type: other

text:
France, Conseil d'État, 9 / 8 ssr, 11 juillet 1979, 07957
 Page d'accueil > Résultats de la recherche France, Conseil d'État, 9 / 8 ssr, 11 juillet 1979, 07957
 Sens de l'arrêt : RejetType d'affaire : AdministrativeType de recours : Plein contentieux fiscalNumérotation : Numéro d'arrêt : 07957Numéro NOR : CETATEXT000007616451 Identifiant URN:LEX : urn:lex;fr;conseil.etat;arret;1979-07-11;07957 Analyses : CONTRIBUTIONS ET TAXES - IMPOTS SUR LES REVENUS ET BENEFICES - REGLES GENERALES PROPRES AUX DIVERS IMPOTS - IMPOT SUR LE REVENU - DETERMINATION DU REVENU IMPOSABLE - EVALUATION FORFAITAIRE DU REVENU - SIGNES EXTERIEURS DE RICHESSE - Application de l'article 168 à un contribuable alléguant avoir disposé de revenus de source étrangère.19-04-01-02-03-05-02 1.] Les revenus de source étrangère exclus du revenu imposable en France en application de l'article 164-1 du C.G.I. peuvent être regardés comme des revenus exonérés au sens de l'article 168-3 et venir en déduction des bases forfaitaires d'imposition. 2.] Cependant, lorsque les revenus étrangers allégués ont été intégralement absorbés par le report de déficits antérieurs, le contribuable ne peut être regardé comme en ayant disposé au sens et pour l'application de l'article 168-3 du C.G.I..Texte : REQUETE DE M. X TENDANT A L'ANNULATION DU JUGEMENT DU 10 DECEMBRE 1976 DU TRIBUNAL ADMINISTRATIF DE PARIS REJETANT SA DEMANDE EN DECHARGE DES COTISATIONS SUPPLEMENTAIRES D'I. R. P. P. AUXQUELLES IL A ETE ASSUJETTI AU TITRE DES ANNEES 1964 ET 1965 ; VU LE CODE GENERAL DES IMPOTS ; L'ORDONNANCE DU 31 JUILLET 1945 ET LE DECRET DU 30 SEPTEMBRE 1953 ; LA LOI DU 30 DECEMBRE 1977 ;
 SANS QU'IL SOIT BESOIN DE STATUER SUR LA FIN DE NON-RECEVOIR OPPOSEE PAR LE MINISTRE DU BUDGET : çONSIDERANT QU'AUX TERMES DE L'ARTICLE 168-1 DU CODE GENERAL DES IMPOTS, DANS SA REDACTION APPLICABLE AUX ANNEES D'IMPOSITION 1964 ET 1965, "EN CAS DE DISPROPORTION MARQUEE ENTRE LE TRAIN DE VIE D'UN CONTRIBUABLE ET LES REVENUS QU'IL DECLARE, LA BASE D'IMPOSITION A L'IMPOT SUR LE REVENU DES PERSONNES PHYSIQUES EST PORTEE A UNE SOMME FORFAITAIRE DETERMINEE EN APPLIQUANT A CERTAINS ELEMENTS DU TRAIN DE VIE LE BAREME CI-APRES. ; QU'AUX TERMES DU 3 DU MEME ARTICLE, .LES CONTRIBUABLES NE POURRONT FAIRE ECHEC A L'IMPOSITION RESULTANT DES DISPOSITIONS QUI PRECEDENT EN FAISANT VALOIR QUE LEURS REVENUS IMPOSABLES A L'IMPOT SUR LE REVENU DES PERSONNES PHYSIQUES SERAIENT INFERIEURS AUX BASES D'IMPOSITION RESULTANT DU BAREME. TOUTEFOIS, LORSQUE LA DIFFERENCE ENTRE LA BASE D'IMPOSITION FORFAITAIRE RESULTANT DES DISPOSITIONS QUI PRECEDENT ET LE REVENU DECLARE PROVIENT, EN TOTALITE OU EN PARTIE, DU FAIT QUE LE CONTRIBUABLE A DISPOSE DE REVENUS EXPRESSEMENT EXONERES DE L'IMPOT SUR LE REVENU DES PERSONNES PHYSIQUES PAR UNE DISPOSITION PARTICULIERE, L'INTERESSE PEUT, A CONDITION D'EN APPORTER LA PREUVE, OBTENIR QUE LA BASE D'IMPOSITION FORFAITAIRE SOIT DIMINUEE DU MONTANT DESDITS REVENUS EXONERES" ; QUE CES DISPOSITIONS SONT APPLICABLES A TOUTE PERSONNE AYANT EN FRANCE SON DOMICILE FISCAL, QUELLE QUE SOIT SA NATIONALITE ; CONS. QU'IL RESULTE DE L'INSTRUCTION QU'IL EXISTAIT UNE DISPROPORTION MARQUEE ENTRE LES REVENUS DECLARES PAR M. X A L'ADMINISTRATION FISCALE FRANCAISE AU TITRE DES ANNEES 1964 ET 1965, QUI S'ELEVAIENT RESPECTIVEMENT A 10.304 F ET 6.527 F, ET LES ELEMENTS DE SON TRAIN DE VIE PENDANT LES MEMES ANNEES, QUI COMPORTAIENT LA DISPOSITION D'UNE RESIDENCE PRINCIPALE DANS UN QUARTIER RESIDENTIEL DE PARIS, D'UNE RESIDENCE SECONDAIRE A NICE ET DES SERVICES D'UN DOMESTIQUE ET DONT M. X NE CONTESTE PAS L'EVALUATION ; QUE, POUR DEMANDER DECHARGE DES COTISATIONS SUPPLEMENTAIRES A L'IMPOT SUR LE REVENU DES PERSONNES PHYSIQUES, QUI ONT ETE ETABLIES SUR DES BASES FORFAITAIRES DETERMINEES PAR APPLICATION AUX ELEMENTS DE SON TRAIN DE VIE DU BAREME DEFINI A L'ARTICLE 168 DU CODE ET FIXEES A 63 000 F AU TITRE DE 1964 ET 66 600 F AU TITRE DE 1965, LE CONT RIBUABLE SOUTIENT QU'IL A DISPOSE EN 1964 ET 1965 DE REVENUS EXONERES D'UN MONTANT SUPERIEUR AUXDITES BASES D'IMPOSITION ET, A TITRE SUBSDIAIRE, QUE SON TRAIN DE VIE A ET FINANCE PAR DES ALIENATIONS DE BIENS IMMOBILERS QU'IL POSSEDAIT EN ARGENTINE ;
 CONS. D'UNE PART, QU'AUX TERMES DE L'ARTICLE 164-1 DU CODE GENERAL DES IMPOTS, DANS SA REDACTION EN VIGUEUR PENDANT LES ANNEES D'IMPOSITION, EN CE QUI CONCERNE LES CONTRIBUABLES DE NATIONALITE ETRANGE RE QUI ONT LEUR DOMICILE FISCAL EN FRANCE, "SONT EXCLUS DU REVENU IMPOSABLE DE CES CONTRIBUABLES, LES REVENUS DE SOURCE ETRANGERE A RAISON DESQUELS LES INTERESSE S JUSTIFIENT AVOIR ETE SOUMIS A UN IMPOT PERSONNEL SUR LE REVENU GLOBAL DANS LE PAYS D'OU ILS SONT ORIGINAIRES "; QUE LES REVENUS EXONERES D'IMPOT SUR LE REVENU EN VERTU DE CETTE DISPOSITION PARTICULIERE PEUVENT, PAR APPLICATION DES DISPOSITIONS PRECITEES DE L'ARTICLE 168-3 DU CODE, VENIR EN DEDUCTION DES BASES FORFAITAIRES D'IMPOSITION ; QUE, TOUTEFOIS EN L'ESPECE, SI LE REQUERANT PRODUIT UNE ATTESTATION EMANANT DE L'ADMINISTRATION FISCALE ARGENTINE ETABLISSANT QU'IL A CETTE ADMINISTRATION EN 1964 ET 1965 DES REVENUS REPRESENTANT RESPECTIVEMENT 100 566 F ET 90 530 F, IL RESULTE DE L'INSTRUCTION QUE CES REVENUS ONT ETE INTEGRALEMENT ABSORBES PAR LE REPORT DE DEFICITS DES ANNEES ANTERIEURES ; QUE LE REQUERANT NE PEUT PAS, DES LORS, ETRE REGARDE COMME AYANT DISPOSE DESDITS REVENUS AU SENS ET POUR L'APPLICATION DE L'ARTICLE 168-3 DU CODE GENERAL DES IMPOTS ; QUE PAR SUITE, LES REVENUS NE PEUVENT PAS VENIR EN DEDUCTION DES BASES