jurisdiction: US

text: b'DOE/IG-0433\n\n\n\n\n INSPECTION INSPECTION OF THE\n DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY\xe2\x80\x99S\n REPORT CONFERENCE POLICIES\n AND PRACTICES\n\n\n\n\n DECEMBER 1998\n U.S. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY\n OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL\n OFFICE OF INSPECTIONS\n\x0c December 3, 1998\n\nMEMORANDUM FOR THE SECRETARY\n\nFROM: Gregory H. Friedman /s/\n Inspector General\n\nSUBJECT: INFORMATION: Report on \xe2\x80\x9cInspection of Department of Energy\xe2\x80\x99s\n Conference Policies and Practices\xe2\x80\x9d\n\nBACKGROUND\n\nThe Department of Energy (Department) is a recognized world leader in technological\nbreakthroughs brought about by its many research and development programs. To\nfurther these technical and scientific achievements, the Department and its contractors\nconduct numerous conferences, meetings or symposiums every year. This inspection\nsampled conferencing practices at the Department\xe2\x80\x99s National laboratories and evalu-\nated the adequacy of Departmental conference policies and procedures.\n\nRESULTS OF INSPECTION\n\nThe Department has not established adequate policies and procedures regarding the\nconduct of its conference activities and the conference activities of its contractors.\nPresidential, Office of Management and Budget (OMB), and Federal Travel Regula-\ntion (FTR) guidance require that the Department minimize conference costs and es-\ntablish or revise existing procedures to ensure such costs are kept to a minimum.\nHowever, the inspection found that the Department does not have procedures in place\nto ensure that conference costs are minimized, and weaknesses were found in some\nconference management practices of the Department\xe2\x80\x99s contractors.\n\nWe recommended that the Office of Human Resources and Administration in coordi-\nnation with the General Counsel: (1) review the provisions of Presidential, OMB, and\nFTR guidance and develop Department wide policies and procedures for all DOE and\nDOE contractor conferences that address conference site selection, minimizing atten-\ndance and reduction of overall costs of attending conferences; (2) develop policies re-\ngarding the approval level for all DOE and DOE contractor conferences; (3) develop\npolicy to reduce duplicate reimbursement for conference meals provided as part of\nregistration fees; (4) review the practice of charging a conference registration fee that\nincludes unallowable costs; (5) establish policy that unallowable conference related\ncosts be separately identified; (6) review the practice of DOE contractors using Fed-\neral funds to pay for conference banquet and meal expenses; and (7) in conjunction\nwith the Chief Financial Officer, determine the applicability of the Miscellaneous Re-\nceipt Act as it relates to the collection of conference related registration and exhibitor\nfees.\n\x0c 2\n\nMANAGEMENT REACTION\n\nManagement concurred with the finding and five of the seven recommendations, while\npartially concurring with two recommendations, stating that the Department will issue\na Departmental Notice regarding conferencing that will include overall policy and pro-\ncedures for DOE employees and contractors to follow for sponsoring and attending\nconferences. Management also stated that the Notice will be replaced by a Depart-\nmental Order prior to expiration of the Notice.\n\nAttachment\n\ncc: Deputy Secretary\n Under Secretary\n\x0cINSPECTION OF THE DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY\xe2\x80\x99S CONFERENCE\nPOLICIES AND PRACTICES\n\nTABLE OF\nCONTENTS\n\n Overview\n\n Introduction and Objective.................................................. 1\n\n Observations and Conclusions........................................... 3\n\n The Department Lacks Adequate Policies and\n Procedures Necessary to Provide for Control\n Over the Cost of its Conference Activities..................... 6\n\n Details of Finding................................................................ 6\n\n Recommendations and Comments ...............................\xe2\x80\xa6 19\n\n Appendices\n\n I. Scope and Methodology\xe2\x80\xa6 ............................................. 21\n\n II. Actions Taken by Assistant Secretarial Offices\n and Two Operations Offices to Implement\n Conferencing Policies\xe2\x80\xa6 \xe2\x80\xa6 \xe2\x80\xa6 \xe2\x80\xa6 \xe2\x80\xa6 \xe2\x80\xa6 \xe2\x80\xa6 \xe2\x80\xa6 \xe2\x80\xa6 \xe2\x80\xa6 \xe2\x80\xa6 \xe2\x80\xa6 \xe2\x80\xa6 \xe2\x80\xa6 ... 23\n\x0cOverview\n\nINTRODUCTION AND The Department of Energy (DOE), including its contractors, is\nOBJECTIVE a recognized world leader in technological breakthroughs\n brought about by its many research and development\n programs. To further these technical and scientific efforts,\n the Department and its contractors (which includes several\n National Laboratories), conduct numerous conferences,\n meetings, and symposiums each year. The themes of\n these conferences generally include complex and diverse\n topics such as Atomic Physics, Gammasphere Physics,\n Mapping Gene Sequencing, the Advanced Light Source,\n Exotic Nuclei, and Low Temperature Superconductors.\n These conferences, meetings, and symposiums are\n attended by representatives from the Department and the\n Department\xe2\x80\x99s contractors, as well as representatives from\n the private sector and domestic/foreign academic\n institutions.\n\n The Department\xe2\x80\x99s conference activities include meetings\n (1) sponsored and managed directly by the Department;\n (2) co-sponsored by the Department but managed by\n Department contractors; and (3) sponsored and managed\n by organizations outside the Department where DOE\n Federal and contractor employees attend. The full scope\n and cost of the Department\xe2\x80\x99s conference activities is not\n available because of the diverse sponsorship of these\n conferences, and because there is no central source of\n Department-wide information on this subject. During Fiscal\n Year 1996, and the first half of Fiscal Year 1997, DOE\n reported to Congress that 293 conferences were sponsored\n by the Department. However, the inspection disclosed that\n this number significantly understates conference activity\n because it excludes conference activities of many of DOE\xe2\x80\x99s\n prime contractors. For example, at one Department\n contractor site, 25 DOE contractor conferences conducted in\n Fiscal Year 1996 were not included in the Department\xe2\x80\x99s\n report to Congress.\n\n Our inspection initially examined the Department\xe2\x80\x99s\n conference activities at the Lawrence Berkeley National\n Laboratory (Berkeley). Specifically, we found that several\n questionable payments were made by the Berkeley\n Cashier\xe2\x80\x99s Office for conference-related expenses.\n Additional inquiries revealed that allowable and unallowable\n conference receipts were being commingled in Berkeley\xe2\x80\x99s\n Letter of Credit account. Berkeley conference\n\n Page 1 Inspection of the Department of Energy\xe2\x80\x99s\n Conference Policies and Practices\n\x0c management officials said they did not have an accounting\n system in place which could readily reconcile sources and\n uses of funds for allowable and unallowable conference\n costs. As a result of our initial inquiries, Berkeley\n conference management officials established a\n process in 1995 where two financial accounts were\n established within the Letter of Credit for each\n conference. One account was designated for allowable\n income and expenses, while the other account was\n designated for unallowable income and expenses.\n\n A Berkeley Internal Audit issued in January 1995 made\n several recommendations to improve LBNL conference\n management practices after several control weaknesses\n were found to exist in the processing of invoice payments\n and cash receipts, and in preventing unallowable costs from\n being incurred or claimed. A DOE Office of Inspector\n General Report, Number WR-V-96-21, issued in\n September 1996, found that Berkeley was using its Letter of\n Credit to finance unallowable costs, and that conference\n registration fees collected to pay unallowable costs were\n commingled with Departmental funds in the special bank\n account. In response to these concerns, Berkeley\n established a separate bank account outside of the Letter of\n Credit to deposit conference registration fees.\n\n In 1997, we expanded our inspection by sampling\n conference practices at other National Laboratories, and\n evaluating the adequacy of the Department of Energy\xe2\x80\x99s\n conference policies and procedures. Our inspection\n objectives were to determine: (1) whether the Department\n has developed adequate policies and procedures regarding\n the conduct of its conference activities and the conference\n activities of its contractors; and (2) if the conferencing\n practices of Department contractors are consistent with\n existing requirements and guidance related to the\n administration of conference activities and the use of\n Federal funds.\n\n Recently, the Office of Inspector General also issued a\n report titled \xe2\x80\x9cThe U.S. Department of Energy\xe2\x80\x99s X-Change\n 1997: The Global D&D Marketplace Conference\xe2\x80\x9d which\n identified a lack of Departmental policy on the funding of\n conferences, and questionable fiscal practices associated\n with the X-Change Conference.