text:
 EUROOPA KOMISJON
 Brüssel,8.4.2016
 COM(2016) 186 final
 2016/0102(NLE)
 Ettepanek:
 NÕUKOGU OTSUS
 Euroopa Liidu ja Marshalli Saarte Vabariigi vahelise lühiajalise viisa nõudest loobumist käsitleva lepingu Euroopa Liidu nimel allakirjutamise ja selle ajutise kohaldamise kohta
 SELETUSKIRI
 1.ETTEPANEKU TAUST
 Nõukogu määruses (EÜ) nr 539/2001
 1
 on loetletud kolmandad riigid, kelle kodanikel peab liikmesriikide välispiiride ületamisel olema viisa, ja need kolmandad riigid, kelle kodanikud on sellest nõudest vabastatud. Määrust (EÜ) nr 539/2001 kohaldavad kõik liikmesriigid peale Iirimaa ja Ühendkuningriigi.
 Euroopa Parlamendi ja nõukogu määrusega (EL) nr 509/2014
 2
 muudeti määrust (EÜ) nr 539/2001, kandes 19 riiki üle II lisasse, kus on loetletud kolmandad riigid, kelle kodanikud on viisanõudest vabastatud. Kõnealused 19 riiki on: Araabia Ühendemiraadid, Belau, Colombia, Dominica, Grenada, Ida-Timor, Kiribati, Marshalli Saared, Mikroneesia, Nauru, Peruu, Saalomoni Saared, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent ja Grenadiinid, Samoa, Tonga, Trinidad ja Tobago, Tuvalu ning Vanuatu. II lisas on lisatud igale nimetatud riigile osutavale viitele joonealune märkus, milles täpsustatakse, et „vabastust viisanõudest kohaldatakse Euroopa Liiduga sõlmitava viisavabaduslepingu jõustumise kuupäevast”.
 Määrus (EL) nr 509/2014 võeti vastu 20. mail 2014 ja see jõustus 9. juunil 2014. Juulis 2014 esitas komisjon nõukogule soovituse anda talle volitused alustada läbirääkimisi viisavabaduslepingu sõlmimiseks järgmise 17 riigiga: Araabia Ühendemiraadid, Belau, Dominica, Grenada, Ida-Timor, Kiribati, Marshalli Saared, Mikroneesia, Nauru, Saalomoni Saared, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent ja Grenadiinid, Samoa, Tonga, Trinidad ja Tobago, Tuvalu ning Vanuatu
 3
 . 9. oktoobril 2014 esitas nõukogu komisjonile läbirääkimisjuhised.
 Esimesed viisavabaduslepingud kirjutati alla 6. mail 2015 (Araabia Ühendemiraatidega), 26. mail 2015 (Ida-Timoriga) ja 28. mail 2015 (Dominica, Grenada, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincenti ja Grenadiinide, Samoa, Trinidadi ja Tobago ning Vanuatuga) ning alates lepingute allakirjutamise kuupäevast kuni nende jõustumiseni kohaldatakse neid ajutiselt. Nõukogu andis volituse kirjutada alla ka teised viisavabaduslepingud ning seda on tehtud Tongaga (20. novembril 2015), Colombiaga (2. detsembril 2015) ja Palauga (7. detsembril 2015). Kiribatiga ei ole veel lepingu allakirjutamise aeg kindlaks määratud. Alates nende nelja lepingu allakirjutamisele järgnevast päevast kuni nende jõustumiseni kohaldatakse neid lepinguid ajutiselt.
 Läbirääkimisi Marshalli Saartega alustati 17. detsembril 2014 ja need toimusid kirjavahetuse teel. Järgnenud kirjavahetuste käigus jõuti kokkuleppele kõikides aspektides. Pealäbirääkijad parafeerisid lepingu kirjavahetuse teel 11. detsembril 2015 (Marshalli Saared) ja 13. jaanuaril 2016 (EL). Liikmesriikidele teatati sellest nõukogu viisatöörühma 18. jaanuari 2016. aasta koosolekul.
 2.ÕIGUSLIK ALUS
 Liidu poolt on lepingu õiguslik alus Euroopa Liidu toimimise lepingu (edaspidi „ELi toimimise leping”) artikli 77 lõike 2 punkt a koostoimes artikliga 218.
 Lisatud ettepanek on õigusakt lepingu allakirjutamiseks. Nõukogu otsustab kvalifitseeritud häälteenamusega.
 Asjaolu, et Marshalli Saared on võimelised viima siseriikliku ratifitseerimismenetluse lõpule lühikese aja jooksul, ja pidades silmas pikka ajavahemikku, mis on möödunud sellest, kui komisjon esimest korda tegi ettepaneku vabastada Marshalli Saarte kodanikud viisanõudest (2012. aasta novembris), nähakse allakirjutamist käsitleva otsuse ettepanekuga ELi toimimise lepingu artikli 218 lõike 5 kohaselt ette lepingu ajutine kohaldamine alates selle allakirjutamise kuupäevale järgnevast kuupäevast. Võttes arvesse, et lepingu sõlmimiseks on vaja Euroopa Parlamendi nõusolekut, teatab komisjon Euroopa Parlamendile lepingu ajutisest kohaldamisest.
 3.LÄBIRÄÄKIMISTE TULEMUS
 Komisjon on seisukohal, et nõukogu läbirääkimisjuhistes seatud eesmärgid on saavutatud ja viisavabaduslepingu eelnõu on Euroopa Liidule vastuvõetav.
 Lepingu eelnõu lõpliku sisu võib kokku võtta järgmiselt:
 Eesmärk
 Lepinguga nähakse Euroopa Liidu ja Marshalli Saarte kodanikele ette võimalus reisida viisavabalt teise lepinguosalise territooriumile kuni 90 päevaks mis tahes 180-päevase ajavahemiku jooksul.
 Kõikide ELi kodanike võrdse kohtlemise tagamiseks on lepingusse lisatud säte, mille kohaselt Marshalli Saared võivad lepingu täitmise peatada või lepingu lõpetada ainult kõikide Euroopa Liidu liikmesriikide suhtes ning liit võib omakorda lepingu täitmise peatada või lepingu lõpetada ainult kõigi oma liikmesriikide nimel.
 Ühendkuningriigi ja Iirimaa eriseisundit on kajastatud otsuse preambulis.
 Kohaldamisala
 Viisanõudest on vabastatud kõik isikud (tava-, diplomaatilise, teenistus- või ametipassi ning eripassi kasutajad), kes reisivad kõikidel muudel eesmärkidel peale tasustatava töö tegemise. Viimasesse reisijate kategooriasse kuuluvate teise lepinguosalise kodanike suhtes on igal liikmesriigil ja samuti Marshalli Saartel õigus kehtestada kooskõlas kohaldatavate liidu või riiklike õigusaktidega viisanõue. Ühtlase rakendamise tagamiseks on lepingule lisatud ühisdeklaratsioon, milles tõlgendatakse tasustatava töö tegemise eesmärgil reisivate isikute kategooriat.
 Viibimise kestus
 Lepinguga nähakse Euroopa Liidu ja Marshalli Saarte kodanikele ette võimalus reisida viisavabalt teise lepinguosalise territooriumile kuni 90 päevaks mis tahes 180-päevase ajavahemiku jooksul. Lepingule on lisatud ühisdeklaratsioon, milles tõlgendatakse kõnealust 90-päevast ajavahemikku mis tahes 180-päevase ajavahemiku jooksul.
 Lepingus võetakse arvesse nende liikmesriikide olukorda, kes veel ei kohalda Schengeni acquis’d täies ulatuses. Kuni need liikmesriigid ei ole sisepiirideta Schengeni ala osa, nähakse Marshalli Saarte kodanikele viisavabaduslepinguga ette õigus viibida lisaks kogu Schengeni ala kohta arvestatud ajavahemikule kuni 90 päeva mis tahes 180-päevase ajavahemiku jooksul iga kõnealuse liikmesriigi (praegu Bulgaaria, Horvaatia, Küpros ja Rumeenia) territooriumil.
 Territoriaalne kohaldamisala
 Leping sisaldab territoriaalse kohaldatavusega seotud sätteid: Prantsusmaa ja Madalmaade puhul annab viisanõudest loobumine Marshalli Saarte kodanikele õiguse viibida kõnealuste liikmesriikide Euroopas paikneval territooriumil.
 Deklaratsioonid
 Lisaks eespool nimetatud ühisdeklaratsioonidele on lepingule lisatud veel kaks ühisdeklaratsiooni:
 –ühisdeklaratsioon, mis käsitleb Norra, Islandi, Šveitsi ja Liechtensteini seost Schengeni acquis’ rakendamise, kohaldamise ja edasiarendamisega;
 –ühisdeklaratsioon viisavabaduslepingu sisu ja tagajärgi käsitleva ning muu asjakohase teabe, näiteks sissesõidunõuete laialdase levitamise kohta.
 4.KOKKUVÕTE
 Eespool esitatut silmas pidades teeb komisjon nõukogule ettepaneku
 –võtta vastu otsus lepingu allakirjutamise kohta liidu nimel ja volitada nõukogu eesistujat määrama isik(ud), kes on nõuetekohaselt volitatud liidu nimel lepingule alla kirjutama;
 –kiita heaks lepingu ajutine kohaldamine kuni selle jõustumiseni.
 2016/0102 (NLE)
 Ettepanek:
 NÕUKOGU OTSUS
 Euroopa Liidu ja Marshalli Saarte Vabariigi vahelise lühiajalise viisa nõudest loobumist käsitleva lepingu Euroopa Liidu nimel allakirjutamise ja selle ajutise kohaldamise kohta
 EUROOPA LIIDU NÕUKOGU,
 võttes arvesse Euroopa Liidu toimimise lepingut, eriti selle artikli 77 lõike 2 punkti a koostoimes artikli 218 lõikega 5,
 võttes arvesse Euroopa Komisjoni ettepanekut
 ning arvestades järgmist:
 (1)Euroopa Parlamendi ja nõukogu määrusega (EL) nr 509/2014
 4
 kanti viide Marshalli Saarte Vabariigile nõukogu määruse (EÜ) nr 539/2001
 5
 I lisast II lisasse.
 (2)Kõnealusele viitele Marshalli Saarte Vabariigile on lisatud joonealune märkus, milles märgitakse, et vabastust viisanõudest kohaldatakse Euroopa Liiduga sõlmitava viisavabaduslepingu jõustumise kuupäevast.
 (3)Nõukogu võttis 9. oktoobril 2014 vastu otsuse, millega andis komisjonile loa pidada Marshalli Saarte Vabariigiga läbirääkimisi Euroopa Liidu ja Marshalli Saarte Vabariigi vahelise lühiajalise viisa nõudest loobumist käsitleva lepingu (edasipidi „leping”) sõlmimise üle.
 (4)Läbirääkimised lepingu üle algasid 17. detsembril 2014 ja need viidi edukalt lõpule lepingu parafeerimisega 13. jaanuaril 2016.
 (5)Leping tuleks alla kirjutada ja lepingule lisatud deklaratsioonid liidu nimel heaks kiita. Lepingut tuleks kohaldada ajutiselt alates selle allakirjutamise kuupäevale järgnevast päevast kuni selle ametlikuks sõlmimiseks vajalike menetluste lõpuleviimiseni.
 (6)Käesolev otsus kujutab endast nende Schengeni acquis’ sätete edasiarendamist, milles Ühendkuningriik ei osale vastavalt nõukogu otsusele 2000/365/EÜ
 6
 ; seetõttu ei osale Ühendkuningriik käesoleva otsuse vastuvõtmisel ning see ei ole tema suhtes siduv ega kohaldatav.
 (7)Käesolev otsus kujutab endast nende Schengeni acquis’ sätete edasiarendamist, milles Iirimaa ei osale vastavalt nõukogu otsusele 2002/192/EÜ
 7
 ; seetõttu ei osale Iirimaa käesoleva otsuse vastuvõtmisel ning see ei ole tema suhtes siduv ega kohaldatav,
 ON VASTU VÕTNUD KÄESOLEVA OTSUSE:
 Artikkel 1
 Euroopa Liidu ja Marshalli Saarte Vabariigi vahelise lühiajalise viisa nõudest loobumist käsitleva lepingu (edaspidi „leping”) liidu nimel allakirjutamiseks antakse luba, eeldusel et nimetatud leping sõlmitakse.
 Lepingu tekst on lisatud käesolevale otsusele.
 Artikkel 2
 Liidu nimel kiidetakse heaks käesolevale otsusele lisatud deklaratsioonid.
 Artikkel 3
 Nõukogu eesistujal on õigus määrata isik(ud), kes on volitatud liidu nimel lepingule alla kirjutama.
 Artikkel 4
 Lepingut kohaldatakse ajutiselt alates selle allakirjutamisele järgnevast kuupäevast kuni selle sõlmimiseks vajalike menetluste lõpuleviimiseni.
 Artikkel 5
 Käesolev otsus jõustub selle vastuvõtmise päeval.