D'IMPOSITION ; CONS. D'AUTRE PART, QU'IL RESSORT DES TERMES MEMES DE L'ARTICLE 168-3 PRECITE QUE LA CIRCONSTANCE QUE M. X AURAIT FINANCE SON TRAIN DE VIE PAR DES CAPITAUX PROVENANT DE L'ALIENATION DE BIENS QU'IL POSSEDAIT EN ARGENTINE NE PEUT PAS ETRE UTILEMENT INVOQUEE POUR FAIRE ECHEC A L'IMPOSITION FORFAITAIRE PREVUE A L'ARTICLE 168 ; CONS. QU'IL RESULTE DE TOUT DE QUI PRECEDE QUE M. X N'EST PAS FONDE A SOUTENIR QUE C'EST A TORT QUE, PAR LE JUGEMENT ATTAQUE, LE TRIBUNAL ADMINISTRATIF DE PARIS A REJETE SA DEMANDE ; REJET .Références : CGI 164 1 [1965]CGI 168 1 [1965]CGI 168 3Publications :Proposition de citation: CE, 11 juillet 1979, n° 07957Publié au recueil LebonTélécharger au format RTFComposition du Tribunal :Président : M. LasryRapporteur : M. HenrotRapporteur public : M. LobryOrigine de la décision Pays : FranceJuridiction : Conseil d'ÉtatFormation : 9 / 8 ssrDate de la décision : 11/07/1979Fonds documentaire : Legifrance Haut de page


type: caselaw

jurisdiction: EU

text:
 15.9.2014
 SL
 Uradni list Evropske unije
 C 315/40
 Predlog za sprejetje predhodne odločbe, ki ga je vložilo Landgericht Krefeld (Nemčija) 4. julija 2014 – Colena AG proti Karnevalservice Bastian GmbH
 (Zadeva C-321/14)
 2014/C 315/64
 Jezik postopka: nemščina
 Predložitveno sodišče
 Landgericht Krefeld
 Stranki v postopku v glavni stvari
 Tožeča stranka: Colena AG
 Tožena stranka: Karnevalservice Bastian GmbH
 Vprašanje za predhodno odločanje
 1.
 Ali je treba Uredbo (ES) št. 1223/2009 Evropskega parlamenta in Sveta z dne 30. novembra 2009 o kozmetičnih izdelkih (1) razlagati tako, da mora izdelek, za katerega se ta uredba ne uporablja, ustrezati zahtevam Uredbe št. 1223/2009 le zato, ker je na zunanji embalaži navedeno, da gre za „kozmetični očesni dodatek, za katerega se uporablja Direktiva EU o kozmetičnih izdelkih“?
 2.
 Ali je treba Uredbo (ES) št. 1223/2009 Evropskega parlamenta in Sveta z dne 30. novembra 2009 o kozmetičnih izdelkih razlagati tako, da se njeno področje uporabe nanaša na tako imenovane kontaktne leče z vzorcem brez dioptrije?
 (1) UL L 342, str. 59.


type: legislation

text:
 EUROOPA KOMISJON
 Brüssel,22.9.2016
 COM(2016) 614 final
 2016/0294(NLE)
 Ettepanek:
 NÕUKOGU OTSUS,
 millega määratakse kindlaks Maailma Kaubandusorganisatsiooni peanõukogus Euroopa Liidu nimel võetav seisukoht Ameerika Ühendriikide taotluse kohta teha WTO eeskirjadest erand, et võimaldada USA-l pakkuda sooduskohtlemist Nepalist pärinevatele toetuskõlblikele toodetele
 SELETUSKIRI
 1.ETTEPANEKU TAUST
 •Ettepaneku põhjused ja eesmärgid
 Käesoleva ettepaneku eesmärk on määrata kindlaks Maailma Kaubandusorganisatsiooni (WTO) peanõukogus Euroopa Liidu poolt võetav seisukoht Ameerika Ühendriikide taotluse kohta WTO eeskirjade erandiks ja seega lubada ELil toetada erandi taotlust.
 USA-le WTO eeskirjade erandi lubamine võimaldaks USA-l pakkuda sooduskohtlemist toetuskõlblikele toodetele, mis pärinevad Nepalist ja imporditakse Ameerika Ühendriikide tolliterritooriumile kuni 31. detsembrini 2025.
 •Kooskõla poliitikavaldkonnas kehtivate sätetega
 Ei kohaldata.
 •Kooskõla liidu muude tegevuspõhimõtetega
 Ei kohaldata.
 2.ÕIGUSLIK ALUS, SUBSIDIAARSUS JA PROPORTSIONAALSUS
 •Õiguslik alus
 Euroopa Liidu (EL) toimimise lepingu artikli 218 lõikega 9 on ette nähtud, et kui rahvusvahelise lepingu alusel loodud organil tuleb vastu võtta õigusliku toimega otsus, võtab nõukogu komisjoni või liidu välisasjade ja julgeolekupoliitika kõrge esindaja ettepaneku põhjal vastu otsuse, millega määratakse kindlaks asjaomases organis liidu nimel võetav seisukoht. Erandi tegemine, millega lubatakse Ameerika Ühendriikidel rakendada Nepalist pärit toetuskõlblike toodete suhtes sooduskohtlemist, kuulub selle sätte alla, sest otsuse teeb organ, mis on moodustatud rahvusvahelise lepingu alusel (WTO peanõukogu või ministrite konverents), ja see mõjutab Euroopa Liidu õigusi ja kohustusi.
 •Subsidiaarsus (jagatud pädevuse korral)
 Ei kohaldata.
 •Proportsionaalsus
 Ei kohaldata.
 •Vahendi valik
 Ei kohaldata.
 3.JÄRELHINDAMISTE TULEMUSED, KONSULTEERIMINE SIDUSRÜHMADEGA JA MÕJUHINNANGUD
 Ei kohaldata.
 4.MÕJU EELARVELE
 Ei kohaldata.
 5.MUUD KÜSIMUSED
 Komisjoni volitatakse võtma Euroopa Liidu nimel seisukoht toetada Ameerika Ühendriikide taotlust lubada talle erandit WTO eeskirjadest vajalikus ulatuses, et Ameerika Ühendriigid saaksid võimaldada Nepalist pärinevatele toetuskõlblikele toodetele kuni 31. detsembrini 2025 sooduskohtlemist.
 Ameerika Ühendriigid soovivad erandit kohustustest, mis tulenevad GATT 1994 I artikli lõikest 1 ja XIII artikli lõigetest 1 ja 2, ulatuses, mis on vajalik, et võimaldada tariifset sooduskohtlemist ja kvantitatiivsete piirangute soodsamat rakendamist teatavate Nepalist pärinevate toodete suhtes, mis vastavad spetsiifilistele sobivuskriteeriumidele.
 Ameerika Ühendriikide väitel võimaldatakse neid soodustusi, et aidata Nepalil taastuda laastavast maavärinast ja selle järeltõugetest 2015. aasta aprillis. USA selgitas, et kõnealune meede põhineb olemasoleval programmide raamistikul, mille eesmärk on aidata kaasa Nepali majanduse arengule ning see täiendab jõupingutusi, millega edendatakse Nepali majanduskasvu ja arengut.
 Euroopa Liidu jaoks ei põhjusta USA esitatud uus eranditaotlus majanduslikke probleeme, kuna sooduskohtlemine ei kahjusta eeldatavasti ELi kaubandust soodustatud riigiga.
 Neid kaalutlusi arvestades peaks Euroopa Liit ühinema WTO peanõukogus eranditaotluse pooldajate kujuneva konsensusega.
