jurisdiction: EU

text:
 EUROPEISKA KOMMISSIONEN
 Bryssel den 17.8.2018
 COM(2018) 598 final
 2018/0308(NLE)
 Förslag till
 RÅDETS BESLUT
 om fastställande av den ståndpunkt som på Europeiska unionens vägnar ska intas vad avser ändringarna av bilagorna till den europeiska överenskommelsen om internationell transport av farligt gods på väg (ADR) och av de bestämmelser som bifogas den europeiska överenskommelsen om internationell transport av farligt gods på inre vattenvägar (ADN), vilka antagits av arbetsgruppen för transport av farligt gods (WP.15) och av administrativa kommittén för ADN
 MOTIVERING
 1.FRÅGA SOM BEHANDLAS I FÖRSLAGET
 Syftet med det föreslagna rådsbeslutet är att fastställa Europeiska unionens ståndpunkt i fråga om ändringar av bilagorna till den europeiska överenskommelsen om internationell transport av farligt gods på väg (ADR) och av de bestämmelser som bifogas europeiska överenskommelsen om internationell transport av farligt gods på inre vattenvägar (ADN), i deras lydelse av den 1 januari 2019, i och med upphörandet av frysningsperioden under vilken de fördragsslutande parternas ledamöter i arbetsgruppen för transport av farligt gods (WP.15) och i administrativa kommittén för ADN kan göra invändningar mot de föreslagna ändringarna i 2019 års upplaga.
 2.BAKGRUND TILL FÖRSLAGET
 Genom ovan nämnda bilagor och bestämmelser regleras internationella transporter av farligt gods på väg respektive på inre vattenvägar mellan de medlemmar av FN:s ekonomiska kommission för Europa (Unece) som också är fördragsslutande parter i ADR och ADN.
 Utvecklingen inom sektorn för transport av farligt gods på väg och på inre vattenvägar, såväl inom unionen som mellan unionen och dess grannländer, är en viktig komponent i den europeiska transportpolitiken, och är av särskilt stor betydelse för de industrigrenar som producerar eller använder sådant gods som klassificeras som farligt enligt ADR eller ADN. Det är därför nödvändigt att anpassa innehållet i dessa överenskommelser till den tekniska och vetenskapliga utvecklingen, så att transportsektorn och andra berörda aktörer i den ekonomiska kedjan har chans att utvecklas i takt med tekniska framsteg. Ändringarna syftar till att anpassa ADR och ADN till FN:s modellregelverk, bland annat genom nya definitioner, klassificeringskriterier och UN-nummer, nya förpacknings- och märkningskrav, uppdatering av tekniska standarder och bestämmelser samt redaktionella justeringar.
 Internationella bestämmelser om transport av farligt gods är fastställda inom olika internationella organisationer såsom Unece, Mellanstatliga organisationen för internationell järnvägstrafik (Otif) och olika specialiserade FN-organ. Eftersom bestämmelserna måste vara kompatibla med varandra har ett komplext internationellt system för samordning och harmonisering utvecklats mellan de organisationer som deltar i detta arbete. Bestämmelserna anpassas vartannat år.
 2.1. Europeiska överenskommelsen om internationell transport av farligt gods på väg (ADR).
 Den europeiska överenskommelsen om internationell transport av farligt gods på väg (ADR) syftar till att reglera internationella transporter av farligt gods på väg mellan Uneces medlemsstater och andra stater som tillämpar ADR (fördragsslutande parter i ADR). Överenskommelsen trädde i kraft den 29 januari 1968. Europeiska unionen är inte part i överenskommelsen, även om alla medlemsstaterna är fördragsslutande parter i denna överenskommelse.
 2.2. Europeiska överenskommelsen om internationell transport av farligt gods på inre vattenvägar (ADN).
 Den europeiska överenskommelsen om internationell transport av farligt gods på inre vattenvägar (ADN) syftar till att reglera internationella transporter av farligt gods på inre vattenvägar mellan Unece-medlemsstaterna som tillämpar ADN (fördragsslutande parter i ADN). Överenskommelsen trädde i kraft den 28 februari 2008. Europeiska unionen är inte part i överenskommelsen, även om tolv medlemsstater är fördragsslutande parter i denna överenskommelse.
 2.3 Arbetsgruppen för transport av farligt gods (WP.15) och administrativa kommittén för ADN; beslut som antagits och följts upp
 Arbetsgruppen för transport av farligt gods (WP.15) och administrativa kommittén för ADN samt säkerhetskommittén för ADN (WP.15/AC.2) är de organ som har inrättats inom ramen för Unece för att fatta beslut om ändringarna av ADR och ADN. Dessa organ utgörs av företrädare för Uneces medlemsstater vilka tillämpar ADR och ADN. Varje fördragsslutande part i ADR och ADN har en röst.
 Enligt kapitel VII om röstningsregler angående arbetsordning och mandat för arbetsgruppen för transport av farligt gods (WP.15) ska endast ordinarie deltagare ha en röst inom arbetsgruppen, och besluten ska som regel fattas enhälligt. Omröstning sker genom handuppräckning.
 Enligt artikel 17.7 i ADN ska fördragsslutande part som finns företrädd vid möten i den administrativa kommittén för ADN ha en röst.
 Bland de ändringsförslag som antagits under tvårsperioden 2016–2018 ingår en lång rad anpassningar till den tekniska och vetenskapliga utvecklingen.
 Framför allt förtydligades reglerna för klassificering av farligt gods i båda överenskommelserna med avseende på prover av energetiska ämnen i testsyfte (avsnitt 2.1.4.3), klassificering av föremål som innehåller farligt gods, n.o.s. (avsnitt 2.1.5), klassificering av frätande ämnen (avsnitt 2.2.8). Flera nya uppgifter infördes i förteckningen över farligt gods, från UN 3535 GIFTIGT FAST ÄMNE, BRANDFARLIGT, OORGANISKT, N.O.S. upp till 3548 FÖREMÅL SOM INNEHÅLLER ÖVRIGT FARLIGT GODS, N.O.S. Nya förpackningsinstruktioner har utarbetats, t.ex. förpackningsinstruktion P911 för defekta celler och batterier (litiummetallbatterier, litiumjonbatterier när de fraktas separat eller inuti utrustning). Dessutom ändrades befintliga förpackningsbestämmelser i kapitel 3.3, t.ex. särbestämmelse 392, tillämplig på transport av inneslutningssystem för gasbränsle utformade för inmontering i motorfordon innehållande gas, för att avspegla utvecklingen av därför avsedd standarder och förordningar, däribland Europaparlamentets och rådets förordning (EG) nr 79/2009 av den 14 januari 2009 om typgodkännande av vätgasdrivna motorfordon och om ändring av direktiv 2007/46/EG
 1
 samt kommissionens förordning (EU) nr 406/2010 av den 26 april 2010 om tillämpning av Europaparlamentets samt rådets förordning (EG) 79/2009 om typgodkännande av vätgasdrivna motorfordon
 2
 . Vad gäller ändringar som specifikt gäller transportsätt infördes i ADR nya regler för fästanordningar. Vad avser ADN infördes klassificering av zoner i tankfartyg där explosionsskydd krävs samt klassificering av utrustningskategori för att anpassa de krav som gäller för sådana fartyg till kraven i direktiv 2014/34/EU
 3
 .
 Ett stort antal experter både från den offentliga och den privata sektorn har rådfrågats i samband med utarbetandet av dessa ändringar. Följande tekniska möten har hållits under utarbetandet av ändringarna:
 –I FN: s underkommitté (Ecosoc) för experter på transport av farligt gods vid dess
 (1)47:e möte i Genève den 22–26 juni 2015,
 (2)48:e möte i Genève den 30 november–9 december 2015,
 (3)49:e möte i Genève den 27 juni–7 juli 2016,
 (4)50:e möte i Genève den 28 november–6 december 2016.
 –Inom gemensamma möten för Unece och Otif med RID:s expertkommitté och arbetsgruppen för transport av farligt gods (WP.15/AC.1) vid dess
 (1)höstmötet 2016 i Genève den 19–23 september 2016,
 (2)vårmötet 2017 i Bern den 13–17 mars 2017,
 (3)höstmötet 2017 i Genève den 19–29 september 2017,
 (4)vårmötet i Bern den 12–16 mars 2018.
 –För ADN, i arbetsgruppen för transport av farligt gods (WP.15) vid dess
 (1)101:a möte i Genève den 8–10 november 2016,
 (2)102:a möte i Genève den 8–12 maj 2017,
 (3)103:e möte i Genève den 6–10 november 2017,
 (4)104:e möte i Genève den 15–17 maj 2018.
 –För ADN, i säkerhetskommittén för ADN (WP.15/AC.2) vid dess:
 (1)29:e möte i Genève den 22–26 augusti 2016,
 (2)30:e möte i Genève den 23–27 januari 2017,
 (3)31:a möte i Genève den 28–31 augusti 2017,
 (4)32:a möte i Genève den 22–26 januari 2018.