 Brüssel,
 Nõukogu nimel
 eesistuja
 (1)
 Nõukogu 15. märtsi 2001. aasta määrus (EÜ) nr 539/2001, milles loetletakse kolmandad riigid, kelle kodanikel peab välispiiride ületamisel olema viisa, ja need kolmandad riigid, kelle kodanikud on sellest nõudest vabastatud (EÜT L 81, 21.3.2001, lk 1).
 (2)
 Euroopa Parlamendi ja nõukogu 15. mai 2014. aasta määrus (EL) nr 509/2014, millega muudetakse nõukogu määrust (EÜ) nr 539/2001, milles loetletakse kolmandad riigid, kelle kodanikel peab välispiiride ületamisel olema viisa, ja need kolmandad riigid, kelle kodanikud on sellest nõudest vabastatud (ELT L 149, 20.5.2014, lk 67).
 (3)
 COM(2014) 467, 17.7.2014.
 (4)
 Euroopa Parlamendi ja nõukogu 15. mai 2014. aasta määrus (EL) nr 509/2014, millega muudetakse nõukogu määrust (EÜ) nr 539/2001, milles loetletakse kolmandad riigid, kelle kodanikel peab välispiiride ületamisel olema viisa, ja need kolmandad riigid, kelle kodanikud on sellest nõudest vabastatud (ELT L 149, 20.5.2014, lk 67).
 (5)
 Nõukogu 15. märtsi 2001. aasta määrus (EÜ) nr 539/2001, milles loetletakse kolmandad riigid, kelle kodanikel peab välispiiride ületamisel olema viisa, ja need kolmandad riigid, kelle kodanikud on sellest nõudest vabastatud (EÜT L 81, 21.3.2001, lk 1).
 (6)
 Nõukogu 29. mai 2000. aasta otsus 2000/365/EÜ Suurbritannia ja Põhja-Iiri Ühendkuningriigi taotluse kohta osaleda teatavates Schengeni acquis’ sätetes (EÜT L 131, 1.6.2000, lk 43).
 (7)
 Nõukogu 28. veebruari 2002. aasta otsus 2002/192/EÜ Iirimaa taotluse kohta osaleda teatavates Schengeni acquis’ sätetes (EÜT L 64, 7.3.2002, lk 20).
 ---documentbreak---
 EUROOPA KOMISJON
 Brüssel,8.4.2016
 COM(2016) 186 final
 LISA
 järgmise dokumendi juurde:
 Ettepanek: Nõukogu otsus
 Euroopa Liidu ja Marshalli Saarte Vabariigi vahelise lühiajalise viisa nõudest loobumist käsitleva lepingu Euroopa Liidu nimel allakirjutamise ja selle ajutise kohaldamise kohta
 LISA
 järgmise dokumendi juurde:
 Ettepanek: Nõukogu otsus
 Euroopa Liidu ja Marshalli Saarte Vabariigi vahelise lühiajalise viisa nõudest loobumist käsitleva lepingu Euroopa Liidu nimel allakirjutamise ja selle ajutise kohaldamise kohta
 Euroopa Liidu ja Marshalli Saarte Vabariigi vaheline
 lühiajalise viisa nõudest loobumist käsitlev
 LEPING
 EUROOPA LIIT, edaspidi „liit” või „EL”, ja
 MARSHALLI SAARTE VABARIIK, edaspidi „Marshalli saared”,
 edaspidi koos „lepinguosalised”,
 PIDADES SILMAS lepinguosaliste sõbralike suhete edendamist ja soovides hõlbustada oma kodanike reisimist, tagades neile viisavaba riiki sisenemise ja lühiajalise riigis viibimise õiguse,
 VÕTTES ARVESSE Euroopa Parlamendi ja nõukogu 15. mai 2014. aasta määrust (EL) nr 509/2014 (millega muudetakse nõukogu määrust (EÜ) nr 539/2001, milles loetletakse kolmandad riigid, kelle kodanikel peab välispiiride ületamisel olema viisa, ja need kolmandad riigid, kelle kodanikud on sellest nõudest vabastatud),
 1
 millega kantakse muu hulgas 19 kolmandat riiki, sealhulgas Marshalli Saared, nende kolmandate riikide nimekirja, kelle kodanikud on lühiajalisel viibimisel liikmesriikides viisanõudest vabastatud,
 PIDADES SILMAS määruse (EL) nr 509/2014 artiklit 1, milles on sätestatud, et kõnealuse 19 riigi suhtes kohaldatakse viisanõudest vabastamist alates liiduga sõlmitava viisavabaduslepingu jõustumise kuupäevast,
 SOOVIDES kindlustada võrdse kohtlemise kõigile ELi kodanikele,
 VÕTTES ARVESSE, et käesolev leping ei hõlma isikuid, kes soovivad lühiajalise viibimise jooksul teha tasustatavat tööd, ning seetõttu kohaldatakse kõnealuste isikute suhtes ka edaspidi asjakohaseid liidu õigusnorme ja liikmesriikide õigusakte ning asjakohaseid Marshalli Saarte õigusakte, mis käsitlevad viisanõude kehtestamist või viisanõudest vabastamist ja tööturule juurdepääsu,
 VÕTTES ARVESSE protokolli Ühendkuningriigi ja Iirimaa seisukoha kohta vabadusel, turvalisusel ja õigusel rajaneva ala suhtes ning Euroopa Liidu raamistikku integreeritud Schengeni acquis’d käsitlevat protokolli, mis on lisatud Euroopa Liidu lepingule ja Euroopa Liidu toimimise lepingule, ning kinnitades, et käesolevat lepingut ei kohaldata Ühendkuningriigi ega Iirimaa suhtes,
 ON KOKKU LEPPINUD JÄRGMISES:
 ARTIKKEL 1
 Eesmärk
 Käesoleva lepinguga nähakse liidu ja Marshalli Saarte kodanikele ette võimalus reisida viisavabalt teise lepinguosalise territooriumile kuni 90 päevaks mis tahes 180-päevase ajavahemiku jooksul.
 ARTIKKEL 2
 Mõisted
 Käesolevas lepingus kasutatakse järgmisi mõisteid:
 a)
 „liikmesriik” – liidu liikmesriik, välja arvatud Ühendkuningriik ja Iirimaa;
 b)
 „liidu kodanik” – punktis a määratletud liikmesriigi kodanik;
 c)
 „Marshalli Saarte kodanik” – isik, kellel on Marshalli Saarte kodakondsus;
 d)
 „Schengeni ala” – sisepiirideta ala, mis hõlmab selliste punktis a määratletud liikmesriikide territooriumi, kes kohaldavad täielikult Schengeni acquis’d.
 ARTIKKEL 3
 Reguleerimisala
 1.
 Liidu kodanikud, kellel on liikmesriigi välja antud kehtiv tava-, diplomaatiline, teenistus-, ameti- või eripass, võivad siseneda viisavabalt Marshalli Saarte territooriumile ja viibida seal viisavabalt artikli 4 lõikes 1 kindlaks määratud ajavahemikul.
 Marshalli Saarte kodanikud, kellel on Marshalli Saarte välja antud kehtiv tava-, diplomaatiline, teenistus-, ameti- või eripass, võivad siseneda viisavabalt liikmesriikide territooriumile ja viibida seal viisavabalt artikli 4 lõikes 2 kindlaks määratud ajavahemikul.
 2.
 Käesoleva artikli lõiget 1 ei kohaldada nende isikute suhtes, kes reisivad tasustatava töö tegemise eesmärgil.
 Kõnealuse isikute kategooria puhul võib iga liikmesriik vastavalt nõukogu määruse (EÜ) nr 539/2001
 2
 artikli 4 lõikele 3 kehtestada Marshalli Saarte kodanike suhtes viisanõude või nad viisanõudest vabastada.
 Kõnealuse isikute kategooria puhul võivad Marshalli Saared iga liikmesriigi kodanike suhtes kehtestada viisanõude või viisanõudest loobuda kooskõlas siseriikliku õigusega.
 3.
 Käesoleva lepinguga ette nähtud viisanõudest loobumise kohaldamine ei piira lepinguosaliste selliste õigusaktide kohaldamist, mis käsitlevad riiki sisenemise ja seal lühiajalise viibimise tingimusi. Liikmesriikidel ja Marshalli Saartel on õigus keelata isikutel nende territooriumile siseneda ja seal lühiajaliselt viibida, kui üks või mitu kõnealust tingimust on täitmata.
 4.
 Viisanõudest loobumist kohaldatakse sõltumata sellest, missuguse transpordivahendiga reisijad lepinguosaliste piiri ületavad.
 5.
 Käesolevas lepingus käsitlemata küsimuste suhtes kohaldatakse liidu õigust ning liikmesriikide ja Marshalli Saarte siseriiklikku õigust.
 ARTIKKEL 4
 Viibimise kestus
 1.
 Liidu kodanikud võivad viibida Marshalli Saarte territooriumil kuni 90 päeva mis tahes 180-päevase ajavahemiku jooksul.
 2.
 Marshalli Saarte kodanikud võivad viibida Schengeni acquis’d täielikult kohaldavate liikmesriikide territooriumil kuni 90 päeva mis tahes 180-päevase ajavahemiku jooksul. Kõnealuse ajavahemiku arvutamisel ei võeta arvesse viibimist sellises liikmesriigis, kes veel ei kohalda täielikult Schengeni acquis’d.
 Marshalli Saarte kodanikud võivad viibida kuni 90 päeva mis tahes 180-päevase ajavahemiku jooksul iga sellise liikmesriigi territooriumil, kes veel ei kohalda täielikult Schengeni acquis’d; sellisel juhul ei võeta viibimise kestuse arvutamisel arvesse Schengeni acquis’d täielikult kohaldavate liikmesriikide territooriumil viibimise kestust.
 3.
 Käesoleva lepinguga ei piirata Marshalli Saarte ja liikmesriikide võimalust lubada kooskõlas siseriikliku ja liidu õigusega viibida oma territooriumil kauem kui 90 päeva.
 ARTIKKEL 5
 Territoriaalne kohaldamisala
 1.
 Käesolevat lepingut kohaldatakse Prantsuse Vabariigi puhul ainult Prantsuse Vabariigi Euroopas paikneva territooriumi suhtes.
 2.
 Käesolevat lepingut kohaldatakse Madalmaade Kuningriigi puhul ainult Madalmaade Kuningriigi Euroopas paikneva territooriumi suhtes.
 ARTIKKEL 6
 Lepingu haldamise ühiskomitee
 1.
 Lepinguosalised moodustavad ekspertide ühiskomitee (edaspidi „komitee”), mis koosneb liidu esindajatest ja Marshalli Saarte esindajatest. Liitu esindab Euroopa Komisjon.
 2.
 Komitee ülesanded on muu hulgas järgmised:
 a)
 teostada järelevalvet käesoleva lepingu rakendamise üle;
 b)
 esitada ettepanekuid käesoleva lepingu muutmiseks või täiendamiseks;
 c)
 lahendada käesoleva lepingu tõlgendamise või kohaldamise üle tekkivaid vaidlusi.
 3.
 Komitee tuleb vajaduse korral kokku ühe lepinguosalise taotlusel.
 4.
 Komitee kehtestab oma töökorra.
 ARTIKKEL 7
 Seos käesoleva lepingu ning liikmesriikide ja Marshalli Saarte vaheliste olemasolevate kahepoolsete viisanõudest loobumist käsitlevate lepingute vahel
 Käesolev leping on ülimuslik liikmesriikide ja Marshalli Saarte vahel sõlmitud selliste kahepoolsete lepingute ja kokkulepete suhtes, mis hõlmavad käesoleva lepingu kohaldamisalasse jäävaid küsimusi.
 ARTIKKEL 8
 Lõppsätted
 1.
 Lepinguosalised ratifitseerivad või kiidavad käesoleva lepingu heaks vastavalt oma sisemenetlusele ning see jõustub teise kuu esimesel päeval pärast viimase sellise teate saamise kuupäeva, millega lepinguosalised teineteisele teatavad, et kõnealused menetlused on lõpule viidud.
 Käesolevat lepingut kohaldatakse ajutiselt alates selle allakirjutamise kuupäevale järgnevast päevast.
 2.
 Käesolev leping sõlmitakse määramata ajaks, välja arvatud juhul, kui see lõpetatakse lõike 5 kohaselt.
 3.
 Käesolevat lepingut võib muuta lepinguosaliste kirjalikul kokkuleppel. Muudatused jõustuvad pärast seda, kui lepinguosalised on teineteisele teatanud selleks vajalike sisemenetluste lõpuleviimisest.
 4.
 Lepinguosalised võivad lepingu täitmise täielikult või osaliselt peatada eelkõige avaliku korra, riigi julgeoleku või rahvatervise kaitse huvides, samuti ebaseadusliku sisserände tõttu või juhul, kui üks lepinguosaline kehtestab uuesti viisanõude. Lepingu täitmise peatamise otsusest teatatakse teisele lepinguosalisele hiljemalt kaks kuud enne selle kavandatud jõustumist. Käesoleva lepingu täitmise peatanud lepinguosaline teatab viivitamata teisele lepinguosalisele, kui käesoleva lepingu täitmise peatamise põhjused on kõrvaldatud, ja lõpetab lepingu täitmise peatamise.
