jurisdiction: US

text: b' UNCLASSIFIED\n\n\n United States Department of State \n\n and the Broadcasting Board of Governors \n\n Office of Inspector General \n\nOffice of Inspector General \n\n\n Office of Audits \n\n\n\n Audit of Department of State \n\n Compliance With the \n\n Improper Payments Information Act \n\n\n\n Report Number AUD/FM-12-31, March 2012\n\n\n\n\n Important Notice\n\n This report is intended solely for the official use of the Department of State or the\n Broadcasting Board of Governors, or any agency or organization receiving a copy\n directly from the Office of Inspector General. No secondary distribution may be\n made, in whole or in part, outside the Department of State or the Broadcasting Board\n of Governors, by them or by other agencies of organizations, without prior\n authorization by the Inspector General. Public availability of the document will be\n determined by the Inspector General under the U.S. Code, 5 U.S.C. 552. Improper\n disclosure of this report may result in criminal, civil, or administrative penalties.\n\n\n\n UNCLASSIFIED \n\n\x0c United States llepartment of State\n and the Broadcasting Board of Governors\n\n Offi.ce oj Inspector General\n\n\n\n\n PREFACE\n\n This report was prepared by the Office of Inspeclor General (010) pursuant to the\nInspector General Act of 1978, as amended, and Section 209 of the Foreign Service Act of 1980,\nas amended. It is one of a series of audit, inspection, investigative, and special reports prepared\nas part ofOIO\'s responsibility to promote effective management, accountability and positive\nchange in the Department of State and the Broadcasting Board of Governors.\n\n This report addresses the Department of State\'s (Department) compliance with the\nImproper Payments lnfonnation Act of 2002, as amended by the Improper Payments Elimination\nand Recovery Act. The report is based on interviews with employees and officials of the\nDepartment, and a review of applicable documents.\n\n OIG contracted with the external audit firm, Kearney & Company, P.c. (Kearney) , to\nperform this audit. The contract required that Kearney perfornl its audit in accordance with\nguidance contained in the Governmenl Auditing Standards, issued by the Comptroller General of\nthe United States. Kearney\'s report is included.\n\n Kearney identified three areas in which improvements could be made: the risk\nassessment of improper payments, recapture audit activities, and improper payments reporting .\n\n OIG evaluated the nature, extent, and timing of Kearney\'s work; monitored progress\nthroughout the audit; reviewed Kearney\'s supporting documentation; evaluated key judgments;\nand performed other procedures as appropriate. OIG concurs with Kearney \'s findings, and the\nrecommendations contained in the report were developed on the basis of the best knowledge\navailable and were discussed in draft fornl with those individuals responsible for\nimplementation. OIG\'s analysis of management\'s response to the recommendations has been\nincorporated into the report. OIG trusts that this report will result in more effective, efficient,\nand/or economical operations.\n\n I express my appreciation to all of the individuals who contributed to the preparation of\nthis report.\n\n\n\n Harold W. Geisel\n Deputy Inspector General\n\x0c 1701 Duke Street, Suite 500, Alexandria, VA 22314\n PH: 703.931.5600, FX: 703.931.3655, www.kearneyco.com\n\n\n\n\nAudit of Department of State Compliance with the Improper Payments Information Act\n\n\nOffice of Inspector General\nU.S. Department of State\nWashington, D.C.\n\n\nKearney & Company, P.C. (Kearney) has performed an audit of the Department of State\xe2\x80\x99s\n(Department) compliance with the Improper Payments Information Act of 2002, as amended by\nthe Improper Payments Elimination and Recovery Act of 2010. Kearney evaluated the\nDepartment\xe2\x80\x99s performance in complying with the requirements set forth by the Office of\nManagement and Budget. This performance audit, performed under Contract No.\nSAQMMA09D0002, was designed to meet the objective identified in the report section titled\n\xe2\x80\x9cObjective\xe2\x80\x9d and further defined in Appendix A, \xe2\x80\x9cScope and Methodology.\xe2\x80\x9d\n\nKearney conducted this performance audit from December 2011 through February 2012 in\naccordance with Government Auditing Standards, issued by the Comptroller General of the\nUnited States. The purpose of this report is to communicate the results of Kearney\xe2\x80\x99s\nperformance audit and its related findings and recommendations.\n\nKearney appreciates the cooperation provided by personnel in Department offices during the\naudit.\n\n\n\n\nKearney & Company, P.C.\nAlexandria, Virginia\nMarch 14, 2012\n\x0c UNCLASSIFIED\n\n\n______________________________________________________________________________\nAcronyms\nAFR Agency Financial Report\nBOC budget object class code\nDepartment Department of State\nGFMS Global Financial Management System\nIPERA Improper Payments Elimination and Recovery Act of 2010\nIPIA Improper Payments Information Act of 2002\nKearney Kearney & Company, P.C.\nOIG Office of Inspector General\nOMB Office of Management and Budget\nRFMS Regional Financial Management System\nRM Bureau of Resource Management\nRM/GFS/F/C Global Financial Services, Global Financial Operations, Office of Claims\nRM/GFS/OMA Global Financial Services, Office of Oversight and Management Analysis\n\n\n\n\n UNCLASSIFIED\n\n\x0c UNCLASSIFIED\n\n\n Table of Contents\n\n\xc2\xa0\n\nExecutive Summary .............................................................................................................1 \n\n\nBackground ..........................................................................................................................2 \n\n\nObjective ..............................................................................................................................4 \n\n\nAudit Results........................................................................................................................5 \n\n A. Improper Payments Risk Assessment Methodology Was Insufficient ....................5 \n\n B. Recapture Audit Activities Were Not Performed for All Types of Improper \n\n Payments or All Payments .......................................................................................9 \n\n C. Required Improper Payments Disclosures in the FY 2011 Agency Financial \n\n Report Were Omitted or Were Inaccurate .............................................................13 \n\n\nList of Recommendations ..................................................................................................16 \n\n\nAppendices\n A. Scope and Methodology ........................................................................................17 \n\n B. Department of State Response ...............................................................................19 \n\n\n\n\n\n UNCLASSIFIED\n\n\x0c UNCLASSIFIED\n\n\n Executive Summary\n\n According to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), the Federal Government\nmakes billions of dollars in improper payments each year. Over the past decade, the Federal\nGovernment has implemented safeguards to reduce improper payments. In 2010, the Improper\nPayments Elimination and Recovery Act of 20101 (IPERA), which amended the Improper\nPayments Information Act of 20022 (IPIA), was signed into law. IPERA strengthened IPIA by\nincreasing requirements for identifying and reporting on improper payments. In April 2011,\nOMB issued guidance to implement IPERA requirements.\n\n IPERA requires agencies\xe2\x80\x99 Offices of Inspector General (OIG) to annually determine\ncompliance with improper payments requirements.3 In accordance with this requirement,\nKearney & Company, P.C. (Kearney), an external audit firm acting on OIG\xe2\x80\x99s behalf, conducted\nthis audit to determine whether the Department of State (Department) was in compliance with\nIPIA, as amended by IPERA.\n\n Kearney found that the Department has taken steps to comply with IPIA. The\nDepartment performed a risk assessment of improper payments, implemented a recapture audit\nprocess, and included information on the risk assessment process and recapture audit activities in\nits FY 2011 Agency Financial Report (AFR).4 However, Kearney found that the Department\xe2\x80\x99s\nimproper payments risk assessment methodology was insufficient, recapture audit activities were\nnot performed for all types of improper payments or all payments, and some improper payments\ndisclosures required to be included in the AFR were omitted or were inaccurate. These\ndeficiencies occurred primarily because of the lack of formal policies and procedures.