, που είδε τον επιστάτη να χτυπά άδικα έναν άλλο δούλο, έτρεξε να τον βοηθήσει κι έτσι ο επιστάτης για να τον εκδικηθεί τον κατηγόρησε στον κτηματία, που τον πήγε στην αγορά της Εφέσου για να τον πουλήσει. Εκεί, τον αγόρασε ο σοφός Ξάνθος από τη Σάμο, που εκτίμησε το έξυπνο βλέμμα του και τον πήρε μαζί του σαν δούλο. Μαζί του άρχισε να ταξιδεύει και να γνωρίζει τον κόσμο. Στη συνέχεια ο Ξάνθος τον πούλησε στον επίσης Σάμιο σοφό Ιάδμονα. Αυτός εκτιμώντας τα πνευματικά χαρίσματά του και κυρίως την σοφία και την ευφυΐα του, τον απελευθέρωσε.
 Κάποτε έφτασε και στη περιοχή των Δελφών κι επισκέφθηκε το περίφημο Μαντείο. Ο Αίσωπος ειρωνεύτηκε τους ιερείς ότι μαντεύουν για να πλουτίζουν, και τους κατοίκους, ότι αντί να καλλιεργούν τα κτήματά τους και να φροντίζουν τα ζώα τους ζούσαν από τ' αφιερώματα των προσκυνητών. Αυτό του το θράσος εξόργισε τους ιερείς του Μαντείου οι οποίοι τον παγίδεψαν, βάζοντας ένα χρυσό ποτήρι στις αποσκευές του και κατόπιν τον κατηγόρησαν για κλέφτη κι ιερόσυλο. Έτσι τον δίκασαν άδικα και τον καταδίκασαν σε θάνατο, ρίχνοντας τον από τις κορυφές των Φαιδριάδων, κάποια απόκρημνα βράχια, στον Παρνασσό.
 Σύμφωνα με τη παράδοση, ο Απόλλωνας τιμώρησε την αδικία τους στέλνοντας στους κατοίκους των Δελφών μεγάλη πείνα και λιμό, που θέρισε πολλούς κατοίκους. Αυτοί τότε για να εξιλεωθούν, έστησαν μια μαρμάρινη στήλη προς τιμήν του Αισώπου.
 Οι μύθοι
 Πρωταγωνιστές στους μύθους του Αισώπου είναι, κατά το πλείστον, ορισμένα ζώα, όπως η αλεπού, ο λύκος, το λιοντάρι, το ελάφι κ.ά. Κυρίως είναι διάλογοι μεταξύ ζώων που μιλούν κι ενεργούν σαν άνθρωποι (τα «φωνήεντα ζώα»), ενώ υπάρχουν και μερικοί με ανθρώπους ή θεούς. Πρόκειται για μικρά οικιακά αφηγήματα, διατυπωμένα με μεγάλη συντομία. Ο χαρακτήρας τους είναι ηθικοδιδακτικός, συμβολικός κι αλληγορικός. Οι Μύθοι αυτοί έχουν ιδιαίτερη χάρη, θαυμαστή απλότητα κι άφταστη διδακτικότητα. Είναι παρμένοι από τη καθημερινή ζωή και τη φύση. Είχε τη μοναδική ικανότητα να δίνει στα ζώα ανθρώπινες ιδιότητες, ψυχή και λαλιά, σε τέτοιο βαθμό που να θεωρείς ότι οι μύθοι του ήταν κάποτε η πραγματικότητα και όλα αυτά που διηγείται έχουν συμβεί. Βασικό χαρακτηριστικό των διηγήσεών του ήταν το επιμύθιο το οποίο ήταν εύληπτο για τα παιδιά και το λαό.
 Οι Αισώπειοι Μύθοι (Αἰσώπου Μῦθοι) γράφτηκαν σε πεζό λόγο. Ως γνωστό, μέχρι τότε, μόνον ο έμμετρος λόγος, η ποίηση, θεωρούνταν το μοναδικό εκφραστικό είδος για τους συγγραφείς. Συνεπώς μπορεί να θεωρηθεί κι ως πρωτοπόρος στο είδος του. Ιδεολογία τους είναι η αποδοκιμασία του κακού στις πιο αντιπροσωπευτικές μορφές του: της βίας, της απάτης, της αυθαιρεσίας, της προδοσίας, της ματαιοδοξίας, της αλαζονείας, της ψευδολογίας, της πλεονεξίας, της πονηριάς. Η αποδοκιμασία επιχειρείται άλλοτε με αναφορά στη Θεία δίκη, άλλοτε με πειστικές υποδείξεις, πιο συχνά όμως με τη διαπίστωση του παραλογισμού του κακού, με τη γελοιοποίηση του καθώς και με τη φιλοσοφική ενατένιση της ζωής.
 Σύμφωνα με τον Ηρόδοτο, ο Αίσωπος ήταν πολύ γνωστός «λογοποιός». Εκτός από τους μύθους γνώριζε και διηγούνταν πολλά αστεία κι ανέκδοτα. 'Άλλοι υποστηρίζουν ότι δε δημιούργησε μύθους αλλά τους συγκέντρωσε, τους συμπλήρωσε και τους τελειοποίησε. Αυτοί προέρχονταν είτε από τους αρχαιότερους Έλληνες είτε από άλλους λαούς, όπως οι Φρύγες. Δεν αποκλείεται βέβαια να επινόησε κι ο ίδιος μερικούς απ' αυτούς. Πάντως, τους χρησιμοποίησε πολύ στη ζωή του, με τόση δεξιότητα κι επιτυχία, ώστε να συνδεθεί τελικά το όνομά του μ' αυτούς.