 5.
 Kumbki lepinguosaline võib käesoleva lepingu lõpetada, teatades sellest kirjalikult teisele lepinguosalisele. Käesolev leping kaotab kehtivuse 90. päeval pärast teatamise kuupäeva.
 6.
 Marshalli Saared võivad käesoleva lepingu täitmise peatada või lepingu lõpetada ainult kõigi liikmesriikide suhtes korraga.
 7.
 Liit võib käesoleva lepingu täitmise peatada või lepingu lõpetada ainult kõigi oma liikmesriikide nimel.
 Koostatud kahes eksemplaris bulgaaria, eesti, hispaania, hollandi, horvaadi, inglise, itaalia, kreeka, leedu, läti, malta, poola, portugali, prantsuse, rootsi, rumeenia, saksa, slovaki, sloveeni, soome, taani, tšehhi ja ungari keeles, kusjuures kõik tekstid on võrdselt autentsed.
 ÜHISDEKLARATSIOON ISLANDI, NORRA, ŠVEITSI JA LIECHTENSTEINI KOHTA
 Lepinguosalised võtavad arvesse Euroopa Liidu ning Norra, Islandi, Šveitsi ja Liechtensteini vahelisi tihedaid suhteid, mis tulenevad eelkõige 18. mai 1999. aasta ja 26. oktoobri 2004. aasta lepingutest, mis käsitlevad nende riikide ühinemist Schengeni acquis’ rakendamise, kohaldamise ja edasiarendamisega.
 Seepärast on soovitav, et ühelt poolt Norra, Islandi, Šveitsi ja Liechtensteini ning teiselt poolt Marshalli Saarte ametiasutused sõlmiksid viivitamata lühiajalise viisa nõudest loobumist käsitlevad kahepoolsed lepingud käesoleva lepingu tingimustega sarnastel tingimustel.
 ÜHISDEKLARATSIOON, MILLES TÕLGENDATAKSE KÄESOLEVA LEPINGU ARTIKLI 3 LÕIKES 2 KÄSITLETAVAT TASUSTATAVA TÖÖ EESMÄRGIL REISIVATE ISIKUTE KATEGOORIAT
 Lepinguosalised lepivad ühtse tõlgenduse tagamiseks kokku, et käesoleva lepingu kohaldamisel hõlmab tasustatavat tööd tegevate isikute kategooria selliseid isikuid, kes sisenevad teise lepinguosalise territooriumile tasustatava töö tegemise või tulutoova tegevusega tegelemise eesmärgil töövõtja või teenuse osutajana.
 Kõnealune kategooria ei hõlma:
 –
 äritegevusega tegelevaid isikuid, s.t isikuid, kes reisivad ärikohtumise eesmärgil (ega tööta teise lepinguosalise territooriumil);
 –
 sportlasi või kunstnikke, kes tegutsevad riigis ajutiselt;
 –
 ajakirjanikke, kelle on saatnud nende elukohariigi meedia, ning
 –
 äriühingusiseseid praktikante.
 Käesoleva deklaratsiooni rakendamise üle teostab lepingu artiklis 6 sätestatud vastutuse raames järelevalvet ühiskomitee, kes võib teha muudatusettepanekuid, kui ta peab seda lepinguosaliste kogemuste põhjal vajalikuks.
 ÜHISDEKLARATSIOON, MILLES TÕLGENDATAKSE KÄESOLEVA LEPINGU ARTIKLIS 4 SÄTESTATUD 90-PÄEVAST VIIBIMISE KESTUST MIS TAHES 180-PÄEVASE AJAVAHEMIKU JOOKSUL
 Lepinguosalised lepivad kokku, et käesoleva lepingu artiklis 4 sätestatud kuni 90-päevane kestus mis tahes 180-päevase ajavahemiku jooksul tähendab kas üht katkematut külastust või mitut järjestikust külastust, mille kestus ei ületa 90 päeva mis tahes 180-päevase ajavahemiku jooksul.
 Väljend „mis tahes” osutab sellele, et kohaldatakse liikuvat 180-päevast võrdlusperioodi, võttes arvesse kõik liikmesriikide territooriumil viibimise päevad viimase 180-päevase ajavahemiku jooksul, et kontrollida, kas nõue, mille kohaselt on liikmesriikide territooriumil lubatud viibida 90 päeva 180-päevase ajavahemiku jooksul, on jätkuvalt täidetud. See tähendab muu hulgas, et kui liikmesriikide territooriumil ei ole viibitud katkematu 90-päevase ajavahemiku jooksul, on lubatud uus kuni 90-päevane viibimine.
 ÜHISDEKLARATSIOON KODANIKE TEAVITAMISE KOHTA
 VIISANÕUDEST LOOBUMISE LEPINGUST
 Teadvustades läbipaistvuse olulisust Euroopa Liidu ja Marshalli saarte kodanike jaoks, kohustuvad lepinguosalised tagama viisanõudest loobumise lepingu sisu ja tagajärgi käsitleva ning muu asjakohase teabe, näiteks territooriumile sisenemise tingimuste laialdase levitamise.
 _________________
 (1)
 ELT L 149, 20.5.2004, lk 67.
 (2)
 Nõukogu 15. märtsi 2001. aasta määrus (EÜ) nr 539/2001, milles loetletakse kolmandad riigid, kelle kodanikel peab välispiiride ületamisel olema viisa, ja need kolmandad riigid, kelle kodanikud on sellest nõudest vabastatud (EÜT L 81, 21.3.2001, lk 1).


type: wikipedia

text:
Чупрѐне е село в Северозападна България, в подножието на Стара планина. То е административен център на община Чупрене, област Видин. Населението му е около .
 География
 Село Чупрене е разположено на 20 километра от град Белоградчик и на 70 километра от град Видин. Намира се на 13 километра от границата с Република Сърбия в район, залесен предимно с букови и иглолистни гори. Климатът е типичен за планинските райони – топли дни и прохладни нощи.
 Село Чупрене е разположено в живописна планинска местност – селото е заградено от юг, запад и север от склоновете на Западна Стара планина, а на изток е отворено към малко по размери поле, завършващо до високи земни възвишения (т. нар. глами). „Гламите“ по същност са природни възвишения, образували се преди хиляди години от скали, потънали от единия им край и издигнати от другия им край. Впоследствие се оформят няколко такива. От тях при ясно и добро време може да се види река Дунав, отстояща на голямо разстояние. В някои от тях има пещери, в които са намерени останки от керамика. През селището преминават две реки – Манастирка и Чупренска река, като Манастирка се влива в Чупренска река в самото село.
 Някои от именуваните местности в околността на селото са: „Мийна падина“, „Говнени брег“, „Суа стран“, „Лалкин град“ (там се намират останки от римска крепост или пост) и др.
 Горната част на селото е разделена на две от вододела на двете реки. По двете долини са прекарани черни пътища, по които се излиза в планината. По тези пътища може да се достигне до местността Бекинска шобърка. Тук се намират извор с леденостудена вода, вили, а също така и своеобразен вход към биосферен резерват Чупрене, който е под закрилата на ЮНЕСКО.
 Флората и фауната са богати – могат да се видят дъб, бук, обикновен смърч, ела, бреза, мащерка, жълт кантарион, риган, мента, див джоджен, бял и жълт равнец, а също така и влючените в „Червената книга на България“ червен кантарион и тинтява.
 Животинските видове са представени от сърни, елени, сръндаци, диви свине, рядко се срещат зайци и лисици.
 В реките около село Чупрене се срещат мряна и балканска пъстърва, рядко вече кефал, но по-надолу от селото (по поречието на едноименната река към селата Търговище и Протопопинци). Интересно е да се отбележи, че Чупренска река е обитавана и от речни раци, но за голямо съжаление те вече са рядкост – поради намаляването на дебита на реката.
 В последните години са прекарани и еко-пътеки, които дават възможност за добър туризъм, съчетан с опознаване на местната флора и фауна. В района на резервата са съхранени глухари и единични екземпляри скален орел.
 История
 Първите данни за живот по тези места датират от древни времена. В околностите на близките села Върбово и Търговище в пещери има открити останки от глинени съдове. В района на село Чупрене и близките села са намерени находки, датиращи от бронзовата и желязната епоха.
 Доста повече са находките, останали от римски времена. Това е съвсем естествено, като се вземе предвид близостта на планинския проход Свети Никола (1452 м н.в.), а също така и наличието на медна руда близо до селото (Чупрене лежи на линията на медната руда Бор (Сърбия) – Чупрене – Горни Лом – Чипровци). Входовете на галериите, експлоатирани и през миналия век, се виждат и до днес.
 Предполага се, че името на село Чупрене е свързано с добива на медна руда (купрум). Това е най-вероятния произход на името на село Чупрене. През вековете то търпи промени, за да се стигне до днешното. В околностите на селото са открити останки от древни крепости (а може би на сигнални постове, използвани от римските войски за сигнализация при опасност).
 При завземането на България от турците селото вече е съществувало – споменава се в регистъра на Видинския санджак от 1454/1455 г. През турско време се заселват саксонски рудари. Жители на селото взимат участие в Чипровското въстание от 1688 година. Споменато е под името Чупрен в описанието на Жером-Адолф Бланки на пътуването му от Белоградчик към Ниш през 1841 г.
 След Освобождението селото се развива бързо и населението през годините достига 1800 – 2000 души.
 По време на Първата и Втората световни войни дава жертви, а след 1944 г. се развива в областите дърводобив, свиневъдство, текстилна промишленост, отглеждане на едър рогат добитък и други.
 Население
 Броят на жителите на селото е с тенденция на намаляване. На преброяването от 2011 година 83% от заявилите етническа принадлежност се определят като българи, а 17% като роми. Българите са предимно торлаци.
 Местното население е изцяло християнско. Трябва да се вземе под внимание фактът, че голяма част от семействата са потомци на хора, преселили се от Македония и Сърбия.
 Управление
 Икономика
 Инфраструктура
 През 2012 г. община Чупрене приема план за развитие на туризма, в който има идея за развитие на зимен туризъм с изграждането на ски зона под връх Миджур. През 2017 г. проектът за ски зона „Миджур“ вече е изготвен. Планира се изграждането на ски комплекс с 14 ски писти, няколко учебни площадки за начинаещи скиори, лифт, влекове и помощни съоръжения и постройки. Целта на проекта е да се развие зимния туризъм, с което туризмът в региона да стане целогодишен.
 Култура
 В селото се прави голям събор, на който идват много хора и се организират редица забавления.
 Основните забележителности са камбанарията с часовника в центъра на селото, църквата и музеят „Асен Балкански“. Малко след края на селото към Балкана на запад, от дясно в скалите се вижда паметната плоча, където се учредява местната структура на БКП.
 На около 4 – 5 км нагоре по пътя на Чупренската река се намира т.н. „Партизан чешма“ – оттук Партизански отряд „Георги Бенковски“ започва през 1944 г. да налага народната власт във Видинско. На това място всъщност започва истинското изкачване на прохода „Свети Никола“ – местността по-нагоре с китни ливади от ляво на пътя се нарича „Суа стран“ („Суха страна“) поради цвета на тревата през лятото – жълто-сив. До „Партизан чешма“ освен чешма (от която вече рядко в лятно време тече вода) има поставен и мемориален паметник.
 Сред редовните събития в село Чупрене са съборът на селото през месец май и Празникът на гората през месец август, когато в местността Бекинска шобърка се организират веселия и се провеждат различни мероприятия. В района на селото се събират ловни дружинки по време на ловния сезон.
 В миналото отделните семейства са почитали различни покровители и са се събирали на определен ден от годината, както и на големите християнски празници.
 Друго редовно събитие е общинският турнир по футбол, който се провежда всяка година от 10 юли до 10 август.
 Също така и торлашкия фолклорен събор „Када кум прасе и ти вречу“, който през юни 2012 г. се провежда за седми пореден път.
 Личности
 Родени в Чупрене
 Тодор Цурински (1918 – 1997) – инженер
 Младен Николов (1881 – ?) – психолог
 Асен Балкански (1920 – 1943), партизанин
 Михаил Дафинкичев (1881 – 1966), психолог, философ и историк
 Починали в Чупрене
 Антон Стериов (1882 – 1924), революционер от ВМОРО
 Бележки
 Външни препратки
 Сайт на община Чупрене
 Села в област Видин
 Населени места в община Чупрене


type: contracts

jurisdiction: EU

text:
 11/Sv. 112
 HR
 Službeni list Europske unije
 263
 22012D0144
 L 309/29
 SLUŽBENI LIST EUROPSKE UNIJE
 ODLUKA ZAJEDNIČKOG ODBORA EGP-a
 br. 144/2012
 od 13. srpnja 2012.
 o izmjeni Priloga II. (Tehnički propisi, norme, ispitivanje i potvrđivanje) Sporazumu o EGP-u
 ZAJEDNIČKI ODBOR EGP-a,
 uzimajući u obzir Sporazum o Europskom gospodarskom prostoru, (dalje u tekstu „Sporazum o EGP-u”), a posebno njegov članak 98.,
 budući da:
 (1)
 Uredbu Komisije (EU) br. 249/2012 od 21. ožujka 2012. o izmjeni Uredbe (EU) br. 19/2011 u pogledu zahtjeva za homologaciju tipa za propisanu proizvođačevu pločicu motornih vozila i njihovih prikolica (1) treba unijeti u Sporazum o EGP-u.