\nManagement Comments\n\n In its March 2012 draft of this report provided to the Department, OIG made three\nrecommendations to enhance the Department\xe2\x80\x99s current controls and processes for preventing and\npromptly detecting and recovering improper payments and to help ensure compliance with\nFederal improper payments requirements. Specifically, OIG recommended that the Department\ndevelop policies and standardized procedures for performing improper payments risk\nassessments and recapture audit activities and for reporting information relating to improper\npayments in its AFR.\n\n In its March 12, 2012, response (see Appendix B) to the draft report, the Department\nconcurred \xe2\x80\x9cwith the recommendations that the Department\xe2\x80\x99s existing risk assessments, recapture,\nand reporting activities for improper payments can be strengthened with added policies and\nprocedures.\xe2\x80\x9d The Department stated that it \xe2\x80\x9chas employed numerous preventative and\n\n\n1 Pub. L. No. 111-204.\n\n2 Pub. L. No. 107-300.\n\n3 Pub. L. No. 111-204 \xc2\xa7 3(b). \n\n4 Federal agencies may publish their financial statements in either an AFR or a Performance Accountability Report. \n\nThe Department has elected to use the AFR format.\n\n\n\n\n 1\n UNCLASSIFIED\n\x0c UNCLASSIFIED\n\n\nidentification methods to support IPIA requirements\xe2\x80\x9d and is \xe2\x80\x9ccommitted to meeting\xe2\x80\x9d the\nrequirements \xe2\x80\x9cin a reasoned manner.\xe2\x80\x9d\n\n Based on the Department\xe2\x80\x99s concurrence with the recommendations, OIG considers the\nthree recommendations resolved. However, these recommendations will remain open until the\nDepartment provides documentation showing that it has taken actions to fully implement the\nrecommendations.\n\n Background\n According to OMB, the Federal Government wastes billions of taxpayer dollars each year\non improper payments to individuals, organizations, and contractors. Improper payments are\npayments that should not have been made or that were made in an incorrect amount. Improper\npayments include overpayments and underpayments, duplicate payments, payments made to an\nineligible recipient, payments for an ineligible good or service, payments for goods or services\nnot received (except for such payments authorized by law), payments that do not account for\ncredit for applicable discounts, and payments for which an agency cannot determine whether the\npayments were proper because of insufficient or lack of supporting documentation.\n\n Over the past decade, the Federal Government has implemented safeguards to reduce\nimproper payments. IPIA, as initially enacted in 2002, required Federal agencies to annually\nidentify programs and activities5 at high risk of improper payments, estimate the amount of\nimproper payments in those programs, perform recovery auditing if program payments exceeded\n$500 million, and report to Congress on steps taken to reduce improper payments.\n\n Despite efforts to reduce improper payments, in FY 2010 agencies reported an estimated\n$125 billion in improper payments.6 In July 2010, in an effort to further reduce improper\npayments, the President signed into law IPERA, an amendment to IPIA. IPERA clarified the\nprograms to be reviewed, expanded payment recapture activities, and established compliance\nreviews and additional requirements for agencies that were deemed noncompliant.\n\n In April 2011, OMB issued guidance for agencies implementing IPERA requirements, as\nRevised Parts I and II to Appendix C of OMB Circular A-123, Management\xe2\x80\x99s Responsibility for\nInternal Control. The guidance, among other things, defines the programs and payments that\nagencies must assess for the risk of improper payments and provides requirements for\ndetermining whether the risk of improper payments is significant, for developing an estimate of\nimproper payments, for performing recapture audit activities, and for reporting improper\npayments activities.\n\nDepartment of State Payments\n\n The Department is the primary agency through which the U.S. Government conducts its\ndiplomacy. The Department operates more than 270 embassies, consulates, and other posts\n5The term \xe2\x80\x9cprogram and activity\xe2\x80\x9d is referred to in this report as \xe2\x80\x9cprogram.\xe2\x80\x9d \n\n6U.S. Government Accountability Office, Improper Payments: Recent Efforts to Address Improper Payments and \n\nRemaining Challenges (GAO -11-575T, April 15, 2011). \n\n\n 2\n UNCLASSIFIED\n\x0c UNCLASSIFIED\n\n\nworldwide. The Department provides policy guidance, program management, administrative\nsupport, and in-depth expertise in areas such as law enforcement, economics, the environment,\nintelligence, arms control, human rights, counternarcotics, counterterrorism, public diplomacy,\nhumanitarian assistance, security, nonproliferation, and consular services.\n\n Because of the nature and the extent of its programs, the Department makes significant\npayments to third-party vendors, contractors, and grantees. During FY 2011, the Department\nreported approximately $30.1 billion in gross costs.7 Of that amount, approximately $2.5 billion\nrelated to intragovernmental transactions and another $6.9 billion was for personnel costs, of\nwhich both amounts can be excluded from improper payments reviews.8 The amount and\nvolume of payments made by the Department, the Department\xe2\x80\x99s emphasis on expediting certain\npayments (for example, payments for necessary foreign financial assistance), and the\ndecentralized nature of the Department\xe2\x80\x99s operations increase the Department\xe2\x80\x99s risk for improper\npayments.\n\n The Department\xe2\x80\x99s Bureau of Resource Management (RM) has oversight responsibilities\nfor the Department\xe2\x80\x99s financial management program. Financial management program\nresponsibilities include establishing financial policy and procedure, financial reporting and\nanalysis, management of financial information systems, and management controls. Management\ncontrols, also known as \xe2\x80\x9cinternal controls,\xe2\x80\x9d are the processes designed and implemented by an\norganization to help it accomplish its goals or objectives. Important internal control activities\ninclude those that are aimed at ensuring that only valid, proper payments are made.\n\n The Department has internal controls in place to help prevent improper payments from\noccurring. For payments to vendors, vendors must submit invoices to either the Department\xe2\x80\x99s\nfinancial service centers or to the foreign post that procured the good or service. For an invoice\nto be paid, an approved official must certify that the good or service was received and ensure that\nthe invoice is valid and accurate. Once the invoice is approved, two Department personnel, a\nvoucher examiner and a certifying officer, are required to process the payment. The voucher\nexaminer enters the transaction into the Department\xe2\x80\x99s accounting system and ensures that all\nsupporting documentation has been submitted. The certifying officer reviews the transaction and\nverifies that the supporting documentation is complete and the accounting data is correct. The\nDepartment\xe2\x80\x99s financial accounting systems have automated controls that also verify certain\npayment-related information. For example, the domestic accounting system, the Global\nFinancial Management System (GFMS), does not process payments with duplicate invoice\nnumbers from one vendor. The Department uses other systems and processes to disburse\npayments for other activities (for example, grant payments or payments to pensioners). The\nDepartment has prepayment controls in place for these payments as well.\n\n\n\n\n7 Gross costs includes costs such as operating expenses, benefits, and depreciation.\n\n8 OMB Circular A-123, Appendix C, states that agencies may, but are not obligated to, review intragovernmental \n\ntransactions and payments to employees for improper payments unless directed to do so by OMB.\n\n\n 3\n UNCLASSIFIED\n\x0c UNCLASSIFIED\n\n\n Objective\n\n The overall objective of this audit was to determine whether the Department was in\ncompliance with IPIA, as amended by IPERA. To accomplish this objective, Kearney\n\n \xef\x82\xb7\t Evaluated whether the Department conducted a program-specific risk assessment for all\n programs.