 Λέγεται πως διηγόταν τους μύθους του αυτούς όχι μόνο στη διάρκεια της ζωής του αλλά και με σκοπό να υποστηρίξει την αθωότητά του στο δικαστήριο. Μέσα τους διακρίνεται το ευρύ, παρατηρητικό του πνεύμα κι η ικανότητά του να διδάσκει με μικρές, απλές ιστορίες, που πάντα έχουν στο τέλος κάποιο ηθικό δίδαγμα. Συνήθιζε με την παρατηρητικότητα και τη βαθιά σοφία του να πλάθει τέτοιες ιστορίες και να τις λέει γύρω του. Με τον καιρό απέκτησε μεγάλη φήμη κι όλοι έτρεχαν κοντά του για να ακούσουν κάποιο μύθο του σχετικά με κάποιο πρόβλημα τους. Σιγά σιγά οι μύθοι του άρχισαν να μεταδίδονται από στόμα σε στόμα μεταξύ των ανθρώπων, μέχρι την ελληνιστική εποχή οπότε συγκεντρώθηκαν για πρώτη φορά.
 Έκδοση των μύθων
 Επιλογή μύθων του Αισώπου σε πεζό λόγο εξέδωσε ο Δημήτριος ο Φαληρεύς στα τέλη του 4ου αιώνα π.Χ. Η συλλογή αυτή δε σώζεται και μόνο ποιητικές επεξεργασίες του Βαβρίου στα ελληνικά, του Φαίδρου στα λατινικά κι άλλων, διέσωσαν το υλικό της επιτομής εκείνης. Όλες οι σωζόμενες σήμερα συλλογές είναι πολύ μεταγενέστερες και προέρχονται από τον 1ο ή 2ο αιώνα κι έπειτα. Οι μύθοι του έχουν συγκεντρωθεί σε «Συλλογή Αισώπειων Μύθων».
 Πρώτη φορά εκτυπώθηκαν στο Μιλάνο το 1479 μ.Χ., στην Βενετία το 1525 και 1543 από την οικογένεια τυπογράφων Damiano di Santa Maria ενώ ακολούθησε μία έκδοση στο Παρίσι το 1547. Ο Κοραής τους τύπωσε το 1810 στο Παρίσι κι ακολούθησε κριτική έκδοση το 1852 στη Λειψία από τον Χαλμ. Έκτοτε πολλές εκδόσεις παρουσιάστηκαν κι οι Μύθοι πιστεύεται πως έχουν διαβαστεί παγκοσμίως σχεδόν όσο κι η Βίβλος. Η πιο πρόσφατη έκδοση τους έγινε από τον βρετανικό εκδοτικό οίκο Penguin (1997) σε 50.000 αντίτυπα. Η απόδοση τους στη νέα ελληνική γλώσσα έγινε από τους Ανδρόνικο Νούκιο και Γεώργιο Αιτωλό, που έζησαν τον 16ο αιώνα.
 Υπό το όνομα του Αισώπου υπάρχει ένα επίγραμμα στην Παλατινή Ανθολογία (Χ 123).
 Ο αστεροειδής 12608 Αίσωπος (12608 Aesop), που ανακαλύφθηκε το 1960, πήρε το όνομά του από τον μυθογράφο αυτόν.
 Παραπομπές
 Εξωτερικοί σύνδεσμοι
 Ο ΒΙΟΣ ΑΙΣΩΠΟΥ ΤΟΥ ΦΡΥΓΟΣ σε ηλεκτρονικό βιβλίο.
 ΜΥΘΟΙ ΤΟΥ ΑΙΣΩΠΟΥ (από Μυθολογικὸν τοῦ Συντίπα τοῦ Φιλοσόφου).
 Αίσωπος (βίντεο του Μουσείου Ελληνικής Παιδείας)
 Αρχαίοι Έλληνες μυθογράφοι
 Παλατινή Ανθολογία
 Αρχαίοι Έλληνες σκλάβοι
 Αρχαίοι Έλληνες παροιμιογράφοι


text:
NÁVRH /2015 Sb. NAŘÍZENÍ VLÁDY ze dne.., - PDF
 Download "NÁVRH /2015 Sb. NAŘÍZENÍ VLÁDY ze dne..,"
 1 Komora velitelů jednotek sborů dobrovolných hasičů z.s. (Komora velitelů), profesní organizace sdružující velitele jednotek sborů dobrovolných hasičů (JSDH), v souladu se svými cíli, navrhuje změnu nařízení vlády č. 352/2003 Sb. o posuzování zdravotní způsobilosti zaměstnanců jednotek hasičských záchranných sborů podniků a členů jednotek sborů dobrovolných hasičů obcí nebo podniků, ve znění pozdějších předpisů. NÁVRH /2015 Sb. NAŘÍZENÍ VLÁDY ze dne.., kterým se mění nařízení vlády č. 352/2003 Sb., o posuzování zdravotní způsobilosti zaměstnanců jednotek hasičských záchranných sborů podniků a členů jednotek sborů dobrovolných hasičů obcí nebo podniků ve znění pozdějších předpisů Vláda nařizuje k provedení zákona č. 133/1985 Sb., o požární ochraně, ve znění zákona č. 425/1990 Sb., zákona č. 40/1994 Sb., zákona č. 203/1994 Sb., zákona č. 163/1998 Sb., zákona č. 71/2000 Sb., zákona č. 237/2000 Sb. a zákona č. 320/2002 Sb.: Čl. I Nařízení vlády č č. 352/2003 Sb., o posuzování zdravotní způsobilosti zaměstnanců jednotek hasičských záchranných sborů podniků a členů jednotek sborů dobrovolných hasičů obcí nebo podniků ve znění pozdějších předpisů se mění takto: 1. V 3 odst. 3 se před číslovku IV vkládá text I a 2. V 3 odst. 3 se ve druhé větě mění číslovka 2 na číslovku V 3 odst. 3 se za poslední větu se vkládá nový text: Člen jednotky na základě znalosti svého zdravotního stavu v každém roce, ve kterém nemá povinnost postoupit periodickou zdravotní prohlídku, je povinen čestně prohlásit podle vzoru uvedeného v příloze č. 5, že nedošlo ke změnám jeho zdravotního stavu od poslední periodické zdravotní prohlídky a že je zdravotně způsobilý k výkonu funkce, ve které je jako člen jednotky zařazen. Čl. II Toto nařízení nabývá účinnosti dnem jeho vyhlášení.