 2016/0294 (NLE)
 Ettepanek:
 NÕUKOGU OTSUS,
 millega määratakse kindlaks Maailma Kaubandusorganisatsiooni peanõukogus Euroopa Liidu nimel võetav seisukoht Ameerika Ühendriikide taotluse kohta teha WTO eeskirjadest erand, et võimaldada USA-l pakkuda sooduskohtlemist Nepalist pärinevatele toetuskõlblikele toodetele
 EUROOPA LIIDU NÕUKOGU,
 võttes arvesse Euroopa Liidu toimimise lepingut, eriti selle artikli 207 lõike 4 esimest lõiku koostoimes artikli 218 lõikega 9,
 võttes arvesse Euroopa Komisjoni ettepanekut
 ning arvestades järgmist:
 1.Maailma Kaubandusorganisatsiooni asutamislepingu (Marrakechi leping; edaspidi „WTO leping“) IX artikli lõigetes 3 ja 4 on sätestatud kord erandite tegemiseks WTO lepingu või mitmepoolsete kaubanduslepingutega kehtestatud kohustustest.
 2.WTO lepingu IX artikli lõike 3 alusel esitasid Ameerika Ühendriigid taotluse teha kuni 31. detsembrini 2025 erand tema kohustustest, mis tulenevad 1994. aasta üldise tolli- ja kaubanduskokkulepe I artikli lõikest 1 ja XIII artikli lõigetest 1 ja 2, ulatuses, mis on vajalik, et Ameerika Ühendriigid saaksid võimaldada sooduskohtlemist toetuskõlblikele toodetele, mis pärinevad Nepalist ja imporditakse Ameerika Ühendriikide tolliterritooriumile.
 3.Kui Ameerika Ühendriikide taotlus, mille sisuks on teha erand WTO eeskirjadest, rahuldataks, ei kahjustaks see ei Euroopa Liidu majandust ega kaubandussuhteid erandi saajaga.
 4.Seepärast on asjakohane määrata kindlaks seisukoht, mis võetakse Euroopa Liidu nimel WTO peanõukogus Ameerika Ühendriikide eranditaotluse toetamiseks,
 ON VASTU VÕTNUD KÄESOLEVA OTSUSE:
 Artikkel 1
 Euroopa Liidu nimel võetav seisukoht Maailma Kaubandusorganisatsiooni peanõukogus on, et toetatakse Ameerika Ühendriikide esitatud taotlust teha erand nende 1994. aasta üldise tolli- ja kaubanduskokkuleppe I artikli lõike 1 ja XIII artikli lõigete 1 ja 2 kohastest kohustustest kuni 31. detsembrini 2025 vastavalt Ameerika Ühendriikide eranditaotluses sätestatud tingimustele.
 Kõnealuse seisukoha esitab komisjon.
 Artikkel 2
 Käesolev otsus jõustub selle vastuvõtmise kuupäeval.
 Brüssel,
 Nõukogu nimel
 eesistuja


jurisdiction: US

text: b'Apili 28, 2000\n\nWILLIAM J. DOWLING\nVICE PRESIDENT, ENGINEERING\n\nSUBJECT: Transmittal of Audit Report - Preventive Maintenance of Mail Processing\n Equlpinent at Processing and Distiibution Centers\n (Report Number AC-AR-00-001)\n\n\nAttached is a report on preventive maintenance of mail processing equipment. The\naudit was requested by the chief operating officer and executive vice president. The\naudit objectives were to evaluate the integrity of preventive maintenance data in the\nMaintenance Management Information System and determine whether preventive\nmaintenance was performed as scheduled. The audit revealed that the maintenance\nsystem did not provide consistent, complete, and accurate maintenance data that was\nneeded to manage the preventive maintenance program. Limited tests also disclosed\nthat preventive maintenance for mail processing equipment was not always perfomied\nas scheduled.\n\nManagement generally agreed with our recommendations and has planned actions\naddressing the issues in this report. Management\'s comments and our evaluation of\ntheir comments are included in the report.\n\nWe appreciate the cooperation and courtesies provided by your staff during the audit,\nyou have questions or need additional information, please contact Bennie M. Cruz,\ndirector, Delivery Operations, at (214) 775-9116 or me at (703) 248-2300.\n\n\n\nRobert L. Emmons\nActing Assistant Inspector General\n for Performance\n\nAttachment\n\ncc: Clarence E. Lewis, Jr.\n John E. Potter\n John R. Gunnels\n\x0cPreventive Maintenance of Mail Processing Equipment AC-AR-CiO-Od\nat Processing and Distribution Centers\n\n\n TABLE OF CONTENTS\n\nParti\n\nExecutive Summary i\n\nPart II\n\nIntroduction 1\n\n Background 1\n Objectives, Scope, and Methodology 1\n Prior Audit Coverage 2\n\nAudit Results 4\n\n Assessment of Maintenance Management Information System 4\n Integrity of Data 4\n Survey of Preventive Maintenance Program 6\n System Reliability 7\n Recommendations 7\n Management\'s Comments 7\n Evaluation of Management\'s Comments 9\n Performance Measurement System 10\n Performance Measures 10\n Others Factors Affecting Assessment of Preventive Maintenance 11\n Completion of Preventive Maintenance 12\n Impact of Preventive Maintenance 13\n Recommendations 14\n Management\'s Comments 14\n Evaluation of Management\'s Comments 16\n\nAppendix A. Locations Visited and Surveyed 17\nAppendix B. Management\'s Comments 18\n\x0cPreventive Maintenance of Mail Processing Equipment AC-AR-00-001\nat Processing and Distribution Centers\n\n\n EXECUTIVE SUMMARY\nIntroduction The chief operating officer and executive vice president\n requested that we review maintenance of mail processing\n equipment to evaluate the integrity of preventive\n maintenance data in the Maintenance Management\n Information System and determine whether preventive\n maintenance was performed as scheduled. This report\n presents the results of our audit. We initially planned to visit\n 19 locations to achieve our objectives. However, we limited\n ourfieldwork to two locations"\' because many source\n documents were not available, maintenance directives were\n not consistently used, and some maintenance data was\n inaccurate and incomplete.\n\nResults In Brief The Postal Service should implement improvements to .ts\n Maintenance Management Information System because the\n system did not provide reliable preventive maintenance\n data. We found instances where maintenance cost and\n hour data was incomplete, inaccurate and selected reports\n contained considerable disparities at the local and national\n levels. In addition, area and local offices expressed\n concerns about the completeness and accuracy of the data\n and their inability to access and use the maintenance\n system. They also communicated problems with training,\n guidance, and support provided by headquarters.\n Consequently, Postal Service management could not use\n preventive maintenance cost and hour information to\n effectively manage the preventive maintenance progran\n and assess whether required maintenance was performed.\n During our review, we noted that the Postal Service was in\n the process of making major modifications to the\n Maintenance Management Information System. When\n these system changes are implemented, the issues\n identified in this report may be resolved.\n\n Postal Service officials did not have an overall perfomiance\n measurement system to ensure that preventive\n maintenance was completed on mail processing equipment.\n We attempted to assess the completion of preventive\n maintenance for fiscal year (FY) 1999, but many source\n documents were not available, maintenance directives were\n\n\n^ The two locations visited were the Washington, D.C, Processing and Distribution Center and the Baton Ro^ge,\nLouisiana, General Mail Facility,\n\x0cPreventive Maintenance of lUlail Processing Equipment AC-AR-CiO-001\nat Processing and Distribution Centers\n\n\n inconsistently used, and some preventive maintenance data\n was not recorded properly at the local level. This condition\n was compounded because there was no performance\n measurement system in place. As an alternative, we\n performed limited tests at two locations visited and found\n indications that not all scheduled preventive maintenance\n was performed. The absence of effective preventive\n maintenance could increase costs, affect safety, and\n adversely affect the throughput and acceptance rate of mail\n processing equipment. Insufficient levels of preventive\n maintenance can result in decreased equipment life,\n unplanned maintenance activity, and increased frequency of\n corective maintenance actions.\n\nSummary of To improve the integrity of preventive maintenance data in\nRecommendations the Maintenance Management Information System and\n ensure scheduled preventive maintenance is performed, we\n recommend the vice president. Engineering assess the\n current maintenance system and make necessary\n improvements. Modifications are needed to ensure data ,s\n consistent, accurate, and complete. We also recommend\n that a performance measurement system be developed and\n implemented and current policies and procedures be\n revised. This would assure that preventive maintenance s\n completed, mail-processing interruptions are minimized, and\n unsafe working conditions are avoided.\n\nSummary of Management generally agreed with our recommendations.\nManagement\'s Specifically, management agreed that the Visual\nComments Maintenance Activity Reporting and Scheduling system was\n released prematurely without adequate testing and\n therefore, did not provide the consistency of data necessary\n to measure the preventive maintenance performance of the\n postal sites visited. However, they do feel that most postal\n equipment throughout the country is receiving adequate\n preventive maintenance. In addition, management stated\n that the establishment of incentives for preventive\n maintenance to ensure that preventive maintenance\n personnel have adequate time to perform their duties was\n not feasible. Management\'s comments are included in their\n entirety in Appendix B.