 –I den administrativa kommittén för ADN vid dess:
 (1)20:e möte i Genève den 26 januari 2018.
 Vid dessa möten analyserade och behandlade expertkommittéerna de enskilda förslagen till ändringar. I de flesta fall godtog experterna de rekommenderade åtgärderna enhälligt. Vissa förslag har rekommenderats av en majoritet av experterna.
 Vad avser ADR antog arbetsgruppen för transport av farligt gods (WP.15) beslut om dessa förslag vid vart och ett av ovannämnda möten. Vad avser ADN beslutade administrativa kommittén för ADN om ändringar vid sitt tjugonde möte i Genève den 26 januari 2018.
 I enlighet med artikel 14 i ADR ska ändringsförslag rörande bilagorna till överenskommelsen, när det väl har antagits av arbetsgruppen för transport av farligt gods (WP.15), anses vara godkänt om Förenta nationernas generalsekreterare – inom tre månader från dagen för utsändandet – ej skriftligen underrättats av minst en tredjedel av de fördragsslutande parterna, eller fem av dem om en tredjedel överstiger detta antal, om att de motsätter sig den föreslagna ändringen.
 I enlighet med artikel 20 i ADN ska ändringsförslag, när de väl har antagits av administrativa kommittén för ADN, anses vara godkända såvida inte Förenta nationernas generalsekreterare – inom tre månader från dagen för utsändandet – ej skriftligen underrättats av minst en tredjedel av de fördragsslutande parterna, eller fem av dem om en tredjedel överstiger detta antal, om att de motsätter sig den föreslagna ändringen.
 De ändringar som antagits av WP.15, och som det hänvisas till i bilagan till detta förslag, överlämnades till Förenta nationernas generalsekreterare i tid för att kunna anmälas till de fördragsslutande parterna i ADR den 1 juli 2018 och därefter antas enligt förfarandet i artikel 14 i överenskommelserna. Ändringarna finns också tillgängliga på nätet
 4
 .
 De ändringsförslag som antagits av administrativa kommittén för ADN, och som det hänvisas till i bilagan till detta förslag, anmäldes av Förenta nationernas generalsekreterare till de fördragsslutande parterna till ADR den 1 juli 2018, för att sedan kunna antas enligt förfarandet i artikel 20 i överenskommelsen. Ändringarna finns också tillgängliga på nätet
 5
 .
 Till och med den 1 oktober 2018 kan Förenta nationernas generalsekreterare, i egenskap av depositarie, ta emot invändningar mot de ändringar av ADR och ADN, vilka antogs vid möten som nämns i punkt 2.3 ovan.
 Såvida inte ett tillräckligt antal invändningar framförs av parterna förväntas de ändringar som avses i detta förslag träda i kraft den 1 januari 2019 och bli bindande.
 3. DEN STÅNDPUNKT SOM SKA INTAS PÅ UNIONENS VÄGNAR
 3.1 Bakgrund
 Europeiska unionen är inte fördragsslutande part i vare sig ADR eller ADN. Det faktum att Europeiska unionen inte är part i en överenskommelse hindrar den dock inte från att utöva sin befogenhet genom att, via sina institutioner, fastställa den ståndpunkt som ska intas på unionens vägnar inom organ som inrättats genom överenskommelserna i fråga, särskilt genom att de medlemsstater som är parter i överenskommelsen agerar gemensamt i unionens intresse (se dom i målet Tyskland mot rådet, C-399/12 (”OIV”), punkt 52, och där angiven rättspraxis).
 För närvarande finns det 50 fördragsslutande parter i ADR, inklusive samtliga EU-medlemsstater i EU. De fördragsslutande parterna i ADN är sammanlagt 17, varav 12 är EU-medlemsstater.
 Europeiska unionen har sedan den 1 januari 1997 tillämpat bestämmelserna i ADR på alla transporter av farligt gods inom EU:s territorium, till en början i enlighet med rådets direktiv 94/55/EG av den 21 november 1994 om tillnärmning av medlemsstaternas lagstiftning om transport av farligt gods på väg
 6
 . Direktiv 94/55/EG ersattes 2008 av direktiv 2008/68/EG som följer samma principer som föregående direktiv. Sedan den 1 januari 2009 har EU tillämpat bestämmelserna i ADN på transport av farligt gods på inre vattenvägar.
 I artikel 4 i direktiv 2008/68/EG fastställs i fråga om tredjeländer att det ”ska vara tillåtet att transportera farligt gods mellan medlemsstaterna och tredjeländer på villkor att kraven i ADR, RID och ADN iakttas, såvida inget annat anges i bilagorna”.
 Ovannämnda ändringar kommer dessutom, i den utsträckning de blir bindande, att inverka på tillämpningen av direktiv 2008/68/EG med hänsyn till dess artikel 8. Enligt den bestämmelsen ges kommissionen befogenhet att anpassa avsnitt I.1 i bilaga I samt avsnitt III.1 i bilaga III till direktiv 2008/68/EG till den vetenskapliga och tekniska utvecklingen, särskilt för att ta hänsyn till ändringar av ADR, RID och ADN.”
 3.2 EU:s ståndpunkt
 I bilagan till föreliggande förslag finns en detaljerad förteckning över de planerade ändringarna, samt en bekräftelse på att de kan godtas av unionen. De föreslagna ändringarna anses vara väl utformade för att uppnå målet säker och kostnadseffektiv transport av farligt gods med hänsyn tagen till tekniska framsteg, och kan därför stödjas. De föreslagna ändringarna bidrar till säkra och trygga transporter av farligt gods i syfte att undanröja detta gods inneboende faror.
 4. RÄTTSLIG GRUND
 4.1 Förfarandemässig rättslig grund
 4.1.1 Principer
 I artikel 218.9 i fördraget om Europeiska unionens funktionssätt (nedan kallat EUF-fördraget) föreskrivs att beslut ska antas ”om fastställande av vilka ståndpunkter som på unionens vägnar ska intas i ett organ som inrättas genom ett avtal, om detta organ ska anta akter med rättslig verkan, med undantag av sådana akter som kompletterar eller ändrar avtalets institutionella ram.”
 Artikel 218.9 i EUF-fördraget är tillämplig oberoende av om unionen är medlem i organet eller part i överenskommelsen
 7
 .
 Begreppet akter med rättslig verkan omfattar akter som har rättslig verkan genom tillämpning av de regler i internationell rätt som tillämpas på organet i fråga. Det omfattar även instrument som inte har bindande verkan enligt internationell rätt, men som är ”ägnade att på ett avgörande sätt påverka innehållet i de bestämmelser som antas av unionslagstiftaren”
 8
 .
 4.1.2 Tillämpning i det aktuella fallet
 Arbetsgruppen för transport av farligt gods är ett organ som inrättats genom en överenskommelse, nämligen den europeiska överenskommelsen om internationell transport av farligt gods på väg (ADR).
 Den administrativa kommittén för ADN är ett organ som inrättats genom en överenskommelse, nämligen den europeiska överenskommelsen om internationell transport av farligt gods på inre vattenvägar (ADN).
 De akter som antas av arbetsgruppen för transport av farligt gods och administrativa kommittén för ADN har rättslig verkan. Enligt ovan beskrivna villkor kommer de akter som antas att vara bindande enligt internationell rätt i enlighet med artikel 14 i ADR respektive artikel 20 i ADN och kan på ett avgörande sätt påverka innehållet i EU:s lagstiftning, nämligen direktiv 2008/68/EG. Detta eftersom det i artikel 4 i direktiv 2008/68/EG i fråga om tredjeländer fastställs att det ”ska vara tillåtet att transportera farligt gods mellan medlemsstaterna och tredjeländer på villkor att kraven i ADR, RID och ADN iakttas, såvida inget annat anges i bilagorna”. Dessutom kommer åtgärderna att inverka på tillämpningen av direktiv 2008/68/EG med hänsyn till dess artikel 8. Enligt den bestämmelsen ges kommissionen befogenhet att anpassa avsnitt I.1 i bilaga I samt avsnitt III.1 i bilaga III till direktiv 2008/68/EG till den vetenskapliga och tekniska utvecklingen, särskilt för att ta hänsyn till ändringar av ADR, RID och ADN.”
 Beslutet varken kompletterar eller ändrar överenskommelsens institutionella ram.
 Den förfarandemässiga rättsliga grunden för det föreslagna beslutet är därför 218.9 i EUF-fördraget.
 4.2 Materiell rättslig grund
 4.2.1 Principer
 Den materiella rättsliga grunden för ett beslut enligt artikel 218.9 i EUF-fördraget är främst beroende av syftet med och innehållet i den planerade akt avseende vilken en ståndpunkt intas på unionens vägnar. Om den planerade akten har två syften eller två beståndsdelar av vilka det ena syftet eller den ena beståndsdelen kan identifieras som det eller den huvudsakliga, medan det eller den andra endast är av underordnad betydelse, måste det beslut som antas enligt artikel 218.9 i EUF-fördraget ha en enda materiell rättslig grund, nämligen den som krävs med hänsyn till det huvudsakliga eller avgörande syftet eller den huvudsakliga eller avgörande beståndsdelen.