 2 Příloha č. 5 k nařízení vlády č. Sb. Čestné prohlášení o zdravotní způsobilosti podle ust. 3 odst. 3 nařízení vlády č. Sb. o posuzování zdravotní způsobilosti zaměstnanců jednotek hasičských záchranných sborů podniků a členů jednotek sborů dobrovolných hasičů obcí nebo podniků ve znění pozdějších předpisů Já, níže podepsaný...nar...., jako člen jednotky sboru dobrovolných hasičů obce *) / podniku *) (dále jen člen jednotky )., zařazený na funkci. čestně prohlašuji, na základě znalosti svého zdravotního stavu, že nedošlo ke změnám mého zdravotního stavu od poslední periodické zdravotní prohlídky a jsem zdravotně způsobilý k výkonu funkce, do které jsem jako člen jednotky zařazen. V. Dne Čitelný podpis člena jednotky:...
 3 Důvodová zpráva: Cílem předložené novely ustanovení 3 odst. 3 nařízení vlády č. 352/2003 Sb. o posuzování zdravotní způsobilosti zaměstnanců jednotek hasičských záchranných sborů podniků a členů jednotek sborů dobrovolných hasičů obcí nebo podniků (dále jen člen jednotky ), ve znění pozdějších předpisů je prodloužit interval mezi periodickými zdravotními prohlídkami členů jednotek z 2 roků na 4 roky a zavedení povinnosti člena jednotky čestně prohlásit podle vzoru uvedeného v příloze č. 5, že nedošlo ke změnám jeho zdravotního stavu od poslední periodické zdravotní prohlídky a že je člen jednotky zdravotně způsobilý k výkonu funkce, do které je zařazen. Nově navrhovaný odst. 3, který zní: (3) Při periodické zdravotní prohlídce člena jednotky zařazeného do kategorie I a IV podle přílohy č. 1 k tomuto nařízení se postupuje obdobně jako při vstupní zdravotní prohlídce podle 2 odst. 4. Periodická zdravotní prohlídka člena jednotky se provádí jednou za 4 roky v návaznosti na preventivní prohlídku podle zákona o veřejném zdravotním pojištění 2). Člen jednotky na základě znalosti svého zdravotního stavu v každém roce, ve kterém nemá povinnost postoupit periodickou zdravotní prohlídku, je povinen čestně prohlásit podle vzoru uvedeného v příloze č. 5, že nedošlo ke změnám jeho zdravotního stavu od poslední periodické zdravotní prohlídky a že je zdravotně způsobilý k výkonu funkce, ve které je jako člen jednotky zařazen. Důvodem navrhované změny ust. 3 odst. 3: K bodu 1. Vložení textu I a je z důvodu doplnění kategorie I, která je součástí periodické zdravotní prohlídky člena jednotky. K bodu 2. Periodické zdravotní prohlídky členů jednotek jednou za dva roky jsou nejen nákladné, ale jsou i velkou zátěží pro jednotlivé členy jednotek, kteří se podrobují těmto zdravotním prohlídkám většinou bez jakékoli náhrady. Uvedené ust. 3 odst. 3 předpokládá, že periodická zdravotní prohlídka člena je prováděna v návaznosti na preventivní zdravotní prohlídku podle zákona o veřejném zdravotním pojištění. Avšak ne ve všech případech se periodická zdravotní prohlídka provádí ve stejném termínu periodické zdravotní prohlídky. Náklady na periodické zdravotní prohlídky členů jednotek se pohybují okolo 37 milionů korun ročně a jejich úhradu hradí obce ze svých rozpočtů. Z dlouhodobých statistických údajů nelze objektivně určit významnou pozitivní změnu v počtu úrazů členů jednotek před a po účinnosti nařízení vlády č. 352/2003 Sb. o posuzování zdravotní způsobilosti zaměstnanců jednotek hasičských záchranných sborů podniků a členů jednotek sborů dobrovolných hasičů obcí nebo podniků, ve znění pozdějších předpisů. Z těchto údajů je zřejmé, že k zásadním změnám po zavedení periodických zdravotních prohlídek nedošlo. Naopak došlo k finančnímu zatížení obcí a podle statistických údajů je tato povinnost neefektivní. Na jeden úraz člena jednotky v roce 2013 byly náklady na periodické zdravotní prohlídky ve výši ,- Kč. Prodloužením intervalu preventivních zdravotních prohlídek členů jednotek tak dojde ke snížení finanční zátěže obcí, které budou moci uvolněné finanční prostředky vložit například do zlepšení technického vybavení jednotek. Zavedením čestného prohlášení člena jednotky v každém roce, ve kterém člen jednotky nemá povinnost postoupit periodickou zdravotní prohlídku, se naopak bez zvýšených finančních nároků zvýší sledování zdravotní způsobilosti prostřednictvím četného prohlášení, a to jednou ročně. Předložená novela 3 odst. 3 ulevuje také jednotek sborů dobrovolných hasičů kategorie JPO V, které nemají takovou četnost zásahů. Přesto ale podle současně platné právní úpravy jsou povinni podrobovat se preventivním zdravotním prohlídkám, i když za celé dvouleté období vůbec nezasahovaly. K bodu 3. Vložením povinnosti jednotky je snaha v mezidobí prodlouženého intervalu doplnit preventivní opatření předkládáním čestného prohlášení člena v každém roce, ve kterém nemá povinnost podrobit se preventivní zdravotní prohlídky.