 (2)
 Prilog II. Sporazumu o EGP-u trebalo bi stoga na odgovarajući način izmijeniti,
 DONIO JE OVU ODLUKU:
 Članak 1.
 U točku 45.zzg (Uredba Komisije (EU) br. 19/2011) poglavlja I. Priloga II. Sporazumu o EGP-u dodaje se sljedeće:
 ‚, kako je izmijenjena:
 —
 32012 R 0249: Uredba Komisije (EU) br. 249/2012 od 21. ožujka 2012. (SL L 82, 22.3.2012., str. 1.).”
 Članak 2.
 Tekst Uredbe (EU) br. 249/2012 na islandskom i norveškom jeziku, koji se objavljuje u Dodatku o EGP-u Službenom listu Europske unije, vjerodostojan je.
 Članak 3.
 Ova Odluka stupa na snagu 14. srpnja 2012., pod uvjetom da su sve obavijesti iz članka 103. stavka 1. Sporazuma o EGP-u podnesene Zajedničkom odboru EGP-a (2).
 Članak 4.
 Ova se Odluka objavljuje u odjeljku o EGP-u i Dodatku o EGP-u Službenom listu Europske unije.
 Sastavljeno u Bruxellesu 13. srpnja 2012.
 Za Zajednički odbor EGP-a
 Predsjednik
 Atle LEIKVOLL
 (1) SL L 82, 22.3.2012., str. 1.
 (2) Ustavni zahtjevi nisu navedeni.


text:
 Ważna informacja prawna
 |
 21999A0505(01)
 Dziennik Urzędowy L 117 , 05/05/1999 P. 0031 - 0034
 Protokółw sprawie rozszerzenia Umowy o współpracy między Wspólnotą Europejską a Państwami Członkowskimi ASEAN na Socjalistyczną Republikę WietnamuRADA UNII EUROPEJSKIEJ,z jednej strony,RZĄD BRUNEI - DARUSSALAM,RZĄD REPUBLIKI INDONEZJI,RZĄD MALEZJI,RZĄD REPUBLIKI FILIPIN,RZĄD REPUBLIKI SINGAPURU,RZĄD KRÓLESTWA TAJLANDII,orazRZĄD SOCJALISTYCZNEJ REPUBLIKI WIETNAMU,z drugiej strony,UWZGLĘDNIAJĄC Umowę o współpracy między Europejską Wspólnotą Gospodarczą a Indonezją, Malezją, Filipinami, Singapurem i Tajlandią, Państwami Członkowskimi Stowarzyszenia Narodów Azji Południowo-Wschodniej (Asean), podpisaną w dniu 7 marca 1980 roku w Kuala Lumpur, i rozszerzoną na Brunei - Darussalam w dniu 16 listopada 1984 roku, zwaną dalej "Umową",MAJĄC NA UWADZE, że Wietnam, jako nowy członek Stowarzyszenia Narodów Azji Południowo-Wschodniej zawnioskował o przystąpienie do Umowy,POSTANOWIŁY rozszerzyć Umowę na Wietnam, i w tym celu powołały na swoich pełnomocników następujące osoby:RADA UNII EUROPEJSKIEJ:Hans Van MierloWicepremier i Minister Spraw Zagranicznych Niderlandów,Przewodniczący Rady Unii EuropejskiejManuel MarinWiceprzewodniczący Komisji Wspólnot EuropejskichRZĄD BRUNEI-DARUSSALAM:Książe Mohamed BolkiahMinister Spraw ZagranicznychRZĄD REPUBLIKI INDONEZJI:Ali AlatasMinister Spraw ZagranicznychRZĄD MALEZJI:DATUK Abdullah Haji Ahmad BadawiMinister Spraw ZagranicznychRZĄD REPUBLIKI FILIPIN:Domingo L. Siazon, JR.Sekretarz do Spraw ZagranicznychRZĄD REPUBLIKI SINGAPURU:Profesor S. JayakumarMinister Spraw ZagranicznychRZĄD KRÓLESTWA TAJLANDII:Prachuab ChaiyasanMinister Spraw ZagranicznychRZĄD SOCJALISTYCZNEJ REPUBLIKI WIETNAMU:Nguyen Manh CamMinister Spraw ZagranicznychKTÓRZY, po wymianie swych pełnomocnictw, uznanych za należyte i sporządzone we właściwej formie,UZGODNILI, CO NASTĘPUJE:Artykuł 1Wietnam przystępuje do Umowy na mocy niniejszego Protokołu.Artykuł 2Postanowienia Umowy razem z Protokołem dotyczącym artykułu 1 Umowy stosuje się do Wietnamu.Artykuł 3Stosowanie Umowy do Wietnamu nie ma wpływu na stosowanie Umowy o współpracy między Wspólnotą Europejską a Socjalistyczną Republiką Wietnamu, podpisanej w dniu 17 lipca 1995 roku, która weszła w życie z dniem 1 czerwca 1996 roku.Artykuł 4Niniejszy Protokół wchodzi w życie pierwszego dnia miesiąca następującego po dniu, w którym Strony notyfikują wzajemnie o zakończeniu procedur niezbędnych do tego celu.Artykuł 5Niniejszy Protokół sporządzany jest w jedenastu egzemplarzach w języku duńskim, niderlandzkim, angielskim, fińskim, francuskim, niemieckim, greckim, włoskim, portugalskim, hiszpańskim i szwedzkim, każdy z tych tekstów jest jednakowo autentyczny.Hecho en Singapur, el catorce de febrero de mil novecientos noventa y siete.Udfærdiget i Singapore den fjortende februar nitten hundrede og syvoghalvfems.Geschehen zu Singapur am vierzehnten Februar neunzehnhundertsiebenundneunzig.Έγινε στη Σιγκαπούρη, στις δεκατέσσερις Φεβρουαρίου χίλια εννιακόσια ενενήντα επτά.Done at Singapore on the fourteenth day of February in the year one thousand nine hundred and ninety-seven.Fait à Singapour, le quatorze février mil neuf cent quatre-vingt-dix-sept.Fatto a Singapore, addì quattordici febbraio millenovecentonovantasette.Gedaan te Singapore, de veertiende februari negentienhonderd zevenennegentig.Feito em Singapura, em catorze de Fevereiro de mil novecentos e noventa e sete.Tehty Singaporessa neljäntenätoista päivänä helmikuuta vuonna tuhatyhdeksänsataayhdeksänkymmentäseitsemän.Som skedde i Singapore den fjortonde februari nittonhundranittiosju.Por la Comunidad EuropeaFor Det Europæiske FællesskabFür die Europäische GemeinschaftΓια την Ευρωπαϊκή ΚοινότηταFor the European CommunityPour la Communauté européennePer la Comunità europeaVoor de Europese GemeenschapPela Comunidade EuropeiaEuroopan yhteisön puolestaPå Europeiska gemenskapens vägnar+++++ TIFF +++++For the Government of Brunei – Darussalam+++++ TIFF +++++For the Government of the Republic of Indonesia+++++ TIFF +++++For the Government of Malaysia+++++ TIFF +++++For the Government of the Republic of the Philippines+++++ TIFF +++++For the Government of the Republic of Singapore+++++ TIFF +++++For the Government of the Kingdom of Thailand+++++ TIFF +++++For the Government of the Socialist Republic of Vietnam+++++ TIFF +++++--------------------------------------------------


type: other

jurisdiction: US

text: b' Department of Health and Human Services\n\nADMINISTRATION ON AGING\n\n AND\n\n OFFICE OF\n\n INSPECTOR GENERAL\n\n\n\n\n\n STATE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE\n FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT\n REQUIREMENTS OF THE OLDER\n AMERICANS ACT\n\n\n\n\n APRIL 1993\n\n\x0c ADMINISTRATION ON AGING\n\n\nThe Administration on Aging (AoA) is the principal Federal agency designed to carry out the\nprovisions of the Older Americans Act (OAA). It advises the Secretary of Health and Human\nServices and other Federal agencies on the characteristics, circumstances and needs of older\nindividuals. Further, it develops policies, plans, and programs designed to promote their\nwelfare.\n\nAoA administers three grant programs under the Older Americans Act. The largest progr:lm -\n- Title III of the Act -- consist of formula grants to States to establish State and community-\nbased programs for older individuals with the purpose of preventing the premature\ninstitutionalization of older individuals. The second program -- Title VI -- consists of\ndiscretionary grants with the same purpose as Title III, but to meet the unique needs of older\nNative Americans. The third program -- Title IV -- is also discretionary. Its purpose is to fund\nresearch, demonstration, and training activities to elicit knowledge and techniques to improve\nthe circumstances of older Americans. (The 1992 Amendments to the OAA created a fourth\nprogram -- Title VII -- which provides funds for State activities to protect the rights of\nvulnerable older people. Prior to the 1992 Amendments, Title III of the OAA provided the\nfunds for these activities.)\n\n OFFICE OF INSPE~OR GENERAL\n\nThe mission of the Office of Inspector General (OIG), as mandated by Public Law 95452. as\namended, is to protect the integrity of the Department of Health and Human Semites\xe2\x80\x99 (HHS)\nprograms as well as the health and welfare of beneficiaries served by those programs. This\nstatutory mission is carried out through a nationwide network of audits, investigations. and\ninspections conducted by three OIG operating components: the Office of Audit Services, the\nOffice of Investigations, and the Office of Evaluation and Inspections. The OIG also informs\nthe Secretary of HHS of program and management problems and recommends courses to\ncorrect them.\n\nThe OIG\xe2\x80\x99S Office of Evaluation and Inspections(OEI) conducts short-term management and\nprogram evacuations (called inspections) that focus on issues of concern to the Department.\nthe Congress, and the public. The findings and recommendations contained in these inspection\nreports generate rapid, accurate, and up-to-date information on the efficiency, vulnerability,\nand effectiveness of departmental programs.\n\n THIS REPORT\n\nThis report is the result of a joint effort between AoA and OIG/OEI to assess the\nimplementation of Title HI of the Older Americans Act. OIG staff in the New York and\nDallas regional offices provided technical support to the joint project. AoA staff in New York\nand Dallas directed the project with all regional offices participating in the development of\ninstruments and data collection.\n\nFor additional information, please contact:\n\nAoA John Dia~ Regional Program Director-Dallas\nOIG Jack Molnar, Project Leader-New York\n\x0c Department of Health and Human Services\n\nADMINISTRATION ON AGING\n\n AND\n\n OFFICE OF\n\n INSPECTOR GENERAL\n\n\n\n\n STATE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE\n FINANCIAL WAGEMENT\n REQUIREMENTS OF THIZ OLDER\n AMERICANS ACT\n\n\n\n\n APRIL 1993 OE14)2-91-01514\n I\n\x0c EXECUTIVE SUMMARY\nPURPOSE\n\nTo review State Units\xe2\x80\x99 on Aging (SUA) implementation of the financial management\nrequirements of Title III of the Older Americans Act (OAA).\n\nBACKGROUND\n\nIn an effort to strengthen its stewardship of the O- the Commissioner of the\nAdministration on Aging (AoA) requested technical assistance from the Office of\nInspector General (OIG) in designing a review of their primary Title III grantees --\nSUAS. After reviewing traditional and current financial management activities, and\ndiscussing potential approaches for future efforts, we agreed that a review of\nindividual States would be instituted in such a way as to provide the Commissioner\nwith an overview of how States are implementing key components of Title III. The\nOIG agreed to assist AoA in developing national, standardized review instruments for\nkey components of Title III. In order to conserve limited travel funds the reviews\nwould be conducted on a sample of States and would focus on only five programmatic\nareas -- stewardship, targeting, ombudsman, nutrition, and financial management.\n\nThis report on financial management addresses the SUA\xe2\x80\x99S financial management of\nOAA funds and its funding and oversight of area agencies on aging (lL%%). It\nfocuses on issuing guidance on and monitoring implementation of the key financial\nmanagement requirements of Title III of the O- including the area planning\nprocess.\n\nMETHODOLOGY\n\nThe reviews were conducted in a stratified, random sample of 20 States based upon\nthe population of individuals over 60 years of age in each State. In the first step of\nthe sampling process, States were divided into four strata based upon the number of\nolder individuals in each State. In the second step, five States were selected from\neach stratum. This stratified, random sample permits a generalization of findings from\nthe 20 sample States to the Nation.\n\nFINDINGS\n\nWhile States Address A Majority Of Financial Management Reqhemenfi, Some\nVulnerabilities StiZl Bist\n\n \xef\xbf\xbd One-third of States that engage in program development and coordination\n activities exceed the allowable Federal share of the costs.\n \xef\xbf\xbd Many States do not monitor voluntary contribution or the use of profit-making\n organizations\n\n\n\n i\n\x0cMost States Have Impkmented Required Audi Bocesses\n\n \xef\xbf\xbd\n Virtually all States require audits of area agencies and have follow-up procedures\n \xef\xbf\xbd\n The most common deficiencies noted among area agencies are internal control\n weaknesses\n\nStates l%ovide area agencies Wtih Technical Assktance And ?kabzkg To Addrew\nDeficiencia\n\n \xef\xbf\xbd 60 percent of States provide financial management technical assistance to area\n agencies\n \xef\xbf\xbd Most common deficiencies are in accounting and budgeting\n\n\n\n\n ii\n\x0c TABLE OF CONTENTS\n\nEXECUTIVESUMM.ARY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..= ...0000 \xef\xbf\xbdOOO*Ci\n\n\nINTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..=~~. .~OOOOO\xe2\x80\x9d\xe2\x80\x9dO1\n\n\n\n\n States Address Most Financial Management Requirements ................ 4\n\n Most States Have Implemented Audit Processes ........................ 8\n\n States Provide Technical Assistance And Training . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9\n\n\n\nAPPENDICES\n\nk Appendix A . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...= .- A-1\n\x0c INTRODUCTION\nPURPOSE\n\nTo review State Units\xe2\x80\x99 on Aging (SUA) implementation of the financial management\nrequirements of Title III of the Older Americans Act (OAA). In this report, the term\n\xe2\x80\x9cfinancial management\xe2\x80\x9d refers to the SUA\xe2\x80\x99S fiscal management of OAA funds and its\nfunding and oversight of AAAs. It focuses on issuing guidance on and monitoring\nimplementation of the key financial management requirements of Title III of the\n0~ including the area planning process.