 4.2.2 Tillämpning i det aktuella fallet
 Det främsta syftet och innehållet i beslutet avser transport av farligt gods på väg och inre vattenvägar. Den materiella rättsliga grunden för det föreslagna beslutet är därför artikel 91 i EUF-fördraget.
 4.3 Slutsats
 Den rättsliga grunden för det föreslagna rådsbeslutet bör vara artikel 91 i EUF-fördraget jämförd med artikel 218.9 i EUF-fördraget.
 5. OFFENTLIGÖRANDE AV DEN PLANERADE AKTEN
 För insyns och korrekt hänvisnings skull ska en hänvisning till beslut som fattas av arbetsgruppen för transport av farligt gods (WP.15) och av säkerhetskommittén för ADN offentliggöras i Europeiska unionens officiella tidning, med angivelse av dagen för ikraftträdandet.
 2018/0308 (NLE)
 Förslag till
 RÅDETS BESLUT
 om fastställande av den ståndpunkt som på Europeiska unionens vägnar ska intas vad avser ändringarna av bilagorna till den europeiska överenskommelsen om internationell transport av farligt gods på väg (ADR) och av de bestämmelser som bifogas den europeiska överenskommelsen om internationell transport av farligt gods på inre vattenvägar (ADN), vilka antagits av arbetsgruppen för transport av farligt gods (WP.15) och av administrativa kommittén för ADN
 med beaktande av fördraget om Europeiska unionens funktionssätt, särskilt artikel 91 jämförd med artikel 218.9,
 med beaktande av Europeiska kommissionens förslag, och
 av följande skäl:
 (1)Den europeiska överenskommelsen om internationell transport av farligt gods på väg (ADR) trädde i kraft den 29 januari 1968. Den europeiska överenskommelsen om internationell transport av farligt gods på inre vattenvägar (ADN) trädde i kraft den 29 februari 2008.
 (2)Enligt artikel 14 i ADR får fördragsslutande part föreslå en eller flera ändringar i bilagorna till denna överenskommelse och, därför, kan arbetsgruppen för transport av farligt gods (WP.15) anta ändringar av bilagorna till ADR. I enlighet med artikel 20 i ADN får säkerhetskommittén och administrativa kommittén anta ändringar av de bestämmelser som bifogas ADN.
 (3)De fördragsslutande parterna i ADR och ADN underrättades den 1 juli 2018 om de ändringar som arbetsgruppen för transport av farligt gods och den administrativa kommittén för ADN under tvåårsperioden 2016–2018 antagit gällande transport av farligt gods på väg och inre vattenvägar.
 (4)Det är lämpligt att fastställa den ståndpunkt som på unionens vägnar ska intas med avseende på ändringarna av ADR och ADN, eftersom dessa akter på ett avgörande sätt kommer att kunna inverka på innehållet i unionsrätten, nämligen Europaparlamentets och rådets direktiv 2008/68/EG av den 24 september 2008 om transport av farligt gods på väg
 9
 . I detta direktiv fastställs krav för transport av farligt gods på väg, järnväg och inre vattenvägar inom eller mellan medlemsstater, med hänvisning till ADR och ADN. Sålunda fastställs i artikel 4 i det direktivet att det ”ska vara tillåtet att transportera farligt gods mellan medlemsstaterna och tredjeländer på villkor att kraven i ADR, RID och ADN iakttas, såvida inget annat anges i bilagorna.” Enligt artikel 8 i direktivet ska kommissionen dessutom ha befogenhet att anpassa avsnitt I.1 i bilaga I samt avsnitt III.1 i bilaga III till direktiv 2008/68/EG efter den vetenskapliga och tekniska utvecklingen, ”särskilt för att ta hänsyn till ändringar av ADR, RID och ADN.”
 (5)Unionen är inte fördragsslutande part i vare sig ADR eller ADN. Detta faktum hindrar dock inte unionen från att utöva sin befogenhet genom att, via sina institutioner, fastställa den ståndpunkt som ska intas på unionens vägnar inom organ som inrättats genom dessa överenskommelser, särskilt genom att de medlemsstater som är parter i överenskommelsen agerar gemensamt i unionens intresse.
 (6)Alla unionens medlemsstater är fördragsslutande parter i och tillämpar ADR, och 12 av unionens medlemsstater är fördragsslutande parter i och tillämpar ADN.
 (7)Ovan nämnda antagna ändringar avser tekniska standarder eller enhetliga tekniska föreskrifter, och syftar till att säkerställa säkra och välfungerande transporter av farligt gods samtidigt som hänsyn tas till den vetenskapliga och tekniska utvecklingen på området och utvecklingen av nya ämnen och föremål som utgör fara under transporter. Utvecklingen inom sektorn för transport av farligt gods på väg och på inre vattenvägar, såväl inom unionen som mellan unionen och dess grannländer, är en viktig komponent i den europeiska transportpolitiken, och är av särskilt stor betydelse för de industrigrenar som producerar eller använder sådant gods som klassificeras som farligt enligt ADR eller ADN.
 (8)Samtliga föreslagna ändringar är berättigade och fördelaktiga och bör därför stödjas av unionen.
 (9) Unionens ståndpunkt ska uttryckas av de medlemsstater som är fördragsslutande parter i ADR och ADN och som agerar samfällt.
 HÄRIGENOM FÖRESKRIVS FÖLJANDE.
 Artikel 1
 Den ståndpunkt som på Europeiska unionens vägnar ska intas vad gäller ändringar antagna av arbetsgruppen för transport av farligt gods (WP.15) och den administrativa kommittén för ADN i fråga om bilagorna till ADR och de bestämmelser som bifogas ADN, enligt bilagan till detta beslut, anges i den bilagan.
 Smärre ändringar av denna ståndpunkt kan överenskommas utan något nytt beslut av rådet, i enlighet med artikel 2.
 Artikel 2
 Unionens ståndpunkt ska uttryckas av de medlemsstater som är fördragsslutande parter i ADR och ADN, vilka ska agera samfälligt i unionens intresse.
 Artikel 3
 En hänvisning till de beslut som fattas av arbetsgruppen för transport av farligt gods (WP.15) och av säkerhetskommittén för ADN ska offentliggöras i Europeiska unionens officiella tidning, inklusive uppgift om dag för ikraftträdande.
 Artikel 4
 Detta beslut riktar sig till medlemsstaterna.
 Utfärdat i Bryssel den
 På rådets vägnar
 Ordförande
 (1)
 EUT L 35, 4.2.2009, s. 32.
 (2)
 EUT L 122, 18.5.2010, s. 1.
 (3)
 EUT L 96, 29.3.2014, s. 309.
 (4)
 http://www.unece.org/trans/main/dgdb/wp15/wp15rep.html.
 (5)
 http://www.unece.org/trans/main/dgdb/adn/adn_rep.html.
 (6)
 EUT L 319, 12.12.1994, s. 7.
 (7)
 Domstolens dom av den 7 oktober 2014, Tyskland/rådet, C-399/12, ECLI:EU:C:2014:2258, punkt 64.
 (8)
 Domstolens dom av den 7 oktober 2014, Tyskland/rådet, C-399/12, ECLI:EU:C:2014:2258, punkt 61–64.
 (9)
 EUT L 260, 30.9.2008, s. 13.
 ---documentbreak---
 EUROPEISKA KOMMISSIONEN
 Bryssel den17.8.2018
 COM(2018) 598 final
 BILAGA
 till
 RÅDETS BESLUT
 om fastställande av den ståndpunkt som på Europeiska unionens vägnar ska intas vad avser ändringarna av bilagorna till den europeiska överenskommelsen om internationell transport av farligt gods på väg (ADR) och av de bestämmelser som bifogas den europeiska överenskommelsen om internationell transport av farligt gods på inre vattenvägar (ADN), vilka antagits av arbetsgruppen för transport av farligt gods (WP.15) och av administrativa kommittén för ADN
 BILAGA
 Förslag
 Referensdokument
 Underrättelse
 Frågeställning
 Kommentarer
 EU:s ståndpunkt
 1
 ECE/TRANS/WP.15/240
 C.N.304.2018.
 TREATIES-XI.B.14
 Utkast till ändringar i bilagorna A och B till ADR
 Arbetsgruppen för transport av farligt gods (WP.15) har uppnått samförstånd i de tekniska frågorna
 Samtycker till ändringsförslagen
 2
 ECE/TRANS/WP.15/240/Add.1
 C.N.304.2018.
 TREATIES-XI.B.14
 Utkast till ändringar i bilagorna A och B till ADR - Tillägg (Återutfärdat den 8 juni 2018
 Arbetsgruppen för transport av farligt gods (WP.15) har uppnått samförstånd i de tekniska frågorna
 Samtycker till ändringsförslagen
 3
 ECE/TRANS/WP.15/240/Corr.1
 C.N.304.2018.