 4 Text nařízení vlády č. s vyznačenými úpravami.. NAŘÍZENÍ VLÁDY ze dne. o posuzování zdravotní způsobilosti zaměstnanců jednotek hasičských záchranných sborů podniků a členů jednotek sborů dobrovolných hasičů obcí nebo podniků Vláda nařizuje k provedení zákona č. 133/1985 Sb., o požární ochraně, ve znění zákona č. 425/1990 Sb., zákona č. 40/1994 Sb., zákona č. 203/1994 Sb., zákona č. 163/1998 Sb., zákona č. 71/2000 Sb., zákona č. 237/2000 Sb. a zákona č. 320/2002 Sb.: Preventivní zdravotní prohlídky 1 (1) Preventivní zdravotní prohlídkou se rozumí a) vstupní zdravotní prohlídka, b) periodická zdravotní prohlídka, c) mimořádná zdravotní prohlídka a d) výstupní zdravotní prohlídka. (2) Při preventivní zdravotní prohlídce se posuzuje zdravotní způsobilost a) uchazeče o zaměstnání v jednotce hasičského záchranného sboru podniku (dále jen "uchazeč o zaměstnání") a zaměstnance právnické osoby nebo podnikající fyzické osoby, který činnost v jednotce hasičského záchranného sboru podniku vykonává jako svoje zaměstnání (dále jen "zaměstnanec podniku"), a b) člena jednotky sboru dobrovolných hasičů obce nebo člena jednotky sboru dobrovolných hasičů podniku (dále jen "člen jednotky"). (3) Při preventivní zdravotní prohlídce se vychází z aktuálního zdravotního stavu posuzované osoby a z nároků kladených na činnost odpovídající funkci zaměstnance podniku, uchazeče o zaměstnání nebo člena jednotky podle přílohy č. 1 k tomuto nařízení. Součástí preventivní zdravotní prohlídky je zjišťování anamnestických dat. 2 Vstupní zdravotní prohlídka (1) Vstupní zdravotní prohlídka se provede před přijetím uchazeče o zaměstnání do pracovního nebo jiného obdobného poměru. Před přeřazením nebo jmenováním zaměstnance podniku do jiné funkce uvedené v příloze č. 1 k tomuto nařízení, ve které bude vykonávat činnost, pro niž je stanoven jiný požadavek na zdravotní způsobilost, se doplní vyšetření stanovená pro příslušnou kategorii pro posouzení zdravotní způsobilosti podle přílohy č. 1 k tomuto nařízení. (2) Vstupní zdravotní prohlídka člena jednotky se provede před zahájením výkonu činnosti1) v jednotce sboru dobrovolných hasičů obce nebo jednotce sboru dobrovolných hasičů podniku. Před určením člena jednotky k používání izolačního dýchacího přístroje (dále jen "nositel dýchací techniky") se doplní vyšetření stanovená pro kategorii I podle přílohy č. 1 k tomuto nařízení. (3) Při vstupní zdravotní prohlídce zaměstnance podniku a uchazeče o zaměstnání se provede komplexní fyzikální vyšetření včetně orientačního vyšetření zraku, sluchu, kůže a podpůrného a pohybového aparátu a
 5 orientačního neurologického vyšetření, dále orientační chemické vyšetření moči a laboratorní vyšetření krevního obrazu a glykemie. U zaměstnanců podniku zařazovaných do kategorií I a II podle přílohy č. 1 k tomuto nařízení se provede též odborné vyšetření neurologické, RTG plic, spirometrické a elektrokardiografické vyšetření a u zaměstnanců podniku zařazených do kategorie I též odborné oční a ORL vyšetření. Podle aktuálního zdravotního stavu a závěrů vyšetření lze provést další odborná vyšetření nezbytná pro posouzení zdravotní způsobilosti. (4) Při vstupní zdravotní prohlídce člena jednotky se provede komplexní fyzikální vyšetření včetně orientačního vyšetření zraku, sluchu, kůže a podpůrného a pohybového aparátu, orientační neurologické vyšetření a orientační chemické vyšetření moči. Při posuzování zdravotní způsobilosti se využijí výsledky preventivní prohlídky podle zákona o veřejném zdravotním pojištění. 2) U nositele dýchací techniky se navíc provede spirometrické a elektrokardiografické vyšetření. Podle aktuálního zdravotního stavu a závěrů vyšetření lze provést i další odborná vyšetření nezbytná pro posouzení zdravotní způsobilosti. 