\n\nPage 2 Inspection of the Department of Energy\xe2\x80\x99s\n Conference Policies and Practices\n\x0cOBSERVATIONS Our inspection found that the Department of Energy has not\nAND CONCLUSIONS developed adequate policies and procedures regarding the\n conduct of its conference activities and the conference\n activities of its contractors. Presidential guidance issued in a\n February 10, 1993, memorandum to all Executive\n Departments and Agencies stated that strict fiscal\n responsibility must be exercised when selecting conference\n sites and conference attendees. The Office of\n Management and Budget (OMB), in issuing instructions\n under OMB Bulletin 93-11 regarding the implementation of\n this guidance, established as policy that Executive\n Departments and Agencies were not to spend \xe2\x80\x9chard-earned\n tax dollars in ways that may appear to be improper.\xe2\x80\x9d OMB\n Bulletin 93-11 specifically required that Executive\n Departments and Agencies minimize conference costs and\n establish or revise existing procedures to select conference\n sites and make other conference arrangements to ensure\n conference costs are kept to a minimum. This Bulletin\n specifically stated that \xe2\x80\x9cconference costs\xe2\x80\x9d included all costs\n paid by the Government, whether paid directly by a\n Government agency or reimbursed by the Government to\n contractors or others for a conference.\n\n However, over five years after the original Presidential\n guidance, the Department of Energy still does not have\n consistent Department-wide procedures designed to assure\n that strict fiscal responsibility is applied to the Department\xe2\x80\x99s\n conference activities and the conference activities of its\n contractors. As a result, we found that weaknesses exist in\n some conferencing practices of Department contractors.\n Although there was some question as to whether the\n Department required its contractors to comply with the\n guidance and policy of the President and OMB; we found\n that some contractor conference practices did not appear\n to be consistent with the principles and concepts contained\n in this guidance and policy. These include:\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Some non-DOE conference facilities are\n being selected by National Laboratories\n without evaluating or documenting the cost of\n alternative conference sites.\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Some conferences were attended by many\n DOE-funded participants, however, we could not\n identify any Departmental policy which ensures that\n\n Page 3 Inspection of the Department of Energy\xe2\x80\x99s\n Conference Policies and Practices\n\x0c the number of conference participants is kept to a\n minimum.\n\n In addition, some conferencing practices of Department\n contractors may not be consistent with Federal policy on\n the use of Federal funds. Specifically:\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2 A National Laboratory collected and used\n conference registration and exhibitor fees in a\n manner that may not be consistent with the\n provisions of the Miscellaneous Receipts Act or the\n provisions of its management and operating\n contract.\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2 DOE and DOE contractor employees have attended\n DOE-sponsored conferences where meals have\n been provided through conference registration fees,\n however, some conference participants\xe2\x80\x99per diem\n have not been properly reduced.\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2 While sponsoring conferences, National\n Laboratories have used conference registration\n fees paid by other Federally-funded organizations\n to cover the cost of entertainment (recreational and\n social events), a practice that may not be consistent\n with the principle established by the U.S.\n Comptroller General that Federal funds cannot be\n used for entertainment unless specifically\n authorized by statute.\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Some banquets associated with National\n Laboratories\xe2\x80\x99conferences appear to be\n primarily entertainment and social activities where\n alcohol was served, a practice that may not be\n consistent with the Comptroller General principle\n that meals should not be paid for with Federal funds\n unless the meals include essential formal\n discussions, lectures or speeches associated with\n the conference.\n\n Given the magnitude of conferencing activities in DOE, we\n concluded that the Department should comply with both the\n letter and the spirit of the Presidential guidance and OMB\n policy by assuring that strict financial responsibility is\n\n\nPage 4 Inspection of the Department of Energy\xe2\x80\x99s\n Conference Policies and Practices\n\x0c applied to all the Department\xe2\x80\x99s conference activities,\n including those of its contractors. Further, as the\n Department proceeds to implement the requirements of the\n Government Performance and Results Act of 1993, the\n performance expectations for both DOE Federal and DOE\n contractor conference activities needs to be better defined.\n\n\n\n\nPage 5 Inspection of the Department of Energy\xe2\x80\x99s\n Conference Policies and Practices\n\x0cThe Department Lacks Adequate Policies and Procedures Necessary to\nProvide for Control Over the Cost of its Conference Activities\n\nPresidential Guidance On February 10, 1993, the President of the United States\nand OMB Policy Require issued a memorandum that provides guidance to the Heads\nthe Department to of Executive Departments and Agencies regarding the need\nExercise Strict Financial to reduce the cost of conferences. This\nResponsibility and memorandum states that, \xe2\x80\x9cThe public interest requires that\nMinimize Conference agencies exercise strict fiscal responsibility when selecting\nCosts conference sites,\xe2\x80\x9d and that \xe2\x80\x9c. . . agencies are not to select\n conference sites without evaluating the cost differences of\n prospective locations.\xe2\x80\x9d This memorandum also states that\n \xe2\x80\x9cWhen agency representatives attend conferences\n sponsored by others, the agency must keep its\n representation to a minimum consistent with serving the\n public\xe2\x80\x99s interest.\xe2\x80\x9d In addition, this memorandum states that\n \xe2\x80\x9c[t]he Office of Management and Budget, after consultation\n with the agencies, will issue further directives necessary to\n implement this requirement.\xe2\x80\x9d\n\n On April 19, 1993, the Office of Management and Budget\n issued OMB Bulletin 93-11, Subject: \xe2\x80\x9cFiscal Responsibility\n and Reducing Perquisites.\xe2\x80\x9d This bulletin, which applies to\n all Executive Departments, states that \xe2\x80\x9c[a]s American\n taxpayers are being asked to make a contribution to\n reducing the deficit it is imperative that we not spend their\n hard-earned tax dollars in ways that may appear to be\n improper,\xe2\x80\x9d and that \xe2\x80\x9c[i]t is the responsibility of every\n Department and agency to ensure compliance with the\n President\xe2\x80\x99s policies and attached guidance both in spirit\n and in fact.\xe2\x80\x9d\n\n OMB Bulletin 93-11 was intended to apply to all costs paid\n by the Government for a conference, whether paid directly\n by agencies or reimbursed by agencies to travelers or\n others associated with the conference, e.g., speakers,\n contractors, etc. \xe2\x80\x9cConferences\xe2\x80\x9d were defined as meetings,\n retreats, training activities, and other gatherings which\n involve travel outside the attendees\xe2\x80\x99permanent duty\n stations. \xe2\x80\x9cConference costs\xe2\x80\x9d were defined as \xe2\x80\x9call costs\xe2\x80\x9d\n paid by the Government for a conference, including, but not\n limited to, travel to and from the conference, ground\n transportation, lodging, meals and incidental costs, meeting\n room and audiovisual costs, registration fees, speaker fees,\n and conference-related administrative fees; and the cost of\n employees\xe2\x80\x99time spent at the conference and traveling to\n and from the conference. An OMB Policy Analyst who\n\nPage 6 Details of Finding\n\x0c authored the portion of the Bulletin relating to conferences\n advised that this Bulletin specifically applied to DOE\n management and operating contractors, as well as DOE\n Federal employees. He further advised that, in his opinion,\n \xe2\x80\x9cthe M&O contractor that operates a facility like the Hanford\n Site or a National Laboratory is acting as an extension of a\n Government agency, and that they are required to spend\n Government funds according to Government policy.\xe2\x80\x9d\n\n OMB Bulletin 93-11 requires agencies to select conference\n sites that minimize conference costs, and when agency\n representatives attend conferences sponsored by others,\n the agency should keep its representation to a minimum\n consistent with serving the public\xe2\x80\x99s interest. Specifically,\n the Bulletin requires that agencies: (1) establish or revise\n existing procedures to select conference sites, and in\n making other conference arrangements, to ensure that\n conference costs are kept to a minimum; (2) document the\n alternatives considered and rationale used in selecting\n conference sites; and (3) establish or revise existing\n internal policies and procedures for determining the\n number and identity of persons to send to conferences.\n\n On October 29, 1993, 41 CFR Part 301 (the Federal Travel\n Regulation), was amended to include provisions for\n conference planning as identified in OMB Bulletin 93-11.