 TREATIES-XI.B.14
 Utkast till ändringar i bilagorna A och B till ADR - Rättelse (Återutfärdat den 8 juni 2018)
 Arbetsgruppen för transport av farligt gods (WP.15) har uppnått samförstånd i de tekniska frågorna
 Samtycker till ändringsförslagen
 4
 ECE/ADN/45
 C.N.297.2018.
 TREATIES-XI.D.6
 Utkast till ändringar av de bestämmelser som bifogas ADN
 Administrativa kommittén för ADN har uppnått samförstånd i de tekniska frågorna
 Samtycker till ändringsförslagen


type: legislation

text:
COMISIÓN DE LAS COMUNIDADES EUROPEAS
 COM(92) 413 final
 Bruselas, 1 de octubre de 1992
 Propuesta de
 REGLAMENTO (CEE) DEL CONSEJO
 relativo a la apertura y modo de gestión de contingentes
 arancelarios comunitarios para un producto agrícola
 y un producto químico (quinta serie 1992)
 (presentada por la Comisión;
 ---pagebreak--- z
 EXPOS IS ION DE MOTIVOS
 1. Como consecuencia de las preguntas formuladas por diversos Estados
 miembros, los servicios de la Comisión han procedido en colaboración
 con los expertos gubernamentales competentes,la posibilidad de abrir
 en 1992 contingentes arancelarios para dos productos.
 2. Este examen, efectuado en las reuniones del grupo "Asuntos de
 aranceles económicos" ha permitido constatar que una solución que
 contemple la apertura de contingentes arancelarios para estos
 productos siguientes podría conseguir un acuerdo de los Estados
 miembros sin prejudicar el mercado de esto producto :
 - Setas de la especia Auricularia polytricha 210 toneladas al 0 %
 - O-Cresol 6 000 toneladas al 0 %
 Este es el objeto de la presente propuesta.
 ---pagebreak--- Propuesta de
 7
 REGLAMENTO (CEE) DEL CONSEJO
 relativo a la apertura y modo de gestión de contingentes
 arancelarios comunitarios para un producto agrícola
 y un producto químico (quinta serie 1992)
 EL CONSEJO DE LAS COMUNIDADES EUROPEAS, Considerando que conviene tomar las medidas necesarias
 en aras de una gestión comunitaria y eficaz de este
 contingente, previendo la posibilidad para los Estados
 Visto el Tratado constitutivo de la Comunidad Económica miembros de proceder al cargo, sobre los volúmenes
 Europea y, en particular, su artículo 28, contingéntanos, de las cantidades necesarias correspon-
 dientes a las importaciones reales ; que dicho modo de
 gestión requiere una estrecha colaboración entre los
 Vista la propuesta de la Comisión, Estados miembros y la Comisión, que debe poder seguií.
 en particular, el estado de agotamiento de los volúmenes
 y químicos contingéntanos e informar de ello a los Estados miem-
 bros ;
 Considerando que la producción en I la Comunidad de
 determinados productos agrícolas ' será insuficiente
 durante el año 199 2para satisfacer las exigencias de las Considerando que, al estar el Reino de Bélgica, el Reino
 industrias transformables de la Comunidad ; que, por de los Países Bajos y el Gran Ducado de Luxemburgo
 consiguiente, el abastecimiento de la Comunidad en reunidos y representados por la Unión Económica del
 productos de esta especie dependerá, en cantidad signifi- Benelux, las operaciones relativas a la gestión de las canti-
 cativa, de importaciones procedentes de terceros países ; dades cargadas por dicha Unión Económica pueden ser
 que conviene satisfacer sin demora las necesidades más efectuadas por cualquiera de sus miembros,
 urgentes de la Comunidad relativas a esos productos en
 las condiciones más favorables ; que se deben abrir
 contingentes arancelarios comunitarios libres de derechos
 por un período que vaya hasta el 31 de diciembre de
 199 2 y de unos volúmenes adecuados que tengan en
 cuenta la necesidad de no alterar el equilibrio del HA ADOPTADO EL PRESENTE REGLAMENTO
 mercado de estos productos, y la puesta en marcha o el
 desarrollo de la producción comunitaria ;
 Artículo 1
 Considerando que procede garantizar, en particular, el
 acceso igual y continuo de todos los importadores de la 1. A partir de la fecha de entrada en vigor del presente
 Comunidad a dichos contingentes y la aplicación, sin Reglamento, y hasta el 31 de diciembre de 1992, los dere-
 interrupción, del derecho previsto para dichos contin- chos aplicables a la importación de los productos que se
 gentes a todas las importaciones de los productos en cues- designan a continuación quedan suspendidos en los
 tión en todos los Estados miembros, hasta el agotamiento niveles y en el límite de los contingentes arancelarios
 de los contingentes ; comunitarios que se indican para cada uno :
 Derecho
 Número Código NC Volumen
 Designación de la mercancía contingentprio
 de orden del contingente
 (en %)
 09.2ÜV; exü/'lü SU óü Setas en tonna de oreja de La «specie Auricularia 210
 polytricha, blanqueadas, cortadas en tiras de 6
 a 8 mm de anchura, Liof i tizadas, destinadas a la
 fabricación de platos preparados (a)
 09.2851 ex2907 12 00 O-Cresol de una pureza no inferior al 98,5% 6000 T
 (a) El control de la utilización para este destino específico se lleva a cabo mediante la aplicación de las disposiciones comunitarias dictadas a este rrsfv
 fyl Véanse los códigos Tar.c que t-n figuran en el Anexo.
 ---pagebreak--- 2. En el límite de estos contingentes arancelarios, el práctica por las autoridades aduaneras del Estado
 Reino de España y la República Portuguesa aplicarán los miembro de que se trate en la medida en que lo permita
 derechos «le aduana calculados según las disposiciones el saldo disponible.
 establecidas a estos efectos en el Acta de adhesión de Si un Estado miembro no utiliza las cantidades giradas, las
 198 5. devolverá lo antes posible al volumen contingentario
 Articulo 2 correspondiente.
 La Comisión administrará los contingentes arancelarios Si las cantidades solicitadas fuesen superiores al saldo
 mencionados en el artículo 1 y podrá adoptar cualquier disponible del volumen contingentario, la asignación se
 medida administrativa útil con objeto de garantizar una efectuará a prorratade las solicitudes. La Comisión infor-
 gestión eficaz. mará a los Estados miembros de los giros efectuados.
 Artículo .? Artículo 4
 Si un importador presenta en un Estado miembro una Cada Estado miembro garantizara a los importadores de
 declaración de despacho a libre práctica que incluya una los productos en cuestión un acceso igual y continuo a los
 solicitud de beneficio preferencial para un producto contingentes siempre que lo permita el saldo del volumen
 mencionado por el presente Reglamento, y las autoridades contingentario correspondiente.
 aduaneras aceptan esta declaración, el Estado miembro de A rtículo 5
 que se trate procederá, mediante notificación a la Comi-
 sión, a un giro, del volumen contingentario, de una Los Estados miembros y la Comisión colaborarán estre-
 cantidad loiuspondicnte a estas necesidades chamente a fin de dar cumplimiento a lo dispuesto en el
 presente Reglamento.
 Las solicitudes de giros con indicación de la fecha de
 aceptación de dichas declaraciones se deberán remitir a la Artículo 6
 Comisión lo más pronto posible. El presente Reglamento entrará en vigor el séptimo día
 La Comisión concederá los giros en función de la fecha siguiente al de su publicación en el Diario Oficial di las
 de aceptación de las declaraciones de despacho a libre Comunidades Europeas.
 El presen-te Reglamento será obligatorio en todos sus elementos y directamente aplicable
 en cada Estado miembro.
 Hecho en Bruselas, el
 Por el Consejo
 El Presidente
 ANEXO
 Códigos TSric
 Número Códigos NC Códigos Taric
 de orden
 09.2349 exü7lü 3ü óü a/10 a» «Í*IO
 09.2851 ex2907 12 00 2907 12 00*10
 ---pagebreak--- FICHA FINANCIERA
 1. Linea presupuestaria afectada : Cap.12, art.120
 Fundamento jurídico : art. 28 del Tratado.
 Titulo de la medida arancelaria : Propuesta de Reglamento (CEE) de
 Consejo relativo a la apertura y modo de gestión de contingentes
 arancelarios comunitarios autónomos para un producto agrícola y un
 producto químico (quinta serie 1992)
 ObletIvo :
 Asegurar un abastecimiento satisfactorio a las industrias usuarias
 comunitarias.