3 Periodická zdravotní prohlídka (1) Periodická zdravotní prohlídka zaměstnance podniku, který vykonává činnost ve funkci zařazené do kategorií I a II podle přílohy č. 1 k tomuto nařízení, se provádí jednou ročně v rozsahu komplexního fyzikálního vyšetření včetně orientačního vyšetření zraku, sluchu, kůže, podpůrného a pohybového aparátu a orientačního chemického vyšetření moči, dále zahrnuje vyšetření elektrokardiografické a spirometrické, laboratorní vyšetření glykemie a odborné vyšetření neurologické. Podle aktuálního zdravotního stavu a závěrů vyšetření lze provést i jiná odborná vyšetření nezbytná pro posouzení zdravotní způsobilosti. (2) Periodická zdravotní prohlídka zaměstnance podniku, který vykonává činnost ve funkci zařazené do kategorie III podle přílohy č. 1 k tomuto nařízení, se provádí jednou za 5 let v rozsahu komplexního fyzikálního vyšetření včetně orientačního vyšetření zraku, sluchu, kůže a podpůrného a pohybového aparátu, orientačního neurologického vyšetření a orientačního chemického vyšetření moči. (3) Při periodické zdravotní prohlídce člena jednotky zařazeného do kategorie I a IV podle přílohy č. 1 k tomuto nařízení se postupuje obdobně jako při vstupní zdravotní prohlídce podle 2 odst. 4. Periodická zdravotní prohlídka člena jednotky se provádí jednou za 4 roky v návaznosti na preventivní prohlídku podle zákona o veřejném zdravotním pojištění 2). Člen jednotky na základě znalosti svého zdravotního stavu v každém roce, ve kterém nemá povinnost postoupit periodickou zdravotní prohlídku, je povinen čestně prohlásit podle vzoru uvedeného v příloze č. 5, že nedošlo ke změnám jeho zdravotního stavu od poslední periodické zdravotní prohlídky a že je zdravotně způsobilý k výkonu funkce, ve které je jako člen jednotky zařazen. 4 Při vstupní nebo periodické zdravotní prohlídce se vychází ze zdravotnické dokumentace vedené lékařem, u něhož je zaměstnanec podniku, uchazeč o zaměstnání nebo člen jednotky registrován, 3) anebo z výpisu z této dokumentace podle vzoru uvedeného v příloze č. 2 k tomuto nařízení. Určená odborná vyšetření není nutné provádět, pokud lze využít výsledek předchozího odborného vyšetření, které bylo provedeno v období 90 dnů před zahájením vstupní nebo periodické zdravotní prohlídky. 5 Mimořádná zdravotní prohlídka (1) Mimořádná zdravotní prohlídka zaměstnance podniku nebo člena jednotky se provádí a) na jeho žádost,
 6 b) na podnět velitele jednotky požární ochrany, 1. po zranění nebo onemocnění, které způsobilo pracovní neschopnost zaměstnance podniku delší než 6 týdnů nebo pracovní neschopnost člena jednotky delší než 3 měsíce a které je spojeno se zpochybněním jeho zdravotní způsobilosti z důvodu změny zdravotního stavu, který může ohrozit jeho zdraví a bezpečnost nebo zdraví a životy ostatních fyzických osob při zásahu jednotky, 2. jestliže utrpí zranění spojené s bezvědomím, jiný těžký úraz nebo je v podezření z expozice nebezpečným či zdraví škodlivým látkám při zásahu jednotky požární ochrany, nebo c) na podnět ošetřujícího lékaře. (2) Rozsah a náplň mimořádné zdravotní prohlídky stanoví podle aktuálního zdravotního stavu zaměstnance podniku nebo člena jednotky příslušný lékař uvedený v 7. 6 Výstupní zdravotní prohlídka (1) Výstupní zdravotní prohlídka se provede u zaměstnance podniku nebo člena jednotky, který vykonává činnost v jednotce sboru dobrovolných hasičů obce nebo v jednotce sboru dobrovolných hasičů podniku jako svoje zaměstnání, 4) před skončením pracovního nebo jiného obdobného poměru. (2) Při výstupní zdravotní prohlídce se provede komplexní fyzikální vyšetření včetně orientačního vyšetření zraku, sluchu, kůže a podpůrného a pohybového aparátu a orientačního neurologického vyšetření, popřípadě další nezbytná odborná vyšetření, a to s důrazem na zjištění takových změn zdravotního stavu, u kterých lze předpokládat, že k nim došlo vlivem