\n This amendment requires agencies to establish policies\n governing conference site selection, and policies and\n procedures designed to reduce the overall cost of\n attending conferences. This amendment also requires that\n a senior agency official authorize Government sponsorship\n or co-sponsorship of a conference which involves travel by\n 30 or more Federal civilian employees, and requires that a\n senior agency official authorize a conference at a selected\n site when the conference involves travel by 30 or more\n Federal civilian employees.\n\nPolicies and Procedures On March 10, 1993, the Department of Energy issued DOE\nRelating to Conference Notice 1130.3, \xe2\x80\x9cDepartmental Conference Activity,\xe2\x80\x9d to\nActivities Expired and implement the revised responsibilities and authorities for\nWere Canceled in approval of Department of Energy-sponsored and\nMarch 1994 co-sponsored conferences, and the provisions of the\n February 10, 1993, Presidential memorandum. This notice\n stated that \xe2\x80\x9cDepartmental Elements are reminded that . . .\n organizations are to provide in each conference request a\n\nPage 7 Details of Finding\n\x0c rationale and justification for site selection; a cost\n comparison of alternative sites considered; and certification\n that the site selected is the most cost-effective considering\n costs such as travel, per diem, and conference logistics.\xe2\x80\x9d\n This notice also addressed the need to exercise strict\n financial responsibility when determining the number of\n DOE representatives to attend non-DOE-sponsored or\n cosponsored conferences. However, DOE Notice 1130.3\n expired on March 10, 1994. Similarly, on March 25, 1994,\n DOE Order 1130.7B, \xe2\x80\x9cDEPARTMENTAL CONFERENCE\n ACTIVITY,\xe2\x80\x9d which represented the only formal policies,\n procedures, and responsibilities for the management of\n conferences within the Department, was canceled as part of\n the Department\xe2\x80\x99s effort to reduce the \xe2\x80\x9cburden and volume\xe2\x80\x9d\n of internal regulations.\n\nThe Department Does Despite the policy established by the President in 1993 and\nNot Have Adequate the OMB implementing guidance, the Department of Energy\nDepartment-wide does not have adequate Department-wide policies and\nConference Policies and procedures designed to assure that strict fiscal\nProcedures responsibility is applied to the Department\xe2\x80\x99s conference\n activities, and the conference activities of its contractors. In\n an effort to address the cancellation of DOE Order 1130.7B\n and comply with the requirements of the Presidential\n memorandum, OMB Bulletin 93-11, and the Federal Travel\n Regulation; the Assistant Secretary for Human Resources\n and Administration (HR) delegated the authority for\n conference approval in a May 24, 1994, memorandum\n titled "Approval of Department of Energy Conferences."\n This memorandum had the specific effect of delegating\n conference approval authority formerly held by the\n Secretary of Energy and/or HR, to Secretarial Officers,\n Managers of Operations Offices, and Administrators of the\n Power Marketing Administrations. This memorandum\n authorized Secretarial Officers, Managers of Operations\n Offices, and Administrators of the Power Marketing\n Administrations to approve all Department of Energy\n conferences which are sponsored or co-sponsored by their\n respective organizations, regardless of the total estimated\n cost or the number of Departmental and/or contractor\n attendees. This memorandum also authorized Secretarial\n Officers and Managers of Operations Offices to determine\n the approval level for their respective management and\n operating contractor conferences, and states that \xe2\x80\x9cAll\n conferences sponsored or cosponsored by Departmental\n\n Page 8 Details of Finding\n\x0c Elements are to fully comply with the conference policy\n contained in [the Federal Travel Regulation] (summary of\n major provisions attached).\xe2\x80\x9d\n\n The May 24, 1994, memorandum exists today as the only\n Department-wide policy statement on conference activities.\n However, while this memorandum delegates authority to\n approve conferences and provides a summary of the major\n provisions of the Federal Travel Regulation, it relies upon\n Secretarial Officers, Managers of Operations Offices, and\n Administrators of the Power Marketing Administrations to\n establish local policies and procedures for DOE and DOE\n contractor conferences that would implement the\n Presidential and OMB guidance.\n\n This policy memorandum did not require standardized,\n consistent Department-wide conference policies. During a\n review of the actions taken by the Office of Energy\n Research (ER), Defense Programs (DP), Environmental\n Management (EM), and the Oakland and Albuquerque\n Operations Offices to implement the requirements of the\n May 24, 1994, memorandum, we found that local policies\n and procedures for DOE and DOE contractor conferences\n had not been consistently established. For example, EM\n and the Albuquerque Operations Office did issue policy on\n the approval of Department of Energy conferences and\n meetings. However, we were unable to identify actions\n taken by the Office of Energy Research, Defense\n Programs, and the Oakland Operations Office to develop:\n (1) procedures for the approval of DOE and DOE contractor\n conferences; (2) procedures to implement the conference\n policy contained in the Federal Travel Regulation; (3)\n procedures to reduce the overall cost of attending\n conferences; or (4) goals for their conference activities.\n The actions taken by ER, DP, EM, Albuquerque, and\n Oakland are discussed in more detail in Appendix II.\n\nSome Conferencing Some conferencing practices of Department contractors did\nPractices of Department not appear to be consistent with the Presidential\nContractors Did Not memorandum and OMB policy regarding the selection of\nAppear to be Consistent conference sites, the limitation on the number of conference\nwith the Guidance and attendees, or the minimization of conference costs.\nPolicy of the President Specifically, our inspection found:\n\n\n\nPage 9 Details of Finding\n\x0c - National Laboratories have hosted conferences at\n various sites, including many DOE-owned as well as\n some non-DOE facilities. Non-DOE conference\n facilities were selected without evaluating and\n documenting the cost of alternative conference sites as\n required by Presidential guidance and OMB Bulletin\n 93-11. During interviews with National Laboratory\n conference coordinators, we found no evidence of any\n cost, logistics, or other analysis that was completed to\n justify the non-DOE conference sites selected. In a\n sample of seven non-DOE conference sites selected\n by four National Laboratories, there was no\n documentation identifying the cost of the alternative\n conference sites that were considered.\n\n - Significant numbers of DOE and DOE-funded contractor\n participants have attended conferences sponsored both\n by Department contractors and by organizations outside\n the Department. While conference attendance is\n essential for the exchange of information which furthers\n the Department\xe2\x80\x99s technical and scientific efforts,\n Government policy requires that the Department\n establish internal procedures which minimize the\n number of conference attendees consistent with\n accomplishing the Department\xe2\x80\x99s goals. During our\n inspection, we identified conferences which were\n attended by many DOE-funded participants, but we\n could not identify any Departmental policy which\n ensures that the number of conference participants is\n kept to a minimum.\n\n For example, 525 DOE and DOE contractor\n employees attended the Particle Accelerator\n Conference 1997 (PAC\xe2\x80\x9997) that was sponsored\n by the Canadian TRIUMF Laboratory in\n association with the University of Maryland, and\n held during May 1997, in Vancouver, British\n Columbia. The estimated cost to the\n Department for DOE and DOE contractor\n attendance at this conference was\n approximately $1 million. This included\n registration fees, air fare, per diem, and lodging,\n but excluded salaries for the 525 DOE and DOE\n contractor participants. Although precise salary\n costs were not available, we estimated that\n\nPage 10 Details of Finding\n\x0c inclusion of such costs would have increased\n the total overall cost of the conference by at\n least $600,000. The DOE and DOE contractor\n employees attending PAC\xe2\x80\x9997 came from the\n following organizations:\n\n Number of\n Organization Participants\n\n Argonne National Laboratory 55\n Brookhaven National Laboratory 87\n Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory 77\n Fermi National Laboratory 70\n Los Alamos National Laboratory 64\n Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory\n 27\n Stanford Linear Accelerator Center 76\n Oak Ridge National Laboratory 9\n Sandia National Laboratory 4\n Thomas Jefferson National 51\n Accelerator Facility\n DOE Headquarters 5\n\n TOTAL 525\n\n In another example, 176 DOE and DOE\n contractor funded participants from nine\n National Laboratories attended the \xe2\x80\x9cHuman\n Genome DOE Contractor \xe2\x80\x93 Grantee\n Meeting\xe2\x80\x9c that was sponsored by Berkeley\n and held in Santa Fe, New Mexico, during\n January 1996. The estimated total cost to\n the Department for DOE and DOE\n contractor attendance at this conference\n was $338,000 in registration fees, salaries,\n per diem, and lodging. Airfare was not\n included in this estimate and would\n represent an additional cost.