 Modo de cálculo :
 Designaci6n de VoIumen Valor Derechos Derechos Perdida de
 la mercancia ecu/ud. norma Ies cont ingen- ingresos
 (%) tarios (%) (ecu)
 Setas 210 T 18000/T 18 % 0 % 680 400
 0-Cresol 6 000 T 896/T 2,1 % 0 % 112 896
 Medidas arancelarias nuevas
 ---pagebreak--- ---pagebreak--- ISSN 0257-9545
 COM(92) 413 final
 DOCUMENTOS
 ES ©2 03
 N° de catálogo : CB-CO-92-430-ES-C
 ISBN 92-77-47875-6
 Oficina de Publicaciones Oficiales de las Comunidades Europeas
 L-2985 Luxemburgo
 ***&**•• •M^JMM^^W^-- ^ * ^ ^ >^*>-**fr£


type: other

jurisdiction: US

text: b' Department of Homeland Security\n\n\n\n\n\n Survey of Hazard Mitigation Planning\n\n\n\n\n\nOIG-12-109 August 2012\n\n\x0c OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL\n Department of Homeland Security\n Washington, DC 20528 Iwww.oig.dhs.gov\n\n\n\n August 9, 2012\n\n\nMEMORANDUM FOR: David l. Miller\n Associate Administrator, Federal Insurance and Mitigation\n Administration\n Federal Emerge \xc2\xa5_Manag;e.~~ Agency\n "---I/,I f/~-\nFROM: D. Michael Beard \xc2\xb7 /\'/L--\n Assistant Inspe r General\n Office of Emergency Management Oversight\n\nSUBJECT: Survey of Hazard Mitigation Planning\n\nAttached for your action is our final report, Survey of Hazard Mitigation Planning. We\nincorporated the formal comments from the Federal Emergency Management Agency in\nthe final report.\n\nThe report contains two recommendations aimed at improving the Hazard Mitigation\nPlanning program. Your office concurred with both of the recommendations. As\nprescribed by the Department of Homeland Security Directive 077~1, Follow~Up and\nResolutions for the Office of Inspector General Report Recommendations, within\n90 days of the date of this memorandum" please provide our office with a written\n "\nresponse that includes your (1) agreement or disagreement, (2) corrective action plan,\nand (3) target completion date for each recommendation. Also, please include\nresponsible parties and any other supporting documentation necessary to inform us\nabout the current status of the recommendation. Until your response is received and\nevaluated, the recommendations will be considered open and unresolved.\n\nConsistent with our responsibility under the Inspector General Act, we are providing\ncopies of our report to appropriate congressional committees with oversight and\nappropriation responsibility over the Department of Homeland Security. We will post\nthe report on our website for public dissemination.\n\nPlease call me with any questions, or your staff may contact John Kelly, Acting Deputy\nAssistant Inspector General, Office of Emergency Management Oversight, at\n(202) 254-4100.\n\nAttachment\n\x0c OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL\n Department of Homeland Security\n\n\n Table of Contents\n Executive Summary............................................................................................................. 1 \n\n\n Background ........................................................................................................................ 2 \n\n\n Results of Review ................................................................................................................ 6 \n\n\n Plan Participation .................................................................................................... 6 \n\n\n Plan Review Process................................................................................................ 6\n\n\n Project Implementation ......................................................................................... 7 \n\n\n Conclusion .............................................................................................................. 9 \n\n\n Recommendations ............................................................................................... 10 \n\n\n Management Comments and OIG Analysis ......................................................... 10 \n\n\n Appendixes\n Appendix A: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology ............................................ 11 \n\n Appendix B: Management Comments to the Draft Report ............................... 12 \n\n Appendix C: Major Contributors to This Report ................................................ 14 \n\n Appendix D: Report Distribution ........................................................................ 15 \n\n\n Abbreviations\n DHS Department of Homeland Security\n CFR Code of Federal Regulations\n FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency\n FMA Flood Mitigation Assistance\n HMGP Hazard Mitigation Grant Program\n OIG Office of Inspector General\n PDM Pre-disaster Mitigation\n\n\n\n\nwww.oig.dhs.gov OIG-12-109\n\x0c OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL\n Department of Homeland Security\n\n\nExecutive Summary\nThe Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) has made progress in the hazard\nmitigation planning program since the passage of the Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000, as\namended. The program is designed to encourage State, tribal, and local jurisdictions to\n(1) identify the natural hazards that affect them and (2) implement projects that will reduce\nlosses from disasters, including development of land use and building code regulations. A State\nmitigation plan is required as a condition for receiving certain types of nonemergency disaster\nassistance, including funding for mitigation projects.\n\nThe program is voluntary, but all 50 States plus the District of Columbia and several territories\nhave participated since its inception, and more than 26,000 jurisdictions have developed\nmitigation plans. Communities that participate account for about 70 percent of the Nation\xe2\x80\x99s\npopulation. Despite the program\xe2\x80\x99s relative success, some communities have been reluctant to\nparticipate, particularly those in less populated areas that have not experienced recent\ndisasters. FEMA is developing a system to monitor State, tribal, and local participation and to\ntrack planned or implemented mitigation projects.\n\nFEMA receives high marks from mitigation grantees who rely on the agency for program\nguidance, technical assistance, and training that is made available to State, tribal, and local\ncommunities, as well as their contractors. A common concern among State grantees was the\n\xe2\x80\x9ctoo-frequent\xe2\x80\x9d plan renewal process.\n\nWe conducted this survey to evaluate the program\xe2\x80\x99s efficiency and effectiveness, and to\ndetermine whether a more comprehensive audit was needed. Although we determined that\nfurther audit work on FEMA\xe2\x80\x99s hazard mitigation planning program is not warranted at this time,\nFEMA needs to implement a better system to track participants\xe2\x80\x99 progress, and continue\nongoing efforts to address States\xe2\x80\x99 concerns regarding plan reporting requirements. We are\nmaking two recommendations to assist FEMA in its management and oversight function. In the\nfuture, we will follow up on FEMA\xe2\x80\x99s progress as the program continues to develop.\n\n\n\n\nwww.oig.dhs.gov 1 OIG-12-109\n\x0c OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL\n Department of Homeland Security\n\n\n Background\n Hazard mitigation is defined as any sustained action taken to reduce or eliminate the\n long-term risk to human life and property from hazards. It is intended to break the cycle\n of disaster damage, reconstruction, and repeated damage. Mitigation activities may be\n implemented before, during, or after an incident. However, it has been demonstrated\n that hazard mitigation is most effective when based on an inclusive, long-term plan that\n is developed before a disaster occurs. Two recent cost-benefit analyses found that\n every $1 spent on mitigation saved society $3 to $4.1\n\n Mitigation planning is a voluntary process through which communities assess risks and\n identify actions to reduce vulnerability through hazard mitigation. The jurisdictional\n plans prepared by State, tribal, and local governments demonstrate their commitment\n and serve as a guide for decision makers as they commit resources for mitigation\n projects that reduce or eliminate long-term risk to people and property from hazards.\n\n In keeping with the intent of Congress, the mitigation planning program is designed to\n encourage jurisdictions to (1) identify the natural hazards that affect them and\n (2) implement projects in order to reduce losses from disasters, including development\n of land use and building code regulations. States must have an approved mitigation\n plan as a condition of receiving certain nonemergency assistance and mitigation grants.\n FEMA promotes planning, provides assistance and guidance, and reviews and approves\n plans.\n\n Section 322 of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act\n (42 U.S.C. 5121 et seq.), as amended by the Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000 (P.L. 106-390),\n provides for States, tribes, and local governments to undertake a risk-based approach to\n reducing the exposure to loss by natural hazards through mitigation planning.\n Implementing rules were codified in Title 44, Part 201 of the Code of Federal\n Regulations (CFR).\n\n Following the issuance of the CFR regulations, the first round of State and local\n mitigation plans were approved in 2004. Since the program began, FEMA has reviewed,\n critiqued, and approved more than 5,000 mitigation plans, and overseen more than\n $5.2 billion in hazard mitigation grants.\n\n\n 1\n Congress of the United States, Congressional Budget Office, Potential Cost Savings from the Pre-Disaster\n Mitigation Program (Washington, DC, 2007); and National Institute of Building Sciences, The Multihazard\n Mitigation Council, Natural Hazard Mitigation Saves: An Independent Study to Assess the Future Savings\n from Mitigation Activities (Washington, DC, 2005).\n\n\nwww.oig.dhs.gov 2 OIG-12-109\n\x0c OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL\n Department of Homeland Security\n\n\n This survey concentrated on the following three hazard mitigation grant programs that\n include a planning function.\n\n Mitigation Planning Grants\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2\t Hazard Mitigation Grant Program (HMGP): Provides grants to State, tribal, and local\n governments, and certain nonprofits, to implement mitigation measures after a\n major disaster declaration. The Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000, as amended,\n authorizes up to 7 percent of available HMGP funds for planning purposes. Of the\n more than $1.3 billion awarded under HMGP from 2007 through 2011, $48.9 million\n was awarded for mitigation planning. These funds accounted for the largest\n segment of mitigation planning grants out of all of the hazard mitigation assistance\n programs.