\n\nBACKGROUND\n\nUnder the 0~ the Administration on Aging (AoA) serves as the principal Federal\nadvocate for older individuals, providing national leadership in the development of\nprograms to address their needs. Through Title III of OAA (Grants for State and\nCommunity Programs on Aging), AoA encourages and assists SUAs and area agencies\non aging (A&%) to implement a system of coordinated community-based services to\nprevent the premature institutionalization of older individuals by allowing them to\nremain in their own community.\n\nUnder Title III, AoA distributes approximately $\xe2\x80\x99765million in formula grants to States\nbased on the age 60+ population within each State. The SUAs use about 5 percent\nof the grant on administration, and then fund AAAs who then contract for the\nsupportive services, nutrition services and multipurpose senior centers. The single\nlargest component of Title III, the nutrition program, provides approximately $450\nmillion for congregate and home-delivered meals. Other key program components\ninclude supportive services (i.e., access services, in-home services and legal assistance)\nand the Ombudsman program which serves as an advocate for residents in long term\ncare facilities.\n\nOne of AoA\xe2\x80\x99s major administrative responsibilities is to provide stewardship over the\nStates\xe2\x80\x99 implementation of the Title III program. However, AoA\xe2\x80\x99s capacity to carry out\nits stewardship responsibilities declined substantially during the 1980\xe2\x80\x99s due to a\nsignificant reduction in resources. More specifically, AoA sustained a 47 percent\nreduction in staff and 75 percent reduction in travel funds. Each regional office had\nonly $2,000 annually for travel. Because they could not monitor SUAs\xe2\x80\x99, AoA became\nfurther and further removed from the activities of the SUAs and their area agencies\non aging.\n\nIn an effort to strengthen its stewardship of the OAA, the Commissioner of AoA\nrequested technical assistance from the Office of Inspector General (OIG) in\ndesigning a review of their primary Title III grantees -- SUAs. In response to the\nCommissioner\xe2\x80\x99s request, OIG staff met with key AoA headquarters and regional staff\nto identi& traditional and current stewardship activities, and to discuss potential\n\n\n\n 1\n\x0capproaches for future efforts. As a result, we agreed that the review of individual\nStates would be instituted in such a way as to provide the Commissioner with an\noverview of how States are implementing key components of Title III. The OIG\nagreed to assist AoA in developing national, standardized review instruments for key\ncomponents of Title III and in writing a report summarizing States\xe2\x80\x99 implementation of\nthe Act. We also agreed that in order to conserve limited travel funds the reviews\nwould be conducted on a sample of States and would focus on only five programmatic\nareas -- stewardship, targeting, ombudsman, nutrition, and financial management.\n\nDesigning the review began with the meeting of a review team of OIG and selected\nAoA regional staff. They brainstormed approaches, identified Federal reporting and\noperating requirements for SUAS and AAAs, and drafted instruments containing the\nreview questions and criteria. The draft instruments were shared with AoA\nheadquarters staff and each regional office for comments, and then revised to reflect\ncomments.\n\nThe OIG/AoA review teams pre-tested the instruments and data collection\nmethodology by conducting reviews for each of the five instruments in six States\nlocated in four different Federal regions. The pre-test identified that a great deal of\ntime was lost explaining criteria (interpreting law and regulation) and searching for\ndocumentation. Accordingly, the review team modified each of the instruments and\nchanged the data collection methodology. The most significant change to the\nmethodology required the sharing of the review instruments with the States prior to\nthe site visit in the belief that if States are aware of and understand the review criteria\nbeing used during the review, they will be better prepared to provide required\ndocumentation and to discuss specific issues.\n\nMETHODODGY\n\nThe reviews were conducted in a stratified, random sample of 20 States based upon\nthe population of individuals over 60 years of age in each State. These are the same\ndata used to allocate Title III funds among States. In the first step of the sampling\nprocess, States were divided into four strata based upon the number of older\nindividuals in each State. In the second step, we selected five States from each\nstratum. This stratified, random sample permits us to generalize findings from the 20\nsample States to the Nation. Table I indicates those States selected for the review\nprocess (See Table I).\n\nWe also used sampling techniques during site visits to each State for the reviews of\nspecific area plans and assessments. In these instances, we selected a simple, random\nsample of 10 AAAs prior to the visit to review on-site. For those States with less than\n10 AAAs, all AAAs were included in the review.\n\n\n\n\n 2\n\x0c TABLE I\n\n\n III SAMPLE STATES\n\n Stratum 1 Stratum 2 Stratum 3 Stratum 4\n\n California Michigan Wisconsin New Hampshire\n Pennsylvania Indiana Colorado North Dakota\n New York Massachusetts Oklahoma Nevada\n Texas Georgia Maine District\n Florida North Oregon of Columbia\n Carolina Montana\n\nThe data collection was conducted in two phases -- an AoA regional office desk\nreview and an on-site review at the SUA. During the desk review phase, we looked at\narea plan guidance and program instructions, as well as the State\xe2\x80\x99s assessment\ninstruments for AAAs to determine if they are consistent with Federal law and\nregulations. We also reviewed priority services waivers and targeted populations\nparticipation data from the State Program Report for Title III.\n\nFollowing the desk review, each State was sent a proposed agenda for the site visit, a\nlisting of the AAAs whose area plans and assessment reports will be reviewed, a COpy\nof the financial management review instrument (Appendix A), and the findings from\nthe desk review to be discussed during the site visit.\n\nThe review instrument focused on the guidance SUAS issued to AAAs, on key\nrequirements of Title 111,and on the instruments and procedures they use to assess\nAAAs with those requirements. A review of area plans and assessment reports\ndetermine whether, and to what extent, they reflect OAA requirements. The\ninstruments also focus on the issues of SUA operating procedures, and on training and\ntechnical assistance activities.\n\nWe entered data from the financial management review instruments into three\ndatabases. One database contained the responses to the open- and closed-ended\nquestions on the instrument and the other two contained the reviews of 191 area\nplans, audits and assessments. The number of responses to questions vary because\nsome questions did not apply to the four States in Stratum 4-- NH, ND, NV, & DC --\nwhich are single planning and service area (SPSA) States.\n\nThe percentages cited in this report are based on the responses to specific questions\ncontained in the review instrument. The responses are weighted to reflect the sampling\nplan and are projected to the Nation. The precision at the 90-percent confidence\nintervals vary for each question from plus or minus 6 to 21 percent based upon the\nnature of the question (categorical or continuous) and the number of respondents to\neach question.\n\n\n\n 3\n\x0c FINDINGS\nWHILE STATES ADDRESS A MAJORITY OF FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT\nREQUIREMENTS, SOME VULNERAJ31LITIES STILL EXIST\n\nState Administration\n\nThe Older American Act (OAA) limits the amount that maybe spent for State agency\nadministration. A State agency may spend Up to $300,000 or 5 percent of its Title III\nallotment (whichever is greater) for administrative purposes. It may spend an\nadditional 3/4 of one-percent more of its Title III allotment with the approval of the\nAdministration on Aging (AoA). We found that most States (91 percent) have\ndocumentation indicating that they spend less than either $300,000 or 5 percent of\ntheir Title III allotments. Only, 4 percent indicate spending more than $300,000 or 5\npercent.\n\nAAA Administration\n\nAfter subtracting the costs for State administration from the Title III allotment,\nstatewide expenditures for AAA administration cannot exceed 10 percent of the Title\nIII allotment balance. Our review found that 4 percent of States spent more than the\nauthorized amount.\n\nOur review also found that 71 percent of the State agencies have issued policy or\nguidance regarding this percen~age limitation on area agency on aging expenditures; 9\npercent do not. (The remaining 20 percent are single planning and service area\nStates.) Further, only 41 percent of State agencies monitor A&U to ensure that this\nexpenditure limit is met. Additionally, we found that only 24 percent of the States\nhave developed controls at the State level to ensure that this requirement is met.\n\nThe OAA funds used for the AAA administration must come from Title III-B or Title\nIII-C allotments. We found that 62 percent of the States have policy or guidance that\neither fully or partially addressed this limitation. However, an equal percent of States\ndo not monitor AAAs to ensure that only Title III-B and Title III-C funds are being\nspent for administration. In addition, we determined that 21 percent of States have\nState-1evel internal controls to ensure that funds for &% administration are derived\nfrom the appropriate allotments.\n\n1+-ogram Development and Coordination\n\nThe Title III regulations place a limit on the Federal share of the cost of AAA\nexpenditures for program development and coordination activities. The Federal share\nof costs is limited to 75 percent of the total cost of such activities, until expenditures\nin a State exceed the m&imum amount that can be spent for AAA administration.\n\n\n\n\n 4\n\x0cWhen this maximum amount is expended in a State, then the limit on the allowable\nFederal share of costs for program development and coordination activities increases\nto 85 percent. AAAs in 42 percent of States engage in program development and\ncoordination activities. Thirty-one percent of these States exceed the allowable\nFederal share of such costs.\n\nRuxal @7en4iitures\n\nEach Federal fiscal year, Title III expenditures in rural areas must equal or exceed 105\npercent of specified OAA funds spent in rural areas in fiscal year 1978. In 30 percent\nof the States, annual Title III expenditures in rural areas equaled or exceeded the\nrequired amount. However, only a few States have developed internal procedures to\ndocument that this requirement is being met.\n\nSeventy percent of States did not know the amount of Older Americans Act\nexpenditures in rural areas in Fiscal Year 1978. Forty-six percent of the States did not\nknow the amount of Older Americans Act expenditures in rural areas, during a recent\nfiscal year. Additionally, we found that 42 percent of States do not have policy or\nguidance which addresses this requirement.\n\ni!ltle III-B Allotment\n\nEach State agency\xe2\x80\x99s plan must specify the minimum percentage of each AAA\xe2\x80\x99s Title\nIII-B allotment which must be spent for access, in-home, and legal services. In turn,\neach area plan must assure that AA& will spend the State agency\xe2\x80\x99s prescribed\npercentage for each the three categories of services. Upon request, and under\nspecified circumstances, the State agency is authorized to grant a waiver to an area\nagency which suspends those requirements for one or more of these three categories\nof service. (See the report, \xe2\x80\x9cState Implementation of Stewardship Requirements of\nthe Older Americans Act\xe2\x80\x9d 02-91-01512, for a discussion of waiver procedures.)\n\nSixty-three percent of the States have fully addressed the policy or guidance which\nrequires expenditures of the State-stipulated percentages in each service category.\nHowever, 18 percent do not have policy or guidance which addresses the required\nexpenditures. Also, only 36 percent of the State agencies assess the extent to which\nAAAs expend the required amounts for the three categories of services, while 44\npercent of the State agencies do not monitor to determine if AAAs are expending the\nrequired amount.\n\n Voluntay Contn\xe2\x80\x9dbutions\n\nIn general, nearly all State agencies have either fully or partially addressed 45 CFR\n1321 requirements pertaining to voluntary contributions. However, 9 percent of the\nStates do not provide guidance to AAAs to ensure that such contributions are used to\nenhance services.