\n\n We make no judgment whether the number of\n DOE laboratory personnel attending these\n and other conferences was excessive.\n However, there was no evidence that\n Laboratory management considered the\n appropriateness of the attendance of all the\n participants, consistent with the Presidential\n and OMB guidance to minimize conference\n attendance.\n\nPage 11 Details of Finding\n\x0c Some conferencing practices of Department contractors\n may not be consistent with Federal policy on the use of\n Federal funds. Specifically:\n\n - Berkeley collected and used conference registration\n and exhibitor fees in a manner that may not be\n consistent with the Miscellaneous Receipts Act or the\n specific terms of its management and operating\n contract. For example, we found several instances in a\n sample of Fiscal Year 1996 Berkeley conferences\n where income from conference registration and\n exhibitor fees exceeded the cost of the services they\n were collected for, resulting in excess funds.\n Specifically, excess funds in the amount of $8,826\n were transferred by Berkeley from a conference\n account to a Berkeley operating account. In another\n instance, excess funds in the amount of $8,550 were\n transferred from a Berkeley unallowable conference\n account to a Berkeley allowable conference account.\n We note that the deposit of registration and exhibitor\n fees to a separate conference account outside of the\n letter of credit is the current practice at Berkeley, and if\n excess unallowable account funds remain at the end of\n a conference, those funds are applied to the allowable\n conference account. The Miscellaneous Receipts Act\n (31 U.S.C. 3302), which was applicable to Berkeley\n through the provisions of its management and\n operating contract, may require that these types of\n excess funds be deposited into the General Fund of\n the Treasury.\n\n The Department\xe2\x80\x99s conferencing activities generate\n significant registration and other fees. Given the\n experience at Berkeley, we concluded that the\n Department needs to review the broader issue of\n whether all conference registration and other fees\n collected by the Department\xe2\x80\x99s contractors who are\n subject to the requirements of the Department\xe2\x80\x99s Chief\n Financial Officer\xe2\x80\x99s Accounting Handbook (Accounting\n Handbook), should be deposited to the Treasury as\n miscellaneous receipts. Specifically, the Accounting\n Handbook requires that collections made by the\n Department\xe2\x80\x99s integrated contractors are to be\n accounted for as either: (a) an appropriation\n reimbursement; (b) reductions of cost; or (c) Treasury\n\nPage 12 Details of Finding\n\x0c General Fund miscellaneous receipts. Appropriation\n reimbursements are required to be deposited directly to\n the Treasury as a credit to a DOE Appropriation\n Account. Collections accounted for as reductions of\n cost may be deposited into the contractor\xe2\x80\x99s DOE special\n financial institution account. However, collections\n accounted for as reductions of cost must be budgeted\n as offsets to cost, or must constitute items such as: (1)\n proceeds from personal property sales; (2) collections\n from other DOE contractors for cash work under\n $100,000; (3) refunds; or (4) rebates. Collections not\n covered as either appropriation reimbursements or\n reductions of cost are to be deposited into a General\n Fund miscellaneous receipt account.\n\n In the case of conference registration and exhibitor fees\n collected by the Department\xe2\x80\x99s contractors, this criteria\n has not been met. Therefore, based on the criteria\n contained in the Accounting Handbook, we believe the\n Department should evaluate the collection of\n conference registration and exhibitor fees by the\n Department\xe2\x80\x99s integrated contractors, and determine the\n extent to which all such collections would be subject to\n deposit as a miscellaneous receipt.\n\n - DOE and DOE contractor employees have attended\n conferences sponsored by National Laboratories where\n meals have been paid for through conference\n registration fees. However, we found in some instances\n that conference participants\xe2\x80\x99per diem has not been\n reduced when such meals have been paid for through\n conference fees. As a result, some individual\n employees were reimbursed twice for subsistence\n expenses while others incorrectly reduced per diem\n claimed. In a sample of 71 travel vouchers from two\n DOE-sponsored conferences attended by participants\n from seven National Laboratories as well as DOE\n employees, we found that 22 conference participants, or\n 31 percent, did not make appropriate per diem\n reductions. We believe the Department needs to\n establish a policy whereby DOE-sponsored conference\n registration forms clearly indicate specific meals that\n are provided as part of a conference registration fee,\n and consider requiring a copy of the conference\n registration form be filed with travel claims submitted by\n DOE-funded conference participants.\n\nPage 13 Details of Finding\n\x0c - National Laboratories have used conference registration\n fees paid by other Federally-funded organizations to\n cover the cost of entertainment (including recreational\n and social events), a practice that may not be consistent\n with Federal appropriations law and the Comptroller\n General principle that entertainment may not be paid\n with Federal funds unless authorized by statute.\n Specifically, \xe2\x80\x9cPrinciples of Federal Appropriations Law,\xe2\x80\x9d\n states that:\n\n \xe2\x80\x9cJust as the entertainment of government\n personnel is generally unauthorized, the\n entertainment of non-government personnel is\n equally impermissible. The basic rule is the\n same regardless of who is being fed or\n entertained: Appropriated funds are not\n available for entertainment, including free food,\n except under specific statutory authority.\xe2\x80\x9d\n\n We found that many Federally-funded organizations\n have sent representatives to Berkeley sponsored\n conferences and have paid registration fees to Berkeley\n with Federal moneys. However, portions of these\n registration fees have been used to pay for unallowable\n conference costs, such as alcohol and entertainment.\n Berkeley has established a practice of advertising a\n single registration fee per conference, requiring that\n conference participants pay such a fee as a means of\n defraying both allowable and unallowable costs\n expected to be incurred during the conference.\n Federally-funded organizations such as the Los Alamos\n National Laboratory (Los Alamos), Lawrence Livermore\n National Laboratory (Livermore), and the Stanford\n Linear Accelerator have paid the Berkeley registration\n fees through the issuance of a single institutional check\n for each of their conference participants.\n\n For example, Berkeley sponsored a \xe2\x80\x9cHuman Genome\n DOE Contractor - Grantee Meeting,\xe2\x80\x9d in Santa Fe, New\n Mexico, during January 1996. According to Berkeley\n conference files, 362 participants attended this meeting,\n where 267, or 74 percent, were from Federally-funded\n institutions. According to the Berkeley Conference\n Coordinator, registration fees of $240 per Federally-\n funded participant were collected and deposited in the\n\nPage 14 Details of Finding\n\x0c Letter of Credit conference account. The Berkeley\n Conference Coordinator told us the initial conference\n budget allocated $80 per person (or $20,800 from\n Federally-funded participants) which was to be\n deposited to the unallowable Letter of Credit conference\n account to pay for expenses such as breaks, a\n reception, and alcohol. However, alcohol expenses\n were never incurred as a no-host bar was used, and\n excess unallowable account funds were moved to the\n allowable conference account. 1\n\n In fact, we found that the practice of charging a single\n conference registration fee which may include items of\n unallowable costs appears to be common, and is used\n by other National Laboratories. Examples of other\n Department contractors that include items of cost in\n conference registration fees that appear to be\n questionable are as follows:\n\n Registration Questionable\n Conference Sponsor Fee Costs\n\n Trapped Charged Livermore $235.00 Boat Cruise\n Particles Picnic\n Concert\n\n 4th Conference on Oak Ridge $500.00 Reception\n Inorganic National Theater\n Membranes Laboratory Tennessee BBQ\n\n Biotechnology National $350.00 Wine Tasting\n Symposium Renewable\n Energy\n Laboratory\n\n Workshop on Deep Argonne $340.00 Social Hour\n Inelastic Scattering National Boat Tour\n Laboratory\n\n ISCOPE \xe2\x80\x9897 Los Alamos $300.00 Reception\n Yacht Cruise\n\n\n 1\n Office of Inspector General Report, Number\n WR-V-96-21, addressed the issues of Berkeley using\n the Letter of Credit to finance unallowable costs; and\n commingling registration fees, which were collected to\n pay the unallowable costs, with Departmental funds in\n the special bank account.\n\nPage 15 Details of Finding\n\x0c Additionally, we found an example where entertainment\n and social events were advertised as part of a DOE\n National Laboratory\xe2\x80\x99s Conference Announcement.