\n\x0cPreventive Maintenance of Mail Processing Equipment AC-AR-00-001\nat Processing and Distribution Centers\n\n\nOverall Evaluation of Management\'s comments are generally responsive to our\nManagement\'s findings and recommendations. Management\'s planned\nComments actions address the issues identified in this report.\n\x0cPreventive Maintenance of Mail Processing Equipment AC-AR-00-001\nat Processing and Distribution Centers\n\n\n INTRODUCTION\nBackground Preventive maintenance is the planned, systematic,\n inspection, cleaning, lubrication, servicing, and custodial\n care required to retain the functional capabilities of mail\n processing equipment. The objective of preventive\n maintenance is to improve and prolong equipment life, avoid\n unplanned maintenance activity, and lower overall\n maintenance costs. During FY 1998 and FY 1999 the\n Postal Service incurred approximately $199 million and\n $163 million respectively, in preventive maintenance costs.\n\n The Postal Service established a Maintenance Management\n Information System to plan, schedule, and document\n preventive maintenance on mai! processing equipment.\n This system provides maintenance data relative to\n equipment, supplies, inventories, cost of parts, productivity,\n and labor and is comprised of two databases: the Visual\n Maintenance Activity Reporting and Scheduling system\n (local database) and National Maintenance Activity\n Reporting and Scheduling system (national database). The\n local database is a data collection system that uploads\n infonmation to the national database. The national database\n provides information relative to equipment, productivity,\n labor, and maintenance scheduling. Cun\'ent system\n deployment began in August 1998 and continued through\n September 1999 for about 500 locations. Postal officials\n stated the cost to implement this system was about\n $5 million. During deployment, some problem^were\n identified and corrected. An updated version ^ | B was\n being developed, but had not been implemente^i the time\n of our audit.\n\nObjective, Scope and The purpose of our review was to determine the integrity oi\nMethodology preventive maintenance data in the Maintenance\n Management Information System and determine whether\n preventive maintenance was performed as scheduled. We\n issued an interim report titled Review of the USPS\n Equipment Preventive Maintenance Program (Report\n Number AC-MA-99-001, dated September 20, 1999)\n communicating our initial observations regarding the\n integrity of preventive maintenance data. Based on those\n results, we revised our initial audit approach. We initially\n planned to visit 19 locations, but subsequently reduced our\n visits to two locations when we found that many source\n\n\n\n\n -t^lA. SojJ^^^C^iPj\n\x0cPreventive Maintenance of Mail Processing Equipment AC-AR-00-001\nat Processing and Distribution Centers\n\n\n documents were not available, maintenance directives were\n not consistently used, and some maintenance data was\n unreliable.\n\n To accomplish our objectives, we interviewed Postal\n Service Headquarters Engineering personnel and reviewed\n national postal policies and procedures. We also visited two\n locations and disseminated surveys to all 11 area offices\n and 13^ processing and distribution centers (Appendix A}.\n Our surveys gathered information related to data integrity,\n local maintenance reviews, training, and headquarters\n guidance and support. At the two locations visited, we\n interviewed maintenance personnel, observed preventive\n maintenance inspections, photographed mail processing\n equipment, compared local and national reports, and\n reconciled source documents to local reports for FY 1999.\n To assist with our review, we requested the Maintenance\n Technical Support Center personnel inspect the mail\n processing equipment and detem::ine whether scheduled\n preventive maintenance was performed.\n\n Our review was conducted between September 1999 and\n April 2000 in accordance with generally accepted\n government auditing standards and included tests of\n internal controls that we considered necessary.\n\nPrior Audit Coverage In June 1998 the Postal Inspection Service issued an audit\n report on Flats Automation (Case No. 038-1234520-PA(2)).\n This report addressed five conditions at 14 processing and\n distribution plants within the Westem Area.\n\n The report concluded that the Postal Service was not\n completing all scheduled preventive maintenance on the flat\n sorting machines during the preventive maintenance\n windows. Management\'s decision to perform higher priority\n work caused preventive maintenance to be bypassed.\n\n\n\n\n The processing and distribution centers were not statistically selected.\n\x0cPreventive Maintenance of Mail Processing Equipment AC-AROO-001\nat Processing and Distribution Centers\n\n\n\n The Postal Inspection Service recommended the following\n corrective action to the vice president, Westem Area\n Operations:\n\n 1. Establish the maximum allowable scheduled preventive\n maintenance bypass rate for flat sorters (and other mai!\n processing equipment).\n\n 2. Direct plant management to include standard operating\n procedures to perform scheduled preventive\n maintenance as required for flat sorting machines.\n\n Management concurred with the findings and agreed to\n implement the recommendations. During our audit, we\n found similar conditions at the locations we visited. This\n report includes recommendations to address these issues\n forthe maintenance program nationwide.\n\x0cPreventive Maintenance of Mall Processing Equipment AC-AR-00-001\nat Processing and Distribution Centers\n\n\n AUDIT RESULTS\nAssessment of The Postal Service should implement improvements to its\nMaintenance Maintenance Management Information System because the\nManagement system did not provide reliable preventive maintenance\nInformation System data. We found instances where maintenance cost and\n hour data was incomplete, inaccurate, and selected reports\n contained considerable disparities at the local and national\n levels. In addition, area and local offices expressed\n concerns about the completeness and accuracy of the data\n and their Inability to access and use the maintenance\n system. They further communicated problems with training,\n guidance, and support provided by headquarters.\n Consequently, Postal Service management could not use\n preventive maintenance cost and hour infonnation to\n effectively manage the preventive maintenance program\n and assess whether required maintenance was performed.\n\nIntegrity of Data Our review disclosed that data in preventive maintenance\n reports was inaccurate, incomplete, and contained\n signiflcant disparities with costs and hours. Maintenance\n managers need accurate cost and hours data to verify and\n analyze cost effectiveness, performance, trends, and\n efficiencies of mail processing equipment and systems.\n\n Comparison of Reports. We identified considerable\n inconsistencies between local and national reports. We\n reviewed and compared various local and national reports\n (Appendix A) to determine the reliability of maintenance\n data. We visited 2 locations, surveyed 13 other locations,\n and reviewed reports for 6 types^ of mail processing\n equipment. We noted the foiiowing:\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Local reports\'* from 5 of 15 locations did not contain the\n same cost information as national reports. The\n differences between loca! and national costs totaled\n about $538,000 or 11 percent of total costs in the flve\n local reports. Comparable cost information was not\n available forthe remaining ten locations.\n\n\n\n^ Advanced facer-canceler system/input sub-system; delivery bar code sorter; mai! processing flats sorter machine;\noptical character reader/input sub-system; small bar code sorter/outpul sub-system, and small parcel and bundle\nmachine,\n* Comparison of FY 1999 local Plant Maintenance Cost Workhours Detailed by Acronym report to national Preventive\nMaintenance Costs report.\n\x0cPreventive Maintenance of Mail Processing Equipment AC-AR-00-001\nat Processing and Distribution Centers\n\n\n\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Local reports^ from 8 of 15 locations did not contain the\n same hour information as national reports. The\n differences between local and national hours totaled\n about 43,000 or 15 percent of totai hours in the eight\n local reports. Comparable hour information was not\n available for the remaining seven locations.\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Two national reports^ from 9 of 15 locations did not\n contain the same hour information. The differences\n between hours for the nine locations totaled about\n 23,500 or 6 percent. Comparable hour information was\n not available for the remaining six locations.\n\n While we could not identify all of the reasons for these\n differences, we did note that there was no single focal point\n to oversee and verify the consistency of data transmissions\n from the local to the national system. Consequently,\n management did not assure that transactions recorded at\n the local level were reported in the national database.