text:
 EUROOPA KOMISJON
 Brüssel,12.3.2018
 COM(2018) 122 final
 2018/0056(NLE)
 Ettepanek:
 NÕUKOGU OTSUS
 seisukoha kohta, mis võetakse Euroopa Liidu nimel Rahvusvahelise Mereorganisatsiooni meresõiduohutuse komitee 99. istungjärgul seoses SOLASi konventsiooni reeglite II-1/1 ja II-1/8-1 muudatuste vastuvõtmise, asjakohaste suuniste (milles käsitletakse kaptenile vee sissevoolu korral antavat püstuvusarvutituge olemasolevate reisilaevade puhul) heakskiitmise ja 2010. aasta rahvusvahelise tulekatse kohaldamise koodeksi muudatuste vastuvõtmisega
 SELETUSKIRI
 1.Kavandatav reguleerimisese
 Käesolevas ettepanekus käsitletakse otsust, millega määratakse kindlaks liidu nimel Rahvusvahelise Mereorganisatsiooni meresõiduohutuse komitee 99. istungjärgul võetav seisukoht seoses SOLASi konventsiooni reeglite II-1/1 ja II-1/8-1 muudatuste, asjakohaste suuniste (milles käsitletakse kaptenile vee sissevoolu korral antavat püstuvusarvutituge olemasolevate reisilaevade puhul) ja 2010. aasta rahvusvahelise tulekatse kohaldamise koodeksi (2010. aasta FTP koodeks) muudatuste kavandatud vastuvõtmisega.
 2.Ettepaneku taust
 2.1.Rahvusvahelise Mereorganisatsiooni (IMO) konventsioon
 Rahvusvahelise Mereorganisatsiooni (IMO) konventsiooniga luuakse IMO, mille eesmärk on tagada foorum valitsustevaheliseks koostööks valitsuste regulatiivse tegevuse ja tavade valdkonnas kõikides rahvusvahelist merekaubandust mõjutavates tehnilistes küsimustes, toetada rangeimate võimalike nõuete üldist vastuvõtmist meresõiduohutuse, navigeerimise tõhususe ning laevade põhjustatud merereostuse vältimise ja kontrolli küsimustes, et edendada võrdseid võimalusi, ning käsitleda seonduvaid haldus- ja õigusküsimusi.
 Konventsioon jõustus 17. märtsil 1958.
 Kõik liikmesriigid on konventsiooni osalised.
 Kõik liikmesriigid on 25. mail 1980 jõustunud 1974. aasta rahvusvahelise konventsiooni inimelude ohutusest merel (edaspidi „SOLASi konventsioon“) osalised. Liit ei ole SOLASi konventsiooni osaline.
 2.2.Rahvusvaheline Mereorganisatsioon
 Rahvusvaheline Mereorganisatsioon (IMO) on ÜRO spetsialiseeritud asutus, kes vastutab meresõidu ohutuse ja turvalisuse ning laevade põhjustatud merereostuse vältimise eest. IMO on rahvusvahelise meresõidu ohutuse, turvalisuse ja keskkonnatoime valdkonnas norme kehtestav ülemaailmne asutus. Selle põhiülesanne on luua laevanduse jaoks õiglane ja tulemuslik reguleeriv raamistik, mis võetakse ühiselt vastu ning mida rakendatakse ühiselt.
 Organisatsiooni liikmeks võivad olla kõik riigid ning kõik ELi liikmesriigid on IMO liikmed. Euroopa Komisjonil on alates 1974. aastast olnud Rahvusvahelises Mereorganisatsioonis (IMO) vaatleja staatus, mis põhineb Valitsustevahelise Nõuandva Merendusorganisatsiooni (IMCO)
 1
 ja Euroopa Ühenduste Komisjoni vahelisel koostöökokkuleppel vastastikust huvi pakkuvates küsimustes.
 IMO meresõiduohutuse komitee koosneb kõikidest IMO liikmetest ja tuleb kokku üks kord aastas. Komitee käsitleb kõiki küsimusi, mis jäävad organisatsiooni tegevusvaldkonda ning puudutavad navigatsiooniabi, laevade ehitamist ja seadistamist, laevade mehitamist ohutuse seisukohast, kokkupõrke vältimise eeskirju, ohtliku lasti käitlemist, meresõiduohutuse menetlusi ja nõudeid, hüdrograafilist teavet, logiraamatuid ja navigatsiooniandmeid, laevaõnnetuste uurimist, merepäästet ning kõiki muid meresõiduohutust otseselt mõjutavaid küsimusi.
 IMO meresõiduohutuse komitee tagab vahendid, et täita talle IMO konventsiooni, IMO assamblee või IMO nõukogu poolt määratud ülesandeid või eespool nimetatud tegevusvaldkonna alla kuuluvaid ülesandeid, mida võidakse talle määrata mis tahes muu rahvusvahelise õigusakti alusel ja mille IMO on heaks kiitnud. Meresõiduohutuse komitee ja selle allorganid teevad oma otsused liikmete häälteenamusega.
 2.3.IMO meresõiduohutuse komitee kavandatav akt
 Meresõiduohutuse komitee kavatseb 16.–25. maini 2018 toimuval 99. istungjärgul (MSC 99) võtta vastu SOLASi konventsiooni reeglite II-1/1 ja II-1/8-1 muudatused, asjakohased suunised (milles käsitletakse kaptenile vee sissevoolu korral antavat püstuvusarvutituge olemasolevate reisilaevade puhul) ja 2010. aasta rahvusvahelise tulekatse kohaldamise koodeksi (2010. aasta FTP koodeks) muudatused.
 SOLASi konventsiooni reeglite II-1/1 ja II-1/8-1 kavandatud muutmise eesmärk on laiendada SOLASi konventsiooni reegli II-1/8-1.3 nõuet (milles käsitletakse kaptenile vee sissevoolu korral antavat püstuvusarvutituge) olemasolevatele reisilaevadele.
 2010. aasta FTP koodeksi kavandatud muudatuse eesmärk on kaotada koodeksis sisalduvate tulekaitsenõuete eristamine vähem kui 36 reisijaga laevade ja rohkem kui 36 reisijaga laevade puhul, et täpsustada 2010. aasta FTP koodeksi 3. lisa tabelis 1 esitatud põrandakattematerjalidega (exposed floor coverings) seotud nõuete kohaldamist reisilaevade suhtes nii, et neid nõudeid hakataks kohaldama ka vähem kui 36 reisijaga reisilaevade suhtes.
 3.Liidu nimel võetav seisukoht
 3.1.SOLASi konventsiooni reeglite II-1/1 ja II-1/8-1 muudatused ning asjakohased suunised, milles käsitletakse kaptenile vee sissevoolu korral antavat püstuvusarvutituge olemasolevate reisilaevade puhul
 17.–21. novembrini 2014 Londonis toimunud meresõiduohutuse komitee 94. istungjärgul (MSC 94) esitasid Bahama ja teised riigid taotluse uue algatuse kohta (MSC 94/6/1), milles käsitletakse SOLASi konventsiooni reeglite II-1/1 ja II-1/8-1 muudatusi.
 Seejärel märgiti 18.–22. jaanuarini 2016 Londonis toimunud IMO laevade projekteerimise ja ehituse allkomitee kolmandal istungjärgul (SDC 3), et vaheruumideks jaotamise ja vigastatud laeva püstuvuse töörühm jõudis üksnes põgusalt arutada ettepanekut laiendada SOLASi konventsiooni reegli II-1/8-1.3 nõuet (milles käsitletakse kaptenile vee sissevoolu korral antavat püstuvusarvutituge) olemasolevatele reisilaevadele; selle nõude kohaselt edastatakse pärast vee sissevoolu algust kaptenile vigastatud laeva jääkpüstuvuse kohta regulaarselt ajakohastatud teavet.
 Kui vaheruumideks jaotamise ja vigastatud laeva püstuvuse töörühm leidis, et SOLASi konventsiooni reegli II-1/8-1.3 kavandatud muudatused on piisavad, et kaaluda nende lõpuleviimist IMO laevade projekteerimise ja ehituse allkomitee neljandal istungjärgul (SDC 4), siis SDC kolmandal istungjärgul märgiti ka seda, et on vaja veel täiendavalt kaaluda dokumendi „Guidelines on operational information for masters of passenger ships for safe return to port by own power or under tow“ (MSC.1/Circ.1400) läbivaadatud kavandi kohaldamist olemasolevate reisilaevade suhtes ja kutsuti üles esitama ettepanekuid neljanda istungjärgu (SDC 4) jaoks.
 Pärast seda, kui 13.–17. veebruarini 2017 Londonis toimunud SDC neljandal istungjärgul oli arutatud SOLASi konventsiooni reegli II-1/8-1.3 kohaldatavust olemasolevate reisilaevade suhtes, kinnitati ka seisukohta, et kehtivate suuniste, st dokumentide MSC.1/Circ.1400, MSC.1/Circ.1532 ja MSC.1/Circ.1229 kohaldamisega seotud kõikide piirangute käsitlemiseks tuleks välja töötada uued suunised, milles käsitletakse enne 1. jaanuari 2014 ehitatud reisilaevade püstuvusarvuteid ja kaldalt saadavat toetust.
 SDC neljandal istungjärgul lepiti kokku SOLASi konventsiooni reeglite II-1/1 ja II-1/8-1 muudatusettepanekutes, milles käsitletakse kaptenile vee sissevoolu korral antavat püstuvusarvutituge olemasolevate reisilaevade puhul (SDC 4/16, 2. lisa), kuid ei suudetud otsustada kavandatud muudatuste jõustumise menetluse üle, kuna uutes suunistes käsitletud püstuvusarvutitega seotud kriteeriumide keerukus mõjutaks kuupäeva, millest alates uusi kavandatud reegleid saaks hakata olemasolevate reisilaevade suhtes kohaldama.
 7.–16. juunini 2017 Londonis toimunud meresõiduohutuse komitee 98. istungjärgul (MSC 98) kiideti heaks SOLASi konventsiooni reeglite II-1/1 ja II-1/8-1 kavandatud muudatused eesmärgiga võtta need vastu meresõiduohutuse komitee 99. istungjärgul (MSC 99), võttes arvesse nõuet, et IMO laevade projekteerimise ja ehituse allkomitee viiendal istungjärgul (SDC 5) kinnitatakse kuupäev, millest alates hakatakse kavandatud SOLASi konventsiooni reeglit II-1/8-1.3 kohaldama, ning vormistatakse lõplikult kavandatud suunised, mis käsitlevad enne 1. jaanuari 2014 ehitatud reisilaevade püstuvusarvuteid ja kaldalt saadavat toetust. 22.–26. jaanuarini 2018 Londonis toimunud SDC viiendal istungjärgul lepiti kokku, et enne 1. jaanuari 2014 ehitatud reisilaevad peavad vastama SOLASi konventsiooni reeglile II-1/8-1.3 hiljemalt esimese korduva ülevaatuse kuupäeval viis aastat pärast selle jõustumist. Lisaks lepiti SDC viiendal istungjärgul kokku, et seonduvad suunised esitatakse MSC 99. istungjärgule heakskiitmiseks.
 SOLASi konventsiooni reeglite II-1/1 ja II-1/8-1 muudatused on sätestatud IMO dokumendi MSC 98/23/Add.1. 13. lisas. MSC 98. istungjärgu aruande (MSC 98/23) punktis 10.9 on märgitud, et muudatused on kavas vastu võtta MSC 99. istungjärgul.
 3.2.2010. aasta FTP koodeksi muudatused
 14.–18. märtsini 2016 Londonis toimunud IMO laevasüsteemide ja -seadmete allkomitee kolmandal istungjärgul (SSE 3) leiti, et 2010. aasta FTP koodeksi 3. lisa tabelis 1 esitatud põrandakattematerjalidega (exposed floor coverings) seotud nõudeid käsitlevaid sätteid, mida kohaldatakse rohkem kui 36 reisijaga reisilaevade suhtes, tuleks kohaldada ka vähem kui 36 reisijaga reisilaevade suhtes. SSE kolmandal istungjärgul kinnitati seisukohta, et põrandakattematerjalidega (exposed floor coverings) seotud nõudeid käsitlevaid suuniseid, mida kohaldatakse rohkem kui 36 reisijaga reisilaevade suhtes, tuleks kohaldada ka vähem kui 36 reisijaga reisilaevade suhtes. Seepärast lepiti SSE kolmandal istungjärgul kokku, et tulekaitse töörühmale tehakse ülesandeks seda küsimust täiendavalt arutada ja allkomiteed vastavalt nõustada.
 Võttes arvesse 2010. aasta FTP koodeksi 3. lisa tabeli 1 sätteid ja tulekaitse töörühma seisukohta, lepiti SSE kolmandal istungjärgul kokku, et 2010. aasta FTP koodeksi 3. lisa tabelit 1 tuleks kohaldada ka vähem kui 36 reisijaga reisilaevade suhtes ja võimalik lahendus oleks see, kui jätta välja sõnad „rohkem kui 36 reisijaga“.