činnosti související s výkonem funkce uvedené v příloze č. 1 k tomuto nařízení. Organizace preventivních zdravotních prohlídek 7 (1) Preventivní zdravotní prohlídku zaměstnance podniku, uchazeče o zaměstnání nebo člena jednotky kromě člena jednotky sboru dobrovolných hasičů obce, který činnost v této jednotce nevykonává jako svoje zaměstnání,5) provede lékař zdravotnického zařízení poskytujícího zaměstnavateli závodní preventivní péči. 6) (2) Preventivní zdravotní prohlídku člena jednotky sboru dobrovolných hasičů obce, který činnost v této jednotce nevykonává jako svoje zaměstnání, 5) provede praktický lékař, u něhož je člen jednotky registrován, 3) na základě žádosti příslušné obce, která zřizuje jednotku požární ochrany. (3) U zaměstnance podniku nebo uchazeče o zaměstnání se výsledky jednotlivých vyšetření zjištěné při preventivní prohlídce zaznamenávají do zdravotnické dokumentace vedené příslušným lékařem minimálně v rozsahu žádanky o lékařský posudek, uvedené v příloze č. 3 k tomuto nařízení. (4) Příslušný lékař na základě preventivní zdravotní prohlídky vydá zaměstnanci podniku, uchazeči o zaměstnání nebo členu jednotky lékařský posudek, 7) jehož vzor je uveden v příloze č. 4 k tomuto nařízení. 8 (1) V lékařském posudku se uvede zdravotní způsobilost zaměstnance podniku, uchazeče o zaměstnání nebo člena jednotky pro výkon činnosti v příslušné funkci uvedené v příloze č. 1 k tomuto nařízení. Omezení zdravotní způsobilosti, které uvede příslušný lékař v lékařském posudku, nemůže být u zaměstnance podniku
 7 nebo člena jednotky vykonávající činnost zařazenou do kategorie I podle přílohy č. 1 k tomuto nařízení překážkou pro výkon činnosti. (2) Lékařský posudek se zakládá do osobní dokumentace vedené o zaměstnanci podniku nebo členu jednotky. 9 Zdravotní způsobilost zaměstnance podniku nebo uchazeče o zaměstnání Zdravotní způsobilost se posuzuje podle seznamu nemocí, vad a stavů (dále jen "nemoc") uvedeného v příloze č. 5 k tomuto nařízení. Při tom se přihlédne k činnosti, kterou zaměstnanec podniku nebo uchazeč o zaměstnání vykonává ve funkci uvedené v příloze č. 1 k tomuto nařízení. 10 Zdravotní způsobilost člena jednotky Za zdravotně způsobilého se považuje člen jednotky, u něhož nebyla zjištěna nemoc podle seznamu uvedeného v příloze č. 5 k tomuto nařízení. Společná, přechodná a závěrečná ustanovení 11 (1) U příslušníka Hasičského záchranného sboru České republiky, který je současně členem jednotky sboru dobrovolných hasičů obce, se preventivní zdravotní prohlídka podle tohoto nařízení neprovádí; je-li zaměstnanec podniku současně členem jednotky dobrovolných hasičů obce, provede se preventivní zdravotní prohlídka podle ustanovení tohoto nařízení týkajících se zaměstnance podniku. Preventivní zdravotní prohlídka se však provede vždy, pokud jako člen jednotky dobrovolných hasičů vykonává činnost, která na zdravotní způsobilost klade vyšší nároky než činnost, jež vykonává v pracovním nebo obdobném poměru. (2) Kopie lékařského posudku vydaného na základě předepsané preventivní prohlídky příslušníka Hasičského záchranného sboru České republiky nebo zaměstnance podniku podle tohoto nebo zvláštního právního předpisu8) se zakládá do osobní dokumentace vedené o členu jednotky sboru dobrovolných hasičů obce. 12 Pro provádění preventivních zdravotních prohlídek a při posuzování zdravotní způsobilosti se pro zdravotnickou dokumentaci použijí vzory uvedené v přílohách č. 2 až 4 k tomuto nařízení. 13 (1) Periodická zdravotní prohlídka zaměstnance podniku se podle tohoto nařízení provede poprvé v roce (2) První periodická zdravotní prohlídka člena jednotky se uskuteční nejpozději v den, kdy mu vznikne nárok na preventivní prohlídku podle zákona o veřejném zdravotním pojištění, 2) nejpozději však v roce Účinnost Toto nařízení nabývá účinnosti dnem.