\n\n Comparison of Reports to Source Documents. We\n compared local reports to source documents at the two\n locations visited and found that data was not complete and\n accurate. For the four pieces of equipment reviewed, the\n system identified scheduled maintenance. However, we\n found that completion information for 81 routes^ was either\n not entered or not accepted^ in the system, completion\n information for 37 routes was recorded more than once and\n completion information on 222 partially completed routes\n was recorded as fully completed. These conditions\n occun-ed because the system allowed these transactions to\n be recorded or excluded.\n\n\n\n\n Comparison of FY 1999 local Plant Maintenance Cost Workhours Detailed by Acronym report to national Preventive\nMaintenance Costs report and local Workload/Hours Operated Detailed Totals by Acronym report to national\nPreventive Maintenance Costs report.\n^ Comparison of FY 1999 Preventive Maintenance Costs report to Preventive Maintenance report.\n\' A route is a series of preventive maintenance tasks for specific types of mail processing equipment.\n\' The system does not accept preventive maintenance transactions when source documents are input after the nput\ncut-off date.\n\x0cPreventive Maintenance of Mail Processing Equipment AC-AR-00-001\nat Processing and Distribution Centers\n\n\n\nSurvey of Preventive We surveyed 11 area and 13 local offices to obtain\nMaintenance Program feedback on the preventive maintenance program. Most\n area and local managers indicated that maintenance data\n was not reliable. Maintenance managers also expressed\n concerns with the training, guidance, and support provided\n by headquarters, and their inability to access and use the\n local and national databases. We did not validate the\n accuracy of all reported items because of the quantity and\n significance of the concerns identified by the survey\n respondents. However, we believe the extent and nature of\n these concerns support our findings and warrant\n management attention.\n\n Completeness and Accuracy of Data. Officials at 10 area\n and 10 local offices expressed concems with the overall\n accuracy and completeness of data. While all offices did\n not provide speciflc comments, one office stated that data\n entries were recorded erroneously in the system. For\n example, one route was reflected in the system seven\n times, although it was only entered once.\n\n Training, Guidance and Support. Although training was\n available, area and local officials conveyed concerns with\n training as well as guidance and support. Specifically,\n maintenance officials at six area and three local offices told\n us that no training was provided on the current system.\n Offidals at 13 of the 15 remaining offices told us that\n training was inadequate for reasons such as system\n software did not work properiy and instructors were not\n knowledgeable about the system.\n\n Additionally, nine area and five local offices stated there\n was lack of guidance for system use. Comments were\n made that tutorials were outdated, too general, and did not\n provide real life examples. Additionally, offices commented\n that there were not enough people to respond to technical\n questions. Conversations with headquarters Engineering\n officials disclosed that there were two employees in\n Oklahoma and four in headquarters to support about 500\n locations. Area and local officials stated that responses to\n system questions were not always timely.\n\x0cPreventive Maintenance of Mail Processing Equipment AC-AR-00-001\nat Processing and Distribution Centers\n\n\n\n System Access. At nine area offices, officials stated they\n did not have computer on-line access to either the local or\n national databases. Officials at some locations indicated\n they had to contact local offices to obtain needed reports.\n The officials stated they would be able to monitor preventive\n maintenance activity more effectively if they had access to\n the data.\n\nSystem Reliability We believe that the considerable disparities in system data,\n as well as the concems expressed by the area and local\n offices, raise questions about the system\'s ability to provide\n complete and accurate preventive maintenance data. As is,\n management can not use cost and hour data to effectively\n manage the preventive maintenance program or to\n determine whether preventive maintenance is completed.\n\nRecommendation We recommend the vice president, Engineering:\n\n 1. Modify system software to ensure that transactions are\n properiy recorded. Specifically, the system should: not\n record partially completed routes as fully completed;\n accept data from documents that are submitted late;\n and not accept duplicate entries.\n\nManagement\'s Management agreed with modifying the software to insure\nComments that partially completed routes are not recorded as fully\n completed and to develop a check for duplicate data entries\n for Maintenance Operation Support clerk verification.\n However, they did not agree to modify system software to\n accept data from documents submitted late. They feel that\n the cun\'ent practice of allowing one to two weeks to enter\n data is sufficient time for all sites. In addition, they have\n indicated that by extending this time, it would extend their\n time to provide the data nationally and to the areas.\n\nRecommendation 2. Implement a formal process to proactively solicit\n feedback on the system from all users and take\n appropriate corrective action.\n\nManagement\'s Management agreed to formalize the current informal\nComments process by soliciting feedback, allowing comment on\n suggestions and providing the field information on what will\n and what will not be implemented.\n\x0cPreventive Maintenance of Mail Processing Equipment AC-AR-00-001\nat Processing and Distribution Centers\n\n\nRecommendation 3. Verify the consistency of data transmitted from the local\n database to the national database.\n\nManagement\'s Management agreed to perform checks on the consistency\nComments of data transmitted from local Visual Maintenance Activity\n Reporting and Scheduling sites to the National Maintenance\n Activity Reporting and Scheduling national database. They\n have also indicated that they will flx the inconsistencies\n between various Visual Maintenance Activity Reporting and\n Scheduling preventive maintenance reports and National\n Maintenance Activity Reporting and Scheduling reports.\n These fixes will be implemented, tested, and deployed to\n the field before the end of the fiscal year.\n\nRecommendation 4. Review and evaluate the adequacy of training for the\n Visual Maintenance Activity Reporting and Scheduling\n system and ensure adequate training is provided to all\n system users.\n\nManagement\'s Management agreed to evaluate the adequacy of Visual\nComments Maintenance Activity Reporting and Scheduling training.\n Currently, eight different courses are available. They will\n evaluate the courses, see if improvements are needed and\n check to determine if they are being offered enough to meet\n demand. They plan to complete this effort within 90 days.\n\nRecommendation 5. Update tutorials to reflect system changes and provide\n explicit instructions with practical examples to\n troubleshoot input problems.\n\nManagement\'s Management agreed with this recommendation. ^Jfiiwill\nComments update tutorials as suggested, as part of version g H w h i c h\n is expected to be released near the end of fiscal yea^OOO.\n\nRecommendation 6. Assess the help desk\'s current woricload and make\n necessary adjustments to ensure the help desk is\n appropriately staffed and timely responses are provided\n to system users.\n\nManagement\'s Management agreed with this recommendation and stated\nComments that due to year 2000 pressures and the premature release\n of Visual Maintenance Activity Reporting and Scheduling\n software, their help desk operations has been ovenvhelmed.\n They intend to work on this problem in two ways: providing\n\n\n\n\n m\n\x0cPreventive Maintenance of Mail Processing Equipment AC-AR-00-001\nat Processing and Distribution Centers\n\n\n\n better tested software, which will lead to fewer questions;\n and to find additional resources to provide a better help\n desk operation.\n\nRecommendation 7. Review and evaluate the accessibility of maintenance\n system databases to all system users so they can\n retrieve information and more effectively manage the\n preventive maintenance program.\n\nManagement\'s Management stated that access to local system databases\nComments is already available and is used by technical specialist as\n part of their help desk operations. They intend, by\n May 1, 2000, to provide area staffs access to local system\n databases and the National Maintenance Activity Reporting\n and Scheduling national system. They will also, by\n July 1, 2000, develop and deploy to area staffs multiple\n software queries to access the preventive maintenance\n performance of all their sites.\n\nEvaluation of Management\'s comments were responsive to our\nManagement\'s recommendations, and their actions taken and planned\nComments should correct the conditions identified in this finding.