 Sellest võimalikust lahendusest ei antud siiski teada 21.–25. novembrini 2016 Londonis toimunud meresõiduohutuse komitee 97. istungjärgule (MSC 97), kuna SSE kolmandal istungjärgul käsitleti seda küsimust päevakorrapunkti „IMO ohutust, turvalisust ja keskkonda käsitlevate konventsioonide sätete ühtne tõlgendamine“ all.
 Selle asemel käsitleti MSC 98. istungjärgul 2010. aasta FTP koodeksi muudatusettepanekuid ja kiideti need heaks eesmärgiga võtta need vastu MSC 99. istungjärgul.
 2010. aasta FTP koodeksi muudatused on esitatud MSC 98 aruande 25. lisas (MSC 98/23/Add.1). MSC 98. istungjärgu aruande (MSC 98/23) punktis 12.47 on märgitud, et muudatused on kavas vastu võtta MSC 99. istungjärgul.
 3.3.Asjakohased ELi õigusaktid ja ELi pädevus
 3.3.1.SOLASi konventsiooni reeglite II-1/1 ja II-1/8-1 muudatused ning asjakohased suunised, milles käsitletakse kaptenile vee sissevoolu korral antavat püstuvusarvutituge olemasolevate reisilaevade puhul
 Euroopa Parlamendi ja nõukogu direktiivi 2009/45/EÜ (reisilaevade ohutuseeskirjade ja nõuete kohta) artikli 6 lõike 2 punkti a alapunktis i on sätestatud, et uued A-klassi reisilaevad peavad täielikult vastama 1974. aasta SOLASi konventsiooni (muudetud kujul) nõuetele.
 3.3.2.2010. aasta FTP koodeksi muudatused
 2010. aasta FTP koodeksis on sätestatud rahvusvahelised nõuded SOLASi konventsiooni II-2 peatükis (mis sisaldab tulekaitse, tulekahju avastamise ja kustutamise reegleid) osutatud toodete laborikatsete, tüübikinnituse ja tulekatsete jaoks. Rahvusvahelise konventsiooni inimelude ohutusest merel (SOLAS) muudatused, millega tehakse rahvusvaheline tulekatse kohaldamise koodeks (2010. aasta FTP koodeks) kohustuslikuks, jõustus 1. juulil 2012 (resolutsioon MSC.307(88)).
 Euroopa Parlamendi ja nõukogu direktiivi 2009/45/EÜ (reisilaevade ohutuseeskirjade ja nõuete kohta) artikli 6 lõike 2 punkti a alapunktis i on sätestatud, et uued A-klassi reisilaevad peavad täielikult vastama 1974. aasta SOLASi konventsiooni (muudetud kujul) nõuetele. Lisaks kohaldatakse direktiivi 2009/45/EÜ I lisa II-2 peatüki A osa ja B osa kohaselt 1. jaanuaril 2003 või hiljem ehitatud B-, C- ja D-klassi laevade suhtes tuleohutussüsteemide koodeksit, mis on vastu võetud resolutsiooniga MSC.98(73).
 3.3.3.ELi pädevus
 SOLASi konventsiooni reeglite II-1/1 ja II-1/8-1 muudatused, asjakohased suunised (milles käsitletakse kaptenile vee sissevoolu korral antavat püstuvusarvutituge olemasolevate reisilaevade puhul) ja 2010. aasta FTP koodeksi muudatused mõjutaksid liidu õigust direktiivi 2009/45/EÜ kohaldamise kaudu.
 4.Õiguslik alus
 4.1.Menetlusõiguslik alus
 4.1.1.Põhimõtted
 ELi toimimise lepingu artikli 218 lõikes 9 on sätestatud, et „[n]õukogu võtab komisjoni [...] ettepaneku põhjal vastu otsuse, millega [...] kehtestatakse lepingus sätestatud organis liidu nimel võetavad seisukohad, kui asjaomasel organil tuleb vastu võtta õigusliku toimega akte, välja arvatud õigusaktid, millega täiendatakse või muudetakse lepingu institutsioonilist raamistikku“.
 ELi toimimise lepingu artikli 218 lõiget 9 kohaldatakse olenemata sellest, kas liit on asjaomase organi liige või asjaomase lepingu osaline
 2
 .
 Mõiste „õigusliku toimega aktid“ hõlmab akte, millel on õiguslik toime asjaomase organi suhtes kehtiva rahvusvahelise õiguse normide alusel. Siia hulka kuuluvad ka sellised õiguslikud vahendid, mis ei ole rahvusvahelise õiguse kohaselt siduvad, aga mis „võivad mõjutada otsustavalt liidu seadusandja vastu võetud õigusaktide sisu“
 3
 .
 4.1.2.Kohaldamine käesoleval juhul
 IMO meresõiduohutuse komitee on lepinguga, s.t Rahvusvahelise Mereorganisatsiooni konventsiooniga ettenähtud organ.
 Aktid, mille IMO meresõiduohutuse komitee peab vastu võtma, on õigusliku toimega aktid. Kavandatavad aktid võivad otsustavalt mõjutada järgmise ELi õigusakti sisu: Euroopa Parlamendi ja nõukogu direktiiv 2009/45/EÜ reisilaevade ohutuseeskirjade ja -nõuete kohta. Seda seetõttu, et direktiivis 2009/45/EÜ on sätestatud, et uued A-klassi reisilaevad peavad täielikult vastama 1974. aasta SOLASi konventsiooni (muudetud kujul) nõuetele, nagu on sätestatud eespool punktides 3.1 ja 3.2.
 Seepärast mõjutaksid SOLASi konventsiooni reeglite II-1/1 ja II-1/8-1 muudatused, asjakohased suunised (milles käsitletakse kaptenile vee sissevoolu korral antavat püstuvusarvutituge olemasolevate reisilaevade puhul) ja 2010. aasta FTP koodeksi muudatused liidu õigust direktiivi 2009/45/EÜ kohaldamise kaudu.
 Kavandatavad aktid ei täienda ega muuda lepingu institutsioonilist raamistikku.
 Seega on esildatud otsuse menetlusõiguslik alus ELi toimimise lepingu artikli 218 lõige 9.
 4.2.Materiaalõiguslik alus
 4.2.1.Põhimõtted
 ELi toimimise lepingu artikli 218 lõike 9 kohase otsuse materiaalõiguslik alus sõltub eelkõige selle kavandatava akti eesmärgist ja sisust, mida liidu nimel võetav seisukoht puudutab. Kui kavandatava aktiga taotletakse kahte eesmärki või reguleeritakse kahte valdkonda ning üht neist võib pidada peamiseks, samas kui teine on kõrvalise tähtsusega, peab ELi toimimise lepingu artikli 218 lõike 9 kohasel otsusel olema üksainus materiaalõiguslik alus, s.t peamise või ülekaaluka eesmärgi või valdkonna tõttu nõutav õiguslik alus.
 4.2.2.Kohaldamine käesoleval juhul
 Kavandatava akti peamine eesmärk ja sisu on seotud meretranspordiga. Seepärast on esildatud otsuse materiaalõiguslik alus ELi toimimise lepingu artikli 100 lõige 2.
 4.3.Kokkuvõte
 Esildatud otsuse õiguslik alus peaks olema ELi toimimise lepingu artikli 100 lõige 2 koostoimes ELi toimimise lepingu artikli 218 lõikega 9.
 2018/0056 (NLE)
 Ettepanek:
 NÕUKOGU OTSUS
 seisukoha kohta, mis võetakse Euroopa Liidu nimel Rahvusvahelise Mereorganisatsiooni meresõiduohutuse komitee 99. istungjärgul seoses SOLASi konventsiooni reeglite II-1/1 ja II-1/8-1 muudatuste vastuvõtmise, asjakohaste suuniste (milles käsitletakse kaptenile vee sissevoolu korral antavat püstuvusarvutituge olemasolevate reisilaevade puhul) heakskiitmise ja 2010. aasta rahvusvahelise tulekatse kohaldamise koodeksi muudatuste vastuvõtmisega
 EUROOPA LIIDU NÕUKOGU,
 võttes arvesse Euroopa Liidu toimimise lepingut, eriti selle artikli 100 lõiget 2 koostoimes artikli 218 lõikega 9,
 võttes arvesse Euroopa Komisjoni ettepanekut
 ning arvestades järgmist:
 (1)Meretranspordi valdkonnas võetava liidu meetme eesmärk peaks olema meresõiduohutuse parandamine.
 (2)Rahvusvaheline Mereorganisatsiooni (edaspidi „IMO“) konventsioon jõustus 17. märtsil 1958.
 (3)IMO on meresõidu ohutuse ja turvalisuse eest vastutav ÜRO spetsialiseeritud asutus. Rahvusvahelise Mereorganisatsiooni konventsiooni artikli 28 punkti b kohaselt tagab IMO meresõiduohutuse komitee vahendid, et täita talle kõnealuse konventsiooni, IMO assamblee või IMO nõukogu poolt määratud ülesandeid või kõnealuse artikli kohaldamisalasse kuuluvaid ülesandeid, mida võidakse meresõiduohutuse komiteele määrata mis tahes muu rahvusvahelise õigusakti alusel ja mille IMO on heaks kiitnud.
 (4)Rahvusvaheline konventsioon inimelude ohutusest merel (edaspidi „SOLASi konventsioon“) jõustus 25. mail 1980.
 (5)SOLASi konventsiooni VIII artikli punkti b alapunkti iii kohaselt võib IMO meresõiduohutuse komitee vastu võtta SOLASi konventsiooni muudatusi.
 (6)Meresõiduohutuse komitee peab oma 99. istungjärgul (MSC 99) 16.–25. mail 2018 vastu võtma SOLASi konventsiooni reeglite II-1/1 ja II-1/8-1 muudatused, asjakohased suunised (milles käsitletakse kaptenile vee sissevoolu korral antavat püstuvusarvutituge olemasolevate reisilaevade puhul) ja 2010. aasta rahvusvahelise tulekatse kohaldamise koodeksi (edaspidi „2010. aasta FTP koodeks“) muudatused.
 (7)On asjakohane määrata kindlaks Euroopa Liidu nimel MSC 99. istungjärgul võetav seisukoht, kuna SOLASi konventsiooni reeglite II-1/1 ja II-1/8-1 muudatused, asjakohased suunised (milles käsitletakse kaptenile vee sissevoolu korral antavat püstuvusarvutituge olemasolevate reisilaevade puhul) ja FTP koodeksi muudatused võivad otsustavalt mõjutada järgmise liidu õigusakti sisu: Euroopa Parlamendi ja nõukogu direktiiv 2009/45/EÜ
 4
 .
 (8)SOLASi konventsiooni reeglite II-1/1 ja II-1/8-1 muudatustega ning suunistega, milles käsitletakse kaptenile vee sissevoolu korral antavat püstuvusarvutituge, mille kohaselt edastatakse pärast vee sissevoolu algust kaptenile vigastatud laeva jääkpüstuvuse kohta regulaarselt ajakohastatud teavet, tuleks koostada tegevussuunised olemasolevate reisilaevade jaoks.
 (9)FTP koodeksi muudatustes, milles käsitletakse põrandakattematerjalide (exposed floor coverings) katsetamisega seotud nõudeid, tuleks sätestada, et neid sätteid kohaldataks ka vähem kui 36 reisijaga reisilaevade suhtes.
 (10)Liidu seisukoha esitavad ühiselt ELi liikmesriigid, kes on IMO meresõiduohutuse komitee liikmed,
 ON VASTU VÕTNUD KÄESOLEVA OTSUSE:
 Artikkel 1
 Euroopa Liidu nimel IMO meresõiduohutuse komitee 99. istungjärgul võetav seisukoht on järgmine:
 a) nõustuda SOLASi konventsiooni reeglites II-1/1 ja II-1/8-1 tehtavate muudatuste ning IMO dokumendi MSC 98/23/Add.1 13. lisas esitatud asjakohaste suunistega, mis on lisatud käesolevale otsusele;
 b) nõustuda IMO dokumendi MSC 98/23/Add.1 25. lisas esitatud 2010. aasta rahvusvahelise tulekatse kohaldamise koodeksi 3. lisa tabelis 1 tehtavate muudatustega, mis on lisatud käesolevale otsusele.
 Artikkel 2
 1. Artikli 1 punktides a ja b nimetatud seisukohad esitavad ühiselt ELi liikmesriigid, kes on IMO meresõiduohutuse komitee liikmed.
 2. Artikli 1 punktides a ja b esitatud seisukohtade väiksemates muudatustes lepitakse kokku ilma nõukogu täiendava otsuseta.
 Käesolev otsus on adresseeritud liikmesriikidele.
 Brüssel,
 Nõukogu nimel
 eesistuja
 (1)
 1982. aastal sai organisatsiooni uueks nimeks Rahvusvaheline Mereorganisatsioon (IMO).
 (2)
 Kohtuasi C-399/12: Saksamaa vs. komisjon, ECLI:EU:T:2014:2258, punkt 64.
 (3)
 Kohtuasi C-399/12: Saksamaa vs. komisjon, ECLI:EU:T:2014:2258, punkt 61–64.
 (4)
 Euroopa Parlamendi ja nõukogu 6. mai 2009. aasta direktiiv 2009/45/EÜ reisilaevade ohutuseeskirjade ja -nõuete kohta (ELT L 163, 25.6.2009, lk 1).