\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2\t Pre-disaster Mitigation (PDM) Grant: Provides funding to States, territories, tribal\n governments, communities, and universities for hazard mitigation planning and the\n implementation of mitigation projects prior to a disaster event. PDM grants\n exceeded $270 million over the past 5 years, of which $52.2 million was for\n mitigation plans.\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2\t Flood Mitigation Assistance (FMA): Provides funds to help States and communities\n implement measures that reduce or eliminate the long-term risk of flood damage to\n buildings, manufactured homes, and other structures insured under the National\n Flood Insurance Program. FMA provides annual grant funds for flood mitigation\n planning, and exceeded $120 million over the past 5 years, of which $2.75 million\n was for mitigation plans.\n\n FEMA provides grants to States, which in turn provide subgrants to local governments\n and communities. The State selects and prioritizes subgrant applications and submits\n them to FEMA for funding consideration. Figure 1 shows the total amounts spent for\n the grant programs from 2007 through 2011.\n\n\n\n\nwww.oig.dhs.gov 3\t OIG-12-109\n\x0c OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL\n Department of Homeland Security\n\n\n Figure 1. Mitigation Funding by Grant \n\n\n\n Hazard Mitigation Grants 2007-2011\n $128,672,145\n\n FMA\n $272,583,194 7%\n PDM\n 16%\n\n\n\n\n HMGP $1,345,209,907\n 77%\n\n\n\n\n Source: Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Office of Inspector General (OIG), based on FEMA data.\n\n Plan Elements\n\n CFR Part 201, Title 44 is specific on the elements that must be included in plans\n submitted by States, tribes, and local jurisdictions. Elements for a standard State\n mitigation plan include a risk assessment that identifies hazards and risks, including\n information on previous occurrences, and the probability of future hazard events in the\n jurisdictional area. Plans contain a mitigation strategy that provides a blueprint for\n reducing losses and includes (1) a description of proposed projects to reduce future\n losses and (2) a benefit-cost analysis to demonstrate the cost-effectiveness of the\n projects; and an evaluation of pertinent laws and regulations, as well as development in\n hazard-prone areas. Plans also include a description of the planning process and a\n schedule for monitoring, evaluating, and updating the plan.\n\n A State may submit an enhanced mitigation plan that, in addition to the above-cited\n elements, demonstrates integration with other State and/or regional planning\n initiatives, such as economic and land development and emergency management.\n States with an enhanced plan are eligible for increased mitigation funds, but must\n demonstrate the capability to implement and assess mitigation projects and achieve\n mitigation goals. Furthermore, States with an enhanced plan must display a\n commitment to supporting local jurisdictions by providing workshops and training.\n\n\n\n\nwww.oig.dhs.gov 4 OIG-12-109\n\x0c OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL\n Department of Homeland Security\n\n\n Mitigation Projects\n\n A mitigation project is a specific undertaking by a community to reduce or eliminate\n long-term risk to people and property from hazards. Eligible projects must provide a\n long-term solution to a problem\xe2\x80\x94for example, elevating a home to reduce the risk of\n flood damages as opposed to buying sandbags and pumps to fight the flood. In\n addition, a project\xe2\x80\x99s potential savings must be more than the cost of implementing the\n project. Funds may be used to protect either public or private property or to purchase\n property that has been subjected to, or is in danger of, repetitive damage. Examples of\n projects are listed under Project Implementation.\n\n Mitigation Funding\n\n Mitigation grants are separated into three cost categories:\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Project costs \xe2\x80\x93 used to implement the approved mitigation projects. \n\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Planning costs \xe2\x80\x93 used to fund the cost of plan preparation. \n\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Management costs \xe2\x80\x93 used to offset recipient\xe2\x80\x99s administrative costs. \n\n \n\n Figure 2 shows the total amounts spent for mitigation funding from 2007 through 2011. \n\n \n\n Figure 2. Mitigation Funding by Cost Category\n\n Total Amount Spent for Planning,\n Projects, and Management 2007-2011\n Management Planning\n 6% 6%\n\n\n\n\n Projects\n 88%\n\n\n\n\n Source: DHS OIG, based on FEMA data. \n\n\n\n\n\nwww.oig.dhs.gov 5 OIG-12-109\n\n\x0c OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL\n Department of Homeland Security\n\n\n Results of Review\n\n Plan Participation\n\n Although hazard mitigation planning is voluntary, participation in the program\n has been relatively widespread. Presently all 50 States, the District of Columbia,\n and five of the seven U.S. Island Territories have approved plans. More than\n 19,000 jurisdictions are currently represented by plans, covering approximately\n 70 percent of the Nation\xe2\x80\x99s population. State plans are scheduled to be renewed\n and resubmitted every 3 years, local plans every 5 years. All plans must be\n approved by FEMA.\n\n Notwithstanding the widespread program participation, some local jurisdictions\n do not participate. According to the State hazard mitigation officers we\n interviewed, common reasons for jurisdictions not participating are (1) lack of\n resources, (2) lack of a perceived threat in areas that have not had a declared\n disaster recently, and (3) an aversion to government programs.\n\n The current economic environment has strained local jurisdictions\xe2\x80\x99 budgets and\n shrunk staffing levels to the point that program participation is a hardship, even\n with the Federal Government contributing 75 percent of the cost. In locations\n that are not prone to flooding, frequent earthquakes, or hurricanes, and that do\n not have a history of recent disasters, local jurisdictions often decline\n participation, especially if their resources are constrained. A number of\n jurisdictions, typically in rural, sparsely populated areas, display a tradition of\n self-sufficiency and an aversion to participation in voluntary government\n programs.\n\n Plan Review Process\n\n FEMA must complete its review and approval of a plan within 45 days of the time\n the FEMA Regional Office receives the plan. The State or governing body of the\n jurisdiction must formally adopt the plan before submitting it to FEMA.\n However, FEMA encourages States and local jurisdictions to submit a final draft\n of the plan for review before adoption so that FEMA can determine if the plan is\n \xe2\x80\x9capprovable pending adoption\xe2\x80\x9d or identify deficiencies that need to be\n addressed before the plan is formally adopted. States are also encouraged to\n review plans following a disaster to determine if revisions are necessary.\n\n\n\n\nwww.oig.dhs.gov 6 OIG-12-109\n\x0c OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL\n Department of Homeland Security\n\n\n The CFR requires localities to update plans once every 5 years, and States to\n update their plans once every 3 years. This time difference in submitting plans\n was the most common issue we heard from the State mitigation officers. They\n consider the \xe2\x80\x9ctoo-frequent\xe2\x80\x9d 3-year update cycle to be burdensome,\n unnecessary, and impractical for the States.\n\n We were told that usually there are not enough changes in a 3-year period to\n warrant a new plan. State officials report that they are wasting time and money,\n especially because many of them perform annual plan maintenance updates that\n would minimize the frequency of a new plan. They would prefer a 5-year\n reporting cycle for State plans, particularly since the local plans are linked to the\n State plan and it would make sense to have both on the same reporting cycle.\n\n During a recent DHS regulatory review, FEMA proposed a rule change that would\n lengthen the States\xe2\x80\x99 mitigation plan reporting cycle to 5 years. We commend\n FEMA on its responsiveness to State and local concerns and suggest that it\n continue promoting the proposed rule change.\n\n Project Implementation\n\n A mitigation project is a specific undertaking to reduce or eliminate long-term\n risk to people and property from hazards. Eligible projects must provide a long-\n term solution to a problem; for example, elevating a structure to reduce the\n likelihood of flooding could be eligible, whereas buying sandbags and pumps to\n fight the flood would not be eligible. In addition, a project\xe2\x80\x99s potential savings\n must be more than the cost of implementing the project. Funds may be used to\n protect either public or private property or to purchase property that has been\n subjected to, or is in danger of, repetitive damage. The following are examples\n of eligible projects:\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Property acquisition and structure demolition\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Property acquisition and structure relocation\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Structure elevation\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Flood reduction projects\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Soil stabilization\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Wildfire mitigation\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Safe-room construction\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Infrastructure retrofit\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Retrofitting of existing buildings and facilities\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Floodproofing of structures\n\n\nwww.oig.dhs.gov 7 OIG-12-109\n\x0c OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL\n Department of Homeland Security\n\n\n\n Figures 3 through 5 illustrate mitigation projects.\n\n Figure 3. A home in a flood-prone area has been elevated.\n\n\n\n\n Source: FEMA Photo Library.\n\n Figure 4. \xe2\x80\x9cHurricane clips\xe2\x80\x9d help anchor roofs to prevent detachment due to severe\n wind.\n\n\n\n\n Source: FEMA Photo Library.\n\n\n\n\nwww.oig.dhs.gov 8 OIG-12-109\n\x0c OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL\n Department of Homeland Security\n\n\n Figure 5. Structures have been acquired and removed from this flooded former\n residential area.\n\n\n\n\n Source: FEMA Photo Library.\n\n Potential projects are identified in the local mitigation plans, selected by the\n State, and forwarded to FEMA for an eligibility review. At minimum, approved\n projects must conform to the State plan, address an identified problem, meet\n environmental requirements, and be cost-effective.\n\n At the time of our fieldwork, FEMA did not track mitigation projects, but was\n developing a tool to track mitigation actions identified and implemented by\n grant recipients. The tool is expected to be in use sometime in 2012. We\n encourage FEMA to continue with its plans to implement a mitigation project\n tracking tool.