\n\n\n\n 5\n\x0cIn reviewing the States\xe2\x80\x99 assessment instruments or related materials used to determine\nAAAs response to the criteria, 20 percent of States do not determine whether\nparticipants are given an opportunity to make voluntary contributions or there is\nprivacy for individuals making contributions. Further, 18 percent do not address\nsafeguards and accounting for contributions, and 46 percent do not assess to\ndetermine if support services contributions are being used to expand support services.\n\nIn addition, the OAA stipulates that contributions for nutrition services must be used\nto increase meals, facilitate access to meals, or to provide other supportive services\ndirectly related to nutrition services. All States have issued policy or guidance to\nAA& which either fully or partially addresses the allowable use of nutrition services\ncontributions. However, 46 percent of the States do not address this requirement on\ntheir assessment instruments.\n\nXransfen Between Congregate and Home-Delivered Meak\n\nEach Federal fiscal year, State agencies may transfer up to 30 percent of the\ncongregate meals allotment to the home-delivered meals allotment, or from the home-\ndelivered meals allotment to the congregate meals allotment without approval. Any\ntransfers exceeding 30 percent can only be made with the approval of the\nCommissioner on Aging. We found that the 4 percent of States that transferred more\nthan 30 percent between the congregate meals allotment and the home-delivered\nmeals allotment had obtained the required approval of the Commissioner on Aging.\n\nMost States (82 percent) have either fully or partially addressed policy or guidance\nregarding the limitation on transfers between allotments; 18 percent have not.\nFurther, while 35 percent of the States monitor AAAs for the limitation on transfers\nbetween allotments, 60 percent do not. Of those States that do conduct assessments,\na review of assessment reports indicates that 78 percent address this requirement\nthrough State-level controls.\n\nTransfen Between Suppti Services and Nutdion\n\nState agencies have authority to annually transfer up to 30 percent of Title III-B\nsupportive services funds to the Title III-C nutrition program. The converse is also\nauthorized. We found that 59 percent of States either fully or partially addressed this\ntransfer authority in policy. Although 22 percent of the States do not have policy or\nguidance, this probably reflects those State agencies having internal controls at the\nState level to regulate the amounts that are transferred among these allotments. We\ndetermined that since many States have State-level controls monitoring the transfer of\nallotments, it was not necessary in this study to determine if State agencies were\nassessing AAAs to determine the nature and the extent of transfers between\nallotments.\n\n\n\n\n 6\n\x0cPro@-making Organizations\n\nThe OAA authorizes recipients of grants or contracts (AAAs) to enter into a contract\nwith a profit-making organization, subject to the approval of the State Agency.\nSeventy-three percent of State agencies have issued policy or guidance regarding this\nrequirement; 8 percent do not.\n\nHalf of the States do not monitor AAAs to ensure that they are meeting requirements.\nOf the States which do monitor the AA&, 16 percent manage this requirement with\nState-level controls.\n\nRecord Retention\n\nFederal financial management regulations specify the length of time that records must\nbe retained by recipients of Federal funds. While 98 percent of the States provide\nsuch guidance to AA&, 35 percent do not monitor whether each A&4 retains records\nfor three years after the date that the AAA submits its final expenditure report, or the\ndate on which resolution of audits exceptions, litigations, etc., occurs (whichever date is\nlater).\n\nDedktion Alternative\n\nThe Title III regulations do not allow the deduction alternative in applying program\nincome. Sixty percent of the States have policy or guidance which fully addressed this\nrequirement. Although 25 percent of the States do not have policy or guidance, many\nof the State agencies indicate they are able to control use of the deduction alternative\nat the State level.\n\nFederal Financial Interest ik Senior Centen\n\nThe Federal government retains financial interest in senior centers acquired or\nconstructed with OAA funds. A share of funds is returned to the Federal government\nunder certain circumstances: 1) the owner of the facility ceases to be a public or\nprivate agency or organization, or 2) the facility ceases to be used for the purposes for\nwhich it was acquired. This financial interest remains in effect for ten years after the\nacquisition of a senior center and for 20 years after the construction of a senior center.\n\nSeventy-three percent of States have fully addressed this issue in policy or guidance,\nand 60 percent monitor AAAs to ensure that the appropriate Federal share of the\ncost of senior centers will revert to the United States Treasury. However, 23 percent\nof the States do not have policy or guidance addressing this requirement, and 40\npercent do not monitor AAAs to determine what they are doing to ensure the\nretention of Federal financial interest in senior centers.\n\n\n\n\n 7\n\x0cOmbudkman l%o~am\n\nFor State long-term care ombudsman programs, each year, State agencies must\nexpend an amount of supportive services funds that equals or exceeds the amount of\nsupportive services funds expended for this program in FY 1987. A majority of the\nStates (96 percent) have documented expenditures for the State long-term care\nombudsman program which equal or exceed the required amount. However, 4\npercent of the State agencies did not expend sufficient supportive services funds to\nmeet this requirement.1\n\nMaintenance of Effort\n\nThe Title III regulations require each State agenq to annually spend from State\nsources at least the average amount that was spent annually from State sources during\nthe previous three years. To ensure this requirement is met, AoA requires State\nagencies to submit a certification of maintenance of effort annually. In this\ncertification, the State agency specifies the amount of State funds expended in the\nprevious year. Further, the State agency certifies whether the amount of State funds\nbeing spent annually is 1) less than the required funding level, 2) equal to the required\nfunding level, or 3) more than the required funding level.\n\nWe reviewed the amount expended from State sources in the most recent fiscal year\nas compared with the documented prior three-year average expenditures from State\nsources. All States provided documentation to determine prior three-year average\namounts expended for maintenance of effort. The findings of this review are that 100\npercent of the States equal or exceed the amount from State sources that is required\nto meet the maintenance of effort requirements.\n\nMOST STATES HAVE IMPLEMENTED REQUIRED AUDIT PROCESSES\n\nNinety-six percent of the States have policies and procedures on audits and 84 percent\nof the States direct grantees to follow Office of Management and Budget Circulars in\nan attempt to ensure audits will be conducted in accordance with applicable law and\nregulations. To assure that audits are conducted 46 percent of States require AAAs to\nbudget funds for audits and 89 percent require grantees to transmit all audit reports to\nthe State agency for review. State agencies usually use letters (90 percent) to indicate\nhow and when grantees are to submit information on actions taken to address findings.\nOnly 30 percent indicate that grantees are provided this information through guidance\nin procedures manuals.\n\nMost States (82 percent) routinely monitor and/or assess grantees until all grantee\naudit deficiencies have been resolved, and 48 percent also require grantees to submit a\nwritten report describing progress in correcting deficiencies cited in audit findings.\n\nWe reviewed the most currently completed annual cycle of AAA grantee audits to\ndetermine 1) the type of audit conducted, 2) when the last audits were completed, 3)\n\n\n 8\n\x0cif the audits were on file with the State agency, and 4) the type of audit deficiencies\nthat were being identified. All audits we reviewed (A-128 and A-133 audits of 176\nsample grantees) were for a one-year period. In the last fiscal year during which\ngrantee audits were made, 72 percent were completed in 1991, 21 percent in 1990, and\n7 percent in 1989. The most common deficiencies identified in these audits were:\n\n 1) internal control weaknesses (79 percent);\n 2) non-compliance with law or regulations (57 percent);\n 3) questioned costs (71 percent); and\n 4) other types of deficiencies (27 percent), such as fiscal policies\n and procedures not in place, mathematical errors on expenditure\n statements, and failure to file timely reports.\n\nStates add that based upon their assessments of AAAs the most common AAA\nfinancial management deficiencies involve accounting (58 percent), staffing issues (33\npercent), auditing (31 percent), and reporting (13 percent).\n\nSTATES PROVIDE AAAs WITH TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE AND TRAINING\nTO ADDRESS DEFICIENCIES\n\nMany of the State agencies (60 percent) provide technical assistance (T/A) or training\nto AAAs for addressing deficiencies identified either through the audit or assessment\nprocesses. Forty percent of States indicate that such T/A or training was for\naccounting problems and 15 percent indicate providing T/A or training in budgeting.\n\nStates further report that their capacity to provide such T/A or training to A&k is\nsometimes limited and indicated they also have unmet training and T/A needs. Some\nStates (16 percent) indicate their most common unmet training and T/A needs are for\nclearer guidance on AoA regulations, program instructions, and legislation. Another\n15 percent need help with audits and 9 percent indicate a need for computer training.\nOthers noted T/A needs include monitoring requirements, contracting, cost allocation,\nand earned income.\n\n\n\n\n 9\n\x0c APPENDIX A\n\n\n\n\nReview Instrument For Financial\n Management\n\n\n\n\n A -1\n\x0c FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT COMPLIANCE REVIEW\n\n Department of Health and Human Services\n Administration on Aging\n\n\n\n\nState Date\n\nPrimary Respondent Telephone\n\nReview Team Leader Telephone\n\n\n ..------------ ________________________________\n .------------\n\n\n1. Prior to the on-site visit, obtain copies of policies, procedures, and other guidance to Area\n Agencies on A~\xe2\x80\x9dng (AAAs) on financial management from the Sttie Agency on Aging\n (St&e Agency). Review and determine whether or not these issuances address the cliteria\n identified in the following table. Indicae your responses with an X in the appropn\xe2\x80\x9date\n column reflecting these codes:\n\n Y (Yes) = Total Compliance with Criteria\n P (Patil) = Pati\xe2\x80\x9dal Compliance with Cn\xe2\x80\x9dteria\n N (No) = Not in Compliance with Cn\xe2\x80\x9dteria\n\n Dun-ng the desk review, if the policy materials do ~ include those items necessary to\n make a detennin~\xe2\x80\x9don of compliance ~, P, or N), mark NA (Not Available) in the\n Comments section of the table.\n\n\n CRITERIA IY P N CONIMIZNTS\n\n a. State Agency approves all AAA contracts with\n profitmaking grantees\n OAA Sec. 212\n\n b. Title 111expenditures in rural areas equal or\n exceed 105% of specified expenditures in FY 1978\n OAA Sec. 307(a)(3)(B)\n\n c. AAA administrative expenditures statewide do not\n exceed the 1070 limitation\n OAA Sec. 304(d)( l)(A)\n\n d. There is no finding at the 85-15 match for\n program development and coordinated activities\n until the specified percentage is expended\n statewide for AAA administration\n 45 CFR 1321. 17( f)(14)\n\n\n\n\n A-1\n\x0c CRITERIA Y P N COMME.NTS\n\n,.. Each AAA retains records for3 yrs after the date\n that the AM submits its final expenditure report\n or the date on which resolution of audit\n exceptions, litigation, etc. occurs (whichever date\n is later)\n 45 CFR 92.42 & 74 Subpart D\n\nf. Participants are :iven an opportunity to make\n voluntary contributions\n 45 CFR 1321.67(a)(1)\n\no\n3\xe2\x80\x9c Limitations on transfers between congregate and\n home-delivered meal allotments\n 45 cm 1321.45\n\nh. Privacy of contributions\n 45 CFR 1321.67(a) (2)\n\ni. Safeguards and accounting for contributions\n 45 CFR 1321.67(a)(3)\n\nj\xe2\x80\x9c Support services contributions are used to expand\n support services\n 45 CFR 1321.67\n\nk. In applying program income. the deduction\n alternative is not used\n 45 CFR 1321.73\n\n1. AAA administration is fi.mded from Title [11 B\n andior Title LI1C, only\n OAA Sec. 303(c)\n\nm. Statewide transfers between Title III B & C do not\n exceed 30%\n OAA Sec. 308(b)(5)(B)\n\nn. Retention of Federal government financial interest\n in senior centers\n OAA Sec. 312\n\n 0. AAAs spend State Agency prescribed percentages\n on specified categories of services\n OAA Sec. 307(a)(22) and 306(a)(2)\n\n P. Audits for governmental and non-governmental\n AAAs\n OMB Circulars A-1X3, A- 133\n\n q. Nutrition services contributions are used to\n increase meals, for access, or for authorized\n services.