type: wikipedia

text:
7 декември е 341-вият ден в годината според григорианския календар (342-ри през високосна). Остават 24 дни до края на годината.
 Събития
 1732 г. – Кралската опера в Лондон отваря врати.
 1787 г. – Делауър става първият американски щат, ратифицирал Конституция на САЩ.
 1815 г. – Френският маршал Мишел Ней е разстрелян, след като е обвинен в държавна измяна от реставрационното правителство на Бурбоните на Луи XVIII за подкрепата, която оказва на Наполеон Бонапарт по време на неговите Сто дни.
 1920 г. – Започва строителството на японския самолетоносач „Акаги“.
 1941 г. – Втората световна война: Японският имперски флот провежда нападение над Пърл Харбър, в резултат на което САЩ обявява война на Япония.
 1949 г. – Китайска гражданска война: Правителството на Република Китай се премества от Нанкин в Тайпе.
 1958 г. – Официално е открита първата отсечка на Автомагистрала А1 в Италия, която свързва Милано с Парма.
 1965 г. – Папа Павел VI и Патриарх Атинагор едновременно отменят взаимните анатеми, наложени от 1054 г.
 1972 г. – Изстреляна е последната лунна пилотирана мисия на Аполо – Аполо 17; докато напуска Земята, екипажът прави снимка, известна като Синьото топче.
 1975 г. – Индонезия напада Източен Тимор.
 1982 г. – Извършена е първата екзекуция в САЩ чрез смъртоносна инжекция в Тексас.
 1988 г. – Арменското земетресение с магнитуд 6,8 по Скалата на Рихтер убива близо 25 000 души; ранените са 15 000, а 400 000 души остават без дом.
 1988 г. – Ясер Арафат признава правото на Израел да съществува като държава.
 1989 г. – В третата и последена част от знаменитата боксова трилогия Шугър Рей Ленърд и Роберто Дуран се бият в Лас Вегас; Ленърд запазва световната си титла в супер средна категория на Световния боксов съвет (WBC) след 12-ия рунд.
 1989 г. – България: основаване на коалицията Съюз на демократичните сили.
 1989 г. – Полският Сейм приема амнистия за политическите затворници.
 1995 г. – Космическият апарат Галилео влиза в орбита около Юпитер, шест месеца след като е изстрелян от космическата совалка Атлантис.
 2004 г. – Хамид Карзай полага клетва като президент на Афганистан.
 2004 г. – Джон Куфур е преизбран за президент на Гана.
 2006 г. – 18 души загиват и 12 са ранени при една от най-големите пътни катастрофи в България – между градски автобус и ТИР край Бяла.
 Родени
 521 г. – Свети Колумба, ирландски християнски мисионер в Шотландия († 597 г.)
 1431 г. – Влад Цепеш, владетел на Трансилвания, първообраз на Дракула († 1476 г.)
 1598 г. – Джовани Лоренцо Бернини, италиански скулптор и архитект († 1680 г.)
 1637 г. – Бернардо Паскини, италиански композитор († 1710 г.)
 1731 г. – Абрахам Хиацинт Анкетил-Дюперон, френски ориенталист († 1805 г.)
 1782 г. – Николаус Опел, германски зоолог († 1820 г.)
 1784 г. – Алън Кънингам, шотландски поет († 1842 г.)
 1801 г. – Йохан Нестрой, австрийски драматург († 1862 г.)
 1810 г. – Теодор Шван, германски биолог († 1882 г.)
 1823 г. – Леополд Кронекер, германски математик († 1891 г.)
 1847 г. – Джордж Гросмит, английски актьор († 1912 г.)
 1860 г. – Джоузеф Кук, министър-председател на Австралия († 1947 г.)
 1863 г. – Пиетро Маскани, италиански композитор († 1945 г.)
 1863 г. – Ричард Сиърс, американски бизнесмен († 1914 г.)
 1869 г. – Стефан Славчев, български военен деец († 1965 г.)
 1873 г. – Уила Катър, американска писателка († 1947 г.)
 1879 г. – Рудолф Фримъл, американски композитор и пианист († 1972 г.)
 1882 г. – Георги Райчев, български писател († 1947 г.)
 1887 г. – Ернст Тох, австрийски композитор († 1964 г.)
 1888 г. – Джойс Кери, ирландски писател († 1957 г.)
 1889 г. – Габриел Марсел, френски философ († 1973 г.)
 1890 г. – Александър Бакулев, руски лекар († 1967 г.)
 1904 г. – Константин Соколски, руски певец († 1991 г.)
 1905 г. – Герард Куйпер, холандски и американски астроном († 1973 г.)
 1906 г. – Доситей, глава на МПЦ († 1981 г.)
 1907 г. – Юрий Тошев, български шахматист († 1975 г.)
 1909 г. – Никола Вапцаров, български поет († 1942 г.)
 1910 г. – Луи Прима, американски певец, актьор и тромпетист († 1978 г.)
 1911 г. – Беньо Тотев, български професор, композитор, диригент и учител († 1987 г.)
 1912 г. – Даниъл Джоунс, уелски класически композитор († 1993 г.)
 1915 г. – Илай Уолък, американски актьор († 2014 г.)
 1924 г. – Марио Соареш, президент на Португалия († 2017 г.)
 1928 г. – Никола Корабов, български режисьор († 2016 г.)
 1928 г. – Ноам Чомски, американски лингвист и политически писател
 1932 г. – Елън Бърстин, американска актриса
 1943 г. – Сюзан Айзъкс, американска авторка и сценаристка
 1948 г. – Гертруд Лойтенегер, швейцарска писателка
 1949 г. – Том Уейтс, американски композитор, певец, музикант и актьор
 1954 г. – Румяна Коцева, българска певица
 1956 г. – Лари Бърд, американски баскетболист
 1962 г. – Петър Александров, български футболист
 1966 г. – Томас Хауъл, американски актьор
 1971 г. – Владимир Акопян, арменски шахматист
 1971 г. – Чейси Лейн, американска актриса
 1972 г. – Христо Христов, български футболист
 1973 г. – Азиз Таш, български поет и преводач
 1977 г. – Костадин Стойков, български волейболист
 1980 г. – Джон Тери, английски футболист
 1983 г. – Нинко Кирилов, български писател
 1984 г. – Роберт Кубица, полски пилот от Формула 1
 1986 г. – Антония Григорова-Бургова, българска състезателка по ски бягане
 Починали
 43 пр.н.е. – Цицерон, древноримски политик (* 106 пр.н.е.)
 283 г. – Евтихий, римски папа (* ? г.)
 1815 г. – Мишел Ней, френски маршал (* 1769 г.)
 1879 г. – Йоун Сиюрдсон, исландски политик (* 1811 г.)
 1902 г. – Томас Наст, германски аниматор (* 1840 г.)
 1906 г. – Ели Дюкомен, швейцарски журналист, Нобелов лауреат (* 1833 г.)
 1920 г. – Станка Николица-Спасо-Еленина, българска поетеса и преводачка (* 1835 г.)
 1937 г. – Антон Страшимиров, български писател (* 1872 г.)
 1944 г. – Мишо Хаджийски, български писател (* 1916 г.)
 1947 г. – Никълъс Мъри Бътлър, американски университетски президент, Нобелов лауреат (* 1862 г.)
 1956 г. – Решат Нури, турски писател (* 1889 г.)
 1964 г. – Николай Аничков, руски патоморфолог (* 1885 г.)
 1970 г. – Руб Голдбърг, американски аниматор (* 1889 г.)
 1973 г. – Макс Хоркхаймер, германски социолог (* 1895 г.)
 1975 г. – Торнтън Уайлдър, американски драматург (* 1897 г.)
 1979 г. – Николас Борн, немски писател (* 1937 г.)
 1985 г. – Робърт Грейвс, английски учен (* 1895 г.)
 1988 г. – Мирон Иванов, български сценарист (* 1931 г.)
 1990 г. – Хорст Бинек, немски писател (* 1930 г.)
 1990 г. – Джоан Бенет, американска актриса (* 1910 г.)
 1992 г. – Георги Пирински-старши, български политик (* 1901 г.)
 1993 г. – Блаже Конески, македонски писател (* 1921 г.)
 1993 г. – Волфганг Паул, германски физик, Нобелов лауреат (* 1913 г.)
 1993 г. – Феликс Уфуе Боани, 1-ви президент на Кот д'Ивоар (* 1905 г.)
 1996 г. – Михаил Пенчев, български режисьор (* 1926 г.)
 1999 г. – Димитър Стоянов, български политик (* 1928 г.)
 2002 г. – Илия Темков, български диригент (* 1923 г.)
 2006 г. – Любен Беров, министър-председател на България (* 1925 г.)
 2008 г. – Иван Росенов, български режисьор (* 1951 г.)
 2014 г. – Манго, италиански певец (* 1954 г.)
 Празници
 ООН – Международен ден на гражданската авиация
 Армения – Ден на памет за жертвите от земетресението (1988 г.)
 Колумбия – Ден на свещите (Día de las Velitas) – начало на коледните празници, посветен на непорочното зачатие на Дева Мария
 САЩ – Ден на възпоменанието (Пърл Харбър, 1941 г.)
 C07


type: legislation

jurisdiction: EU

text:
 14.5.2011
 PL
 Dziennik Urzędowy Unii Europejskiej
 L 125/10
 ROZPORZĄDZENIE WYKONAWCZE KOMISJI (UE) NR 466/2011
 z dnia 13 maja 2011 r.
 ustanawiające standardowe wartości celne w przywozie dla ustalania ceny wejścia niektórych owoców i warzyw
 KOMISJA EUROPEJSKA,
 uwzględniając Traktat o funkcjonowaniu Unii Europejskiej,
 uwzględniając rozporządzenie Rady (WE) nr 1234/2007 z dnia 22 października 2007 r. ustanawiające wspólną organizację rynków rolnych oraz przepisy szczegółowe dotyczące niektórych produktów rolnych („rozporządzenie o jednolitej wspólnej organizacji rynku”) (1),
 uwzględniając rozporządzenie Komisji (WE) nr 1580/2007 z dnia 21 grudnia 2007 r. ustanawiające przepisy wykonawcze do rozporządzeń Rady (WE) nr 2200/96, (WE) nr 2201/96 i (WE) nr 1182/2007 w sektorze owoców i warzyw (2), w szczególności jego art. 138 ust. 1,
 a także mając na uwadze, co następuje:
 Rozporządzenie (WE) nr 1580/2007 przewiduje, w zastosowaniu wyników wielostronnych negocjacji handlowych Rundy Urugwajskiej, kryteria do ustalania przez Komisję standardowych wartości celnych dla przywozu z krajów trzecich, w odniesieniu do produktów i okresów określonych w części A załącznika XV do wspomnianego rozporządzenia,
 PRZYJMUJE NINIEJSZE ROZPORZĄDZENIE:
 Artykuł 1
 Standardowe wartości celne w przywozie, o których mowa w art. 138 rozporządzenia (WE) nr 1580/2007, są ustalone w załączniku do niniejszego rozporządzenia.
 Artykuł 2
 Niniejsze rozporządzenie wchodzi w życie z dniem 14 maja 2011 r.
 Niniejsze rozporządzenie wiąże w całości i jest bezpośrednio stosowane we wszystkich państwach członkowskich.
 Sporządzono w Brukseli dnia 13 maja 2011 r.
 W imieniu Komisji, za Przewodniczącego,
 José Manuel SILVA RODRÍGUEZ
 Dyrektor Generalny ds. Rolnictwa i Rozwoju Obszarów Wiejskich
 (1) Dz.U. L 299 z 16.11.2007, s. 1.
 (2) Dz.U. L 350 z 31.12.2007, s. 1.
 ZAŁĄCZNIK
 Standardowe wartości celne w przywozie dla ustalania ceny wejścia niektórych owoców i warzyw
 (EUR/100 kg)
 Kod CN
 Kod krajów trzecich (1)
 Standardowa stawka celna w przywozie
 0702 00 00
 MA
 63,1
 TN
 102,3
 TR
 68,9
 ZZ
 78,1
 0707 00 05
 TR
 108,9
 ZZ
 108,9
 0709 90 70
 MA
 86,8
 TR
 123,4
 ZZ
 105,1
 0709 90 80
 EC
 27,0
 ZZ
 27,0
 0805 10 20
 EG
 56,5
 IL
 55,5
 MA
 45,5
 TN
 54,9
 TR
 71,6
 ZZ
 56,8
 0805 50 10
 TR
 53,9
 ZZ
 53,9
 0808 10 80
 AR
 91,1
 BR
 71,3
 CA
 107,1
 CL
 84,0
 CN
 96,2
 NZ
 114,9
 US
 172,7
 UY
 59,9
 ZA
 84,5
 ZZ
 98,0
 (1) Nomenklatura krajów ustalona w rozporządzeniu Komisji (WE) nr 1833/2006 (Dz.U. L 354 z 14.12.2006, s. 19). Kod „ZZ” odpowiada „innym pochodzeniom”.