 8 Příloha č. 1 k nařízení vlády č... Sb. Seznam funkcí A. Jednotka hasičského záchranného sboru podniku Pořadové číslo Funkční zařazení zaměstnance podniku Činnost vykonávaná zaměstnancem podniku 1. Hasič, starší hasič Provádění záchranných a likvidačních prací spojených s 2. Hasič - technik nárazovou zvýšenou fyzickou i psychickou zátěží, chemickotechnické služby pobytem v prostředí s výskytem škodlivin a kouře, s častým použitím izolačních dýchacích přístrojů a Hasič - chemik ochranných oděvů, s občasným použitím oděvů proti 3. Hasič - technik strojní služby sálavému teplu a ohni a ochranných protichemických Hasič - strojník oděvů. Práce ve venkovním prostředí, se střídáním 4. Velitel družstva velkých výkyvů teplot, práce ve vlhku a prachu. Možná práce ve výškách a nad volnou hloubkou a podle 5. Velitel čety specializace řízení požární techniky při zásahu či práce 6. Velitel směny pod vodní hladinou. 7. Vedoucí chemickotechnické služby 8. Vedoucí strojní služby 9. Velitel stanice 10. Zástupce velitele jednotky hasičského záchranného sboru podniku 11. Velitel jednotky hasičského záchranného sboru podniku 12. Zaměstnanci podniku, na které se nevztahuje výčet funkcí od pořadového čísla 1 do pořadového čísla 11 Práce převážně administrativního a organizačního charakteru. Pravděpodobnost účasti při záchranných a likvidačních pracích z hlediska řízení těchto prací a poskytování zabezpečovacích a konzultantských služeb spojených s nárazovou zvýšenou psychickou zátěží. Občasné používání izolačních dýchacích přístrojů a ochranných oděvů, výjimečné použití oděvů proti sálavému teplu a ohni a ochranných protichemických oděvů. Převážně administrativní práce nebo méně náročné manuální práce s omezenou fyzickou a psychickou zátěží. B. Jednotka sboru dobrovolných hasičů obce nebo jednotka sboru dobrovolných hasičů podniku Pořadové číslo Funkční zařazení člena jednotky Činnost vykonávaná členem jednotky 1. Hasič, starší hasič Příležitostné provádění méně náročných záchranných a 2. Hasič - strojník likvidačních prací, s omezenou fyzickou a psychickou zátěží. Možná práce ve výškách a nad volnou hloubkou, podle 3. Hasič - technik specializace řízení požární techniky při zásahu. Práce ve 4. Velitel družstva venkovním prostředí, občas v prostředí s vyššími výkyvy 5. Velitel jednotky teploty, práce ve vlhku a prachu. Kategorie pro posouzení zdravotní způsobilosti I. II. III. Kategorie pro posouzení zdravotní způsobilosti 6. Funkce 1 až 5 Jako u funkce pořadové číslo 1 až 5 s použitím dýchací techniky I. IV.
 9 vykonávané s použitím dýchací techniky - nositel dýchací techniky a se zvýšenou fyzickou a psychickou zátěží, používání ochranných protichemických oděvů. Příloha č. 2 k nařízení vlády č... Sb. VZOR VÝPIS ZE ZDRAVOTNICKÉ DOKUMENTACE Příloha č. 3 k nařízení vlády č.. Sb. VZOR Žádanka o lékařský posudek VZOR Záznam ve zdravotnické dokumentaci vedené lékařem Příloha č. 4 k nařízení vlády č... Sb. VZOR LÉKAŘSKÝ POSUDEK VZOR LÉKAŘSKÝ POSUDEK Příloha č. 5 k nařízení vlády č.. Sb. Seznam nemocí, pro které nelze vydat kladný posudkový závěr Kategorie I podle přílohy č. 1 - nemoci vylučující směnný nebo nepravidelný režim nebo práci v nepříznivých klimatických podmínkách, - nemoci podpůrného a pohybového aparátu včetně nemocí páteře vylučující zátěž nebo omezující pohyblivost, - nemoci horních a dolních končetin omezující jejich funkci nebo vylučující jejich zátěž, - nemoci kůže a spojivek včetně onemocnění alergických vylučující zátěž chemickými látkami a alergeny, - nemoci dýchacích cest a plic včetně onemocnění alergických, vylučující zátěž chemickými látkami a alergeny, - nemoci srdce a oběhové soustavy vylučující zátěž organismu nebo omezující jeho funkci, - poruchy krvetvorby omezující výkonnost, závažné krvácivé stavy, - nemoci endokrinní a přeměny látek včetně diabetes mellitus vylučující zátěž organismu, - nemoci ledvin a močových cest vylučující zátěž organismu, - chronické nemoci jater (chronická hepatitis) vylučující zátěž, - epilepsie a epileptické syndromy, kolapsové stavy nebo jiné záchvatovité stavy a zvýšená pohotovost k jejich vzniku, onemocnění s možnými stavy bezvědomí, - vertigo jakékoliv etiologie, - poruchy sluchu a vestibulárního aparátu znemožňující orientaci v prostoru a komunikaci za ztížených podmínek, stavy po chronických onemocněních středního ucha, - nemoci oka znemožňující zvýšenou fyzickou zátěž, - poruchy vidění, zorného pole a prostorového vidění nebo těžší poruchy barvocitu znemožňující orientaci v prostoru a za ztížených podmínek, zejména refrakční vady vyžadující trvalou korekci brýlemi s výjimkou případů bezproblémového používání kontaktních očních čoček nebo možnosti použít osobní ochranné