\n\n \xef\x82\xb7\t Evaluated the Department\xe2\x80\x99s performance in preventing, reducing, and recapturing\n improper payments.\n\n \xef\x82\xb7\t Reviewed the Department\xe2\x80\x99s FY 2011 AFR to determine whether the Department\n complied with reporting requirements.\n\n\n\n\n 4\n UNCLASSIFIED\n\x0c UNCLASSIFIED\n\n\n Audit Results\n\nA. Improper Payments Risk Assessment Methodology Was Insufficient\n\n Risk assessments provide a baseline for establishing appropriate policies and selecting\ncost-effective techniques to implement these policies. The Department performed a risk\nassessment of improper payments in FY 2011. However, the Department\xe2\x80\x99s risk assessment\nmethodology was insufficient. Specifically, the Department did not correctly apply the\n2.5 percent improper payments rate threshold to determine risk susceptible programs, did not\ninclude all program costs in the programs reviewed, and did not consider all factors likely to\ncontribute to improper payments. These deficiencies occurred because the Department had not\ndeveloped policies and standard procedures for performing the risk assessments. As a result, the\nDepartment may not have identified all programs that were at risk of significant improper\npayments.\n\n IPERA requires agencies to review all programs and identify those that are susceptible to\nsignificant improper payments. IPERA defines \xe2\x80\x9csignificant\xe2\x80\x9d as improper payments in the\nprogram for the preceding fiscal year that may have exceeded (1) $10 million of all program\npayments made and 2.5 percent of program outlays or (2) $100 million. OMB Circular A-123,\nAppendix C, requires that agencies institute a systematic method of performing the reviews, also\nknown as \xe2\x80\x9crisk assessments.\xe2\x80\x9d\n\n Kearney found that the Department performed a risk assessment of improper payments in\nFY 2011. The Department used a two-phased approach for its risk assessment. During the first\nphase, the Department assessed its controls over payments by grouping all expenses into six\nmajor payment categories: employee payments, travel payments, Federal financial assistance\xe2\x80\x93\ngrants, Federal financial assistance\xe2\x80\x93international organizations payments, miscellaneous\npayments, and vendor payments. Based primarily on the Department\xe2\x80\x99s tests of controls\nperformed during the OMB Circular A-123, Appendix A,9 process and the absence of significant\ndeficiencies identified during prior internal reviews and external audits, the Department\nconcluded that employee payments, travel payments, and Federal financial assistance\xe2\x80\x93grants\nwere at low risk for being susceptible to significant improper payments. The risk for being\nsusceptible to significant improper payments for the remaining three payment categories, Federal\nfinancial assistance\xe2\x80\x93international organizations payments, miscellaneous payments, and vendor\npayments, was assessed during the second phase of the Department\xe2\x80\x99s risk assessment.\n\n In the second phase, the Department reviewed its programs to identify those programs\nsusceptible to significant improper payments. To identify programs and their related costs, the\nDepartment grouped its FY 2010 domestic expenses using a combination of the financial codes\nused to record transactions in GFMS\xe2\x80\x93the function code and the budget object class code (BOC).\nAccording to the Foreign Affairs Handbook (FAH),10 function codes show the purpose of the\npayment and are used to meet the Department\xe2\x80\x99s requirements for identifying and classifying the\n9 Appendix A in OMB Circular A-123 provides a methodology for agency management to assess, document, and \n\nreport on internal controls over financial reporting. This effort is separate from the improper payments requirements \n\nin Appendix C. \n\n10 4 FAH-1 H-511(7) and 4 FAH-1 H-512 b(1). \n\n\n\n\n 5\n UNCLASSIFIED\n\x0c UNCLASSIFIED\n\n\nprograms under the Department\xe2\x80\x99s appropriations. For example, the Department has function\ncodes for activities such as Arms Control and the Africa Refugee Program. BOCs identify the\nkind of services, materials, and other resources for which payments are made.11 For example,\nthe Department uses BOCs for items such as voluntary contributions and contractor security\nguard payments. The Department identified each group of expenses with the same function code\nand BOC combination as a program.\n\n To determine which of its programs were susceptible to significant improper payments,\nthe Department calculated an improper payments threshold by applying the 2.5 percent rate in\nIPERA to the Department\xe2\x80\x99s total FY 2010 costs of $27.5 billion. Only four programs, those\nlisted in Table 1, had expenses that met or exceeded the Department\xe2\x80\x99s threshold of\n$687.55 million.\n\nTable 1. Programs Meeting the Department\xe2\x80\x99s Improper Payments Threshold\nProgram FY 2010 Program Expenses (in millions)\nConstruction $903.1\nRetirement $836.4\nAfrican Union-United Nations Hybrid Mission $763.4\nin Darfur\nNear East Refugee Program $741.6\nSource: Department IPIA risk assessment documentation.\n\n The Department assessed each of these four programs for the risk of improper payments.\nThe assessment considered some qualitative factors, such as payment calculation complexity, the\nmonitoring procedures in place, and a determination as to whether internal control material\nweaknesses or deficiencies that could increase improper payments had been identified in the\nprogram. However, a primary consideration in the second phase of the assessment was the\nDepartment\xe2\x80\x99s $687.55 million threshold. The Department\xe2\x80\x99s risk assessment documentation\nstates that, based on the threshold, \xe2\x80\x9cbetween 76% - 92% of all payments made within those\nprograms would have to be in error to trigger required reporting.\xe2\x80\x9d The Department concluded\nthat \xe2\x80\x9cthe risk of those four programs being susceptible to making significant improper payments\n(i.e., having errors exceeding 76% of the total program)\xe2\x80\x9d was very low.\n\n Although the Department performed a risk assessment of improper payments, the risk\nassessment methodology it used was insufficient. Specifically, the Department did not correctly\napply the 2.5 percent improper payments rate threshold for identifying risk susceptible programs\nand, as a result, did not review all of its programs. In addition, the Department did not include\nall program costs in the programs it reviewed, and the Department\xe2\x80\x99s risk assessment did not\nconsider all factors likely to contribute to improper payments.\n\nImproper Payments Threshold\n\n OMB Circular A-123, Appendix C, states that significant improper payments are gross\nannual improper payments in the program exceeding (1) both 2.5 percent of program outlays and\n$10 million of all program payments made or (2) $100 million. The Circular defines the term\n11 4 FAH-1 H-611.\n\n 6\n UNCLASSIFIED\n\x0c UNCLASSIFIED\n\n\n\xe2\x80\x9cprogram\xe2\x80\x9d to include \xe2\x80\x9cactivities or sets of activities recognized as programs by the public, OMB,\nor Congress, as well as those that entail program management or policy direction.\xe2\x80\x9d Programs\ninclude, but are not limited to, all grants, regulatory activities, research and development\nactivities, direct Federal programs, all types of procurements, credit programs, and the activities\nengaged in by the agency in support of its programs.\n\n The Department did not correctly apply the 2.5 percent improper payments rate threshold\nto determine risk susceptible programs. It applied the 2.5 percent threshold against total agency\ncosts instead of the costs of each program, as was required. The Department\xe2\x80\x99s misinterpretation\nof the threshold requirement inflated the amount of improper payments necessary for a program\nto be at risk. The amounts of significant improper payments for the four identified programs\nusing the 2.5 percent rate threshold for each program compared with the threshold calculated by\nthe Department are shown in Table 2.\n\nTable 2. Comparison of Improper Payments Amounts Using Program Expenses and Total\nCosts\n Amount of Significant Improper\n Payments\n 2.5% of 2.5% of Total\n FY 2010 Program Program Department\n Expenses Expenses Costs\n Program (in millions) (in millions) (in millions)\nConstruction $903.1 $22.58 $687.55\nRetirement $836.4 $20.91 $687.55\nAfrican Union-United\nNations Hybrid Mission in\nDarfur $763.4 $19.08 $687.55\nNear East Refugee Program $741.6 $18.54 $687.55\nSource: Kearney prepared based on the Department\xe2\x80\x99s IPIA risk assessment documentation.