text:
Antimon su poznavali još stari Egipćani 2500. – 2200. prije Krista. U srednjem vijeku kemičari su, uz antimon, poznavali arsen i bizmut. Atimon se kao i arsen, pojavljuje u sivoj metalnoj i žutoj nemetalnoj modifikaciji. Antimon je sivobijeli sjajan metal. Krt je, pa se može kovati i lijevati samo u slitinama s drugim metalima. Kristalna mu je rešetka kao i ona u metalnog arsena. Pare antimona sastoje se od molekula Sb4 i Sb2. Dodaje se olovu pri izradi rešetke za ploče akumulatora da bi bile tvrđe. Njegovi se spojevi upotrebljavaju za izradu boja, keramike i emajla te u industriji stakla i gume. Pri običnoj temperaturi je postojan na zraku, a zagrijavanjem iznad tališta, izgara plavkastobijelim plamenom u antimonov trioksid (Sb2O3).
 Ime mu dolazi od grčkih riječi anti i monos što znači onaj koji ne dolazi sam. Simbol dolazi od latinskog naziva za antimonov sulfid - stibium. Žuti nemetalni antimon je nestabilna alotropska modifikacija koja lako prelazi u stabilni sivi metalni antimon. Sivi antimon ima svojstvo da mu se volumen pri taljenju smanjuje. Na zraku je stabilan ali ako se zagrije izgara. Lako se otapa u oksidirajućim kiselinama. Antimon i njegovi spojevi su toksični. Nadražuje na dodir.
 Jedan od glavnih izvora ovog elementa u prirodi je mineral antimonit, a ovaj element nalazimo i u kemijskom sastavu minerala bornotita, te boulangerita.
 Povijest
 Od davnina je poznato emetičko djelovanje antimonovih spojeva (emetici − sredstva za povraćanje, grč. ἐμετıκός: koji izaziva povraćanje). Stari su Rimljani u čašu načinjenu od antimona, pocula emetica, stavljali vino. Ustajalo vino iz takve čaše izazivalo je povraćanje, a popularnost takvih čaša nastavila se i u srednjem vijeku. Prenosile su se s koljena i koljena i čuvale generacijama, a zabilježena je i njihova uporaba u samostanima. Redovnici koji su popili koju čašicu vina previše drugo su jutro bili kažnjavani ispijanjem ustajalog vina iz čaša od antimona.
 „Ljekovita” svojstva antimona svoj su vrhunac dosegnula u 17. stoljeću, kada su pehari od antimona bili vrlo popularni. Ljekarnici su u to vrijeme pravili i „sriješ za bljuvanje”, tartarus emeticus, otapanjem antimonova oksida u vodenoj otopini sriješa, tj. vinskog kamenca (kalijev tartarat), kristaličnog taloga koji nastaje na stijenkama vinskih bačava. Kasnije je otkriveno da je riječ o antimonovoj soli vinske kiseline − antimonilovu kalijevom tartaratu kemijske formule K2Sb2(C4H2O6)2.
 Antimon je „zlatno doba” doživio u 18. stoljeću jer se tada smatrao lijekom za gotovo sve tegobe. Jedna je od njegovih najpoznatijih žrtava najvjerojatnije i čuveni skladatelj Wolfgang A. Mozart (1756. − 1791.) koji se nenadano razbolio ujesen 1791. godine. Svojoj je supruzi Constanzi 20. listopada iste godine rekao kako vjeruje da je otrovan. I možda je bio u pravu. Nije ga otrovao skladatelj i dirigent Antonio Salieri (1750. − 1825.) kojeg su suvremenici optužili da je iz zavisti otrovao Mozarta. (Muzikologe ta teorija o Mozartovoj smrti više ne privlači, ali je ostala zanimljiva poetskoj mašti. O toj je temi nastao i dojmljiv film Amadeus Miloša Formana iz 1984. godine.) Teoriju o Mozartovom trovanju predložio je 1991. godine Ian James iz London's Royal Free Hospitala. Njegovu smrt povezao je s antimonom, koji mu je dao njegov liječnik kako bi ga izliječio, a ne otrovao.
 Izvori
 Kemijski elementi


text:
Мощността е физична величина (означавана обикновено с P) и представлява отношението на пренесената енергия (или работата извършена от дадена сила) за определен интервал от време към големината на този интервал.
 Или казано по друг начин, частната производна на аналитичния израз на енергията спрямо времето – .
 – моментна мощност
 – средната стойност на мощността за периода от време Δt.
 Измервателни единици
 Единицата за измерване на мощността в системата SI е ват (означение: W), която се равнява на един джаул за секунда. В наши популярни издания се среща и несистемното означение Вт.
 Друга измервателна единица е конската сила (българско означение: к.с.; няма общоприето международно означение). Това е остаряла единица, която все още се използва в някои области. Равна е приблизително на 3/4 kW (вижте статията конска сила за подробности).
 Мощност в механиката
 Ако на движещо се тяло действа сила, то тази сила извършва работа. Мощността в този случай се изчислява по формулата:
 – сила, – скорост, – ъгъл между вектора на скоростта и силата.
 Мощност в електротехниката
 Моментна електрическа мощност
 Моментната електрическа мощност, отделяна на елемент от електрическата верига се определя със следната формула:
 където и са моментните стойности на тока и
 напрежението върху елемента.
 Ако този елемент от веригата е резистор c електрическо съпротивление , то
 Мощност на постоянен ток
 Тъй като стойностите на тока и напрежението са постоянни и равни на моментните стойности във всеки момент от време, то средната мощност може да се изчисли от формулата:
 Мощности при променлив ток
 При променливи напрежения и токове се дефинират следните мощности:
 активна мощност, означение ; измервателна единица: ват – W
 реактивна мощност, означение ; измервателна единица: волтампер реактивен – VAr
 пълна мощност, означение ; измервателна единица: волтампер – VA.
 Активна мощност
 Активната мощност се определя като средна стойност на моментната мощност за един период на променливите напрежения и токове:
 ;
 е моментната мощност, а
 ,
 са моментните стойности на напрежението и тока;
 е периодът на променливите напрежение и ток.
 При синусоидални напрежения и токове:
 ;
 тук и са амплитудните стойности на напрежението и тока,
 е ъгловата честота, ;
 е честотата, а
 е фазовата разлика между напрежението и тока.
 Ако токът и напрежението не са синусоидални, те трябва да се разложат на синусоидални хармоници в ред на Фурие. Тогава електрическата мощност е равна на сумата от съответните средни мощности на отделните хармоници.
 След изчисление от интеграла се получава:
 или
 ;
 където
 ;
 са ефективните стойности на напрежението и тока,
 а се нарича фактор на мощността.
 Реактивна мощност
 Реактивната мощност се въвежда за по-лесно изчисление на фактора на мощността в практиката. При синусоидални напрежения и токове тя се определя от израза
 .
 Физическият смисъл на тази величина е големината на амплитудата на моментната мощност върху реактивните елементи (елементи с индуктивност и/или капацитет).
 Пълна мощност
 Пълната мощност се определя от израза
 и при синусоидални напрежения и токове се разглежда като максималната стойност на активната мощност , която се получава при .
 Мощности в трифазните вериги
 За трифазна симетрична система:
 Активна мощност
 ,
 тук и са фазовите ефективни стойности на напрежението и тока,
 а е фазовата разлика между тях.
 Също така
 ,
 където и са линейните ефективни стойности на напрежението и тока.
 Реактивна мощност
 ,
 тук и са фазовите ефективни стойности на напрежението и тока,
 а е фазовата разлика между тях.
 Също така
 ,
 където и са линейните ефективни стойности на напрежението и тока.
 Пълна мощност
 ,
 тук и са фазовите ефективни стойности на напрежението и тока.
 и
 ,
 където и са линейните ефективни стойности на напрежението и тока.
 При трифазни несиметрични системи трифазната мощност се изчислява като сума от мощностите на трите фази или се използва методът на симетричните съставящи.
 Вижте също
 Конска сила
 Литература
 Ананиев, Л. Г., П. Ил. Мавров, Основи на електротехниката, ISBN 954-03-0439-3, стр. 64
 Шишков, Ат. Курс по радиоелектроника. Книжка 1. Слаботокова електротехника, ISBN ??????, стр. 30
 Тодоров, В. Кратък енциклопедичен речник по физика, ISBN 954-402-009-8, стр. 188
 Фархи, С.Л., С.П.Папазов. Теоретична електротехника ч. I, София, 1999, Техника.
 Бележки
 Физични величини
 Класическа механика
 Електротехника