\n\n Conclusion\n\n We conducted this survey to evaluate FEMA\xe2\x80\x99s hazard mitigation planning\n program\xe2\x80\x99s efficiency and effectiveness, and to determine whether a more\n comprehensive audit was needed. Based on our survey, we determined that\n further audit work is not warranted at this time. Nonetheless, FEMA needs to\n implement a better system to track participants\xe2\x80\x99 progress, and continue ongoing\n efforts to address States\xe2\x80\x99 concerns regarding plan reporting requirements.\n\n\n\n\nwww.oig.dhs.gov 9 OIG-12-109\n\x0c OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL\n Department of Homeland Security\n\n\n Recommendations\n\n We recommend that the Associate Administrator, Federal Insurance and\n Mitigation Administration:\n\n Recommendation #1:\n\n Continue ongoing efforts to accomplish a rule change for mitigation plan\n reporting schedule.\n\n Recommendation #2:\n\n Proceed with current plans to develop a tool to track identified and\n implemented mitigation actions.\n\n Management Comments and OIG Analysis\n\n We received written comments on the draft report from FEMA\xe2\x80\x99s Federal\n Insurance and Mitigation Administration. FEMA agreed with both\n recommendations. A copy of the comments is in appendix B.\n\n We analyzed FEMA\xe2\x80\x99s comments and agree with the actions FEMA is taking. With\n regard to Recommendation 1, FEMA is taking the necessary preliminary steps to\n engage in rulemaking to change the frequency of plan updates for State\n mitigation plans. This will result in fewer financial and time burdens on the\n states and will allow for linked State and local plans to be on the same reporting\n cycle. We will determine the status of this recommendation once we receive the\n detailed corrective action plan in FEMA\xe2\x80\x99s 90-day letter.\n\n With regard to Recommendation 2, FEMA has developed and is testing an\n Interim Action Measure Collection Tool for use by FEMA staff to begin to track\n areas where identified mitigation actions have been initiated. The tool was\n deployed in early 2012 to FEMA Regions to begin collecting data. This will allow\n FEMA to track participants\xe2\x80\x99 progress. We will determine the status of this\n recommendation once we receive the detailed corrective action plan in FEMA\xe2\x80\x99s\n 90-day letter.\n\n\n\n\nwww.oig.dhs.gov 10 OIG-12-109\n\x0c OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL\n Department of Homeland Security\n\n\n Appendix A\n Objectives, Scope, and Methodology\n The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Office of Inspector General (OIG) was\n established by the Homeland Security Act of 2002 (Public Law 107-296) by amendment\n to the Inspector General Act of 1978. This is one of a series of audit, inspection, and\n special reports prepared as part of our oversight responsibilities to promote economy,\n efficiency, and effectiveness within the Department.\n\n The objectives of our survey were to (1) evaluate the hazard mitigation planning\n program\xe2\x80\x99s efficiency and effectiveness and (2) determine whether a more\n comprehensive audit was warranted. We reviewed agency documents and compared\n program statistics for fiscal years 2007 through 2011.\n\n Audit fieldwork was conducted in the Washington, DC, and Philadelphia, PA, areas,\n where we interviewed FEMA officials from the Federal Insurance and Mitigation\n Administration; at headquarters; and at Region III. We also conducted telephone\n interviews with regional FEMA officials and State hazard mitigation officers.\n\n We conducted this performance audit between October 2011 and January 2012\n pursuant to the Inspector General Act of 1978, as amended, and according to generally\n accepted government auditing standards. Those standards require that we plan and\n perform the audit to obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable\n basis for our findings and conclusions based upon our audit objectives. We believe that\n the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions\n based upon our audit objectives.\n\n\n\n\nwww.oig.dhs.gov 11 OIG-12-109\n\x0c OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL\n Department of Homeland Security\n\n\n Appendix B\n Management Comments to the Draft Report\n\n U.s. ikpartmtll l or lI omtt.lld Stc:urlry\n W u hl llglOCl, DC lOS18\n\n\n Homeland\n Security\n ~AY 3 1 2011\n\n\n MEMORANDUM FOR: D. Michael Beard\n Assistant Inspector General\n Office of Emergency Management Oversight\n\n FROM: David J. Kaufman\n Director\n 11k---\n / /"\n Office of Policy and Program Analysis\n\n SUBJECT: FEMA \' s Response to OIG Draft Report, Survey 0/ Hazard\n Mitigation Planning OIG Project No. II-OIO-EMO-FEMA\n\n\n The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) appreciates the opportunity to review and\n respond to the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Office of inspector General (010) Draft\n Report, Survey 0/ Hazard Mitigarioll Planning. Thc report focused on the strengths and\n weaknesses of the Federal Emergency Management Agency\'s Hazard Mitigation Planning\n program. The objectives of the survey were to ( I) evaluate the hazard mitigation planning\n program\'s efficiency and cffcctiveness and (2) dctcnnine whether a morc comprehcnsive audit\n was warranted. Based on the survey. thc draft Report indicated further audit work on the\n program is not warranted at this time.\n\n\n Overall Comments\n FEMA appreciatcs the DHS (G\'s review of FEMA \'s Hazard Mitigation Planning program and\n offcrs the following clarifications in the draft Report.\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Page I, 2nd paragraph: "The program is voluntary, but all 50 States have\n participatcd since its inccption, and the tribal and local community participation\n accounts for approximately 70% of the Nation\'s population." Tribal and local\n community participation currenlly accounts for approximately 70% of the\n Nation\'s population. Since 2000, more than 26,000 jurisdictions have dcveloped\n plans, covering approximately 90% o f the Nation\'s population.\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Page 3, bullets 1-3: The first bullct on HMGP suggests the total amount of\n fundi ng (S 1.3 billion) was avail able for planning grants. Howcver, the total\n amounts identified (S 1.3 billion for HMGP, S270 million for POM and S 120\n million for FM A) were available for both mitigation projects and plans, and\n should not be interpreted as the amounts allocated for planning grants alone.\n\n\n\n\nwww.oig.dhs.gov 12 OIG-12-109\n\x0c OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL\n Department of Homeland Security\n\n\n\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Page 6, 1" paragraph: " More than 19,000 jurisdictions are represented by plans,\n covering approximately 70% of the Nation\' s population." To be clear, more than\n 19,000 jurisdictions are currently represented by FEMA-approved plans, covering\n approximately 70% of the Nation\'s population. Since 2000, more than 26,000\n jurisdictions have developed plans, covering approximately 90% of the Nation\'s\n population.\n\n Response to R\xc2\xabommendations\n\n R\xc2\xabommendation #1 : Continue ongoing efforts to accomplish a rule change for\n mitigation plan reporting schedule.\n\n FEMA Response: FEMA agrees with this recommendation. This issue is a top priority\n for FlMA and we are taking the necessary preliminary steps for FEMA to engage in\n rulemaking to change the frequency of plan updates for State Mitigation Plans.\n\n R\xc2\xabommendation #2: Proceed with current plans to develop a tool to track identi fied\n and implemented mitigation actions.\n\n FEMA Response: FEMA agrees with this recommendation. FEMA has developed and is\n testing an Interim Action Measure Collection Tool for use by FEMA staff to begin to\n track areas where identified mitigation actions have been initiated. The tool was\n deployed in early 2012 to FEMA Regions to begin collecting data.\n\n Once again, thank you for the opportunity to comment on the findings and recommendations of\n the OIG Draft Report on Survey of Hazard Mitigation Planning prior to its publication. We look\n forward to working with you on expeditious closure of the recommendations. Please feel free to\n provide any comments/concerns to our Audit Liaison, Ms. Gina Non on, 202-646-4287.\n\n\n\n\n 2\n\n\n\n\nwww.oig.dhs.gov 13 OIG-12-109\n\x0c OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL\n Department of Homeland Security\n\n\n Appendix C\n Major Contributors to This Report\n Kaye McTighe, Director\n Paul McPhail, Supervisory Program Analyst\n Stuart Josephs, Acting Audit Manager\n Kimberly Letnaunchyn, Program Analyst\n John Meenan, Program Analyst\n\n\n\n\nwww.oig.dhs.gov 14 OIG-12-109\n\x0c OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL\n Department of Homeland Security\n\n\n Appendix D\n Report Distribution\n Department of Homeland Security\n\n Secretary\n Deputy Secretary\n Chief of Staff\n Deputy Chief of Staff\n General Counsel\n Executive Secretary\n Director, GAO/OIG Liaison Office\n Assistant Secretary for Office of Policy\n Assistant Secretary for Office of Public Affairs\n Assistant Secretary for Office of Legislative Affairs\n FEMA Audit Liaison\n\n Office of Management and Budget\n\n Chief, Homeland Security Branch\n DHS OIG Budget Examiner\n\n Congress\n\n Congressional Oversight and Appropriations Committees, as appropriate\n\n\n\n\nwww.oig.dhs.gov 15 OIG-12-109\n\x0cADDITIONAL INFORMATION AND COPIES\n\nTo obtain additional copies of this document, please call us at (202) 254-4100, fax your\nrequest to (202) 254-4305, or e-mail your request to our Office of Inspector General\n(OIG) Office of Public Affairs at: DHS-OIG.OfficePublicAffairs@oig.dhs.gov.\n\nFor additional information, visit our website at: www.oig.dhs.gov, or follow us on Twitter\nat: @dhsoig.\n\nOIG HOTLINE\n\nTo expedite the reporting of alleged fraud, waste, abuse or mismanagement, or any\nother kinds of criminal or noncriminal misconduct relative to Department of Homeland\nSecurity (DHS) programs and operations, please visit our website at www.oig.dhs.gov\nand click on the red tab titled "Hotline" to report. You will be directed to complete and\nsubmit an automated DHS OIG Investigative Referral Submission Form. Submission\nthrough our website ensures that your complaint will be promptly received and\nreviewed by DHS OIG.\n\nShould you be unable to access our website, you may submit your complaint in writing\nto: DHS Office of Inspector General, Attention: Office of Investigations Hotline, 245\nMurray Drive, SW, Building 410/Mail Stop 2600, Washington, DC, 20528; or you may\ncall 1 (800) 323-8603; or fax it directly to us at (202) 254-4297.\n\nThe OIG seeks to protect the identity of each writer and caller.\n\x0c'


type: wikipedia

text:
För fartyget, se M/S Götaland.