\n\n As shown in Table 2, all four programs met the requirements for programs that could be\nsusceptible to significant improper payments. In addition, had the Department correctly applied\nthe 2.5 percent rate threshold to all programs, the Department would have identified additional\nprograms requiring further risk assessment. For example, the Department\xe2\x80\x99s Ambassadors-at-\nLarge program had FY 2010 expenses amounting to $558.7 million. This program met the\nIPERA threshold, but it was not identified as a potentially risk susceptible program by the\nDepartment.\n\nProgram Costs\n\n Although OMB Circular A-123, Appendix C, states that an agency is not obligated to\ninclude intragovernmental transactions and payments to employees in its improper payments\nreviews, the circular does not identify any other types of payments that may be excluded. All\nprogram costs should be identified in order for the Department to accurately calculate the\nimproper payments rate threshold for each program.\n\n\n\n 7\n UNCLASSIFIED\n\x0c UNCLASSIFIED\n\n\n The Department did not include all program costs in the programs reviewed. Grouping\nits expenses by function code enabled the Department to identify and review some of its larger\nprograms. However, this methodology captured only program costs with specific function code\nand BOC combinations. Although each program, or function code, may have expenses relating\nto multiple BOCs, the Department did not aggregate all BOCs for the same function code. For\nexample, the majority of FY 2010 costs for the Near East Refugee Program were disbursed\nbetween two BOCs, Voluntary Contributions and Cooperative Agreements. Individually,\nexpenses categorized as Voluntary Contributions totaled $741.6 million and Cooperative\nAgreements totaled $55.8 million. Aggregated programs costs exceeded $797 million, but all\ncosts were not considered during the second phase of the risk assessment.\n\nQualitative Factors\n\n OMB Circular A-123, Appendix C, states that an agency can consider risk factors likely\nto contribute to significant improper payments as part of its systematic method of reviewing\nprograms. At a minimum, these risk factors should include the following: whether the program\nis new; the complexity of the program, particularly with respect to determining correct payment\namounts; the volume of program payments made annually; whether payments or payment\neligibility decisions are made outside the agency; recent major changes in program funding or\npractices; the level, experience, and quality of training for personnel making program eligibility\ndeterminations or certifying that payments are accurate; significant deficiencies in audit reports;\nand results from prior improper payments work.\n\n The Department considered some but not all of these qualitative factors during its risk\nassessment. The Department did not take into account all risk factors likely to contribute to\nsignificant improper payments. For example, the risk assessment for the four programs that the\nDepartment reviewed did not include a consideration of whether the program was new to the\nagency; the volume of payments made annually; recent major changes in program funding,\nauthorities, practices, or procedures; or the level, experience, and quality of training for\npersonnel responsible for certifying that payments are accurate.\n\n Further, although not specifically required by IPERA or OMB, Kearney noted that the\nDepartment did not obtain input for the risk assessment from bureaus or offices other than RM.\nBureau program personnel are the best source for information about their programs and\nassociated risks. Without input from program managers, RM may not be aware of factors that\ncould increase or decrease a program\xe2\x80\x99s risk, such as the complexity of the program; unique\ncontractual requirements; or the existence, or lack of, program-specific controls. In addition, if\nthese sources are not consulted during the risk assessment process, RM may not become aware\nof significant changes in the program, and the use of outdated or inaccurate information may lead\nto an incorrect assessment of program risk.\n\n The deficiencies in the Department\xe2\x80\x99s risk assessment methodology occurred primarily\nbecause the Department did not develop policies and standard procedures for performing the risk\nassessment. Specifically, the Department did not develop a comprehensive definition of what\nconstitutes a Department program, a process to align all costs to the programs, and policies and\n\n\n\n 8\n UNCLASSIFIED\n\x0c UNCLASSIFIED\n\n\nprocedures for assessing each program\xe2\x80\x99s risks that included the consideration of all relevant\nqualitative factors and input from bureau program managers.\n\n By not developing and performing a sufficient risk assessment, the Department may not\nhave identified all programs with the risk of significant improper payments. Therefore, the\nDepartment could not determine whether its improper payments were significant enough to\nrequire corrective action. A risk assessment is the starting point for any successful improper\npayments reduction and recapture program. The information developed during a risk assessment\nforms the foundation upon which management can determine the nature and type of controls in\nplace and identify control improvements to reduce risks and ultimately improper payments.\n\n Recommendation 1. OIG recommends that the Bureau of Resource Management\n develop policies and standard procedures for performing an improper payments risk\n assessment. The policies and procedures should include, but not be limited to, the\n following:\n\n \xef\x82\xb7 A comprehensive definition of the programs to be assessed.\n \xef\x82\xb7 A method to ensure that all program costs are identified.\n \xef\x82\xb7 A description of the quantitative and qualitative factors to be considered.\n \xef\x82\xb7 A method to obtain input from the bureaus and offices responsible for the\n programs.\n\n Department Response: The Department concurred that the Department\xe2\x80\x99s existing risk\n assessments \xe2\x80\x9ccan be strengthened with added policies and procedures.\xe2\x80\x9d\n\n OIG Reply: OIG considers the recommendation resolved, pending further action. This\n recommendation can be closed pending OIG\xe2\x80\x99s review and acceptance of the\n Department\xe2\x80\x99s policies and procedures for performing an improper payments risk\n assessment.\n\nB. Recapture Audit Activities Were Not Performed for All Types of Improper\nPayments or All Payments\n Payment recapture audits are detective or corrective control activities designed to assist\nmanagement in identifying and recapturing overpayments. The Department implemented a\nrecapture audit process that, in conjunction with its routine post-payment reviews, identified and\nrecovered improper vendor payments totaling over $45 million since FY 2007. However, the\nDepartment limited its recapture audits to one type of improper payments and excluded a\nsignificant amount of payments from the audits. The Department did not perform and document\ncost-benefit analyses to support the exclusions and did not inform OMB or OIG. In addition, the\nrecapture audit process was focused on payments alone without a consideration of program\nfactors that may have increased or decreased the risk of improper payments. As a result, the\nDepartment may not have identified and recovered all improper payments.\n\n IPERA requires agencies to conduct recovery audits (also known as \xe2\x80\x9crecapture audits\xe2\x80\x9d) if\nconducting such audits would be cost effective. According to OMB Circular A-123, Appendix\n\n 9\n UNCLASSIFIED\n\x0c UNCLASSIFIED\n\n\nC, a recapture audit is a review and analysis of accounting and financial records, supporting\ndocumentation, and other information supporting payments that is specifically designed to\nidentify overpayments.\n\n Kearney found that the Department had implemented a recapture audit process. RM\xe2\x80\x99s\nGlobal Financial Services, Office of Oversight and Management Analysis12 (RM/GFS/OMA),\nperforms the Department\xe2\x80\x99s recapture audit activities. RM/GFS/OMA uses IDEA, a data analysis\ntool, to audit domestic payments on a monthly basis. RM/GFS/OMA extracts a data file of\npayments made during the previous month from GFMS and imports the file into IDEA. IDEA\nperforms a search for potential duplicate payments by comparing the invoice number and dollar\namount of each payment in the monthly data file against the payments made during the previous\n3 years. Payments with the same invoice number and dollar amount are extracted into a separate\nfile of potential duplicate payments. RM/GFS/OMA provides the potential duplicate payments\nto the Global Financial Operations, Office of Claims13 (RM/GFS/F/C), for review. Through this\nprocess, RM/GFS/OMA identified $567,336 in actual duplicate payments made during FY 2011.