\n Although management does not plan to implement our\n recommendation to modify system software to allow the\n system to accept data from documents submitted late, we\n are satisfied that the actions planned and taken to date v/ill\n meet the intent ofthe recommendafion.\n\x0cPreventive Maintenance of Mail Processing Equipment AC-AR-00-001\nat Processing and Distribution Centers\n\n\n\n\nPerformance Postal Service officials did not have an overall performance\nMeasurement measurement system to ensure that preventive\nSystem maintenance was completed on mail processing equipment.\n We attempted to assess the completion of preventive\n maintenance for FY 1999, but many source documents\n were unavailable, maintenance directives were\n inconsistently used, and some preventive maintenance data\n was not recorded properiy at the local level. This condition\n was compounded because there was no performance\n measurement system in place. As an alternative, we\n performed limited tests at two locations and found\n indications that all preventive maintenance was not\n performed. Insufficient levels of preventive maintenance\n can ultimately result in mail processing delays and unsafe\n working conditions. The Postal Service should establish a\n performance measurement system and revise current\n policies and procedures. This would assure that preventive\n maintenance is completed, mail processing interruptions are\n minimized, and unsafe working conditions are avoided.\n\nPerformance Measures Headquarters maintenance officials had not established\n performance measures to evaluate preventive maintenance\n on mail processing equipment. These officials are\n responsible for defining and disseminating policies and\n strategies for maintenance of mai! processing equipment.\n We found officials had not established performance\n standards, a performance base line, or an effective\n oversight process to measure performance and identify best\n practices. Specifically, the Postal Service had not:\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Formally established or communicated preventive\n maintenance goals to area and local offices.\n Headquarters Engineering officials stated that\n 90 percent of scheduled maintenance should be\n completed to meet minimum requirements.\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Established a base line to measure performance. A\n base line is important to establish current preventive\n maintenance levels, from which to compare and\n measure future performance. In addition, the Postal\n Service had not implemented a formal process to\n evaluate performance and identify best practices for\n preventive maintenance.\n\n\n\n\n 10\n\x0cPreventive Maintenance of Mail Processing Equipment AC-AR-00-001\nat Processing and Distribution Centers\n\n\n Established an effective oversight process for monitoring\n and reviewing maintenance. Postal Service officials had\n access to standard reports, but were not using those\n reports to identify and connect poor performance in area\n and local offices.\n\nOther Factors Affecting We also noted other factors at the local level affecting the\nAssessment of ability of Postal Service management to assess completion\nPreventive of preventive maintenance. Local management, at the\nMaintenance direction of the area office, is responsible for ensuring\n maintenance is performed in accordance with national\n policies, including policy provided in Maintenance\n Operations Support. Handbook MS-53. In reviewing the\n preventive maintenance program at the local level, we noted\n source documents were not always maintained and\n maintenance directives were not consistently used.\n Specifically, we found:\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Source documents (PS Fomn 8152, Employee Daily\n Activity Card) to record and track preventive\n maintenance acfivity were not retained at some locations\n for FY 1999. These are the only source documents\n used to record preventive maintenance activity in the\n Maintenance Management Infonnafion System. These\n documents were not kept because the handbook did not\n require they be retained after system input. We obtained\n information regarding preventive maintenance activifies\n from 13 locations and found that 4 did not retain source\n documents forthe entire fiscal year.\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Local offices did not always use required guidance to\n establish maintenance procedures. Local offices are\n required to use Maintenance Management Orders that\n provide technical information such as preventive\n maintenance checklists and timeframes to develop\n maintenance procedures. A comparison of required\n Maintenance Management Orders with those actually\n used showed that 5 of 15 locations reviewed did not use\n required orders for at least one piece of equipment.\n Consequently, it would be difficult to determine if the\n maintenance performed satisfied current maintenance\n requirements.\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2 We also found that documentation of changes to\n Preventive Maintenance Master Lists was not\n\n\n\n 11\n\x0cPreventive Maintenance of Mail Processing Equipment AC-AR-00-001\nat Processing and Distribution Centers\n\n\n maintained. The only list available was the one in effect\n at year-end. The Preventive Maintenance Master List\n established annual maintenance requirements and was\n updated periodically throughout the year. However,\n when updates occurred, previous versions were not\n maintained. As a result, it was difficult to determine\n whether cunrent performance levels met all annual\n requirements.\n\nCompletion of We performed limited woric at two locations that retained\nPreventive source documents and found indications that preventive\nMaintenance maintenance was not completed. Specifically, our review of\n available source documents for four pieces of mail\n processing equipment revealed that 17 to 39 percent of\n scheduled annual preventive maintenance was not\n completed. The following graph presents our results for the\n specific equipment reviewed and locations visited.\n\n PREVENTIVE MAINTENANCE NOT PERFORMED\n\n\n\n\n "BAR CODE\n SORTER #2\n\n\n\n\n *WASHINGTON, D.C. ^BATON ROUGE, LOUISIANA\n\n Postal Service maintenance technicians assisting us in the\n review confinned our results at one location. At the\n Washington, D.C, location they reported that while these\n machines were capable of operating and processing mail,\n the overall condition of the equipment was poor. The\n technicians found deficiencies in the condition of equipment\n that was attributed, in part, to incomplete preventive\n maintenance.\n\n\n\n 12\n\x0cPreventive Maintenance of Mail Processing Equipment AC-AR-00-001\nat Processing and Distribution Centers\n\n\n\n Maintenance personnel told us that, in many cases,\n preventive maintenance was not completed because local\n Operations personnel did not release the equipment\n because of the need to process mail. Although\n maintenance times were negotiated in advance, they were\n not always adhered to; resulting in less time to perform\n required preventive maintenance. This condition occurred\n at two locations visited, as well as, 8 of 13 locations\n ^e confirmed, for one piece of equipment at the\n _ facility, that 32 of 41 (78 percent) documented\n bypasses^ were due to operational needs. Consequently,\n operating requirements took precedence over preventive\n maintenance.\n\nImpact of Preventive The absence of effective preventive maintenance could\nMaintenance increase costs, affect safety, and adversely affect the\n throughput and acceptance rate of mail processing\n equipment. Insufficient levels of preventive maintenance\n can result in decreased equipment life, unplanned\n maintenance activity, and increased frequency of corrective\n maintenance actions.\n\n For example, we asked the Postal Service maintenance\n technicians assisting us with the audit, to review mail\n processina equiprrient at the two locations visited. At the\n m ^ m m a m ^ m ^ m f^^^jnty ^^e maintenance technicians\n ^ ^ ^ W c ^ ^ ^ ^ f f v e maintenance deficiencies that affected\n the safety, throughput, acceptance rate, and repair time on\n equipment. Specifically,\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Feeders on the four letter-sorting pieces of\n equipment reviewed were not properiy aligned. The\n misalignment could cause degradation in throughput\n and increase the jam rate.\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Many indicator lights were nonfunctional. This could\n result in excessive time to diagnose and repair, in the\n case of machine failure.\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Three machines had emergency stop switches and\n safety interiock switches that were nonfunctional,\n resulting in unsafe conditions.\n\n\n\n\n \' A bypass occurs when a preventive maintenance route is not performed as scheduled.\n\n\n\n\n 13\n\n (b pJ\n\x0cPreventive Maintenance of Mall Processing Equipment AC-AR-00-001\nat Processing and Distribution Centers\n\n\n\n\n Postal Service maintenance technicians found this emergency stop had been defective since\n July26, 1999, As of October 22, 1999, the equipment had not been repaired.