type: other

jurisdiction: US

text: b" Issue Date\n January 26, 2012\n \xef\x80\xa0\n Audit Report Number\n 2012-CH-1001\n\n\n\n\nTO: Shawn Sweet, Director of Public Housing Hub, 5DPH\n\n //signed//\nFROM: Kelly Anderson, Regional Inspector General for Audit, 5AGA\n\nSUBJECT: The Gallia Metropolitan Housing Authority, Bidwell, OH, Did Not Always\n Administer Its Grant in Accordance with Recovery Act and HUD\n Requirements\n\n HIGHLIGHTS\n\n What We Audited and Why\n\n We audited the Gallia Metropolitan Housing Authority\xe2\x80\x99s American Recovery and\n Reinvestment Act of 2009 Public Housing Capital Fund Stimulus (formula) grant.\n The audit was part of the activities in our fiscal year 2011 annual audit plan. We\n selected the Authority based upon our analysis of risk factors relating to the\n housing agencies in Region V\xe2\x80\x99s1 jurisdiction and a request by the U.S.\n Department of Housing and Urban Development\xe2\x80\x99s (HUD) Office of Public and\n Indian Housing. Our objective was to determine whether the Authority\n administered its grant in accordance with Recovery Act, HUD\xe2\x80\x99s, and its\n requirements.\n\n\n What We Found\n\n The Authority did not administer its grant in accordance with Recovery Act,\n HUD\xe2\x80\x99s, and its requirements. Specifically, it (1) incorrectly stated in its\n solicitations for appliances both the make and model number of the appliances\n required instead of providing only a general description, (2) did not award a\n contract for 5 ranges to the lowest bidder, (3) purchased 143 ranges and 142\n\n1\n Region V includes the States of Indiana, Illinois, Ohio, Michigan, Minnesota, and Wisconsin.\n\x0c refrigerators when its plan stated that it would purchase 140 of each, (4) replaced\n 13 refrigerators and 10 ranges that still had useful life, and (5) did not accurately\n report in FederalReporting.gov the number of jobs created and retained. The\n problems occurred because the Authority lacked adequate procedures and controls\n regarding the administration of its grant funds to ensure that expenditures and\n grant reporting met Recovery Act, HUD, and its requirements. As a result, it\n improperly used $11,397 in formula grant funds contrary to program\n requirements, and its reporting of Recovery Act-funded activities on\n FederalReporting.gov was inaccurate.\n\n We informed the Authority\xe2\x80\x99s executive director and the Director of HUD\xe2\x80\x99s\n Cleveland Office of Public Housing of minor deficiencies through a\n memorandum, dated January 5, 2012.\n\nWhat We Recommend\n\n We recommend that the Director of HUD\xe2\x80\x99s Cleveland Office of Public Housing\n require the Authority to (1) reimburse $11,397 from non-Federal funds to HUD\n for transmission to the U.S. Treasury for the inappropriate use of the funds cited\n in finding 1 and (2) implement adequate procedures to ensure that its procurement\n policies are followed.\n\n For each recommendation without a management decision, please respond and\n provide status reports in accordance with HUD Handbook 2000.06, REV-4.\n Please furnish us copies of any correspondence or directives issued because of the\n audit.\n\n\nAuditee\xe2\x80\x99s Response\n\n We provided our review results to the Director of HUD\xe2\x80\x99s Cleveland Office of\n Public Housing and the Authority\xe2\x80\x99s executive director during the audit. We also\n provided our discussion draft audit report to the Authority\xe2\x80\x99s executive director, its\n board chairman, and HUD\xe2\x80\x99s staff during the audit. We held an exit conference\n with the Authority\xe2\x80\x99s executive director on January 9, 2012.\n\n We asked the Authority\xe2\x80\x99s executive director to provide comments on our\n discussion draft audit report by January 9, 2012. The Authority\xe2\x80\x99s executive\n director provided written comments, dated January 9, 2012. The executive\n director generally disagreed with the report finding. The complete text of the\n auditee\xe2\x80\x99s response, along with our evaluation of that response, can be found in\n appendix B of this report.\n\n\n\n\n 2\n\x0c TABLE OF CONTENTS\n\nBackground and Objective 4\n\nResults of Audit\n Finding 1: The Authority Did Not Always Administer Its Grant in Accordance\n With Federal and Its Requirements 5\nScope and Methodology 10\n\nInternal Controls 11\n\nAppendixes\n A. Schedule of Questioned Costs 13\n B. Auditee Comments and OIG\xe2\x80\x99s Evaluation 14\n C. Federal and Authority Requirements 20\n\n\n\n\n 3\n\x0c BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE\n\nThe Gallia Metropolitan Housing Authority was established in 1974 under section 3735.27 of the\nOhio Revised Code. The Authority is governed by a seven-member board of commissioners with\ntwo members each appointed by the Gallia County Commissioners, Gallia County Common\nPleas Court, and Gallipolis City Commissioners, and one member appointed by the Gallipolis\ncity manager. The board appoints the executive director. The executive director has general\nsupervision over the administration of the business and affairs of the Authority and is charged\nwith the management of the Authority\xe2\x80\x99s housing programs and projects.\n\nThe Public Housing Capital Fund Stimulus (formula) Recovery Act Funded grant is administered\nby the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development\xe2\x80\x99s (HUD) Office of Public Housing.\nThe grant funds are available for capital and management activities, including development,\nfinancing, and modernization of public housing projects.\n\nOn February 17, 2009, the President signed the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. The\nRecovery Act provided an additional $4 billion to public housing agencies to carry out capital and\nmanagement activities, including modernization and development of public housing. The Recovery\nAct required that $3 billion of these funds be distributed as formula grants and the remaining $1\nbillion be distributed through a competitive process. In March 2009, the Authority received a\nformula grant for $266,000.\n\nThe Recovery Act required public housing agencies to (1) obligate 100 percent of the funds\nwithin 1 year of the date on which funds became available to the agency for obligation, (2)\nexpend 60 percent of the funds within 2 years, and (3) expend 100 percent of the funds within 3\nyears of the date on which funds became available to the agency. As of August 2010, the\nAuthority had obligated and expended 100 percent of its formula grant funds.\n\nOur objective was to determine whether the Authority followed Federal and its requirements\nregarding the administration of its Recovery Act Capital Fund grants. Specifically, we wanted to\ndetermine whether the Authority properly procured contracts related to the above-mentioned\nformula grant and appropriately used Federal funds for eligible expenditures.\n\n\n\n\n 4\n\x0c RESULTS OF AUDIT\n\nFinding 1: The Authority Did Not Always Administer Its Grant in\nAccordance with Federal and Its Requirements\nThe Authority lacked adequate procedures and controls regarding the administration of its grant\nfunds to ensure that expenditures and grant reporting met Recovery Act, HUD\xe2\x80\x99s, and its\nrequirements. Specifically, it (1) incorrectly stated in its solicitations for appliances both the\nmake and model number of the appliances required instead of providing only a general\ndescription, (2) did not award a contract for 5 ranges to the lowest bidder, (3) purchased 143\nranges and 142 refrigerators when its plan stated that it would purchase 140 of each, (4) replaced\n13 refrigerators and 10 ranges that still had useful life, and (5) did not accurately report in\nFederalReporting.gov the number of jobs created and retained. The problems occurred because\nthe Authority lacked adequate procedures and controls regarding the administration of its grant\nfunds to ensure that expenditures met Recovery Act, HUD\xe2\x80\x99s, and its requirements. As a result, it\nimproperly used $11,397 in formula grant funds contrary to program requirements and its\nreporting of Recovery Act-funded activities on FederalReporting.gov was inaccurate.\n\n\n The Authority Did Not\n Administer Its Grant Correctly\n\n The Authority did not ensure that the contracts for refrigerators and ranges were\n awarded to a supplier that provided the best overall value to the Authority. Federal\n regulations state that all procurement transactions should be conducted in a manner\n providing full and open competition, and specifying a brand name product is\n considered to be restrictive of competition. The Authority\xe2\x80\x99s procurement policy\n states that the Authority must provide for a procurement system that promotes\n competition in contracting and procures the most favorable prices available. The\n Authority stated in its solicitations for the appliances both the make and model\n number of the appliances required instead of providing a general description of the\n products needed. In its solicitation for refrigerators, it specified 135 units of a\n Hotpoint model number and 7 units of a General Electric model number. In its\n solicitation for ranges, it specified 135 units of a General Electric model number, 5\n units of another General Electric model number, and 2 units of a Hotpoint model\n number.\n\n The Authority\xe2\x80\x99s executive director said he knew that the make and model numbers\n listed in the solicitation were the appliances that met the Authority\xe2\x80\x99s specifications.\n However, he also knew that Federal procurement policy prohibited listing the\n specific make and model numbers in a solicitation. Therefore, after submitting the\n solicitation, he knew that he had made a mistake. HUD\xe2\x80\x99s regulations at 24 CFR\n (Code of Federal Regulation) 85.36(c)(1)(vi) state that specifying only a brand name\n\n 5\n\x0c product instead of allowing an equal product to be offered is considered to be\n restrictive on competition. As a result of this restriction, HUD lacked assurance that\n the Authority effectively managed its grant.\n\n The Authority did not award the contract for five Americans with Disabilities Act\n (ADA)-compliant ranges to the lowest bidder. The Authority\xe2\x80\x99s procurement policy\n states that it must provide for a procurement system of quality and integrity, which\n ensures that supplies and services are procured efficiently, effectively, and at the\n most favorable prices available. The Authority awarded the contract for 142 ranges\n to Sears Commercial One, the lowest bidder; however, it realized that the Sears\n Commercial One winning quote included specifications for five ADA-compliant\n ranges that were not self-cleaning, which did not meet ADA standards.\n\n\nFormula Grant Funds Used to\nPurchase Unnecessary\nAppliances\n\n The Authority decided to purchase the five ranges from General Electric Company\n because it was already purchasing the refrigerators from the company and because\n Sears Commercial One could not meet General Electric Company\xe2\x80\x99s price.\n\n However, the Authority did not go back to the original bids to determine which bid,\n excluding Sears Commercial One, was the lowest for the five ranges and it did not\n consider the bid from Menards. The executive director said it was an oversight that\n the Authority did not go back to the original bids to determine which bid, excluding\n Sears Commercial One, was the lowest bid and it should have. Menards\xe2\x80\x99 bid, at\n $1,290, was the lowest bid and $1,247 lower than General Electric Company\xe2\x80\x99s cost\n of $2,537. By not considering Menard\xe2\x80\x99s bid, the Authority misused $1,247 of its\n formula grant funds when it failed to comply with Federal and its requirements.\n\n The Authority administers two public housing complexes that have a total of 140\n units: Gallia Metro Estates, which has 100 units, and Rio Grande Estates with 40\n units. One of the items it reported in its plan in FederalReporting.gov was that it\n would use Recovery Act funds to replace refrigerators and ranges in nearly all of its\n public housing units, on an as needed basis. The Authority also indicated that it\n planned to modernize administrative and community areas.\n\n The Authority was required to provide complete and accurate information in\n FederalReporting.gov. At a maximum, its plan would have permitted it to use\n formula grant funds for the purchase of a refrigerator and range for each of its public\n housing units, or 140 ranges and refrigerators. Contrary to its plan, the Authority\n used formula grant funds to purchase 143 ranges and 142 refrigerators. It replaced\n all 140 ranges and 140 refrigerators that were in its public housing units. However,\n 10 of the ranges and 13 refrigerators were replaced before the end of their useful life\n and not in accordance with the Authority\xe2\x80\x99s plan to replace appliances on an as\n\n 6\n\x0cneeded basis. According to HUD\xe2\x80\x99s Office of Public and Indian Housing Notice,\nPIH-2009-16, with proper preventative maintenance and routine repairs of minor\ncomponents, refrigerators can be expected to perform for 6 to 10 years. The\nNational Association of Home Builders\xe2\x80\x99 estimates the life spans of electric ranges\nand refrigerators to be 14 to 17 years. Using HUD\xe2\x80\x99s and the National Association of\nHome Builders estimates, we determined that a reasonable estimate for the life span\nof refrigerators and ranges was 8 years. While the Authority replaced the 13\nrefrigerators and 10 ranges contrary to its plan on FederalReporting,gov, it put the\nappliances into its inventory for future use.\n\nWhile the Authority\xe2\x80\x99s plan stated that formula grant funds would be used to replace\nranges and refrigerators in nearly all of its 140 public housing units, it purchased a\nrange and refrigerator for its administrative office, which is also used as a\ncommunity room and lunchroom. It also purchased a refrigerator for its\nmaintenance shop. Rather than purchase the additional ranges and refrigerators with\nstimulus grant funds, the Authority could have used a range and two refrigerators\nthat were already in its inventory for the Authority\xe2\x80\x99s administrative office and\nmaintenance shop. Further, an additional ADA-compliant range was purchased to\nreplace a range for a handicap-accessible unit, which required a cook top and wall\noven. However, the Authority did not return the incorrectly purchased ADA-\ncompliant range for credit.\n\nThe Authority stated that the quantity of appliances purchased with formula grant\nfunds was more than accounted for on its Annual Statement/Performance and\nEvaluation Report, form HUD-50075.1, submitted to HUD. On this report, it\nestimated that it would purchase a total of 315 appliances, to include refrigerators,\nranges, and range hoods, which was 30 more appliances than it actually purchased.\nThe executive director said that these totals were only estimates and he did not know\nhow the quantity of 315 was arrived at. As justification for purchasing a range and\ntwo refrigerators for the Authority\xe2\x80\x99s administrative office and maintenance shop, he\nsaid that the project description also included the modernization of administrative\nand community areas. As a result of its actions, the Authority misused $1,863 ($855\nfor two refrigerators + $492 for two ranges + $516 for one ADA-compliant range) of\nits formula grant funds when it failed to follow its plan for the use of formula grant\nfunds.