 Götaland (latin Gothia) är den sydligaste av Sveriges tre landsdelar, och består av landskapen Blekinge, Bohuslän, Dalsland, Halland, Skåne, Småland, Västergötland, Östergötland, Gotland och Öland.
 Götaland har en areal på 87 712 kvadratkilometer. Invånarantalet är ().
 Landsdelarna Götaland, Svealand och Norrland saknar officiell eller administrativ betydelse, men begreppen används vardagligt som i väderleksrapporter och i idrottsliga sammanhang, till exempel Division 2 Östra Götaland i fotboll för herrar. Götaland ingår även i namnet på ett av Sveriges län: Västra Götalands län, bildat 1998.
 Historik
 Ordet Götaland betyder ursprungligen "götarnas land", varmed åsyftades en av de två huvudstammarna som ansågs ha gett upphov till Sverige (den andra var svearna). Äldsta belägget härrör från 1384 Gøthalandom, och området kallas i äldre källor främst "sunnanskog" eller "utanskog" mot benämningen "nordanskog" om Svealand. I Kristofers landslag från 1400-talet hävdas att Sverige i forna tider hade bildats som en förening ”av svea och göta land”, det vill säga av svearnas och götarnas land. Då förefaller Götaland ha avsett Småland, Öland, Östergötland, Västergötland, Dalsland (förr Dal) och Värmland. Det skogiga och kuperade området Kolmården–Tiveden utgjorde gränsland mellan Svealand och Götaland, eller landet nordanskogs och landet sunnanskogs. Göta rike användes som en synonym.
 Blekinge, Bohuslän, Gotland, Halland och Skåne kom till följd av Sveriges stormaktstida expansion att, fastän historiskt oegentligt, räknas till Götaland. Till den kulturhistoriska regionen Skåneland räknas Skåne, Halland och Blekinge samt danska Bornholm.
 Värmlands län kom 1815 att överföras från Göta hovrätt till Svea hovrätt. Sedan dess har Värmland räknats till Svealand.
 Se även
 Lista över städer i Götaland
 Österland
 Källor
 Externa länkar


type: caselaw

text:
3 . 6 . 95 | FR j Journal officiel des Communautés européennes N0 C 137/27
 La requérante est d' avis que cela est contraire au principe 6 ) L' audition a été organisée de manière inadé
 communautaire de la libre circulation . quate .
 Elle fait également valoir que la disposition du statut 7 ) La Commission a utilisé contre Aker des informa
 précitée enfreint le principe de l'égalité de traitement. tions fournies par cette société .
 La requérante considère que les institutions communautai 8 ) La Commission a reformulé ses conclusions et a
 res sont, en vertu de leur pouvoir de sollicitude à l'égard des mis fin à la procédure engagée contre certaines
 citoyens, tenues de combler la lacune qui apparaît dans les sociétés allemandes et espagnoles .
 dispositions du statut concernées .
 II. Erreurs de raisonnement manifestes et ingérence
 La requérante explique que la décision est basée sur
 l'idée selon laquelle il existe un « accord unique et
 continu » dans l'industrie du ciment en Europe occi
 Recours introduit le 28 février 1995 par Aker AS contre dentale . Cette théorie, que conteste la requérante, a
 Commission des Communautés européennes conduit la Commission à commettre , à son égard , des
 ( Affaire T-70/95 ) erreurs d' appréciation et d' interprétation concer
 ( 95 /C 137/64 ) nant :
 (Langue de procédure: l'anglais) 1 ) sa participation supposée à T « accord Cembu
 reau »;
 Le Tribunal de première instance des Communautés euro 2 ) sa participation supposée à la European Task
 péennes a été saisi , le 28 février 1995 , d' un recours dirigé Force .
 contre la Commission des Communautés européennes et
 formé par Aker AS, représentée par Mes Nicholas Forwood La requérante estime que rien ne permet de conclure
 et John Cook élisant domicile en l'étude de Mcs Arendt & qu'elle s'est rendue coupable d' un comportement
 Medernach, boîte postale 39, L-2010 Luxembourg. susceptible de constituer une violation intentionnelle
 de l'article 85 paragraphe 1 du traité .
 La partie requérante conclut à ce qu' il plaise au Tribu
 nal : III. Défaut de compétence et discrimination
 — annuler intégralement ou, à titre subsidiaire, partielle 1 ) La requérante soutient que, étant donné sa qualité
 ment la décision 94/815/CE de la Commission du d'entreprise établie en dehors de la Communauté
 30 novembre 1994 ('), dans la mesure où elle concerne la européenne , la Commission était tenue d'indiquer
 requérante , clairement, dans la communication des griefs et
 dans la décision, sur quelle base est fondée la
 — annuler ou, à titre subsidiaire, réduire l' amende infligée compétence qu'elle revendique à son égard . Le fait
 par l' article 9 que la Commission ait omis d'expliquer sa position
 et
 sur ce point constitue une violation des droits de la
 défense et de l' article 190 du traité .
 — condamner la Commission aux dépens .
 2 ) La requérante estime, en outre, que la Commission
 n'a pas satisfait à l'obligation qui lui incombe
 Moyens et principaux arguments
 d'exercer sa compétence de manière uniforme et
 sans créer de discrimination entre les diverses
 Les moyens sur la base desquels est contestée la légalité de la
 décision attaquée peuvent se résumer comme suit. entreprises non communautaires impliquées dans
 la présente procédure .
 L Violation de formes substantielles
 IV . Amendes
 1 ) La communication des griefs n' a pas été divulguée
 dans son intégralité . 1 ) La requérante souligne que la Commission a omis
 d'établir que son comportement pouvait être consi
 2 ) Certains documents invoqués à titre de preuve déré comme le fruit d' une volonté délibérée ou
 n'ont pas été traduits dans la langue de procé d' une négligence, au sens de l'article 15 paragra
 dure . phe 2 du règlement n° 17 du Conseil ( 2 ).
 3 ) Certains documents ont été cités inexactement. 2 ) La requérante estime que la Commission a omis
 d'expliquer sur la base de quels éléments elle avait
 4 ) La requérante n'a pas eu accès à la totalité du fixé le montant de l'amende dans son cas particu
 dossier de la Commission ni à d' autres dossiers lier .
 pertinents .
 t 1 ) JO n° L 343 du 30 . 12 1994 , p. 1 .
 5 ) Les réponses à la communication des griefs faites ( 2 ) JO n° 13 du 21 . 2 . 1962 , p. 204/62 .
 par les autres destinataires de celle-ci n'ont pas été
 divulguées .


text:
Robert Paul Wolff, född 1933, är en amerikansk politisk filosof och professor vid University of Massachusetts Amherst. Wolff har publicerat sig i många diskussioner inom politisk filosofi, till exempel marxism, tolerans (där han argumenterar för anarkism snarare än liberalism), politisk legitimitet och demokrati. Wolff har även arbetat med texter om Immanuel Kant.
 Referenser
 Amerikanska filosofer under 1900-talet
 Födda 1933
 Män
 Levande personer
 Alumner från Harvard University
 Alumner från University of Massachusetts Amherst
 Forskare från New York