\n\n\nRecommendation We recommend the vice president, Engineering:\n\n 8. Establish performance measures (levels) for preventive\n maintenance and formally communicate expectations to\n area and local offices.\n\nManagement\'s Management agreed to establish performance levels for\nComments preventive maintenance completion. They expect that these\n performance levels will vary with the criticality of the\n equipment and with the relative importance of particular\n preventive maintenance routes. They will also attempt to\n provide some flexibility for local management to handle\n unexpectedly high mail volumes while maintaining\n equipment performance levels. Management expects to be\n able to issue these performance measures by the end of\n December 2000.\n\nRecommendation 9. Develop a base line of preventive maintenance\n performance.\n\nManagement\'s Management agreed to reimplement within 90 days the\nComments baseline of preventive maintenance performance by using\n the software queries mentioned in response number seven.\n\n\n\n\n 14\n\x0cPreventive Maintenance of AAail Processing Equipment AC-AR-00-001\nat Processing and Distribution Centers\n\n\nRecommendation 10. Monitor actual performance and identify and implement\n best practices at all locations.\n\nManagement\'s Management agreed to direct area maintenance staffs to\nComments monitor preventive maintenance performance at their\n facilities and provide them with best practices for national\n distribution. They will complete this by the end of\n December 2000.\n\nRecommendation 11. Assess the current reporting system to ensure\n information provided can be used to measure\n performance.\n\nManagement\'s Management agreed to evaluate current Visual\nComments Maintenance Activity Reporting and Scheduling reports to\n determine the accuracy and to assess their usefulness in\n managing maintenance operations.\n\nRecommendation 12. Modify nationwide policy to require that source\n documents (PS Form 8152, Employee Daily Activity\n Card) be retained for at least one fiscal year after\n system input.\n\nManagement\'s Management agreed to take steps to require retention of PS\nComments Fonm 8152, Employee Daily Activity Cards. They will\n provide this direction to the field before the end of FY 2000.\n\nRecommendation 13. Ensure that local offices have the latest versions of\n Maintenance Management Orders and retain all\n versions ofthe Preventive Maintenance Master List for\n at least one fiscal year.\n\nManagement\'s Management agreed to ensure that local offices had the\nComments latest versions of Maintenance Management Orders by\n updating the master mailing and Maintenance Management\n Orders master lists annually, in addition, they would direct\n local offices to retain all copies of preventive maintenance\n routes for at least one fiscal after using them. They will\n issue this direction before the end of FY 2000.\n\nRecommendation 14. Establish incentives for preventive maintenance that are\n comparable to those for mail processing operations to\n ensure that preventive maintenance personnel have\n adequate time to perform their duties.\n\n\n\n 15\n\x0cPreventive Maintenance of Mail Processing Equipment AC-AR-OO-001\nal Processing and Distribution Centers\n\n\n\n\nManagement\'s Management stated that the establishment of incentives for\nComments preventive maintenance that are comparable to those used\n in mail-processing operations is not feasible. Management\n further stated that they had presented the Overall\n Equipment Efficiency performance evaluation process to\n management in the past as a possible incentive for the field,\n but the process was not accepted. Management felt that\n Overall Equipment Efficiency performance would be\n reflected in the existing Economic Value Added\n performance measures. However, they plan to continue to\n work closely with operations to increase Overall Equipment\n Efficiency performance by cooperatively increasing the\n availability of equipment for the completion of preventive\n maintenance.\n\nEvaluation of Although management stated that establishing incentives\nManagement\'s were not feasible, we would recommend that management\nComments to continue pursuing the establishment of incentives for\n preventive maintenance. In addition, working closely with\n operations to increase the availability of the equipment\n should assist in facilitating the performance of preventive\n maintenance. We will continue to monitor the establishment\n of incentives for preventive maintenance.\n\n\n\n\n 16\n\x0cPreventive Maintenance of Mail Processing Equipment AC-AR-00-001\nat Processing and Distribution Centers\n\n\n APPENDIX A. LOCATIONS VISITED AND SURVEYED\n1. The 11 area offices are: Allegheny, Capital Metro, Great Lakes, Mid-Atiantic\n Midwest, New York Metro, Northeast, Pacific, Southeast, Southwest, and Westem.\n2. The 13 survey locations fnot statisti selected^ include the followinc\n and distribution centers:\n\n\n\n\n3. The following local database reports were reviewed:\n (a) Preventive Maintenance Master List\n (b) Plant Maintenance Cost Wori<-hours Detailed by Acronym\n (c) Plant Maintenance Cost Parts or Material Detailed by Acronym\n (d) Maintenance Workload/Hours Operated Detailed Totals by Acronym\n (e) Preventive Maintenance Completion Rate by Acronym\n (f) Daily/Touriy Routes Scheduled for Crew Report\n (g) Preventive Maintenance Bypassed by Acronym\n (h) Preventive Maintenance Accomplished Report\n (i) Equipment Service Date List\n (j) Overall Equipment Effectiveness\n (k) End-of-Run Report\n (I) Plant Equipment Breakdown Summary Report\n\n\n\n\n 17\n\x0cPreventive Maintenance of Mail Processing Equipment AC-AR-00-001\nat Processing and Distribution Centers\n\n\n APPENDIX B. MANAGEMENT\'S COMMENTS\n\n WLUMI J, DOMLK;\n VaPMMIM\n Ex\n\n ONHED STATES\n POSmLSERVK\xc2\xa3\n\n\n\n\n April \xe2\x82\xac , 2000\n\n\n\n\n RJChiARD CHAMBERS\n DEPUTY ASSISTANH\' INSPECTOR GENEFIAL FOR PERFORMANCE\n OFFICE OF TTHE INSPECTOR GENERAL\n\n SUBJECT: Dfaft Audit Report - PrevenUve Maintenance ot Mail Pnscessing Equiprrient m\n Processing and Distribution Center\n\n We have receivea and reviciwed Uie dral^ report of Uie subject audit. We agree tiiat ttw Visual\n Maimeiance Activity Reporting and ScfKduling (VMARS) system was released prematurely\n without adequale testing snd trierefore did not pruvide the consistency of data necesMry forthe\n OIG lo measure the preventive mamtenance perfonnance of the posul sites ihey visited. We do.\n However, teal that nrtost postal equipment ttiroughout t^e country Is receding aclequaieprevenbve\n maintenance. Genera! equipment performance, sorter availability, and National Maintenance\n Infonnation Control System (NMICS) data betarK it was replaced with tne National Mainlenance\n *AARS (NW.RS> confirm thte.\n\n The VMARS system has been under development for some time and is a necessary\n improvemem forthe Maintenance Activity Reporting and ScreduUng |^lAi%S) system It replaced.\n MARS used unsupported software tools and was not Y2K compliant. I was a necessary part ot\n hardware upgrades and integration ofthe msirtfenance sysiem into ttie Information Systems\n Processing and Distribution [IS P&D] odmlnlstraGve Local Area Networt <L/tN} structure. In\n addition, tha NMICS mam frame sotlware, w^ic^ had suppoited the maintenance organiutiort for\n mor? than 20 years and was not Y2K compliant, was scheduled to be replaced in early PV "dd.\n\n Under triis pressure, the VMARS software was deployed starting in August 19S8. The\n deptoymerd vras delayeC between September and February Ic fix ctfOe bugs and stabilize the\n system. Deployment continuetf unU May 1999, when tho NMICS software was removed iVom\n service and IWMARS became our mantenance reporting nstional system, initial debugging eflorts\n were focused on the NMARS connection to Ae Material Oistflbulion inveiTlory Management\n System (MNDIUS) to ensure lhat spare parts support in the field would not be effected. WorX on\n the maintenance management portions ofthe notronal softwara was delayed.\n\n Unfortunately, it was at thts point the OIG needed a stable environmerat to measure preventive\n maintenance (pm) perfo/mance. Sites had converted from NMICS to NUM^S at different limes\n during the yaar, and it was difFicull to match data fram one system to the other as well as to\n NMARS. However. PM is t)eing regularly sdieduled at hundreds of sites across trie country\n Major automaUon and mecnanizaliOTi systems are perfomiinQ wStTi over 98 percent BvsilatRlily, it\n is unfortunate lhat the national and hical systems are having inconsistencies but we feel that we\n can solve Ihem and are woriOng with the OIG in this effort.\n\n\n\n\n 18\n\x0cPreventive Maintenance of Mail Processing Equipment AC-AR-00-001\nat Processing and Distribution Centers\n\n\n\n\n -2\'\n\n\n .. , r Enginet ,\n System beginning vrith ttw version^l^release. This process mandstes a standamtzed planning\n and software testing t>y a separate organizatior. It has allowed us lo significantly improve the\n quantity of automation software.\n\n The foQowlng are our spedfic responses lo Vie recommendalions.\n\n Recooiff>endanons #i\n\n Modify system software to ensure ttie transactions are properly recorded, SpectncaOy. the\n system should: nol record partially completed iQutes as fuffy completed; accept dale from\n documents that are subnvned laie; and not accepl duplicate eniries.