\n\nThe 13 refrigerators replaced with formula grant funds were between 5 years, 7\nmonths and 1 year, 5 months old. The 10 ranges replaced with formula grant funds\nwere between 3 years, 3 months and 7 months old. The Authority stated that the use\nof formula grant funds for the purchase of these appliances was acceptable because\nit did not actually replace these 23 appliances; instead, they were moved to its\ninventory. The Authority stated that an inventory of additional appliances had\nhistorically been maintained to prudently manage its public housing units.\nAdditionally, these appliances were purchased at a cost which was significantly\nlower than if they had been purchased individually.\n\n\n\n 7\n\x0c The expenditure of formula grant funds for the purchase of these 23 appliances was\n an ineligible expense because the Authority\xe2\x80\x99s plan stated that the appliances would\n be replaced on an as needed basis and these 23 appliances did not need to be\n replaced since they still had useful life. If the Authority\xe2\x80\x99s intention was to use\n formula grant funds to enhance its inventory of appliances, this intention could have\n been included in its plan. Since the Authority did not include this intention in its\n plan, it misused $8,287 ($5,557 for 13 refrigerators + $2,214 for 9 ranges + $516 for\n 1 ADA-compliant range) of its formula grant funds when it failed to follow its plan\n regarding the use of the funds.\n\nInaccurate Information Was\nReported\n\n Contrary to Recovery Act reporting requirements, the Authority did not\n accurately report the number of jobs created and retained using its formula grant\n funds. Section 1512(c) of the Recovery Act requires recipients of Recovery Act\n funds to submit quarterly reports. These quarterly reports are submitted in\n FederalReporting.gov and become available to the public on the Recovery.gov\n Web site. Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Memorandum 10-08\n requires recipients of Recovery Act funds to submit estimates of jobs created and\n jobs retained for each project or activity in their recipient reports. The Recovery\n Act reports submitted by the Authority starting with the third quarter of 2009\n through the third quarter of 2010, its final report, stated that the total number of\n jobs created was two due to the retention of one full-time architect and one full-\n time administrative person.\n\n The Authority could not provide documentation to show how it determined the\n number of jobs created or that the number of jobs reported was correct. The\n Authority\xe2\x80\x99s executive director stated that the Authority should have reported that\n zero jobs were created. The mistake was made because he did not fully\n understand the reporting requirements at the time he submitted the reports.\n\n The public did not have access to accurate information regarding the number of jobs\n created and retained with formula grant funds. As a result, the Authority\xe2\x80\x99s use of\n formula grant funds was not transparent.\n\nConclusion\n\n\n The Authority did not administer its grant in accordance with Federal and its\n requirements. Specifically, it (1) incorrectly stated in its solicitations for\n appliances both the make and model number of the appliances required instead of\n providing only a general description, (2) did not award a contract for 5 ranges to\n the lowest bidder, (3) purchased 143 ranges and 142 refrigerators when its plan\n stated that it would purchase 140 of each, (4) replaced 13 refrigerators and 10\n ranges that still had useful life, and (5) did not accurately report in\n\n 8\n\x0c FederalReporting.gov the number of jobs created and retained. The problems\n occurred because the Authority lacked adequate procedures and controls\n regarding the administration of its grant funds to ensure that expenditures met\n Recovery Act, HUD\xe2\x80\x99s, and its requirements. As a result, it improperly used\n $11,397 in formula grant funds contrary to program requirements and its reporting\n of Recovery Act-funded activities on FederalReporting.gov was inaccurate.\n\n\nRecommendations\n\n\n We recommend that the Director of HUD\xe2\x80\x99s Cleveland Office of Public Housing\n require the Authority to\n\n 1A. Reimburse $11,397 to HUD from non-Federal funds for transmission to the\n U.S. Treasury for the inappropriate use of the funds cited in this finding.\n\n 1B. Implement adequate procedures and controls to ensure that its procurement\n policies are followed.\n\n\n\n\n 9\n\x0c SCOPE AND METHODOLOGY\n\nTo accomplish our objectives, we reviewed\n\n \xef\x82\xb7 Applicable laws and regulations; HUD\xe2\x80\x99s program requirements at 24 CFR Parts 50, 58,\n 85, 135, and 968; HUD Office of Public and Indian Housing notices; HUD Handbook\n 7460.8, REV-2; the Recovery Act, OMB Circular A-87 and Memorandum 10-08; and\n The Davis-Bacon Act, as amended (revised April 2009).\n\n \xef\x82\xb7 The Authority\xe2\x80\x99s accounting records, bank statements, contract files, policies and\n procedures, board meeting minutes for March 2009 through July 2011, organization\n chart, program annual contributions contracts with HUD, and 5-year annual plans.\n\n \xef\x82\xb7 The Authority\xe2\x80\x99s Recovery Act reports submitted to FederalReporting.gov and HUD\xe2\x80\x99s\n Recovery Act Management and Performance System.\n\n \xef\x82\xb7 HUD\xe2\x80\x99s monitoring report for the Authority\xe2\x80\x99s Recovery Act funds and projects, dated\n December 15, 2011, and the independent auditors\xe2\x80\x99 reports on the Authority for fiscal\n years 2008, 2009, and 2010.\n\n \xef\x82\xb7 HUD\xe2\x80\x99s files for the Authority.\n\nWe also interviewed the Authority\xe2\x80\x99s employees and HUD staff.\n\nWe reviewed the Authority\xe2\x80\x99s $266,000 Recovery Act grant. We reviewed 100 percent of the\nsupporting hardcopy documentation, including bank statements and invoices, for all\nexpenditures.\n\nWe performed our onsite audit work at the Authority\xe2\x80\x99s office at 381 Buck Ridge Road, Number\n14, Bidwell, OH, between August 30 and October 27, 2011. The audit covered the period March\n18, 2009, through August 31, 2011, but was expanded as determined necessary.\n\nWe conducted the audit in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards.\nThose standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain sufficient, appropriate\nevidence to provide a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit\nobjective. We believe that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings\nand conclusions based on our audit objective.\n\n\n\n\n 10\n\x0c INTERNAL CONTROLS\n\nInternal control is a process adopted by those charged with governance and management,\ndesigned to provide reasonable assurance about the achievement of the organization\xe2\x80\x99s mission,\ngoals, and objectives with regard to\n\n \xef\x82\xb7 Effectiveness and efficiency of operations,\n \xef\x82\xb7 Reliability of financial reporting, and\n \xef\x82\xb7 Compliance with applicable laws and regulations.\n\nInternal controls comprise the plans, policies, methods, and procedures used to meet the\norganization\xe2\x80\x99s mission, goals, and objectives. Internal controls include the processes and\nprocedures for planning, organizing, directing, and controlling program operations as well as the\nsystems for measuring, reporting, and monitoring program performance.\n\n\n\n Relevant Internal Controls\n\n We determined that the following internal controls were relevant to our audit\n objective:\n\n \xef\x82\xb7 Effectiveness and efficiency of operations \xe2\x80\x93 Policies and procedures that the\n audited entity has implemented to provide reasonable assurance that a\n program meets its objectives, while considering cost effectiveness and\n efficiency.\n\n \xef\x82\xb7 Reliability of financial reporting \xe2\x80\x93 Policies and procedures that management\n has implemented to provide reasonable assurance regarding the reliability of\n financial reporting and the preparation of financial statements in accordance\n with generally accepted accounting principles.\n\n \xef\x82\xb7 Compliance with applicable laws and regulations \xe2\x80\x93 Policies and procedures\n that management has implemented to reasonably ensure that resource use is\n consistent with laws and regulations.\n\n We assessed the relevant controls identified above.\n\n A deficiency in internal control exists when the design or operation of a control does\n not allow management or employees, in the normal course of performing its\n assigned functions, the reasonable opportunity to prevent, detect, or correct (1)\n impairments to effectiveness or efficiency of operations, (2) misstatements in\n financial or performance information, or (3) violations of laws and regulations on a\n timely basis.\n\n\n 11\n\x0c We evaluated internal controls related to the audit objective in accordance with\n generally accepted government auditing standards. Our evaluation of internal\n controls was not designed to provide assurance on the effectiveness of the internal\n control structure as a whole. Accordingly, we do not express an opinion on the\n effectiveness of the Authority\xe2\x80\x99s internal control.\n\nSignificant Deficiency\n\n Based on our review, we believe that the following item is a significant deficiency:\n\n \xef\x82\xb7 The Authority lacked adequate policies and procedures to ensure that (1)\n contracts awarded provided the best overall value to the Authority, (2) it\n followed its own plan, and (3) it accurately reported Recovery Act-funded\n jobs in FederalReporting.gov (see finding).\n\nSeparate Communication of\nMinor Deficiencies\n\n\n We informed the Authority\xe2\x80\x99s executive director and the Director of HUD\xe2\x80\x99s\n Cleveland Office of Public Housing of minor deficiencies through a memorandum,\n dated January 5, 2012.\n\n\n\n\n 12\n\x0c APPENDIXES\n\nAppendix A\n\n SCHEDULE OF QUESTIONED COSTS\n\n\n Recommendation\n number Ineligible 1/\n 1A $11,397\n Total $11,397\n\n\n1/ Ineligible costs are those costs charged to a HUD-financed or HUD-insured program or\n activity that the auditor believes are not allowable by law; contract; or Federal, State, or\n local policies or regulations.\n\n\n\n\n 13\n\x0cAppendix B\n\n AUDITEE COMMENTS AND OIG\xe2\x80\x99S EVALUATION\n\nRef to OIG Evaluation Auditee Comments\n\n GALLIA METROPOLITAN HOUSING AUTHORITY DISCUSSION DRAFT AUDIT REPORT COMMENTS\n January 9, 2012\n\n The following comments respond to each of the five sections of Finding 1, as stated in the discussion\n draft audit report sent to Gallia Metropolitan Housing Authority on December 16, 2011.\n\n (1) \xe2\x80\x9c[GMHA] incorrectly stated in its solicitations for appliances both the make and model\n number of the appliances required instead of providing only a general description.\xe2\x80\x9d\n\n Management Response:\n\n Agree. It should also be noted, though, that GMHA did allow quotes on comparable products\n for both types of appliances. In fact, the standard ranges purchased were a Kenmore model, not\n the GE model named in the solicitation. Also, the 20\xe2\x80\x9d ranges purchased were an Estate model,\n not the Hotpoint model named in the solicitation.\n\n Nevertheless, stating makes and models in the solicitations was an oversight. Appropriate steps\n will be taken to ensure that it does not happen again.\n\n (2) \xe2\x80\x9c[GMHA] did not award a contract for 5 ranges to the lowest bidder.\xe2\x80\x9d\n\n Management Response:\n\n Agree.\n\n (3) \xe2\x80\x9c[GMHA] purchased 143 ranges and 142 refrigerators when its plan stated that it would\n purchase 140 of each.\xe2\x80\x9d\n\n Management Response:\n\n Disagree. The term \xe2\x80\x9cplan\xe2\x80\x9d is used in the discussion draft audit report to refer to the \xe2\x80\x9cProject\nComment 1 Description\xe2\x80\x9d field contained on the FederalReporting.gov form. GMHA did follow the plan\n contained in the HUD-50075.1 form. As previously stated, the form HUD-50075.1 has not been\n given appropriate weight in the OIG\xe2\x80\x99s determination of GMHA\xe2\x80\x99s plans for the Capital Fund\n Recovery Grant. The HUD-50075.1 form includes the purchase of 315 appliances and is\n approved by the HUD Field Office. Traditionally, it is the primary document for determining\n what expenditures are allowable under a particular capital fund grant.\n\n The discussion draft audit report states (emphasis added):\n\nComment 2 \xe2\x80\x9cOn [the form HUD-50075.1], [GMHA] listed a total of 315 appliances as having been\n purchased, which was 30 more appliances than it actually purchased.\xe2\x80\x9d\n\nComment 1 The HUD-50075.1 that the OIG is referring to does not contain any statement of the number\n of appliances purchased. It is a budget estimate. Because GMHA could not provide a detailed\n breakdown of how the quantity of 315 appliances was reached, OIG has considered the\n number to be nonsensical and has opted to use a different report. The budget states that the\n 315 appliances included ranges, range hoods, and refrigerators (range hoods were not\n included in the final purchase). The quantity of appliances purchased by GMHA was approved\n by the HUD Field Office on the HUD-50075.1.\n\n Page 14 of 5\n\n\n 14\n\x0cRef to OIG Evaluation Auditee Comments\n\n GALLIA METROPOLITAN HOUSING AUTHORITY DISCUSSION DRAFT AUDIT REPORT COMMENTS\n January 9, 2012\n\n In response to the OIG comment that GMHA did not include the appliances for the\n Administrative Offices or Maintenance Shops on Federalreporting.gov, two comments are\n given. First, GMHA included the modernization of administrative and community areas on\n Federalreporting.gov. Second, the clarity of the instructions pertaining to the \xe2\x80\x9cProject\n Description\xe2\x80\x9d field on FederalReporting.gov should be questioned. Federalreporting.gov offers the\n following description of the field in its instructions:\n\n \xe2\x80\x9cQuarterly Activities/Project Description\n Grants and Loans: Description of the overall purpose and expected results of the award\n and first-tier sub award(s) including significant deliverables. If funding multiple projects\n (block grants) this may be stated in broad terms.\n Format: 2000 characters or less.\xe2\x80\x9d\n\n As GMHA funded multiple projects with the ARRA funds, stating this information in broad\n terms is acceptable. GMHA not only met the reporting requirement, but exceeded it. The\n significant deliverables from the award are all included in the project description, mostly with\n a relatively high level of detail (e.g., description of specific work items like \xe2\x80\x9cbase trim\xe2\x80\x9d and\n \xe2\x80\x9cshower fixtures\xe2\x80\x9d).\n\n The GAO (GAO-10-966 http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d10966.pdf) conducted a study which\n found HUD guidance on Recovery Act reporting to be broad and nonspecific. Guidance\n instructed housing authorities to summarize projects and state them in broad terms.\n\n Two excerpts from the study are provided below.\n\n Excerpt 1 (from first page of Highlights):\n The Recovery Act requires recipients to report specific information about funded projects and\n activities, including the total amount of Recovery Act funds received, associated obligations\n and expenditures, and a detailed list of the projects and activities funded. For each project or\n activity, the detailed list must include its name, description, and completion status. To\n facilitate implementation of the Recovery Act, OMB created governmentwide guidance,\n including memorandums and a data dictionary. While some OMB guidance reiterates that\n recipients list all projects and activities funded, its implementing instructions advise recipients\n to summarize. OMB officials have stated that its broad guidance could not address unique\n program characteristics effectively and anticipated that agencies would provide more specific\n guidance. HUD issued limited program-specific guidance, which largely restated the\n requirements in OMB\xe2\x80\x99s data dictionary. The reporting guidance generally advised recipients to\n summarize or use standard, suggested language. OMB and HUD guidance also did not\n consistently clarify key terms, such as \xe2\x80\x9cproject\xe2\x80\x9d or \xe2\x80\x9cprimary place of performance.