\nOf this amount, $567,014 was recaptured.\n\n In addition to the recapture audit activities performed by RM/GFS/OMA, RM/GFS/F/C\nperformed post-payment review activities. For example, RM/GFS/F/C selects random samples\nof payments on a monthly basis and reviews the sampled items for adequate support, proper\napproval, and the validity and accuracy of the amounts disbursed. RM/GFS/F/C also uses data-\nmatching techniques similar to the recapture audit activities to identify potential duplicate\npayments. The Department considers these post-payment reviews a part of the routine payment\nprocess. As required by OMB Circular A-136, as revised, Financial Reporting Requirements,\nthe amounts identified and recovered during these reviews are reported as improper payments\nrecoveries outside the scope of recapture audits. During FY 2011, RM/GFS/F/C identified $15.6\nmillion in overpayments through its post-payment reviews, of which the Department recovered\n$14.4 million.\n\n Together, the Department\xe2\x80\x99s post-payment reviews and recapture audits identified\nimproper vendor payments totaling approximately $49.4 million from FYs 2007\xe2\x80\x932011. Of that\namount, the Department recovered approximately $45.9 million, as shown in Table 3.\n\nTable 3. Improper Payments Identified and Recovered From FYs 2007\xe2\x80\x932011\n Amount Identified Amounts Recovered (in FY)\n FY (in millions) (in millions)\n 2011 $16.6 $15\n 2010 8.1 7.9\n 2009 3.9 3.8\n 2008 15.4 14.3\n 2007 5.4 4.9\n Total $49.4 $45.9\nSource: Department AFRs from FYs 2007\xe2\x80\x932011.\n\n12 RM/GFS/OMA is responsible for, among other things, ensuring compliance with financial laws, policies, and\n\nprocedures and performing internal control and quality control reviews. \n\n13 RM/GFS/F/C is the central domestic funding paying agent of the Department.\n\n\n\n\n 10\n UNCLASSIFIED\n\x0c UNCLASSIFIED\n\n\n\n\n Although the Department performed recapture audits, the audits were limited to one type\nof improper payments\xe2\x80\x93duplicate payments. In addition, the Department excluded a significant\namount of payments from the recapture audits. However, the Department did not conduct and\ndocument costs-benefit analyses to support these exclusions or inform OMB and OIG of the\nexclusions, as was required. In addition, the Department focused its recapture audits on\npayments rather than programs, which limited the Department\xe2\x80\x99s ability to target recapture\nactivities on the highest risk programs.\n\nRecapture Audit Exclusions\n\n OMB Circular A-123, Appendix C, states that agencies may exclude payments from\ncertain programs from payment recapture audit activities if the agency determines that payment\nrecapture audits are not a cost-effective method for identifying and recapturing improper\npayments. If an agency excludes a program that expends more than $1 million, the agency must\nnotify OMB and OIG of this decision and include any analysis used by the agency to reach this\ndecision.\n\n Kearney found that the Department\xe2\x80\x99s recapture audits were limited to a search for\nduplicate payments. The audits did not search for other types of improper payments. For\nexample, the audits were not designed to identify overpayments or underpayments and were not\ndesigned to identify payments for goods and services not received, payments to ineligible\nrecipients, fraudulent payments, or payments that lacked adequate support.\n\n Kearney also found that the Department\xe2\x80\x99s FY 2011 recapture audit process did not\ninclude a significant amount of payments. Specifically, the Department excluded, from payment\nrecapture audits, the payments that were made outside the RM/GFS/F/C payment process. For\nexample, the Department excluded overseas payments amounting to about $2.6 billion. These\npayments were processed by the Regional Financial Management System (RFMS), the\nDepartment\xe2\x80\x99s overseas financial system, rather than GFMS. The Department also excluded grant\npayments amounting to about $3.0 billion that were made through the Payment Management\nSystem,14 which processes the majority of the Department\xe2\x80\x99s financial assistance-related\npayments. In addition, the Department excluded pension annuity payments amounting to about\n$671 million that were processed by RM\xe2\x80\x99s Retirement Accounts Division. The Department\nexcluded these payments for a variety of operational reasons. For example, RFMS does not\nrequire that the invoice number, which is used by RM/GFS/OMA to identify duplicate payments,\nbe entered for overseas payments, and in some cases, multiple invoices may be entered and the\npayments may be made with one disbursement.\n\n The Department also excluded certain payments that were processed by RM/GFS/F/C\nfrom the recapture audits. The excluded payments included, but were not limited to, bulk\npayments, which included purchase card payments, shipping payments, and certain travel\npayments. These bulk payment exclusions exceeded $250 million in FY 2011.\n\n\n14The Payment Management System is a grant payment system maintained by the U.S. Department of Health and\nHuman Services.\n\n 11\n UNCLASSIFIED\n\x0c UNCLASSIFIED\n\n\n As a result of the exclusions, the Department\xe2\x80\x99s FY 2011 recapture audit activities covered\n$9.5 billion, or about 86 percent, of the $11 billion in payments processed by RM/GFS/F/C and\nonly about 46 percent of the Department\xe2\x80\x99s FY 2011 expenses subject to IPERA reviews of\napproximately $20.7 billion. Although it excluded a significant amount of payments, the\nDepartment did not perform and document a cost-benefit analysis supporting the basis for these\nexclusions, as was required. In addition, the Department did not notify OMB and OIG of the\nexclusions.\n\nRecapture Audit Focus\n\n IPERA requires agencies to conduct payment recapture audits for each program that\nexpends $1 million or more annually if conducting such audits would be cost effective. OMB\nCircular A-123, Appendix C, requires all programs exceeding the $1 million threshold, including\ngrant, benefit, loan, and contract programs, to be considered during the payment recapture audits.\nAgencies are required to review their different types of programs and prioritize conducting\npayment recapture audits on those categories that have a higher potential for overpayments and\nrecoveries.\n\n Kearney found that the Department\xe2\x80\x99s recapture audits focused on payments rather than on\nprograms. The Department\xe2\x80\x99s approach enabled it to include a large number of payments in the\nrecapture audits. Although performing recapture audit activities based on payments is a\nbeneficial internal control, using a payment approach alone does not consider specific program\ncharacteristics that may increase or decrease the risk for improper payments. For example,\npayments made for programs that have a large number of disbursements and limited oversight\nresources, such as programs in war zones or at some hardship posts, received the same level of\nreview as payments for programs that have a small number of disbursements and adequate\nresources. In addition, although the amount of improper payments identified during recapture\naudits may appear to be insignificant to the Department as a whole using the payment approach,\nthe amount of improper payments identified for a specific program may be significant to the\nprogram. A more program-focused approach would enable the Department to identify the\nprograms that have a high rate of improper payments, target future recapture audit activities\nmore efficiently on those programs, and identify and correct the circumstances that led to\nimproper payments in those programs.\n\n The deficiencies identified in the Department\xe2\x80\x99s recapture audit program occurred\nprimarily because the Department had not developed policies and standard procedures for\nperforming recapture audits that included identifying the programs and payments to be audited;\nfor obtaining the information necessary for the audits from sources outside RM/GFS/F/C; for\nperforming cost-benefit analyses to identify programs or payments to be excluded; and, if\nprograms or payments are excluded, for making the appropriate notifications to OMB and OIG.