 10 pracovní pomůcky s korekcí, - duševní nemoci a poruchy chování znemožňující práci s psychickou zátěží, rychlé rozhodování a rychlou reakci, - alkoholová a drogová závislost nebo prokázané požívání alkoholu nebo drog, - gynekologické nemoci znemožňující zátěž organismu a práci za ztížených podmínek. Kategorie II podle přílohy č. 1 - nemoci podpůrného a pohybového aparátu včetně nemocí páteře vylučující zátěž nebo omezující pohyblivost, - nemoci horních a dolních končetin omezující jejich funkci nebo zátěž; zjištění takového onemocnění nebrání výkonu práce, pokud nebudou vykonávány občasné práce v kategorii I, - závažné nemoci kůže a spojivek včetně onemocnění alergických vylučující zátěž chemickými látkami a alergeny, - závažné nemoci dýchacích cest a plic, včetně onemocnění alergických, vylučující fyzickou zátěž a zátěž chemickými látkami a alergeny; zjištění takového onemocnění nebrání výkonu práce, pokud nebudou vykonávány občasné práce v kategorii I, - nemoci srdce a oběhové soustavy vylučující zátěž organismu; zjištění takového onemocnění nebrání výkonu práce, pokud nebudou vykonávány občasné práce v kategorii I, - závažné nemoci endokrinní a přeměny látek včetně diabetes mellitus; zjištění takového onemocnění nebrání výkonu práce, pokud nebudou vykonávány občasné práce v kategorii I,-vertigo jakékoliv etiologie, - epilepsie a epileptické syndromy, kolapsové stavy nebo jiné záchvatovité stavy a zvýšená pohotovost k jejich vzniku, onemocnění s možnými stavy bezvědomí, - závažné poruchy sluchu, poruchy vestibulárního aparátu; zjištění takového onemocnění nebrání výkonu práce, pokud nebudou vykonávány občasné práce v kategorii I, - závažné nemoci oka znemožňující zvýšenou fyzickou zátěž; zjištění takového onemocnění nebrání výkonu práce, pokud nebudou vykonávány občasné práce v kategorii I, - závažné poruchy vidění, zorného pole a prostorového vidění nebo těžší poruchy barvocitu znemožňující orientaci v prostoru a za ztížených podmínek, zejména refrakční vady vyžadující trvalou korekci brýlemi; zjištění takového onemocnění nebrání výkonu práce, pokud nebudou vykonávány občasné práce v kategorii I, - duševní nemoci a poruchy chování znemožňující práci s psychickou zátěží, rychlé rozhodování a rychlou reakci, - alkoholová a drogová závislost nebo prokázané požívání alkoholu nebo drog. Kategorie III podle přílohy č. 1 - závažné nemoci vylučující běžnou zátěž, pokud nároky práce v konkrétních podmínkách nevyžadují další omezení. Kategorie IV podle přílohy č. 1 - nemoci podpůrného a pohybového aparátu včetně páteře vylučující zátěž nebo omezující pohyblivost, pokud nelze zátěž vyloučit, - závažné nemoci horních a dolních končetin omezující jejich funkci nebo zátěž, - závažné nemoci kůže a spojivek včetně onemocnění alergických vylučující zátěž chemickými látkami a alergeny; zjištění takového onemocnění nebrání výkonu činnosti, pokud lze zátěž chemickými látkami a alergeny vyloučit, - závažné nemoci dýchacích cest a plic včetně onemocnění alergických vylučující zátěž chemickými látkami a alergeny; zjištění takového onemocnění nebrání výkonu práce, pokud lze zátěž chemickými látkami a alergeny
 11 vyloučit, - závažné nemoci srdce a oběhové soustavy vylučující středně velkou zátěž, pokud středně velkou zátěž nelze vyloučit, - diabetes mellitus, pokud je komplikován opakovaným výskytem hyperglykemických nebo hypoglykemických příhod až komat, - vertigo jakékoliv etiologie, pokud nelze vyloučit činnosti ve výškách nebo v nebezpečí úrazu, - záchvatové stavy a zvýšená pohotovost k jejich vzniku, nemoci s možnými stavy bezvědomí, pokud nelze vyloučit činnosti ve výškách nebo v nebezpečí úrazu, - závažné poruchy vidění, zorného pole nebo barvocitu znemožňující orientaci v prostoru a za ztížených podmínek, zejména refrakční vady vyžadující trvalou korekci brýlemi s výjimkou případů bezproblémového používání kontaktních očních čoček nebo možnosti použít osobní ochranné pomůcky s korekcí, pokud nelze vyloučit občasné práce v kategorii I nebo činnosti ve výškách nebo v nebezpečí úrazu, - závažné duševní nemoci a poruchy chování, - alkoholová a drogová závislost nebo prokázané požívání alkoholu nebo drog. 1 ) 70 zákona č. 133/1985 Sb., o požární ochraně, ve znění zákona č. 203/1994 1) 70 zákona č. 133/1985 Sb., o požární ochraně, ve znění zákona č. 203/1994 Sb. a zákona č. 237/2000 Sb. 2) 29 zákona č. 48/1997 Sb., o veřejném zdravotním pojištění a o změně a doplnění některých souvisejících zákonů. 3) 18 odst. 3 písm. a) zákona č. 48/1997 Sb. 4) 68 odst. 3 zákona č. 133/1985 Sb., ve znění zákona č. 203/1994 Sb. a zákona č. 237/2000 Sb. 5) 65 odst. 1 písm. c) zákona č. 133/1985 Sb., ve znění zákona č. 203/1994 Sb. a zákona č. 237/2000 Sb. 6) 9 odst. 2 a 35a zákona č. 20/1966 Sb., o péči o zdraví lidu, ve znění zákona č. 548/1991 Sb. a zákona č. 258/2000 Sb. 18a zákona č. 20/1966 Sb., ve znění zákona č. 548/1991 Sb. 40 zákona č. 20/1966 Sb., ve znění zákona č. 548/1991 Sb. a zákona č. 14/1997 Sb. 7) 77 zákona č. 20/1966 Sb., ve znění zákona č. 210/1990 Sb., zákona č. 548/1991 Sb., zákona č. 590/1992 Sb., zákona č. 132/2000 Sb., zákona č. 285/2002 Sb. a zákona č. 320/2002 Sb. 8) Vyhláška č. 324/2001 Sb., kterou se stanoví požadavky na fyzickou a zdravotní způsobilost příslušníků Hasičského záchranného sboru České republiky, druhy služeb zvlášť obtížných a zdraví škodlivých