\xe2\x80\x9d Some\n grant recipients followed OMB and HUD guidance, which instructed them to report broad,\n summary information rather than information on specific projects and activities, as specified\n in the act. Because the reporting guidance provided did not advise recipients to report details\n for each project or activity funded or clarify key terms, recipients may have interpreted the\n guidance differently.\n\n Excerpt 2 (from first page of Highlights):\n\n Page 2 of 5\n\n\n\n\n 15\n\x0cRef to OIG Evaluation Auditee Comments\n\n GALLIA METROPOLITAN HOUSING AUTHORITY DISCUSSION DRAFT AUDIT REPORT COMMENTS\n January 9, 2012\n\n The limited degree to which grant descriptions met the criteria on specific projects and activities\n likely is partly due to reporting guidance that does not consistently reflect Recovery Act\n requirements and does not provide clear instructions on what constitutes a \xe2\x80\x9cproject\xe2\x80\x9d or how to\n identify \xe2\x80\x9cprimary place of performance.\xe2\x80\x9d\n\n (4) \xe2\x80\x9c[GMHA] replaced 13 refrigerators and 10 ranges that still had remaining useful life.\xe2\x80\x9d\n\n Management Response:\n\n Disagree.\n\n This response addresses issues raised regarding first, the retainage of 23 appliances (13\n refrigerators and 10 ranges) that were less than eight years old at the time of Gallia\n Metropolitan Housing Authority\xe2\x80\x99s (GMHA) ARRA-funded appliances purchase and second, the\n ARRA-funded purchase of an ADA-accessible range that was not installed at the time of\n purchase.\n\n 1. Retainage of 23 appliances (13 refrigerators and 10 ranges) that were less than eight years\n old at the time of Gallia Metropolitan Housing Authority\xe2\x80\x99s (GMHA) ARRA-funded\n appliances purchase.\n\n Prior to purchasing appliances with the ARRA grant, GMHA had an insufficient quantity of\n both ranges and refrigerators. GMHA requires 141 ranges, 143 refrigerators, and 1\n cooktop/wall oven combo to be installed at any given time at its Gallia Metro Estates (GME)\n and Rio Grande Estates (RGE) properties (see Exhibit 1). However, the quantity of appliances\n GMHA needs on hand for prudent management is greater than the quantity required to be\n installed.\n\n Exhibit 1: Installed Units Required at GME and RGE\n Number of Installed Units Required at Location\n Cooktop/Wall\n Location Ranges Oven* Refrigerators\n Gallia Metro Estates (GME) 100 1 100\n Units\n Rio Grande Estates (RGE) Units 40 0 40\n GHMA Administrative Office 1 0 1\n Community Room/Lunchroom\n GME Maintenance Shop 0 0 1\n RGE Maintenance Shop 0 0 1\n Total 141 1 143\n\n *A cooktop and wall oven are counted as one unit, as they are the equivalent of a\n single range unit\n\n As demonstrated in Exhibit 2, prior to the ARRA appliance procurement, GMHA had only enough\n of each type of appliance to meet the quantity required to be installed at GME and RGE.\n Historically, an inventory of additional appliances has been maintained at GMHA to allow the\n agency to prudently manage its public housing properties. Additional appliances\n Page 3 of 5\n\n\n\n\n 16\n\x0cRef to OIG Evaluation Auditee Comments\n\n GALLIA METROPOLITAN HOUSING AUTHORITY DISCUSSION DRAFT AUDIT REPORT COMMENTS\n January 9, 2012\n\n ensure that GMHA has the ability to quickly and economically replace failed appliances and to\n more quickly make vacant units available for leasing by new families during periods of high\n turnover. Over time, this inventory of additional appliances has been depleted.\n\n Replenishing this inventory as a part of the appliance procurement of the ARRA grant is fiscally\n responsible and improves the efficiency of GMHA management. The units were purchased at\n a cost which is significantly lower than what the agency would pay if it were to purchase them\n individually.\n\nComment 3 HUD OIG has suggested that GMHA misspent ARRA funds because it replaced 13 refrigerators\n and 10 ranges that were less than 8 years old and still functional. This theory is flawed for two\n reasons. First, the assumption that each individual appliance is bound to a specific location\n (e.g., Gallia Metro Estates Apt. 6) for the duration of its lifespan is incorrect. GMHA manages\n its appliance inventory on an aggregated basis. Management examines the number of units\n needed for installation and the number of units needed for inventory to determine the total\n number of units needed on hand to operate GMHA properties. Second, GMHA did not\n \xe2\x80\x9creplace\xe2\x80\x9d the 13 refrigerators and 10 ranges in question. The housing authority brought\n its total number of appliances on hand up to a reasonable quantity by replacing both obsolete\n appliances and the appliances that, over time, had been used from inventory but not\n replaced.\n\n Exhibit 2: Total on Hand at Gallia Metro Estates (GME) and Rio Grande Estates (RGE)\n Total Number on Hand\n Cooktop/Wall\n Point in Time Ranges Oven* Refrigerators\n Prior to ARRA (April 29, 2010) 141 1 143\n Present (Nov. 2, 2011) 149 1 154\n\n *A cooktop and wall oven are counted as one unit, as they are the equivalent of a single range\n unit\n\nComment 4 GMHA does not, by any means, have an excessive number of additional appliances on hand.\n Beyond what appliances it requires to be installed (see Exhibit 1), the housing authority has 8\n ranges and 11 refrigerators. GMHA\xe2\x80\x99s rationale for maintaining this inventory is quite\n reasonable.\n\n GMHA\xe2\x80\x99s maintenance department is small; if the only item keeping a vacant unit from being\n rented is a refrigerator and a range that need several hours of heavy cleaning and/or repair\xe2\x80\x94\n and there are more urgent maintenance needs\xe2\x80\x94placing appliances from inventory in the\n vacant unit and getting it rented is good management. The dirty or broken appliance can be\n attended to once higher priority work orders are completed.\n\n Furthermore, an incident taking place on August 15, 2010 provides additional merit to the\n value of having an appliance inventory. On August 15, a lightning strike occurred at Gallia\n Metro Estates which disabled 12 refrigerators instantaneously. A circuit board in each of the\n appliances was damaged. The parts needed to repair the refrigerator were not immediately\n available. Having an inventory of refrigerators allowed GMHA to prevent the spoiling of\n\n Page 4 of 5\n\n\n\n\n 17\n\x0cRef to OIG Evaluation Auditee Comments\n\n GALLIA METROPOLITAN HOUSING AUTHORITY DISCUSSION DRAFT AUDIT REPORT COMMENTS\n January 9, 2012\n\n tenants\xe2\x80\x99 food, quickly respond to an emergency, and avoid a costly situation such as renting or\n purchasing replacement refrigerators.\n\n 2. ARRA-funded purchase of an ADA-accessible range that was not installed at the time of\n purchase.\n\nComment 3 HUD OIG has suggested that GMHA misspent ARRA funds because it purchased an ADA-\n accessible range that was not installed in a unit. GMHA did order one ADA-accessible range in\n excess of what it intended. The housing authority mistakenly purchased an ADA-accessible\n range for a handicap-accessible unit which required a cooktop and wall oven. Upon discovery\nComment 5 of the error, the additional range was placed into GMHA inventory. The authority was still\n below the quantity of units budgeted on its HUD-500751.1 form.\n\n Although the purchase was the result of an administrative error, it should be noted that the\n ADA-accessible range in GMHA\xe2\x80\x99s inventory is the only one of its kind. If a range in the home of\n one of our disabled residents was to become non-functional, the additional unit would allow\n GMHA to quickly provide the tenant with a working unit that was procured at a cost much\n lower than is available under individual purchase. Once again, the point must be made that\n this is not an excessive or unreasonable inventory.\n\n (5) \xe2\x80\x9c[GMHA] did not accurately report in FederalReporting.gov the number of jobs created\n and retained.\xe2\x80\x9d\n\n Management Response:\n\n Agree.\n\n\n The following comments respond to both recommendations contained in the discussion draft sent to\n Gallia Metropolitan Housing Authority on December 16, 2011.\n\n (1A) Reimburse $11,397 to HUD from non-Federal funds for transmission to the U.S. Treasury\n for the inappropriate use of funds cited in this finding.\n\n Management Response:\n\nComment 3 Disagree. GMHA should not be required to reimburse any funds related tosections 3 and 4 of\n Finding 1. For reasons already discussed, these findings are inaccurate.\n\n (1B) Implement adequate procedures and controls to ensure that its procurement policies are\n followed.\n\n Management Response:\n\n Agree.\n\n\n Page 5 of 5\n\n\n\n\n 18\n\x0c OIG Evaluation of Auditee Comments\n\nComment 1 We agree that we did not give much weight to the Authority\xe2\x80\x99s form HUD-50075.1\n because the information regarding the appliance purchases was unreliable. The\n form was not specific as to the number of specific appliances that were to be\n purchased. It did only list that the Authority estimated it would purchase 315\n appliances to include refrigerators, ranges, and range hoods. As required by\n Chapter 7.09 of generally accepted government auditing standards, we did review\n the Authority\xe2\x80\x99s reporting to FederalReporting.gov and HUD\xe2\x80\x99s Recovery Act\n Management and Performance System (RAMPS) as part of the scope of our audit\n (see page 10). In both of these reports, it stated that appliances would be replaced\n in nearly all of its 140 public housing units, on an as needed basis. Therefore, the\n Authority was only going to replace a maximum of 280 appliances, two\n appliances for each unit, less, as per stated to be replaced on an as needed basis,\n any appliance that had a remaining useful life.\n\nComment 2 The report was revised to reflect that the 315 appliances was only an estimate.\n\nComment 3 We disagree with the Authority\xe2\x80\x99s rationale that it did not use Recovery Act funds\n to replace 13 refrigerators and 10 ranges that still had useful lives. The Authority\n acknowledges that it brought its total number of appliances on hand (inventory)\n up to a reasonable quantity. Regardless of whether or not it placed new or the 23\n used appliances in inventory, the Authority still used its Recovery Act funds\n purchase to increase its total number of appliances on hand at the same time\n removing appliances with remaining useful lives from service. HUD\xe2\x80\x99s Notice\n PIH 2009-12 states that under section 9 of the 1937 Act, an authority no longer\n has the statutory authority to accumulate any Capital Fund grants in a replacement\n reserve. The Authority\xe2\x80\x99s purchase of excess appliances served the same purpose\n as putting the equivalent amount of Recovery Act funds used to purchase the 23\n excess appliances in its replacement reserve for future use.\n\nComment 4 We do not dispute the Authority\xe2\x80\x99s rationale for maintaining its appliance\n inventory, only the manner of how it established its inventory.\n\nComment 5 While the Authority maintains it was still below the quantity of units budgeted on\n its form HUD-50075.1, it was 23 appliances more than it needed to replace as the\n Authority reported to FederalReporting.gov and HUD\xe2\x80\x99s Recovery Act\n Management and Performance System (RAMPS). Section 1512(c) of the\n Recovery Act required recipients of funds to comply with the transparency and\n accountability requirements of the Recovery Act. As previously stated, the\n Authority reported that it would replace appliances on an as needed basis.\n\n\n\n\n 19\n\x0cAppendix C\n\n FEDERAL AND AUTHORITY REQUIREMENTS\nThe Recovery Act, Section 1605, states that public housing agencies must obligate 100 percent\nof the funds within 1 year of the date on which funds become available to the agency for\nobligation, must expend at least 60 percent of funds within 2 years of the date on which funds\nbecome available to the agency for obligation, and must expend 100 percent of the funds within\n3 years of such date.\n\nSection 1512(c) of the Recovery Act requires recipients of funds to comply with the transparency\nand accountability requirements of the Recovery Act. Recipients of funds are required to make\nquarterly reports3 on the Internet (FederalReporting.gov). that not later than 10 days after the end of\neach calendar quarter, each recipient that received recovery funds from a Federal agency must\nsubmit a report to that agency that contains a detailed list of all projects or activities for which\nrecovery funds were expended or obligated, including (1) the name of the project or activity; (2)\na description of the project or activity; (3) an evaluation of the completion status of the project or\nactivity; (4) an estimate of the number of jobs created and the number of jobs retained by the\nproject or activity.\n\nOMB Memorandum 09-21, 4.2, states that the prime recipient of Recovery Act funds (1) owns\nrecipient data and sub-recipient data; (2) initiates appropriate data collection and reporting\nprocedures to ensure that Section 1512 reporting requirements are met in a timely and effective\nmanner; (3) implements internal control measures as appropriate to ensure accurate and complete\ninformation; and (4) performs data quality reviews for material omissions or significant reporting\nerrors, making appropriate and timely corrections to prime recipient data and working with the\ndesignated sub-recipient to address any data quality issues.\n\nOMB Memorandum 10-08, part 2, 5.1, 2, requires recipients of Recovery Act funds to submit\nestimates of jobs created and jobs retained for each project or activity in their recipient reports.\n\n24 CFR 85.36(c) states that (1) all procurement transactions will be conducted in a manner\nproviding full and open competition. Some situations considered to be restrictive of competition\ninclude but are not limited to (vi) specifying only a brand name product instead of allowing an\nequal product to be offered and describing the performance of other relevant requirements of the\nprocurement.\n\nPublic and Indian Housing (PIH) Notice 2009-12 states that under section 9 of the 1937 Act,\npublic housing authorities no longer have the statutory authority to accumulate ANY Capital\nFund grants in a replacement reserve. In fiscal year 2008, no annual statements for this fiscal\nyear should have been approved with a budget that included a replacement reserve.\n\nSection 110 of the Authority's consolidated annual contributions contract with HUD, dated\nFebruary 2, 1996, states the local authority must not award any construction or equipment\ncontract to other than the lowest responsible bidder.\n\n\n 20\n\x0cThe general provisions of the Authority\xe2\x80\x99s procurement policy states that the Authority must (1)\nprovide for a procurement system of quality and integrity; (2) provide for the fair and equitable\ntreatment of all persons or firms involved in purchasing by the Authority; (3) ensure that supplies\nand services (including construction) are procured efficiently, effectively, and at the most\nfavorable prices available to the Authority; (4) promote competition in contracting; (5) and\nensure that the Authority purchasing actions fully comply with applicable Federal standards,\nHUD regulations, and State and local laws.\n\n\n\n\n 21\n\x0c"