\n Specifically, the XIX International Linac Conference\n (LINAC98), organized by Argonne National Laboratory in\n association with Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory,\n was held during August 1998, in Chicago, Illinois, with a\n conference registration fee of $550. LINAC98\n \xe2\x80\x9cConference Information\xe2\x80\x9d states that conference social\n events are included in the conference registration fee,\n and includes a box lunch during an afternoon at the\n Chicago Botanic Garden, an outdoor reception and\n barbecue, followed by a concert with a world renowned\n cello soloist.\n\n We recognize that there is a distinction between\n Government and corporate practice regarding\n entertainment expenses, and that entertainment as a\n business-related expense is an established practice in\n the corporate sector. We also recognize that significant\n business can be conducted informally at receptions and\n social events associated with conferences. However, the\n policy underlying the rule for the use of Government\n funds, is summarized in an excerpt from Comptroller\n General decision B-223678, June 5, 1989, which states\n that:\n\n \xe2\x80\x9cThe theory is not so much that these items can\n never be business-related, because sometimes\n they clearly are. Rather, what the decisions are\n really saying is that, because public confidence\n in the integrity of those who spend the\n taxpayer\xe2\x80\x99s money is essential, certain items\n which may appear frivolous or wasteful --\n however legitimate they may in fact be in a\n specific context -- should, if they are to be\n charged to public funds, be authorized\n specifically by the Congress.\xe2\x80\x9d\n\n \xe2\x80\x9cPrinciples of Federal Appropriations Law\xe2\x80\x9d provides\n additional Federal policy on the use of Government\n funds for entertainment, and states that \xe2\x80\x9cExcept where\n specifically appropriated for, entertainment cannot\n normally be said to be necessary to carry out the\n\n\nPage 16 Details of Finding\n\x0c purposes of an appropriation.\xe2\x80\x9d Therefore, the practices\n described above should be reviewed by the Department.\n\n - DOE contractors, specifically several National\n Laboratories, sponsored conferences using registration\n fees to provide banquets for conference participants.\n Banquets associated with some National Laboratory\n conferences appeared to be primarily entertainment and\n social activities. The use of Federal funds in these\n instances may not be consistent with the Comptroller\n General principle that meals cannot be paid for with\n Federal funds unless the meal includes essential formal\n discussions, lectures, or speeches associated with the\n conference. Specifically, during our review of\n conferences hosted by a sample of National\n Laboratories, we found some banquets that were\n advertised as \xe2\x80\x9csocial events,\xe2\x80\x9d or that included boat\n cruises, the use of facilities distant from the conference\n site (e.g. an Indian pueblo, a museum, an art institute,\n and a craft center), entertainment, and the serving of\n alcohol.\n\n For example, the Thomas Jefferson National Accelerator\n Facility sponsored the HEPiX meeting at Newport News,\n Virginia, in October 1997. Included in the $125\n conference registration fee was payment for an evening\n reception, banquet, and tour of the Hampton Roads\n Harbor aboard a schooner ship. These activities were\n specifically identified as \xe2\x80\x9cSocial Event - Cruise and\n dinner\xe2\x80\x9d in the HEPiX Conference \xe2\x80\x9cFinal Programme.\xe2\x80\x9d\n\n Further, Berkeley sponsored an \xe2\x80\x9cOfficial banquet\xe2\x80\x9d with a\n budget of $4,500, which was approved by the Berkeley\n Conference Coordinator as part of the DOE/BES\n Workshop that was held in San Antonio, Texas, on\n November 3-4, 1995. This \xe2\x80\x9cOfficial banquet\xe2\x80\x9d began on\n November 3, 1995, after the conference recessed for\n the day, at a location that was distant from the\n conference site. In fact, Berkeley paid for the rental of a\n boat to transport conference participants to the banquet\n site, the \xe2\x80\x9cSouthwest Crafts Center,\xe2\x80\x9d which was rented\n specifically for this event. After arriving at this location,\n 60 banquet participants were provided dinner and were\n entertained by a mariachi band. The total cost of the\n banquet was $4,357, including $805 in alcohol and\n\nPage 17 Details of Finding\n\x0c $1,275 for rental of the Crafts Center. During an\n interview with the Berkeley Conference Coordinator, the\n Conference Coordinator said that conference participant\n registration fees of $110 per person were used in part to\n pay for the \xe2\x80\x9cOfficial banquet\xe2\x80\x9d costs, which included the\n alcohol, the boat ride, and the entertainment. The\n Conference Coordinator also said that the banquet\n agenda included a speaker.\n\n The Comptroller General has determined that\n reimbursement for meals provided to Federal employees\n as part of a formal discussion at a meeting is authorized\n only if the meals are incidental to the meeting; attendance\n of the employee at the meals is necessary for full\n participation in the business of the meeting; and the\n employee is not free to partake of meals elsewhere\n without being absent from essential formal discussions,\n lectures, or speeches concerning the purpose of the\n meeting.\n\n Our review of travel vouchers relating to two\n conferences, indicated that a number of participants\n had not offset the meals received at social events\n and banquets associated with the conferences.\n Offset for the cost of such meals could ameliorate\n some of the concerns regarding the possible\n inappropriate use of Federal funds, as discussed\n above. The practice of using Federal funds for\n conference banquets should be reviewed by the\n Department, and a determination made regarding the\n appropriateness of using Federal funds in such\n circumstances.\n\n We concluded that the conditions noted during the\n inspection could have been avoided had the Department\n developed and implemented a comprehensive policy\n regarding conferencing, consistent with Presidential and\n OMB direction.\n\n\n\n\nPage 18 Details of Finding\n\x0cRecommendations We recommend that the Director of the Office of\n Management and Administration, in coordination with the\n Chief Financial Officer and the General Counsel:\n\n 1. Review the provisions of the Presidential memorandum,\n OMB Bulletin 93-11 and the Federal Travel Regulation;\n and develop specific Department-wide policies and\n procedures for all DOE and DOE contractor conferences\n which address the selection of conference sites, the cost\n differences of alternative conference sites considered,\n the minimization of conference attendance, and the\n reduction of the overall cost of attending conferences.\n\n 2. Develop specific Department-wide policies and\n procedures for the approval level of all DOE and DOE\n contractor conferences, and ensure that the approval of\n these conferences is maintained at a senior level within\n the Department.\n\n 3. Develop specific policy which requires that DOE and\n DOE contractor conference registration forms identify\n the meals that are included in conference registration\n fees, and consider requiring that a copy of the\n conference registration form be filed with travel claims\n submitted by DOE-funded conference participants.\n\n 4. Review the practice of advertising a single registration\n fee per conference that includes both allowable and\n unallowable conference expenses, and determine the\n extent to which this practice should be consistent with\n the Comptroller General\xe2\x80\x99s principle that Federal funds\n may not generally be used for the payment of\n entertainment and other unallowable costs.\n\n 5. Establish policy on the development of conference\n registration fees by Department contractors, with\n particular attention given to the identification of\n allowable and unallowable costs as two separate\n registration fee components.\n\n 6. Review the practices of DOE contractors as they relate\n to the use of Federal funds for the payment of banquet\n and meal expenses at conferences and meetings, and\n (1) determine the extent to which these practices should\n be consistent with OMB Bulletin 93-11 and the decisions\n\nPage 19 Recommendations and Comments\n\x0c of the Comptroller General regarding the use of Federal\n funds, and (2) establish policy for all DOE and DOE\n contractor conferences regarding banquet and meal\n expenses.\n\n 7. Determine the applicability of the Miscellaneous\n Receipts Act as it relates to the collection of registration\n and exhibitor fees for DOE and DOE contractor\n conferences; develop a specific policy regarding the\n treatment of registration and exhibitor fees; and ensure\n that all DOE and DOE contractor conference\n coordinators are aware of the provisions of this policy.\n In developing this policy, consider the question of\n whether all conference registration fees collected by\n Department contractors should be deposited to the\n Treasury as miscellaneous receipts.\n\nManagement Management concurred with the finding and five of the\nComments seven report recommendations, while partially concurring\n with the other two. Management stated that the Office of\n Management and Administration will forward a\n Departmental Notice regarding conferencing to the\n Secretary for approval by January 8, 1999. This Notice will\n include overall policy and procedures for DOE employees\n and contractors to follow when sponsoring or attending\n conferences.