\n OAA 307(a)( 13)( C)(ii) & 45 CFR 1321.67\n\n\n\n\n A-2\n\x0cAt this point, you should have completed the in-house compliance review of the policies,\nprocedures, and other guidance provided to AAAs on jinancial management. For each ctitetia\nla-lq indic~\xe2\x80\x9dng an entry of NO, PARTL4L, or NOT AVAILABLE, list it in the jirst column of\nquestion 2 prior to the on-site interview. NOTE: For those items marked NA as a result of the\ndesk review, St&e Agency responses may indicate conveti\xe2\x80\x9dng the NA to Y, P, N, CMSL (Criteria\nmet at State level), or NSC (State Agency does not address this applicable Federal cn\xe2\x80\x9dteria). Ask\nquestion 2 dun\xe2\x80\x9dng the on-site visit following the bn\xe2\x80\x9def explizn~\xe2\x80\x9don initialing the interview.\n\n\n\xe2\x80\x987\n-. A few weeks ago, we requested copies of the policies, procedures, and other guidance\n provided to the Area Agencies on Aging concerning financial management. These were\n reviewed against specific financial management criteria contained in the Older Americans\n Act and the Title III regulations. During this review, we identified issuances which only\n partially addressed specific criteria, or we were unable to identify issuances addressing\n specific criteria. For these, I need to understand how the State Agency directs and guides\n the AAAs to ensure that financial management requirements are met for those criteria not\n addressed or partially addressed.\n\n\n Criteria # with\n No, Partial, or\n Not Available entry ARencv ResDonse\n\n\n\n\n (If adliitional space is required, use the back of the previous page)\n\n\n A-3\n\x0cNote: Under the Single Audit concept, the term \xe2\x80\x9cgrantee\xe2\x80\x9d refers to the ~, when tfle AAA iS\nan independent agency or organ i~\xe2\x80\x9don. Otherwise, the term \xe2\x80\x9cgrantee\xe2\x80\x9d refers to t~~e\nmultt\xe2\x80\x9dpuvose agency or organ i~\xe2\x80\x9don, when the AAA is a separate organ izalz\xe2\x80\x9donal unit within\nsuch multi\xe2\x80\x9d pupose agency or organ im\xe2\x80\x9don.\n\n\n3. How does the State Agency ensure that audits of its grantees will be conducted in\n accordance with the law and the regulations? (i. e., through which methods)\n\n a. AA% must budget funds for audits\n b. grantees are directed to have audits conducted in accordance with specified\n OMB Circulars\n c. Other (Identi~ the specific procedure and explain)\n\n\n\n\n4. What was the last fiscal year during which audits were made of the State Agency\xe2\x80\x99s\n grantees?\n\n a. Beginning date -\n b. Ending date -\n\n Questions 4C - 4f pertain to the last jiscal year in which audits were made:\n\n c. Prior to the on-site visit, list the sample grantees below. ln preparation for the on-\n site visit, ask the State Agency to have available for each sample A&i:\n\n 1) the type of audit conducted (A-128 or A-133) for the last jiscal year (identified\n at question 4 a and b) and\n 2) the name of the audit agency conducting th~ audit.\n\n For each of the sample AAAs, jill-in the approptie infonn~\xe2\x80\x9don on the following\n table.\n\n\n\n\n A-4\n\x0c1\n A-128 AUDIT A-133 AU-DIT\n GRAINTEE AUDIT AGENCY (Check if (Check if\n applicable) applicable)\n\n(1)\n\n\n\n(~)\n\n\n\n(3)\n\n\n\n(4)\n\n\n\n(5)\n\n\n\n(6)\n\n\n\n(7)\n\n\n\n(s)\n\n\n\n(9)\n\n\n\n(lo)\n\n\n\nd. Based on your review of the provided audit information, indicate how many A-12$ and\n A-133 audits were conducted of the sample gmntees:\n\ne. My review of the audit information indicates that (fW-in with the total\n number from d above) A-128 and A-133 audits were conducted of the sample grantees in\n the last fiscal year. Of these audits, how many of the audit reports are on file with the\n State Agency?\n\n\n\n\n A-5\n\x0cf.\t Prior to the on-site visit, list the sample grantees below. In prepar~\xe2\x80\x9don Jor the on-site\n visit, ask the State Agency to have available audit jindings for the most recently\n completed A-128 or A-133 audit of each sample AAA. For -11 of the sample ~s~\n place a check mark in each approptie column to designate any dejiciency~ies that were\n specified in that AAA\xe2\x80\x99s audit findings.\n\n\n AUDIT FINDINGS (Check all applicable)\n\n Internal Non-complkuwe\n GRANTEE Control with Law or Questioned Other\n Weakness Regulations costs CIdentifi)\n\n1\n(1)\n\n\n\n(2)\n\n\n\n (3)\n\n\n\n (4)\n\n\n\n (5)\n\n\n\n (6)\n\n\n\n (7)\n\n\n\n (8)\n\n\n\n (9)\n\n\n\n (lo)\n\n\n\n\n\n A-6\n\x0c5. Of the following, which does the State Agency routinely use to ensure that its grantees address\n audit findings? Does the: (Complete the question by asking a, b, and c below)\n\n (Check a-c only if the response is YES)\n\n a.\t State Agency require grantees to transmit all audit reports to the S ate Agent y\n for review?\n b.\t State Agency require its grantees to submit a written progress report\n describing progress in correcting deficiencies cited in audit finding?\n c.\t State Agency monitor and/or assess grantees until all audit deficiencies have\n been resolved to the satisfaction of the State Agency?\n\n\n6. What other methods are used by the State Agency to ensure its grantees address audit findings\xe2\x80\x99?\n\n a.\n\n\n\n\n b. Not Applicable\n\n May I review examples of letters or transmittals showing these? Check as appropn\xe2\x80\x9dtie:\n Document~\xe2\x80\x9don is provided 1 is unavailable , or will be made avaikzble by\n .\n\n\n7. How does the State Agency inform its grantees as to how and when to submit information\n on the actions taken to address audit findings?\n\n a. Letter\n b. Memoranda\n c. Procedures manual\n d. Other, (Zdenti!)\n\n\n\n\nQuestions 8-15 refer to expenditures as reported in the most recent Final SF-269 Report:\n\n\n A-7\n\x0c8. The Final SF-269 Report shows that $ (jill-in amount prior to on-site visit) in Title\n III funds was expended for State Agency administration.\n\n I need to review documentation contlrming this information. Check as approptie:\n Document&\xe2\x80\x9don is provided , is unavailable , or will be made avaikzble by\n on (date) .\n\n If received, review the documentm\xe2\x80\x9don and determine whether the documented expenditures\n indicate that more than $300,000, or more than 5 percent of the Title III allotments\n (whichever is greater) was spent on Stale Agency administrti\xe2\x80\x9don. 77~is may require your\n calculating the 5 percent jigure.\n\n Indicate your finding:\n \xe2\x80\x9c .\n a. More than $300,000 or more than 5 percent was\n spent\n b. $300,000 or less than 5% was spent\n c. Don \xe2\x80\x98t Kkow (Check if applicable)\n\n\n Only if the documented expenditures are more than $300,000 or more than 5 percent, ask\n question 9. Otherwise, skip to question 10.\n\n\n9. What is the reason(s) for the additional expenditures? (,}lore funds could have been spent if un\n additional .75 percent was approved by AoA (OAA 3011(b).)\n\n a.\n\n\n\n\n b. Not Applicable\n\n\n10. The Final SF-269 Report shows that $ (jW-in amount prior to on-site visit) was\n expended for the State ombudsman program from Title III-B resources.\n\n I need to review documentation confirming this information. Check as approptie:\n Documentation is provided , is unavailable , or will be made available by\n on (dale) .\n\n\n\n\n A-8\n\x0c11. How much was spent for the State Ombudsman Program in Fiscal Year 1987 from Title III-B\n resources?\n\n\n\n\n Review documentti\xe2\x80\x9don and determine if the documented expenditures for the Ombudsman\n program, from Title III-B, are equal to, in excess OJ or less than the amount spent jiom this\n source in Fiscal Year 1987. (OAA 307(a) (12), (21))\n\n Indic&e your Jnding: a. Equals\n b. Exceeds\n c. Less Xhan\n\n\n12. The Final SF-269 Report shows that $ (jW-in amount prior to on-site visit) in Title\n IKI funds was expended for Area Agency administration.\n\n I need to review documentation confirming this information. Check as appropn\xe2\x80\x9date:\n Document&-on is provided , is unavailable , or will be made available by\n on (date) .\n\n If received, review the documenta\xe2\x80\x9don and determine whether Title III st~ewide expenditures\n for AAA administr@\xe2\x80\x9don are equal to or less than 10 percent of the Title III allotment that\n remains afier subtracting Title III State administrti\xe2\x80\x9dve costs.\n\n Indicate your finding:\n a. Equal to\n b. Less than If less, how much less? $\n More than If more, how much more? $\n ; Don \xe2\x80\x98t how (Check if applicable)\n\n\n13. Were funds expended for program deve[oprnent and coordination using a matching ratio?\n\n a. Yes Zf yes, what was the matching ratio? (e. g., 85-15, 75-25)\n\n\n\n\n If yes, how much was spent statewide for program development and\n coordination?\n\n $\n\n b. No\n c. Don\xe2\x80\x99t Know (Check if applicable)\n\n\n\n A-9\n\x0cPrior to the on-site visit, determine if the State Agency repotied any transfers among allotments\nduring the hzst Federal fiscal year. If none were repotied, go to question 16. If transfers were\nrepotied, ask the follo wing approptie questions ~re-marked pn\xe2\x80\x9dor to the on-site visit), depending\nupon the type of transfer(s) which occurred.\n\n\n\n14.\t Prior to our visit, we reviewed fiscal data to determine if any transfers occurred among\n allotment during the last Federal fiscal year. The State Agent y reported (Fill-in with a, b, or\n both a and be as review indicated):\n\n a.\t Transfers between Title III-B and Title III-c in the amount of :$\n (fill-in amount prior to on-site visit).\n\n Not Applicable\n\n (If applicable) 1 need to review documentation confirming this information. Check as\n appropn\xe2\x80\x9d~e: Document~\xe2\x80\x9don is provided , is unavailable , or will be made\n available by on (d&e)\n .\n\n Review the document~\xe2\x80\x9don and indic~e below whether or not documented transfers\n between Title III-B and Title III-C exceed 30 percent of either of these allotments.\n\n a. Yes\n b. No\n c. Don \xe2\x80\x98t Know\n\n b.\t Transfers between Title III-C-1 and Title III-C-2 in the amount of $\n (/W-in amount prior to on-site visit).\n\n Not Applicable\n\n (If applicable) I need to review documentation confirming this information. Check as\n approptie: Document~\xe2\x80\x9don is provided , is unavailable , or will be made\n avaikzble by on (date)\n .\n\n\n\n Review the document~\xe2\x80\x9don and indicate below whether or not documented trwlsfem\n between Title III-C-1 and Title III-C-2 exceed 30 percent of either of these allotments.\n\n a. Yes (IJ YES, ask question 15)\n b. No (If NO, go to question 16)\n c. Don \xe2\x80\x98t Know (If Don \xe2\x80\x98t Know, go to question 16)\n\n\n\n\n A-1o\n\n\x0c15. A review of your documentation indicates transfers between Title III-C-1 and Title III-C-2\n exceeded 30 percent for either of these allotments; were such transfers approved by the\n Administration on Aging?\n\n a. Yes\n b. No\n c. Don\xe2\x80\x99t Know (Check if applicable)\n d. Not Applicable\n\n\n16. The last Certificationof Maintenance of Effort, dated _ shows that\n $ (j711-in date and amount prior to on-site visit) was expended from State\n sources to meet administrative and program matching requirements.\n\n I need to review documentation confirming this information. Check as appropriate:\n Documentti\xe2\x80\x9don is provided , is unavailable , or will be made available by\n on (d&e) .\n\n Prior to the last Certification of Maintenance of Effort, the average amount spent in the previous\n three Federal fiscal years from State sources to meet Maintenance of Effort requirements was\n reported to be $ (fill-in amount prior to on-site visit)\n Note: Agency may not use avera~\xe2\x80\x9dng; you will have to calcutie the 3-year average.\n\n I need to review documentation confirming the amount expended from State sources to meet\n administrative and program matching requirements for these three years. Check as appropn\xe2\x80\x9dale:\n Document&\xe2\x80\x9don is provided , is unavailable ~ or will be made avaiilzble by\n on (dhte) .\n\n Review the document~\xe2\x80\x9don and determine if the documented 3 year average amount expended\n for Maintenance of Effoti is equal to, greater than, or less than the amount repotied in the\n most recent Ce~!jic&\xe2\x80\x9don of Maintenance of Effoti.