\n\n Without a sufficient, cost-effective recapture audit program, the Department may have\nmade but may not have identified and recovered all improper payments. A well-designed\nrecapture audit process targets areas most susceptible to improper payments and leverages the\nlatest technologies. Although traditionally used as a technique to identify improper payments\n\n\n\n 12\n UNCLASSIFIED\n\x0c UNCLASSIFIED\n\n\nalready made, recapture auditing results can also be used to identify trends in improper payments\nand improve controls to prevent improper payments.\n\n Recommendation 2. OIG recommends that the Bureau of Resource Management\n develop policies and standard procedures for its recapture audit activities. These policies\n and procedures should include, but not be limited to, the following:\n\n \xef\x82\xb7 Program, as well as payment, audit activities to help target recapture audits on\n programs or payment types that are deemed higher risk.\n \xef\x82\xb7 Alternative procedures to audit payments occurring outside the Global Financial\n Management System.\n \xef\x82\xb7\t Analytics and other proven recapture audit techniques (for example, predictive\n modeling, additional forensic accounting tools, additional data matches, and\n financial incentives) that address improper payments types other than duplicate\n payments.\n \xef\x82\xb7\t Requirements for performing a cost-benefit analysis for programs and payment\n types excluded from recapture audit activities and communicating the exclusions\n to the Office of Management and Budget and OIG.\n\n Department Response: The Department concurred that the Department\xe2\x80\x99s existing\n recapture activities \xe2\x80\x9ccan be strengthened with added policies and procedures.\xe2\x80\x9d\n\n OIG Reply: OIG considers the recommendation resolved, pending further action. This\n recommendation can be closed pending OIG\xe2\x80\x99s review and acceptance of the\n Department\xe2\x80\x99s policies and procedures for recapture audit activities.\n\nC. Required Improper Payments Disclosures in the FY 2011 Agency\nFinancial Report Were Omitted or Were Inaccurate\n AFRs play a significant role in fulfilling the Government\xe2\x80\x99s duty to be accountable and\ncan be used to assess an agency\xe2\x80\x99s efficiency and effectiveness in performing activities such as\nidentifying and recapturing improper payments. The Department\xe2\x80\x99s FY 2011 AFR included\ninformation that provided a high-level understanding of the Department\xe2\x80\x99s IPIA process and\nrecapture audit results. However, the AFR did not include all required disclosures, and some\ninformation included in the AFR was inaccurate. By not including complete and accurate\ninformation in its AFR, the Department is not providing users with relevant and reliable\ninformation about its efforts related to improper payments.\n\n IPERA states that for an agency to be in compliance with IPIA, the agency must publish\nan annual financial statement for the most recent fiscal year and post that report, with the\ninformation on improper payments required by OMB, on the agency\xe2\x80\x99s Web site. OMB Circular\nA-123, Appendix C, requires an agency to disclose specific information relating to improper\npayments in its annual AFR in the format provided in OMB Circular A-136.\n\n The Department published its FY 2011 AFR on its Web site. The AFR included certain\nimproper payments disclosures. For example, the AFR included summary information on\n\n 13\n UNCLASSIFIED\n\x0c UNCLASSIFIED\n\n\nimproper payments, a general description of the Department\xe2\x80\x99s risk assessment process, and a\ndescription of the Department\xe2\x80\x99s payment recapture audit program. The information reported in\nthe AFR provided a high-level of understanding of the Department\xe2\x80\x99s IPIA processes and the\nrecapture audit results achieved.\n\n Although the Department included some of the required disclosures in its AFR, Kearney\nidentified several disclosures that were omitted by the Department. For example, OMB Circular\nA-136 requires that an agency provide a brief description of its progress on eliminating and\nrecovering improper payments in the Management\xe2\x80\x99s Discussion and Analysis section of its AFR.\nOMB Circular A-123, Appendix C, requires that an agency report the basis for its groupings of\nprograms in the AFR and provide a description and justification of the classes of payments\nexcluded from payment recapture audits as well as an explanation of why recapture audits were\nnot performed on all programs, including those programs in which an agency has determined that\na payment recapture audit program is not cost effective. The Department did not make these\ndisclosures in its FY 2011 AFR.\n\n In addition, the Department\xe2\x80\x99s payment recapture tables in the AFR did not follow the\nformat provided in OMB Circular A-136, and the Department did not include all required\ninformation in the tables. Specifically, the tables did not include columns to identify the\nprograms for which recapture audits were performed, as was required. Further, the recapture\ntables did not include complete information on the payments identified and recovered through\nsources other than payment recapture audits. The Department included the amounts identified\nand recovered by RM/GFS/OMA during recapture audit activities and RM/GFS/F/C during post-\npayment reviews. However, the Department did not include information on payments identified\nand recovered in other Department offices and bureaus, such as OIG recoveries, contract close-\nout recoveries, recoveries resulting from grant compliance reviews, and pension overpayment\nrecoveries.\n\n Kearney also identified some information in the AFR that was inaccurate. In its\ndescription of the recapture audit analysis, the Department states that the domestic payment file\nused during the analysis \xe2\x80\x9cpresently includes the majority of payments subject to IPERA\nrequirements such as most domestic vendor payments and grant payments.\xe2\x80\x9d However, the\nDepartment did not include grant payments made through the Payment Management System in\nits recapture audits, and these payments make up the majority of grant payments made by the\nDepartment. Further, the recapture tables include a column for identifying the type of payment\nincluded in the payment recapture audit. In the Department\xe2\x80\x99s payment recapture tables, this\ncolumn indicated that all payments were subject to the review. However, as discussed in Finding\nB, the Department excluded, from its payment recapture audits, certain payment types, including\noverseas payments, Payment Management System payments, pension annuity payments, and\nbulk payments.\n\n Although the Department had informal processes for preparing the improper payments\ndisclosures for its AFR, it had not developed policies and standard procedures for preparing the\ndisclosures and ensuring their completeness and accuracy.\n\n\n\n\n 14\n UNCLASSIFIED\n\x0c UNCLASSIFIED\n\n\n By not including all required information in its AFR, the Department did not provide\nusers with relevant and reliable information about its efforts to prevent and identify and recover\nimproper payments. AFRs play a key role in fulfilling the Government\xe2\x80\x99s duty to be accountable\nfor the use of public funds, and AFRs can be used to assess an agency\xe2\x80\x99s efficiency and\neffectiveness in performing activities such as identifying and recapturing improper payments.\nThe results of an agency\xe2\x80\x99s actions related to improper payments should be available not only to\nCongress and agency management but also to the general public.\n\n Recommendation 3. OIG recommends that the Bureau of Resource Management\n develop policies and standard procedures that ensure that the improper payments\n information included in the Department of State Agency Financial Report is complete\n and accurate.\n\n Department Response: The Department concurred that the Department\xe2\x80\x99s existing\n reporting activities \xe2\x80\x9ccan be strengthened with added policies and procedures.\xe2\x80\x9d\n\n OIG Reply: OIG considers the recommendation resolved, pending further action. This\n recommendation can be closed pending OIG\xe2\x80\x99s review and acceptance of the\n Department\xe2\x80\x99s policies and procedures for reporting improper payments information in the\n AFR.