\n\nInspector Comments We consider management\xe2\x80\x99s reaction to be responsive to\n the inspection recommendations.\n\n\n\n\nPage 20 Recommendations and Comments\n\x0cAppendix I \xe2\x80\x93 Scope and Methodology\n Scope We reviewed the practices used by Berkeley in managing,\n administering, and funding its technical and scientific\n conferences, with particular emphasis on the allowability of\n conference costs, the selection of conference sites, and\n Berkeley\xe2\x80\x99s compliance with the provisions of their\n management and operating contract. We also reviewed\n other DOE contractor conference practices and Federal\n policy relating to conference costs and activities. In\n reviewing these conference practices, we evaluated:\n\n 1. Federal policies regarding the use of Government\n funds for conferences and conference related\n expenses. This evaluation included policy and\n guidance established by: (1) the President of the\n United States; (2) the Office of Management and\n Budget; (3) decisions of the Comptroller General of\n the United States; and (4) the Federal Travel\n Regulation.\n\n 2. Berkeley\xe2\x80\x99s policy on the use of Government funds\n for conferences and conference related expenses.\n\n 3. The process used by Berkeley to fund and pay for\n allowable and unallowable conference expenses.\n\n 4. The process used by Berkeley and other National\n Laboratories relating to the selection of conference\n sites and the use of Federal funds to pay for\n unallowable costs through conference registration\n fees.\n\n 5. Department of Energy policies, procedures, and\n guidance relating to the approval of conferences\n and selection of conference sites.\n\n Methodology To accomplish the inspection objectives, we reviewed:\n (1) a February 10, 1993, memorandum from the President\n of the United States, titled \xe2\x80\x9cGovernment Fiscal\n Responsibility and Reducing Perquisites;\xe2\x80\x9d (2) OMB Bulletin\n 93-11; (3) the Federal Travel Regulation; (4) DOE Orders\n and Notices relating to financial management and\n conference planning; (5) conference and travel expense\n reimbursement decisions of the Comptroller General of the\n United States; (6) the Federal Acquisition Regulation\n\n\nPage 21 Scope and Methodology\n\x0cAppendix I\n\n (FAR); (7) the Department of Energy Acquisition Regulation\n (DEAR); (8) the DOE Accounting Handbook; (9) a sample\n of Berkeley conference files for conferences sponsored or\n hosted by Berkeley during Fiscal Years 1994 through 1997,\n with primary emphasis on a judgmental sample of 12 of 46\n conferences held in Fiscal Year 1996; (10) financial, travel,\n and conference related contract provisions of the\n management and operating contract with the Regents of\n the University of California for the management of\n Berkeley; and (11) conference practices at other DOE\n National Laboratories.\n\n As part of our review, the Office of Inspections obtained\n information at the Oakland Operations Office and Berkeley.\n We also interviewed Department of Energy Headquarters\n officials, and officials at several Operations Offices and\n National Laboratories; including among others the Oakland\n Operations Office, Berkeley, Los Alamos National\n Laboratory, and Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory.\n This inspection was conducted between March 1995 and\n July 1998.\n\n This inspection was concluded in accordance with the\n \xe2\x80\x9cQuality Standards for Inspections\xe2\x80\x9d issued by the\n President\xe2\x80\x99s Council on Integrity and Efficiency.\n\n\n\n\nPage 22 Scope and Methodology\n\x0cAppendix II \xe2\x80\x93 Actions Taken by Assistant Secretarial Offices and Two\nOperations Offices to Implement Conferencing Policies\n Actions Taken by The Assistant Secretary for Environmental Management\n Assistant Secretarial issued an April 20, 1995, memorandum to all Deputy\n Offices Assistant Secretaries which addressed the \xe2\x80\x9cDelegation of\n Authority for EM Headquarters Conference Activities.\xe2\x80\x9d This\n memorandum identified an \xe2\x80\x9cEM Headquarters Conference\n Approval Policy\xe2\x80\x9d and provided an \xe2\x80\x9cEM Conference\n Approval Request Format.\xe2\x80\x9d The EM policy stated that each\n Deputy Assistant Secretary was to ensure that all EM\n conference activities and justifications under their purview:\n (1) explicitly demonstrate that such activities are reduced to\n a minimum; (2) are considered as the only way to satisfy\n programmatic requirements; and (3) are provided in the\n most cost effective manner. The \xe2\x80\x9cEM Conference Approval\n Request Format\xe2\x80\x9d contained a section titled \xe2\x80\x9cCONCERNS\n THAT INFLUENCE APPROVAL OF A CONFERENCE,\xe2\x80\x9d\n and addressed the need for information on areas of\n concern such as the purpose and objectives of the\n conference, the conference location, and the number of\n conference attendees. However, we were unable to\n identify any action taken by either the Office of Energy\n Research or the Office of Defense Programs in response to\n the May 24, 1994, memorandum.\n\nActions Taken by the We were unable to identify any action taken by the\nOakland Operations Office Oakland Operations Office to develop policies and\n procedures in accordance with the May 24, 1994,\n memorandum. Responding to the Office of Inspections, the\n Oakland Operations Office attributes the absence of\n specific action (i.e., policies, notification of contractors) to\n its interpretation that 41 CFR 301-16 (Federal Travel\n Regulation) upon which the requirements of the May 24,\n 1994, memorandum is based, was not applicable to\n contractors. This interpretation was concurred with by\n Oakland\xe2\x80\x99s legal staff in June 1997.\n Actions Taken by the\n Albuquerque Operations The Albuquerque Operations Office was not able to identify\n Office any action taken in response to the May 24, 1994,\n memorandum to develop procedures for the approval of\n DOE contractor conferences, or to reduce the overall cost\n of attending DOE contractor conferences. However, the\n Albuquerque Operations Office did develop a \xe2\x80\x9cPolicy on\n Conference and Meeting Room Rentals and Food\n Services\xe2\x80\x9d for Operations Office conferences and meetings.\n This policy addressed conference and meeting room rental\n procedures and coffee/food service requests. This policy\n\nPage 23 Actions Taken to Implement Conference Policies\n\x0cAppendix II\n Specifically addressed the issue of reducing the overall\n cost of attending Operations Office conferences by\n requiring meeting and conference organizers to check the\n availability of \xe2\x80\x9cno charge\xe2\x80\x9d meeting facilities, and by\n requiring justifications and cost estimates to rent other\n facilities if \xe2\x80\x9cno charge\xe2\x80\x9d facilities were not available.\n\n\n\n\nPage 24 Actions Taken To Implement Conference Polices\n\x0c IG Report No.__DOE/IG-0433__\n\n CUSTOMER RESPONSE FORM\n\nThe Office of Inspector General has a continuing interest in improving the\nusefulness of its products. We wish to make our reports as responsive as\npossible to our customers\' requirements, and therefore ask that you consider\nsharing your thoughts with us. On the back of this form, you may suggest\nimprovements to enhance the effectiveness of future reports. Please include\nanswers to the following questions if they are applicable to you:\n\n 1. What additional background information about the\n selection, scheduling, scope, or procedures of the audit\n or inspection would have been helpful to the reader in\n understanding this report?\n\n 2. What additional information related to findings and\n recommendations could have been included in this\n report to assist management in implementing corrective\n actions?\n\n 3. What format, stylistic, or organizational changes might have\n made this report\'s overall message more clear to the reader?\n\n 4. What additional actions could the Office of Inspector General\n have taken on the issues discussed in this report which would\n have been helpful?\n\nPlease include your name and telephone number so that we may contact you\nshould we have any questions about your comments.\n\nName ____________________________ Date_____________________\n\nTelephone _______________________ Organization _____________\n\nWhen you have completed this form, you may telefax it to the Office of\nInspector General at (202) 586-0948, or you may mail it to:\n\n Office of Inspector General (IG-1)\n U.S. Department of Energy\n Washington, D.C. 20585\n ATTN: Customer Relations\n\x0cIf you wish to discuss this report or your comments with a staff member of the\nOffice of Inspector General, please contact Wilma Slaughter at (202)\n586-1924.\n\x0cThe Office of Inspector General wants to make the distribution of its reports as\n customer friendly and cost effective as possible. Therefore, this report will be\navailable electronically through the Internet at the following alternative address:\n\n\n Department of Energy Human Resources and Administration Home Page\n http://www.hr.doe.gov/ig\n\n Your comments would be appreciated and can be provided on the\n Customer Response Form attached to the report.\n\n This report can be obtained from the\n U.S. Department of Energy\n Office of Scientific and Technical Information\n P.O. Box 62\n Oak Ridge, Tennessee 37831\n\x0c'


type: contracts

jurisdiction: EU

text:
31.10.2013
 LT
 Europos Sąjungos oficialusis leidinys
 L 291/49
 EEE JUNGTINIO KOMITETO SPRENDIMAS
 Nr. 85/2013
 2013 m. gegužės 3 d.