\n\n Response:\n\n We will modify the VMARS system software to insure lhat partially completed routes are\'nol\n reconJed as fully completed. We will also develop a chedt for duplicate data enuies for\n Maintenance Operation Support (MOS) dert verification. iHowCver, we fed that the currem\n pndlce of allowing from one Lo two weeks to enter data Ls suffident time for all sites, Exlendirg\n that time would extend the time for lis to provide the data natJonaDy and to the areas. Sites can\n still record lale data as a PM workoroer, allowing them to record the time but they would not ba\n credited with a PM completion for natlonaf reporting. We win also fix the incoisistendes txtween\n various VMARS preventive maintenance repons and NMAAS icports. These ttxes will be\n implementBd, lesied, and deployed to the Geld before the end Ofthe fiscal year.\n\n Recommendations #g\n\n Implement a lormal process to proactively soEdl feedbaclc on me system from all users and take\n appropriate oonec&ve actiDfi.\n\n Response;\n\n Uanagement agrees with this recorrvnendatlon. We wOl romiaiize the current infonnat process by\n soliciting feedback, aOowing comnwrit on suggastioru and providing the field Informaiion on wtiat\n will and what will not be inpl^nented. This wiQ be completed within 90 days.\n\n RftcDmmendHlions IB\n\n Verify the consistency of data trensmllted from the local database to the national database.\n\n Response:\n\n We agree to pertarm checks on the consistency of data transmitted from local VM\'kRS sites to\n the NMARS r\\ational database. We wiD also improve built-in cnechs of data integrity. Thb wil tM\n completed before the end of the fiscal year.\n\n F^ecommerxiatlgns #4\n\n Review and evaluate the adequacy of training fbr the Visual Maintenance Actlvty Reporting and\n Scheduling system and ensure adequate training is provided to sD sysiem users.\n\n\n\n\n 19\n\n\n H^\n\x0cPreventive Maintenance of Mail Processing Equipment AC-AR-00-001\nat Processing and Distribution Centers\n\n\n\n\n -3-\n\n\n Rwpons?;\n We win evaluate Ihe adequacy of VMARS training. Cunvnlly, eight different courses are\n available via PSTN or resident traintng fium NCED, our training canter in rsiomian, OK. We wil\n evaluate tna course, see if improvements are needed and check to determbe S It is being offered\n enough to meet demand. These courses range from a three-weeK resident course covering\n nainteiwnce operation support usir^ VMARS to three-day sateEte training. Over 2,939 students\n have been exposed to VUARS training shee March 23,1998. This effort will be corrtpleted within\n flQ days.\n\n Recommendations 95\n\n Update tutorials to refled system changes and provide expEcK instructions with practical\n exarnplasto trouUeshoot input problems.\n\n Response:\n\n Management agrees witT ttiis recommendation. We will update tutorial as suggested as part of\n vaiskirUHVexpected to be released near the end of Fiscal Year 2000.\n\n Recomrt\\eftdatio(w flS\n\n Assess the help desk\'s cunent woikload and make necessary adjustments to ensure the help\n desk Is apprapriatety staffed artd ttmely responses are provided to system users.\n\n\n\n MartageftierTt agrees with the recommendation. Due to Y2K pressures and premature release of\n VMARS sottwara, our Help Desk oper^ion has been aveivrti\xc2\xabimed. We intend to wrOfk on this\n problem in two ways. Wefeel Ihd bettertestedsoftwaje wiIl)eadtofewerque$tk)ns. Weslso\n intend to find additional resources to provide a better Help Desk operation.\n\n RgcomnentiatlonfT\n\n Review and evaluate the accessibility of mahtenanca sysiem databases to aD system users so\n they can retrieve Irrfomiation and more effedlvdy manage the prevenlive mairrtenaiKe progrvn.\n\n Response:\n\n Access to local system databases i5 already available and Is used by our technical spedalists as\n pari of Our Help Desk Dperatjon. VM irteno to prowletfasimonmatlon to area staffs by Uay \\.\n We wiO also provide the access to the NMARS i\\alional system. By July 1, we will develop and\n deploy to area stafTs multiple software queries to access the preventive maintenance\n perfomunce of all their ales,\n\n ReeommentlationsJB\n\n EstabDsh performance measures (levels) for preventive nnaintenance and tomially corrmunicate\n expedations lo area and local offices.\n\n\n\n\n 20\n (yp\n\x0cP r e v e n t i v e M a i n t e n a n c e of Mail P r o c e s s i n g E q u i p m e n t AC-AR-00-001\nat P r o c e s s i n g a n d D i s t r i b u t i o n Centers\n\n\n\n\n -A-\n\n\n Rgsponae:\n\n Managemfifit agrees witn this recommendalion. We wUl establish perfonnance levels fbr\n prevents maintenance compdetlon. We eicpect that these perfonrunca levels wiD vary with the\n criticality of Ihe equipmerl and with the relative importance of particular prevwilive maintenance\n routes. We wifl also aHfimpt to provkle some nexi&aity for local manaQemem to hartdle\n unexpectedly htgh mai volumes whSe maintaining equipment perfonnance levels We exped to\n be able to issue these peif ormanca measures by the end of December 2000.\n\n Rficom^nendaliens ilt9\n\n Devetop & base hne of preventive maintenanse perfomiance.\n Reroonsc:\n\n We agree with this recommendation. The baseline of preventive maintenance perfonnance\n which vas irAerrupted by the terrninatlon of the non-YZK compfianl NMICS system will be\n reimplemented wrlhir 90 daya using the software queries mentioned In response number 7.\n\n Recommendations #10\n\n Monitor actual performance and identify and inplement best practices at all locations.\n\n Response:\n\n We wJD direct area maintenarca stafTs to monitor preventivB maintenance perfonnance al their\n facilities and pruvide us with best prsdices for nattortal dstribution. We wil complete this by the\n end ot December 2000.\n\n Recommendations \xc2\xbb11\n Assess the current reporling sysiem to ensure irfomialion provioed can be used to measure\n perfonnartce.\n\n ReSDO(iyy:\n\n We will evaluate cunam VMARS reports to detsmiine the accuracy and to access ireir\n uselulness in manatP^ muitenance Dperatiora.\n\n Recommendations t^2\n\n Modify nationwide polcy to require that source documents (PS Form 8t52, Em[loyee Daily\n Adivity Card) be retained for at least one FY after system input\n\n Response:\n\n Management agrees with this recommendation. Retention requirements far Fonn 6152,\n Employee Daily Activity Cards, was dropped in our last publication of our MS-\xc2\xa33 handbook as an\n effort to simprify pepenwork requirements. We now see It was a mistake and will take steps to\n require its retention. We wil pnfvide this direction to the field befoie the end of PV 2000.\n\n\n\n\n 21\n\x0cP r e v e n t i v e M a i n t e n a n c e of Mail P r o c e s s i n g E q u i p m e n t AC-AR-00-001\na t P r o c e s s i n g a n d D i s t r i b u t i o n Centers\n\n\n\n\n -s-\n Recommendalton5\xc2\xbb13\n\n Ensure that l a n l offices nave the latest varsiona of Maintenance Management Orders and retain\n aD versions of dis Preventive Maintenance Mast u\xc2\xabt for at least one fiscal year.\n\n Response:\n\n We WiD ensure that local offices have the latest versions of Maintenance Uanagement Orders\n (MMOa) by updating our master maaing UsL Wa wid contnie lo update QM M M D master Ust\n annually. W t wD retain all versions ofthe Preventive Maintenance (PM) muster list KH- at least\n one fiscal year by changing our VUARS appacatkxi. We wID save all changes made to a PM\n route In oiirPM Master ijst for the current fiscal year We wU p i H the PM Master Ust during our\n VMARS flscBl year dose process and reguire field offices to file this Dsi in their Maintenance\n Operatian Supftort {MOS) office tor ona fiscal year.\n\n Reeommendauon #14\n\n Establish incentives for preventhn maintenance that are comparotile those mall processing\n operations to ensure thai prevemive maintenance personnrt have adequate tjrne to perfonn tbdr\n duties.\n\n Restwnse:\n\n Wfc have lound the establishment of incentives for prwenttve maintenance that are comparable\n to those used in mail processing operations to ensure that preventiva maintenance perwnnel\n have adequate lime lo perfomi ihcir dt^ies Is not feasible. We presented the Overall Equipment\n Efficiency (OEE) performance evaluation process to management In the past as a possibla\n incentive (or the fieM lo acconvAsh pievenfiv\xc2\xab mainttHtaTwe. 1Y\xc2\xbb OEE pfocess was i\\tft\n accepted. Management feU that OEE pertamanoe would ba refleaed in the e\xc2\xbbsting Economic\n Value Added (EVA) perlomwnce measurements in place. We will continue to wortt closely with\n Our operafions customers \\o increase OEE performance by cooperatively Increasing the\n availatflity of a^lpment lo msintenance for the comtietion of preventive maintenance.\n\n\n\n\n E. Potter, Richard Porras, John R. Gunnels\n\n\n\n\n 22\n\x0cPreventive Maintenance of Mail Processing Equipment AC-AR-00-001\nat Processing and Distribution Centers\n\n\n\n\nMajor Contributors to Joe Arvizu\nThis Report Suzanne Bing\n Bennie M. Cruz\n Hector R. Garcia\n Rafus Grier, Jr.\n Cindy A. Jackson\n Penny Segura\n Jody J. Troxclair\n Allison Whitten\n\n\n\n\n 23\n\x0c'