type: contracts

text:
 30.11.2006
 SV
 Europeiska unionens officiella tidning
 L 333/40
 GEMENSAMMA EES-KOMMITTÉNS BESLUT
 nr 117/2006
 av den 22 september 2006
 om ändring av bilaga II (Tekniska föreskrifter, standarder, provning och certifiering) till EES-avtalet
 GEMENSAMMA EES-KOMMITTÉN HAR BESLUTAT FÖLJANDE
 med beaktande av avtalet om Europeiska ekonomiska samarbetsområdet, ändrat genom protokollet med justeringar av avtalet om Europeiska ekonomiska samarbetsområdet, nedan kallat ”avtalet”, särskilt artikel 98, och
 av följande skäl:
 (1)
 Bilaga II till avtalet ändrades genom gemensamma EES-kommitténs beslut nr 56/2006 av den 2 juni 2006 (1).
 (2)
 Kommissionens rekommendation 2006/283/EG av den 11 april 2006 om riskbegränsande åtgärder för ämnena dibutylftalat; 3,4-dikloroanilin; di-isodecyl-ftalat; 1,2-bensendikarboxylsyra, di-C 9-11 -grenade alkylestrar, C 10 -rika; di-isononyl-ftalat; 1,2-bensendikarboxylsyra, di-C 8-10 -grenade alkylestrar, C 9 -rika; etylendiamintetraacetat; metylacetat; monoklorättiksyra; n-pentan; tetranatriumetylendiamintetraacetat (2) bör införlivas med avtalet.
 HÄRIGENOM FÖRESKRIVS FÖLJANDE.
 Artikel 1
 Under rubriken ”RÄTTSAKTER SOM DE AVTALSSLUTANDE PARTERNA SKALL BEAKTA” skall följande punkt införas i kapitel XV efter punkt 25 (kommissionens rekommendation 2004/394/EG) i bilaga II till avtalet:
 ”26.
 32006 H 0283: Kommissionens rekommendation 2006/283/EG av den 11 april 2006 om riskbegränsande åtgärder för ämnena dibutylftalat; 3,4-dikloroanilin; di-isodecyl-ftalat; 1,2-bensendikarboxylsyra, di-C 9-11 -grenade alkylestrar, C 10 -rika; di-isononyl-ftalat; 1,2-bensendikarboxylsyra, di-C 8-10 -grenade alkylestrar, C 9 -rika; etylendiamintetraacetat; metylacetat; monoklorättiksyra; n-pentan; tetranatriumetylendiamintetraacetat (EUT L 104, 13.4.2006, p. 45)”.
 Artikel 2
 Texten till rekommendation 2006/283/EG på isländska och norska, som skall offentliggöras i EES-supplementet till Europeiska unionens officiella tidning, skall vara giltig.
 Artikel 3
 Detta beslut träder i kraft den 23 september 2006, under förutsättning att alla anmälningar enligt artikel 103.1 i avtalet har gjorts till gemensamma EES-kommittén (3).
 Artikel 4
 Detta beslut skall offentliggöras i EES-delen av och EES-supplementet till Europeiska unionens officiella tidning.
 Utfärdat i Bryssel den 22 september 2006.
 På gemensamma EES-kommitténs vägnar
 Ordförande
 Oda Helen SLETNES
 (1) EUT L 245, 7.9.2006, s. 1.
 (2) EUT L 104, 13.4.2006, s. 45.
 (3) Inga konstitutionella krav angivna.


type: caselaw

text:
 10.9.2011
 ET
 Euroopa Liidu Teataja
 C 269/52
 1. juulil 2011 esitatud hagi — Restoin versus Siseturu Ühtlustamise Amet (EQUIPMENT)
 (Kohtuasi T-356/11)
 2011/C 269/116
 Kohtumenetluse keel: prantsuse
 Pooled
 Hageja: Christian Restoin (Pariis, Prantsusmaa) (esindaja: advokaat A. Alcaraz)
 Kostja: Siseturu Ühtlustamise Amet (kaubamärgid ja tööstusdisainilahendused)
 Nõuded
 Hageja palub Üldkohtul:
 —
 tühistada Siseturu Ühtlustamise Ameti (kaubamärgid ja tööstusdisainilahendused) neljanda apellatsioonikoja 14. aprilli 2011. aasta (asi R 1430/2010-4) otsus;
 —
 mõista Christian Restoini kantud kohtukulud välja ühtlustamisametilt.
 Väited ja peamised argumendid
 Asjaomane ühenduse kaubamärk: sõnamärk „EQUIPMENT” kaupadele ja teenustele klassides 3, 9, 14, 18, 25 ja 35 — taotlus nr 8 722 076.
 Kontrollija otsus: lükata registreerimistaotlus tagasi
 Apellatsioonikoja otsus: jätta apellatsioonkaebus rahuldamata.
 Väited: määruse nr 207/2009 artikli 7 lõike 1 punkti b rikkumine, kuna taotletud tähis on eristusvõimeline lähtuvalt sellest, kuidas asjaomane avalikkus seda kaubamärki tajub ja lähtuvalt kaupadest ja teenustest, mille osas registreerimist taotleti; nimetatud määruse artikli 75 rikkumine, kuna apellatsioonikoja põhjendus ei saa olla üldine, sest asjaomased kaubad ei olnud niivõrd sarnased ning see põhjendus ei ole asjakohane.


text:
European Commission - PRESS RELEASES - Press release - Rata globali tal-iżbalji għan-nefqa tal-UE ta' anqas minn 4 % għat-tielet sena konsekuttiva: rapport annwali tal-Qorti tal-Awdituri
 Brussell, is-6 ta' Novembru 2012
 Rata globali tal-iżbalji għan-nefqa tal-UE ta' anqas minn 4 % għat-tielet sena konsekuttiva: rapport annwali tal-Qorti tal-Awdituri Il-maġġoranza assoluta tal-pagamenti li saru s-sena l-oħra mill-baġit tal-UE kienu mingħajr żbalji kwantifikabbli. Fir-rapport annwali tagħha, il-Qorti tal-Awdituri kkonfermat li fl-2011, ir-rata globali tal-iżbalji kkwantifikati għan-nefqa tal-UE, baqgħet stabbli taħt l-4 %. Il-Qorti tal-Awdituri approvat iż-żamma tal-kontijiet tal-UE għall-ħames sena konsekuttiva. "Matul dawn l-aħħar snin, il-Kummissjoni wettqet il-wegħda tagħha li tiżgura ġestjoni u kontroll ta' kwalità għolja għall-fondi tal-UE. Ix-xogħol tagħna żgur għadu ma spiċċax, iżda issa huwa l-waqt li sħabna jintensifikaw l-azzjoni tagħhom ukoll,"qalet Algirdas Šemeta, il-Kummissarju għat-Tassazzjoni u l-Unjoni Doganali, l-Awditjar u l-Ġlieda Kontra l-Frodi. "L-Istati Membri jistgħu jagħmlu dan permezz ta' żewġ passi sempliċi. L-ewwel nett, dawn jistgħu japprovaw ir-regoli aktar sempliċi proposti mill-Kummissjoni għall-perjodu ta' programmar il-ġdid. Ir-regoli aktar sempliċi huma aktar faċli biex jiġu rrispettati u kkontrollati, u jistgħu jgħinu wkoll biex inaqqsu drastikament l-għadd ta' żbalji tan-nefqa tal-UE. It-tieni nett, qed inġedded is-sejħa tiegħi lill-Istati Membri biex jieħdu r-responsabbiltajiet tagħhom aktar bis-serjetà, speċjalment fir-rigward tal-irwol tagħhom biex jipproteġu l-flus ta' dawk li jħallsu t-taxxi fl-UE. Naqra aktar sforz min-naħa tal-Istati Membri biex jikkontrollaw il-proġetti b'mod xieraq u biex jirkupraw il-fondi użati ħażin jista' jagħmel differenza kbira, b'mod partikolari f'dan iż-żmien ta' diffikultà ekonomika." Ir-rapport tal-lum tal-Qorti tal-Awdituri jikkonferma li t-titjib fil-ġestjoni tal-fondi tal-UE matul dawn l-aħħar għaxar snin qed jinżamm b'mod konsistenti. Dan huwa partikolarment sinifikanti minħabba li l-perjodu ta' programmar attwali dalwaqt se jispiċċa. Dan ifisser li fl-2011 il-volum tal-pagamenti u r-rekwiżiti ta' rappurtar li japplikaw għalihom, żdiedu b'mod sostanzjali meta mqabbla mas-snin ta' qabel. Madanakollu, ir-rata tal-iżbalji xorta baqgħet stabbli. L-iżbalji ma jfissrux li l-flus tal-UE huma mitlufin, moħlijin jew affettwati minn frodi. Fil-fatt, il-frodi jaffettwa biss 0.2 % tal-baġit totali tal-UE, u hemm strumenti b'saħħithom fis-seħħ biex jindividwaw il-frodi u jirkupraw il-flus meta dan iseħħ. Meta l-Qorti tal-Awdituri tirreferi għal rata tal-iżbalji, dan ifisser li ma kellux isir ħlas ta' flus għaliex il-proġett ma kienx jissodisfa r-regoli ddettaljati biex ikun eliġibbli għall-fondi tal-UE. Fejn fil-fatt ikun hemm l-iżbalji, jeżistu mekkaniżmi solidi sabiex isibuhom u jikkoreġuhom.
 Ir-rata globali tal-iżbalji għan-nefqa tal-UE issa ilha taħt l-4 % għal tliet snin konsekuttivi, filwaqt li oqsma bħall-għajnuna esterna, l-iżvilupp, it-tkabbir u l-amministrazzjoni, is-sena l-oħra, ma kellhom l-ebda żball materjali. It-titjib l-aktar sinifikanti fl-2011 seħħ fil-politika ta' koeżjoni, li tiffinanzja proġetti biex tippromwovi l-kompetittività u t-tkabbir madwar l-Ewropa. Hawnhekk, ir-rata tal-iżbalji naqqset b'aktar minn 2.5 punti perċentwali meta mqabbla mal-2010. Fis-settur tal-agrikoltura kien hemm żieda fir-rata tal-iżbalji meta mqabbla mas-sena 2010, parzjalment minħabba l-fatt li l-Qorti inkludiet għall-ewwel darba l-obbligi ta' kundizzjonalità fil-kalkoli tagħha. Fir-rapport tagħha, il-Qorti tinnota li l-Kummissjoni diġà kienet identifikat il-problemi rilevanti f'dan il-qasam, u ħadet miżuri korrettivi biex tiżgura li l-flus ma jintilfux. Il-Kummissjoni iffukat ħafna biex tissimplifika r-regoli li japplikaw għall-fondi tal-UE. Dan mhux biss se jagħmel il-fondi tal-UE aktar aċċessibbli għal dawk li għandhom bżonnhom, iżda għandu wkoll jagħmilha aktar faċli biex ikunu applikati u infurzati r-regoli relatati man-nefqa tal-UE, u għalhekk jitnaqqsu iktar l-isforzi. Ir-Regolament Finanzjarju l-ġdid, li ġie adottat fil-25 ta' Ottubru 2012, diġà għandu miżuri sostanzjali ta' simplifikazzjoni, kif ukoll dispożizzjonijiet li għandhom itejbu l-kontrolli fuq il-fondi tal-UE f'kull livell.
 Il-proposti tal-Kummissjoni għall-ġenerazzjoni li jmiss ta' programmi (mill-2014 sal-2020), li bħalissa qed jiġu diskussi mill-Kunsill u mill-Parlament, jinkludu ammont kbir ta' miżuri ġodda biex ikomplu jtejbu l-ġestjoni tal-fondi tal-UE. Dawn jinkludu miżuri korrettivi aktar stretti jekk l-Istati Membri jonqsu milli jindirizzaw l-irregolaritajiet fil-ħin; sistema ġdida għas-sorveljanza tal-progress fil-kisba tal-miri stabbiliti; u rekwiżit għall-awtoritajiet nazzjonali ta' ġestjoni biex jiffirmaw dikjarazzjoni ta' assigurazzjoni dwar il-kontijiet tagħhom. Il-passi li jmiss
 Wara l-pubblikazzjoni tar-rapport annwali tal-Qorti tal-Awdituri, il-Kunsill se jipprovdi lill-Parlament Ewropew b'rakkomandazzjoni dwar jekk il-Kummissjoni għandhiex tingħata kwittanza tal-baġit. Skont din ir-rakkomandazzjoni, f'Mejju 2013 il-Parlament Ewropew se jivvota dwar ir-riżoluzzjoni tal-kwittanza tagħha fir-rigward tal-baġit 2011. Għal aktar tagħrif, ara MEMO/12/833