 kuriuo iš dalies keičiamas EEE susitarimo XI priedas (Elektroniniai ryšiai, audiovizualinės paslaugos ir informacinė visuomenė)
 EEE JUNGTINIS KOMITETAS,
 atsižvelgdamas į Europos ekonominės erdvės susitarimą (toliau – EEE susitarimas), ypač į jo 98 straipsnį,
 kadangi:
 (1)
 į EEE susitarimą turi būti įtrauktas 2002 m. balandžio 22 d. Europos Parlamento ir Tarybos reglamentas (EB) Nr. 733/2002 dėl .eu Aukščiausio lygio domeno įdiegimo (1);
 (2)
 į EEE susitarimą turi būti įtrauktas 2004 m. balandžio 28 d. Komisijos reglamentas (EB) Nr. 874/2004, nustatantis .eu Aukščiausio lygio domeno įdiegimo ir funkcijų viešosios tvarkos taisykles bei registracijai taikomus principus (2);
 (3)
 į EEE susitarimą turi būti įtrauktas 2005 m. spalio 10 d. Komisijos reglamentas (EB) Nr. 1654/2005, iš dalies keičiantis Reglamentą (EB) Nr. 874/2004, nustatantį .eu aukščiausio lygio domeno įdiegimo ir funkcijų viešosios tvarkos taisykles bei registracijai taikomus principus (3);
 (4)
 į EEE susitarimą turi būti įtrauktas 2007 m. spalio 25 d. Komisijos reglamentas (EB) Nr. 1255/2007, iš dalies keičiantis Komisijos reglamentą (EB) Nr. 874/2004, nustatantį .eu aukščiausio lygio domeno įdiegimo ir funkcijų viešosios tvarkos taisykles bei registracijai taikomus principus (4);
 (5)
 į EEE susitarimą turi būti įtrauktas 2009 m. birželio 26 d. Komisijos reglamentas (EB) Nr. 560/2009, iš dalies keičiantis Reglamentą (EB) Nr. 874/2004, nustatantį .eu Aukščiausio lygio domeno įdiegimo ir funkcijų viešosios tvarkos taisykles bei registracijai taikomus principus (5), su pataisymais, padarytais OL L 291, 2009 11 7, p. 42 ir OL L 80, 2012 3 20, p. 39;
 (6)
 į EEE susitarimą turi būti įtrauktas 2003 m. gegužės 21 d. Komisijos sprendimas 2003/375/EB dėl aukščiausio lygio domeno .eu registro paskyrimo (6);
 (7)
 todėl EEE susitarimo XI priedas turėtų būti atitinkamai iš dalies pakeistas,
 PRIĖMĖ ŠĮ SPRENDIMĄ:
 1 straipsnis
 į EEE susitarimo XI priedą po 5o punkto (išbrauktas) įterpiama:
 „5oa.
 32002 R 0733: 2002 m. balandžio 22 d. Europos Parlamento ir Tarybos reglamentas (EB) Nr. 733/2002 dėl .eu Aukščiausio lygio domeno įdiegimo (OL L 113, 2002 4 30, p. 1).
 5oaa.
 32003 D 0375: 2003 m. gegužės 21 d. Komisijos sprendimas 2003/375/EB dėl aukščiausio lygio domeno .eu registro paskyrimo (OL L 128, 2003 5 24, p. 29).
 5oab.
 32004 R 0874: 2004 m. balandžio 28 d. Komisijos reglamentas (EB) Nr. 874/2004, nustatantis .eu Aukščiausio lygio domeno įdiegimo ir funkcijų viešosios tvarkos taisykles bei registracijai taikomus principus (OL L 162, 2004 4 30, p. 40), su pakeitimais, padarytais:
 —
 32005 R 1654: 2005 m. spalio 10 d. Komisijos reglamentu (EB) Nr. 1654/2005 (OL L 266, 2005 10 11, p. 35),
 —
 32007 R 1255: 2007 m. spalio 25 d. Komisijos reglamentu (EB) Nr. 1255/2007 (OL L 282, 2007 10 26, p. 16),
 —
 32009 R 0560: 2009 m. birželio 26 d. Komisijos reglamentu (EB) Nr. 560/2009 (OL L 166, 2009 6 27, p. 3) su pataisymais, padarytais OL L 291, 2009 11 7, p. 42 ir OL L 80, 2012 3 20, p. 39.
 Reglamento nuostatos šio susitarimo tikslais pritaikomos taip:
 Vardų, kuriuos gali rezervuoti atitinkamai Islandija, Lichtenšteinas ir Norvegija, kaip nustatyta priedo 2 punkte, sąrašai yra vardų, kuriuos gali registruoti atitinkamai Islandija, Lichtenšteinas ir Norvegija, kaip nustatyta priedo 1 punkte, sąrašai.“
 2 straipsnis
 Europos Sąjungos oficialiojo leidinio EEE priede skelbtinų reglamentų (EB) Nr. 733/2002, (EB) Nr. 874/2004, (EB) Nr. 1654/2005, (EB) Nr. 1255/2007, (EB) Nr. 560/2009 ir Sprendimo 2003/375/EB tekstai islandų ir norvegų kalbomis yra autentiški.
 3 straipsnis
 Šis sprendimas įsigalioja 2013 m. gegužės 4 d., jei buvo pateikti visi pranešimai pagal EEE susitarimo 103 straipsnio 1 dalį (7).
 4 straipsnis
 Šis sprendimas skelbiamas Europos Sąjungos oficialiojo leidinio EEE skyriuje ir EEE priede.
 Priimta Briuselyje 2013 m. gegužės 3 d.
 EEE jungtinio komiteto vardu
 Pirmininkas
 Gianluca GRIPPA
 (1) OL L 113, 2002 4 30, p. 1.
 (2) OL L 162, 2004 4 30, p. 40.
 (3) OL L 266, 2005 10 11, p. 35.
 (4) OL L 282, 2007 10 26, p. 16.
 (5) OL L 166, 2009 6 27, p. 3.
 (6) OL L 128, 2003 5 24, p. 29.
 (7) Konstitucinių reikalavimų nenurodyta.


type: legislation

text:
 24.5.2014
 SL
 Uradni list Evropske unije
 L 156/5
 IZVEDBENA UREDBA KOMISIJE (EU) št. 563/2014
 z dne 23. maja 2014
 o odobritvi osnovne snovi hitosan hidroklorid v skladu z Uredbo (ES) št. 1107/2009 Evropskega parlamenta in Sveta o dajanju fitofarmacevtskih sredstev v promet ter o spremembi Priloge k Izvedbeni uredbi Komisije (EU) št. 540/2011
 (Besedilo velja za EGP)
 EVROPSKA KOMISIJA JE –
 ob upoštevanju Pogodbe o delovanju Evropske unije,
 ob upoštevanju Uredbe (ES) št. 1107/2009 Evropskega parlamenta in Sveta z dne 21. oktobra 2009 o dajanju fitofarmacevtskih sredstev v promet in razveljavitvi direktiv Sveta 79/117/EGS in 91/414/EGS (1) ter zlasti člena 23(5) v povezavi s členom 13(2) in člena 78(2) Uredbe,
 ob upoštevanju naslednjega:
 (1)
 V skladu s členom 23(3) Uredbe (ES) št. 1107/2009 je Komisija 19. decembra 2011 prejela zahtevek podjetja CHIPRO za odobritev hitosan hidroklorida kot osnovne snovi. Navedenemu zahtevku so bili priloženi podatki, ki so obvezni v skladu z drugim pododstavkom člena 23(3).
 (2)
 Komisija je Evropsko agencijo za varnost hrane (v nadaljnjem besedilu: Agencija) zaprosila za znanstveno pomoč. Agencija je 24. maja 2013 Komisiji predložila tehnično poročilo o zadevni snovi (2). Komisija je 20. marca 2014 Stalnemu odboru za prehranjevalno verigo in zdravje živali predložila poročilo o pregledu in ta osnutek uredbe o odobritvi hitosan hidroklorida.
 (3)
 Dokumentacija, ki jo je predložil vložnik, in rezultati pregledov, ki jih je v skladu z Uredbo (ES) št. 1924/2006 Evropskega parlamenta in Sveta (3) izvedla Agencija (4), kažejo, da hitosan hidroklorid izpolnjuje merila za živilo iz člena 2 Uredbe (ES) št. 178/2002 Evropskega parlamenta in Sveta (5). Čeprav se običajno ne uporablja za fitofarmacevtske namene, je lahko v sredstvu, ki vsebuje snov in vodo, koristna v fitofarmaciji. Zato jo je treba obravnavati kot osnovno snov.