\n\n Indic&e your finding: a. Equal to\n b. Gre&er than\n c. Less than\n\n\n17. Prior to the on-site visit, obta\xe2\x80\x9dn a copy of the inst~ment used by the State Agency to assess\n compliance and performance of A&is with jhzncial management law and regutions. If the\n questions on jlnanciai management are pati of a kzrger review instrument, ask the St&e\n Agency to identzfi or highlight those items petim\xe2\x80\x9dning to the review of financial management\n practices. Have the St&e Agency mark the instrument(s) with the applicable ctiena (e.g., a,\n b, c, etc.) using a provided copy of the cnleriiz. Zhis infonnationaL request shouki be\n included in the letter thti is sent to the State Agency outlining the Compliance Review.\n\n\n\n\n A-11\n\x0cReview and determine whether or not the assessment instmments address the financial\nmanagement ctieria identij?ed in the Jollo wing table. Indic&e your responses with an X in\nthe appropriate column reflecting these codes:\n\n Y (Yes) = Total Compliance with Criteria\n P (Patil) = Pa&\xe2\x80\x9dal Compliance with Criteria\n N (No) = Not in Compliance with Criten\xe2\x80\x9da\n\nDuting the desk review, if the assessment instrument and related mtierials do ~t include\nthose items necessary to make a determinti\xe2\x80\x9don of compliance (Y, P, or N), mark N. (Not\nAvailable) in the Comments section of the table.\n\n\n CRITERIA Y P N COMMENTS\n\n a. State Agency approves all AAA contracts with\n profitmaking grantees\n OAA Sec. 212\n\n b. NOT APPLICABLE TO AAA\n\n c. AAA administrative expenditures statewide do not\n exceed the 10\xe2\x80\x99% limitation\n OAA Sec. 304(d)( 1)(A)\n\n d. There is no funding at the S5- 15 match for\n program development and coordinated activities\n until the specified percentage is expended\n statewide for .%AA administration\n 45 cm 1321.17(9(14)\n\n e. Each AAA retains records for 3 yrs after the date\n that the AAA submits its final expenditure report\n or the date on which resolution of audit\n exceptions. litigation. etc. occurs (whichever date\n is later)\n 45 CFR 92.42 & 74 Subpart D\n\n f. Participants are given an opportunity to make\n voluntary contributions\n 45 CFR 1321.67(a)(1)\n\n ~\xe2\x80\x9c Limitations on transfers between congregate and\n homedelivered meal allotments\n 45 cm 1321.45\n\n h. Privacy of contributions\n 45 CFR 1321 .67(a) (2)\n\n i. Safeguards and accounting for contributions\n 45 CFR 1321.67(a)(3)\n\n j. Support services contributions are used to expand\n support services\n 45 CFR 1321.67\n I\n A-12\n\x0c CRITERIA Y P N coNfMIINTs\n k. NOT APPLICABLE TO AAA\n\n 1.\t AAA administration is funded from Title [II B\n and/or Title III C, only\n OAA Sec. 303(c)\n\n m. NOT APPLICABLE TO AAA\n\n n.\t Retention of Federal government financial interest\n in senior centers\n OAA Sec. 312\n\n 0.\t AAAs spend State Agency prescribed percentages\n on specified categories of senices\n OAA Sec. 307(a)(22) and 306(a)(2)\n\n P.\t Audits for governmental and non-governmental\n AAAs\n OMB Circulars A-1X3, A-133\n\n q.\t Nutrition services contributions are used to\n increase meals, for access. or for authorized\n services.\n OAA 307(a) (13)(C)(ii) & 45 CFR 1521.67\n\n\nFor each criteria 17a-1 7q indic~\xe2\x80\x9dng an entry OJ No, PA.RHAL, or NOT AVAILABLE, list it in\nthe jlrst column of question 18 prior to the on-site interview. NOTE: For those items marked\niVA as a result of-the desk review, State Agency responses may indicate conveti\xe2\x80\x9dng the NA to Y,\nP, N, CMSL (Criteria met at State level), or NSC (Stale Agency does not address this applicable\nFederal criteti). Ask question 18 during the on-site visit.\n\n18.\t A few weeks ago, AoA also requested a copy of the assessment instrument and any\n applicable tools used by the State Agency to assess compliance and performance of AAAs\n with financial management law and regulations. These were reviewed against the specific\n financial management criteria contained in the older Americans Act and the Title III\n regulations. During this review, we identified issuances which only partially addressed\n specific criteria, or we were unable to identify issuances addressing specific criteria. For\n these, I need to understand how the State Agency assesses the AAAs to ensure that financial\n management requirements are met for those criteria not addressed or partially addressed.\n\n Criteria # with\n No, Partial, or\n Not Available entrv\n\n\n\n\n A-13\n\x0c (If additional space is required, the back of the previous page)\n\n\n19. What are the most common financial management deficiencies of the ANA?\n\n a.\n\n\n\n\n b. Don$t Know (Cheek if applicable)\n\n\n\n\n A-14\n\x0c20. What technical assistance orttitig hasthe Smte Agency provided toWs in order to\n address these deficiencies?\n\n a.\n\n\n\n\n b. Don\xe2\x80\x99t Know (Check i\xe2\x80\x99~a..@cable)\n\n\n21. What kind assistance or training on financial management is needed by the State\n Agency?\n\n a.\n\n\n\n\n b. Don\xe2\x80\x99t Know (Check if applicable)\n\n\n2). What was the ending date of the most recent area plan year\xe2\x80\x99?\n\n a. Beginning date\n b. Ending date\n\nQuestions 23 and 24 apply to the most recent area plan year:\n\n\n23. How many contracts did MS award to profitmaking firms?\n\n a. (Indicate number)\n b. Don\xe2\x80\x99t Know (Check if applicable)\n c. None\n\n\n\n\n A-15\n\x0c24. If any contracts were made with profitmaking firms, how many firms were approved by the\n State Agency?\n\n a. (Indicate number)\n b. Donut Know (Check if applicable)\n\n\n25. In Fiscal Year 1978, what was the total amount of the expenditures in rural areas from Title\n III, Title V (multipurpose senior centers), and Title VII (nutrition)?\n\n a. Title III Expenditures\n b. Title V Expenditures\n -.\n L. Title VII Expenditures\n d. Don\xe2\x80\x99t Know (Check if applicable)\n\n\n26. Of the total amount of the Title III expenditures included in the most recent Final SF-269\n Report, how much was expended in rural areas?\n\n a. $\n b. Don\xe2\x80\x99t Know (Check if applicable)\n\n27. The preselected sample of 10 Area Agencies on Aging were identified prior to the on-site\n visit. This sample is to be used throughout the compliance review process for all jive\n areas, the jht compliance review being Stewardship.\n\n For the sample AAAs, obtain the most currently completed annual cycle of St&e Agency\n assessment instruments and corresponding assessment reports (if any). Review the\n assessment J7ndings and determine the extent to which each of the sample AAAs were in\n compliance with each of the criteria identified in Attachment A. Record your responses\n on the follo wing table using these codes:\n\n Y ~es) = Total Compliance with Criteria\n P (Pati) = Patil Compliance with Criteria\n N (.0) = Not in Compliance with Criteria\n Lvsc = No State Criteria (State Agency does not assess this\n Federal criteria - identified through in-house review of\n Sttie Agency\xe2\x80\x99s assessment tool and retied materials)\n CMSL = Ctieria met al Stale level\n o = Other Finding @rovide explanti\xe2\x80\x9don and indicate by\n repoti number and criten\xe2\x80\x9da number in the Comments\n section Jollo wing the table)\n\n As a few of the Federal ctieti are not applicable to the AAAs, they have been elinlinated\n from the following table.\n\n\n\n A-16\n\x0c AAA\n Name\n\n Sample 1 ~ 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10\n Number\n\n Criteria\n\n a.\n\n c.\n\n\n\n d.\n\n\n e.\n\n\n\n f.\n\n\n g\xe2\x80\x9c\n\n\n h.\n\n\n i.\n\n\n\n\n 1.\n\n\n n.\n\n\n o.\n\n\n\n P\xe2\x80\x9c\n\n\n q\xe2\x80\x9c\n\n\n\nCOMMENTS:\n\n\n\n\n[INTERVIEW COMPLETED]\n\n\n\n\n A-17\n\x0c ENDNOTES\n\n1. This requirement has been revised in the 1992 Amendments to the OAA. The\nnew requirement in Section 307(a)(21) reads: \xe2\x80\x9cThe plan shall provide assurances that\nthe State agency, in carrying out the State Long-Term Care Ombudsman program\nunder Section 307(a) (12), will expend not less than the total amount expended by the\nagency in fiscal year 1991, in carrying out such a program under this title.\xe2\x80\x9d\n\n\n\n\n A -2\n\n\n \xe2\x80\x94\xe2\x80\x94.\xe2\x80\x94..\n\x0c'


text:
Santa Prassede, conhecida também como Santa Prassede all’Esquillino (), é uma igreja titular e uma basílica menor muito antiga em Roma, localizada perto da basílica papal de Santa Maria Maggiore.
 O atual cardeal-presbítero do Titulus Praxedis é Paul Poupard, antigo prefeito do Pontifício Conselho para a Cultura.
 História
 A igreja em sua forma atual foi encomendada pelo papa Adriano I por volta de 780 e construída sobre os restos de uma estrutura do século V para preservar os restos de Santa Praxedes e Santa Pudenciana, as filhas de São Pudêncio, que é tradicionalmente considerado como o primeiro convertido de São Pedro em Roma. As duas santas são conhecidas por enterrarem os primeiros cristãos mártires.
 A basílica foi ampliada e decorada pelo papa Pascoal I por volta de 822. Pascoal, que reinou entre 817 e 824, estava na vanguarda do renascimento carolíngio, iniciado e defendido por Carlos Magno. Eles desejavam retornar aos fundamentos do cristianismo, teológica e artisticamente. O papa, por este motivo, iniciou dois ambiciosos projetos ligados entre si: a recuperação das relíquias dos mártires das catacumbas de Roma e uma campanha de construção de igrejas até então sem precedentes. Os diversos restos mortais escavados foram então trazidos para esta igreja.
 Tornou-se propriedade dos beneditinos em 1198. Nos séculos seguintes foi sendo aumentada e restaurada, sem perder seu caráter basilical. No interior há duas colunas de granito que sustentam uma arquitrave horizontal e alternam com pilares maciços dividindo a ampla nave das naves laterais (corredores).
 Interior
 A principal peça de altar é uma tela chamada "Santa Praxedes Recolhendo o Sangue dos Mártires" ( 1730-1735) de Domenico Muratori.
 Porém, o mais famoso elemento artístico da igreja são seus belos mosaicos. Pascoal contratou um time de profissionais para completar a obra na abside, no arco da abside e no arco triunfal. Na abside, Jesus está no centro ladeado por São Pedro e São Paulo, que estão apresentando Praxedes e Pudenciana a Deus. Na extremidade esquerda está o próprio Pascoal, com o halo quadrado dos que ainda vivem, apresentando um modelo da igreja como uma oferta a Jesus. Abaixo está uma inscrição de Pascoal, na esperança de que esta oferta seja suficiente para assegurar sua entrada no céu.
 No arco da abside há doze homens de cada lado segurando guirlandas da vitória e recepcionando as almas no céu. Sobre eles estão os símbolos dos quatro evangelistas - Marcos, o leão; Mateus, o anjo; Lucas, o touro; e João, a águia - à volta de um cordeiro entronado, o símbolo do eventual retorno de Cristo.
 A capela de São Zenão segue o plano de uma cruz grega e era destinada ao túmulo da mãe do papa, Teodora. Hoje é um dos poucos aposentos medievais completamente abobadados da cidade. Na entrada há duas colunas de pórfiro com capitéis carolíngios, que apoiam um antigo entablamento (a parte superior das colunas, ou arquitrave, friso e cornija). Tudo se cobre de mosaicos coloridos, sobre campo de ouro, referentes às relíquias dos mártires na igreja. Uma imagem de Cristo — apenas o rosto e os ombros — com o halo quadrado, está no ápice da abóbada, sustentada por quatro anjos que parecem crescer das colunas de apoio à cúpula. Os apóstolos André, João e Tiago aparecem no arco redondo à direita e Cristo no nicho entre São Pascoal e São Valentiniano.
 Embora estes mosaicos, juntamente com os que estão na capela de São Zenão, que Pascoal construiu para homenagear sua mãe, Teodora, sejam os mais conhecidos aspectos da igreja, um outro, intrigante e relativamente desconhecido, são os afrescos. Subindo por uma escada espiral, o visitante entra numa pequena sala onde, na parede, está um ciclo de afrescos datando provavelmente do século VIII. Eles representam provavelmente a vida da santa celebrada na igreja, Santa Praxedes.
 Pilar do flagelamento
 Santa Prassede também abriga um segmento do suposto pilar no qual Jesus foi flagelado antes de sua crucificação em Jerusalém. A relíquia foi supostamente recuperada no início do século IV por Santa Helena (a mãe do imperador romano Constantino I), que, aos oitenta anos, peregrinou até o Gólgota na Terra Santa fundando diversas igrejas e recolhendo inúmeras relíquias associadas com a crucificação de Jesus no Calvário. Entre elas, a Vera Cruz (atualmente na Basílica de São Pedro, com alguns fragmentos em Santa Croce in Gerusalemme), pedaços da manjedoura e o pilar que hoje está em Santa Prassede. A autenticidade destas relíquias, incluindo o pilar, é contestada por historiadores e cristãos por conta da falta de evidências e da massiva proliferação de relíquias falsificadas durante a Idade Média.
 Titulus
 Entre os titulares conhecidos desta sé estão Lambertus Scannabecchi (posteriormente o papa Honório II, 1099), Ubaldo Allucingoli (papa Lúcio III, 1141), Alain de Coëtivy (1448), Giovanni Maria Ciocchi del Monte (papa Júlio III, 1542-1543), São Carlos Borromeo (1538-1584) e Rafael Merry del Val (1903-1930).
 Galeria
 Ligações externas
 Igrejas titulares em Roma
 Basílicas em Roma
 Século VIII
 Igrejas românicas em Itália
 Arquitetura medieval na Itália
 Roma R. I Monti