\n\n\n\n\n 15\n UNCLASSIFIED\n\x0c UNCLASSIFIED\n\n\n List of Recommendations\n\nRecommendation 1. OIG recommends that the Bureau of Resource Management develop\npolicies and standard procedures for performing an improper payments risk assessment. The\npolicies and procedures should include, but not be limited to, the following:\n\n \xef\x82\xb7 A comprehensive definition of the programs to be assessed. \n\n \xef\x82\xb7 A method to ensure that all program costs are identified. \n\n \xef\x82\xb7 A description of the quantitative and qualitative factors to be considered. \n\n \xef\x82\xb7 A method to obtain input from the bureaus and offices responsible for the programs.\n\n\nRecommendation 2. OIG recommends that the Bureau of Resource Management develop\npolicies and standard procedures for its recapture audit activities. These policies and procedures\nshould include, but not be limited to, the following:\n\n \xef\x82\xb7 Program, as well as payment, audit activities to help target recapture audits on programs\n or payment types that are deemed higher risk.\n \xef\x82\xb7 Alternative procedures to audit payments occurring outside the Global Financial\n Management System.\n \xef\x82\xb7\t Analytics and other proven recapture audit techniques (for example, predictive modeling,\n additional forensic accounting tools, additional data matches, and financial incentives)\n that address improper payments types other than duplicate payments.\n \xef\x82\xb7\t Requirements for performing a cost-benefit analysis for programs and payment types\n excluded from recapture audit activities and communicating the exclusions to the Office\n of Management and Budget and OIG.\n\nRecommendation 3. OIG recommends that the Bureau of Resource Management develop\npolicies and standard procedures that ensure that the improper payments information included in\nthe Department of State Agency Financial Report is complete and accurate.\n\n\n\n\n 16\n UNCLASSIFIED\n\x0c UNCLASSIFIED\n\n\n\n Appendix A\n\n Scope and Methodology\n The Improper Payments Elimination and Recovery Act of 20101 (IPERA), which amends\nthe Improper Payments Information Act of 20022 (IPIA), requires the Office of Inspector\nGeneral (OIG) to conduct an annual audit of the Department of State\xe2\x80\x99s (Department) compliance\nwith improper payments requirements. In accordance with the IPERA requirement, an external\naudit firm, Kearney & Company, P.C. (Kearney), acting on OIG\xe2\x80\x99s behalf, performed this audit to\ndetermine whether the Department was in compliance with IPIA, as amended by IPERA.\n\n Kearney conducted this performance audit from December 2011 through February 2012\nin Washington, D.C., and at the Office of Global Financial Services in Charleston, South\nCarolina. Kearney planned and performed the audit in accordance with performance audit\nrequirements in the Government Accountability Office\xe2\x80\x99s Government Auditing Standards, July\n2007 Revision. Those standards required that Kearney obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to\nprovide a reasonable basis for findings and conclusions. The sufficiency and appropriateness of\nevidence needed and tests of evidence related directly to the objective and scope of the audit.\n\n Kearney focused the scope of the audit on the following objectives: (1) evaluation of the\naccuracy and completeness of the Department\xe2\x80\x99s improper payments risk assessment process; (2)\nevaluation of the Department\xe2\x80\x99s performance in preventing, reducing, and recapturing improper\npayments; and (3) reviewing the Department\xe2\x80\x99s FY 2011 Agency Financial Report (AFR) to\ndetermine whether the agency complied with requirements.\n\n Kearney designed the audit to obtain insight into the Department\xe2\x80\x99s current processes,\nprocedures, and organizational structure with regard to compliance with IPIA requirements. To\nexpedite the audit process, Kearney leveraged the results of its FY 2011 financial statement audit\nof the Department to confirm its understanding of the nature and profile of Department\noperations, IPIA standards, regulatory requirements, and supporting information systems and\ncontrols.\n\n Kearney conducted process walkthroughs and interviews with Department officials to\nobtain a sufficient understanding of the steps taken by the Department to assess the risk of\nimproper payments; its process of identifying significant improper payments; the steps taken to\nprevent, reduce, and recapture improper payments; and the process of reporting improper\npayments. Consistent with the fieldwork standards for performance audits, Kearney established\nperformance criteria and identified sources of audit evidence to complete the testing phase.\n\n The testing phase provided Kearney with evidence to determine the findings of the report\nissued for the performance audit. The criteria determined in the planning phase served as the\nbases for assessing the Department\xe2\x80\x99s compliance with IPIA requirements. The testing phase\nincluded procedures to assess the Department\xe2\x80\x99s IPIA reporting process, the recapture audit\nprocess, and the AFR disclosures.\n\n1 Pub. L. No. 111-204 \xc2\xa73(b).\n2 Pub. L. No. 107-300.\n\n 17\n UNCLASSIFIED\n\x0c UNCLASSIFIED\n\n\n\n\n During the reporting phase, Kearney formally communicated the conclusions reached and\nthe findings and recommendations for the actions the Department should take to comply with\nIPIA requirements.\n\n\n\n\n 18\n UNCLASSIFIED\n\x0c UNCLASSIFIED\n\n\n\n Appendix B\n\n\n\n United Siaies Deptlrlmenl of Slate\n\n Chief Pill(Hl ciu/ Officu\n\n lVu.shingIQII , D .C. 20520\n\n\n MAR 122012\nUNCLASSIFIED\nMEMORANDUM\n\nTO: DIG - Harold W. Geisel\n\nFROM: RM - James L. Mjlle\' ) j - -\n\nSUBJECT: Draft Report on Audit of Department of State Compliance With the\nImproper Payments Information Act\n\nThank you for the opportunity to comment on the Office of Inspector General\'s\n(DIG) Draft Report on the Department of State Compliance with the Improper\nPayments lnfonnation Act (IPIA) for FY 2011 .\n\nlbis compliance audit represents a new layer of required reporting to OMB and\nCongress for FY 20 II . The associated IPIA regulatory guidance was formally\nreleased in April 201 1 and OMB revision ofCircuJar No. A-136, wbich provides\nfinancial reporting requirements, was released on October 27, 20 II , after fiscal\nyear-end. Althougb recently issued, the Department has made significant efforts to\ncomply with all guidance in a manner that also leverages the good stewardship of\ngovernment funds and ensures our initiatives are cost-effective. While we may\nnot agree on all aspects of the report, we concur with the recommendations that\nthe Department\'s existing risk assessments, recapture, and reporting activities for\nimproper payments can be strengthened with added policies and procedures\n\nAs acknowledged in the Draft Report, the Department has employed numerous\npreventative and identification methods to support IPIA requirements. We have\ndedicated considerable resources to prevent improper payments from occurring"\nand take pride in our track record of success based on the low volume of actual\nimproper payments identified and recovered each year. Prior IPIA regulatory\nguidance was geared toward high-risk programs and activities that were deemed\nsusceptible to significant improper payments. Despite having no programs or\nactivities susceptible to significant improper payments, as previously defined, the\nDepartment used risk assessment and recapture initiatives to assist in identifying\n\n\n Unclassified\n\n\n\n\n 19\n\n UNCLASSIFIED\n\x0c UNCLASSIFIED\n\n\n\n\n Unclassified\n 2\n\nimproper payments and related payment issues. In addition, with the\nimplementation of our Global Financial Management System in 2007, we fully\nintegrated acquisitions into the frnancial system at the line level, significantly\nenhancing the integrity of our payments.\n\nWe recognize that the IPERA and related guidance has raised the bar on\ntransparently accounting for and preventing improper payments for all Agencies,\nincluding the Department. We are committed to meeting these compliance\nrequirements in a reasoned manner. We look forward to working with both the\nOIG and the Independent Auditor on further enhancements to our existing IPIA\nand IPERA programs in the coming year.\n\n\n\n\n 20\n\n UNCLASSIFIED\n\n\x0cUNCLASSIFIED\n\n\n\n\n\nUNCLASSIFIED\n\n\x0c'


type: other

text:
ADHD och hormonkänslighet. | Victorias ADHD - autism - blogg om NP-diagnoser
 « Mymlan förklarar så bra.