 (4)
 Opravljeni pregledi so pokazali, da se lahko od hitosan hidroklorida pričakuje, da na splošno izpolnjuje zahteve iz člena 23 Uredbe (ES) št. 1107/2009, zlasti v zvezi z uporabami, ki so bile proučene in podrobno navedene v poročilu Komisije o pregledu. V skladu s členom 13(2) Uredbe (ES) št. 1107/2009 v povezavi s členom 6 Uredbe ter ob upoštevanju sedanjih znanstvenih in tehničnih dognanj je treba vključiti nekatere pogoje za odobritev, ki so podrobno opredeljeni v Prilogi I k tej uredbi.
 (5)
 V skladu s členom 13(4) Uredbe (ES) št. 1107/2009 bi bilo treba ustrezno spremeniti Prilogo k Izvedbeni uredbi Komisije (EU) št. 540/2011 (6).
 (6)
 Ukrepi iz te uredbe so v skladu z mnenjem Stalnega odbora za prehranjevalno verigo in zdravje živali –
 SPREJELA NASLEDNJO UREDBO:
 Člen 1
 Odobritev osnovne snovi
 Osnovna snov hitosan hidroklorid, kot je opredeljena v Prilogi I, se odobri kot osnovna snov v skladu s pogoji iz navedene priloge.
 Člen 2
 Spremembe Izvedbene uredbe (EU) št. 540/2011
 Del C Priloge k Izvedbeni uredbi (EU) št. 540/2011 se spremeni v skladu s Prilogo II k tej uredbi.
 Člen 3
 Začetek veljavnosti in uporaba
 Ta uredba začne veljati dvajseti dan po objavi v Uradnem listu Evropske unije.
 Ta uredba je v celoti zavezujoča in se neposredno uporablja v vseh državah članicah.
 V Bruslju, 23. maja 2014
 Za Komisijo
 Predsednik
 José Manuel BARROSO
 (1) UL L 309, 24.11.2009, str. 1.
 (2) Rezultat posvetovanja z državami članicami in Agencijo o uporabi osnovne snovi hitosan hidroklorid in sklepi Agencije o obravnavanih posameznih točkah. 2013: EN-426.23 str.
 (3) Uredba (ES) št. 1924/2006 Evropskega Parlamenta in Sveta z dne 20. decembra 2006 o prehranskih in zdravstvenih trditvah na živilih (UL L 404, 30.12.2006, str. 9).
 (4) Svet EFSA za dietetične izdelke, prehrano in alergije (NDA); EFSA Journal 2009 7(9):1289 doi: 10.2903/j.efsa.2009.1289.
 (5) Uredba (ES) št. 178/2002 Evropskega parlamenta in Sveta z dne 28. januarja 2002 o določitvi splošnih načel in zahtevah živilske zakonodaje, ustanovitvi Evropske agencije za varnost hrane in postopkih, ki zadevajo varnost hrane (UL L 31, 1.2.2002, str. 1).
 (6) Izvedbena uredba Komisije (EU) št. 540/2011 z dne 25. maja 2011 o izvajanju Uredbe (ES) št. 1107/2009 Evropskega parlamenta in Sveta glede seznama registriranih aktivnih snovi (UL L 153, 11.6.2011, str. 1).
 PRILOGA I
 Splošno ime, identifikacijska številka
 Ime po IUPAC
 Čistost (1)
 Uveljavitev
 Posebne določbe
 hitosan hidroklorid
 št. CAS: 9012-76-4
 ni relevantno
 Evropska farmakopeja
 Najvišja vsebnost težkih kovin: 40 ppm
 1. julij 2014
 Hitosan hidroklorid izpolnjuje zahteve iz Uredbe (ES) št. 1069/2009 Evropskega parlamenta in Sveta (2) in Uredbe Komisije (EU) št. 142/2011 (3).
 Hitosan hidroklorid se lahko uporablja v skladu s posebnimi pogoji, ki so vključeni v ugotovitve iz poročila o pregledu hitosan hidroklorida (SANCO/12388/2013), zlasti dodatka I in II h končni različici poročila, ki jo je Stalni odbor za prehranjevalno verigo in zdravje živali pripravil 20. marca 2014.
 (1) Več podrobnosti o identiteti, specifikaciji in načinu uporabe osnovne snovi je na voljo v poročilu o pregledu.
 (2) UL L 300, 14.11.2009, str. 1.
 (3) UL L 54, 26.2.2011, str. 1.
 PRILOGA II
 V delu C Priloge k Izvedbeni uredbi (EU) št. 540/2011 se doda naslednji vnos:
 „2
 hitosan hidroklorid
 št. CAS: 9012-76-4
 ni relevantno
 Evropska farmakopeja
 Najvišja vsebnost težkih kovin: 40 ppm
 1. julij 2014
 Hitosan hidroklorid izpolnjuje zahteve iz Uredbe (ES) št. 1069/2009 in Uredbe (EU) št. 142/2011.
 Hitosan hidroklorid se lahko uporablja v skladu s posebnimi pogoji, ki so vključeni v ugotovitve iz poročila o pregledu hitosan hidroklorida (SANCO/12388/2013), zlasti dodatka I in II h končni različici poročila, ki jo je Stalni odbor za prehranjevalno verigo in zdravje živali pripravil 20. marca 2014.“


text:
 Avis juridique important
 |
 21994A1231(15)
 Accord sous forme d'échange de lettres entre la Communauté économique européenne et la République de l'Inde sur les prix garantis pour le sucre de canne pour la période de livraison 1989/1990, 1990/1991 et 1991/1992
 Journal officiel n° L 355 du 31/12/1994 p. 0017
 ACCORDsous forme d'échange de lettres entre la Communauté économique européenne et la république de l'Inde sur les prix garantis pour le sucre de canne pour les périodes de livraison 1989/1990, 1990/1991 et 1991/1992Lettre n° 1Bruxelles, le 27 décembre 1993Monsieur, Les représentants de l'Inde et de la Commission, agissant au nom de la Communauté économique européenne, sont convenus, conformément aux dispositions de l'accord entre la Communauté économique européenne et la république de l'Inde sur le sucre de canne, de soumettre à l'approbation de leurs autorités compétentes le texte suivant, qui doit faire l'objet d'un échange de lettres entre la république de l'Inde et la Communauté. Pour les périodes indiquées ci-après, les prix garantis visés à l'article 5 paragraphe 4 de l'accord sont fixés comme suit, aux fins de l'intervention prévue à l'article 6 de cet accord: >TABLE>Ces prix s'entendent pour du sucre de la qualité type telle que définie par la réglementation communautaire, marchandise nue, caf, free out, ports européens de la Communauté. L'introduction de ces prix ne préjuge nullement les positions respectives des parties contractantes quant aux principes relatifs à la détermination des prix garantis. Je vous serais reconnaissant de bien vouloir accuser réception de la présente lettre et de me confirmer que celle-ci, accompagnée de votre réponse, constitue un accord entre le gouvernement de la république de l'Inde et la Communauté.» Je vous prie d'agréer, Monsieur, l'assurance de ma très haute considération. Au nom duConseil des Communautés européennes>PICTURE>Lettre n° 2Bruxelles, le 27 décembre 1993Monsieur, J'ai l'honneur d'accuser réception de votre lettre de ce jour libellée comme suit: «Les représentants de l'Inde et de la Commission, agissant au nom de la Communauté économique européenne, sont convenus, conformément aux dispositions de l'accord entre la Communauté économique européenne et la république de l'Inde sur le sucre de canne, de soumettre à l'approbation de leurs autorités compétentes le texte suivant, qui doit faire l'objet d'un échange de lettres entre la république de l'Inde et la Communauté. Pour les périodes indiqués ci-après, les prix garantis visés à l'article 5 paragraphe 4 de l'accord sont fixés comme suit, aux fins de l'intervention prévue à l'article 6 de cet accord: >TABLE>Ces prix s'entendent pour du sucre de la qualité type telle que définie par la réglementation communautaire, marchandise nue, caf, free out, ports européens de la Communauté. L'introduction de ces prix ne préjuge nullement les positions respectives des parties contractantes quant aux principes relatifs à la détermination des prix garantis. Je vous serais reconnaissant de bien vouloir accuser réception de la présente lettre et de me confirmer que celle-ci, accompagnée de votre réponse, constitue un accord entre le gouvernement de la république de l'Inde et la Communauté.» J'ai l'honneur de vous confirmer l'accord des gouvernements de la republique de l`Inde sur ce qui précède. Au nom dugouvernement de la république de l'Inde>PICTURE>