 Flickor i riskzonen. »
 Published januari 7, 2012 ADHD (+lite autism mm) 41 Comments
 41 Responses to “ADHD och hormonkänslighet.”
 1 fruhatt januari 8, 2012 kl. 9:17 f m
 Intressant läsning ! Förmodar att det även borde gälla menopausen .
 2 Victoria januari 9, 2012 kl. 9:07 f m
 ”Vissa kvinnor kan märka en ökning av dessa symptom åren före menopaus då östrogennivån gradvis minskar med 60%.” Läs denna artikel: ADHD and Menopause. ”estrogen affects the release of the neurotransmitters serotonin and dopamine” ”Because a lack of dopamine is a hallmark sign of ADHD, this additional change in dopamine can lead to even greater difficulties with concentration and focus” Även ADHD-mediciner sägs kunna få minskad effekt. Man kan få hormonbehandling, om man inte har en släkthistoria av bröstcanser. Det står i artikeln.
 3 Elisabeth Redlig juni 27, 2012 kl. 5:46 f m
 Det är exakt där jag är och det är iom övergångsåldern besvären blev ohållbara. Tack för lästipset!
 4 Victoria juni 27, 2012 kl. 1:56 e m
 Hoppas du fick nån ledtråd för att veta vilken hjälp du kan söka.
 5 vardagenmedmoa januari 8, 2012 kl. 12:15 e m
 6 Mrs G januari 8, 2012 kl. 3:22 e m
 Åh jag har alla de där symtomen + extrem väg i magen och ryggen, migrän, svårt att gå på toaletten etc
 I stort sett mår jag ok två veckor och pest i två veckor.
 Har vänt mig till flera olika gynekologer och specialister men ingen tar problemen på allvar utan säger typ ” Det är så kvinnor har det”
 7 Victoria januari 9, 2012 kl. 9:01 f m
 Om ingen gynekolog lyssnar så testa en psykiatriker och hänvisa till rönen om SRRI-preparat för att dämpa svår PMS – PMDD. SSRI-preparat förskrivs även vid kroniska smärttillstånd så det borde de vara insatta i?
 Lycka till, så ska ingen behöva ha det.
 8 Cattis januari 14, 2012 kl. 9:57 e m
 Måste bara fråga, (för att hjälpa isf) om du har så kraftiga problem, är du utredd för Endometrios?
 Jag har både ADHD och Endometrios. Känner igen det du skriver!
 ...just in case! Kan vara bra att utesluta, om du har så extrema svårigheter!
 Kram Cattis & Lycka till!
 9 Victoria januari 16, 2012 kl. 11:16 e m
 Jag är lyckligt fri från problemen själv, men ja, Endometrios verkar flera kvinnor med ADHD också ha, eller så är det en slump att jag känner flera? Har inte letat forskning om det, men har kvinnopersoner i min närmsta krets som lidit oerhört av både PMDD och Endometrios.
 Tack för ditt inlägg Cattis!!
 10 Cattis januari 17, 2012 kl. 10:23 f m
 ”Haha! Jag ringde mottagningen och bad dem ringa mig så jag fick undersökningen! De har inte ringt och jag har så mycket att göra, kanske lite stirrig ADHD också.”
 – Ler igenkännande! 😉
 Jag börjar faktiskt se det sambandet också: ADHD + Endometrios. Jag skall följa upp det spåret! Tänkte lägga ut frågan på Sv. Endometrioscentrum ́s medlemsforum.
 – Kan vara viktigt, då man inte vet VARFÖR Endo uppstår...
 Ja, ja, nu ska jag sluta spamma dig! Men vi lär höras, i ämnet, längre fram!
 11 laila januari 11, 2012 kl. 11:02 f m
 väldigt intressant..fick min adhd-diagnos i somras..mycket stämmer 🙂
 12 Cattis januari 12, 2012 kl. 9:24 e m
 Har bloggat om och lånat av detta inlägg!
 13 Victoria januari 14, 2012 kl. 10:25 f m
 Sprid informationen. Men det är bra om du lägger med länken till inlägget för där finns fler tips om behandling osv!
 14 Cattis januari 14, 2012 kl. 9:30 e m
 Ja, absolut! Jag har länkat, både till inlägget & din startsida! Men kanske ska göra det ännu tydligare...
 Den Studien, som du hänvisar till ovan, har Charlotta Sundblad Elverforshar & min behandlande Psykiater varit med & forskat fram. Ironiskt nog! Jag hade med mig utdraget, via din länk... Hon förstod precis & ville gärna veta mer, när det finns tillgängligt. Hon fick även länk till din blogg!
 Jag var som sagt trött, men ville ändå blogga om ditt inlägg. Det angår mig i HÖG grad!
 Jag skall skriva vidare på ämnet, eftersom det berör min sjukdom, Endometrios & dess behandlingsalternativ.
 Igen: Tusen tack för ditt engagemang!
 15 Victoria januari 16, 2012 kl. 11:20 e m
 Haha! Jag ringde mottagningen och bad dem ringa mig så jag fick undersökningen! De har inte ringt och jag har så mycket att göra, kanske lite stirrig ADHD också. 😉
 Har nära kvinnliga anhöriga med ADHD som lider/ har lidit oerhört, men det hade räckt att någon lidit för att jag skulle ta upp tråden iaf. Ska läsa den där avhandlingen!!
 Tack Cattis!! 🙂
 16 Camilla Segerlind januari 24, 2012 kl. 8:07 e m
 Åhhh..en till här... Endometrios... Solklar ADHD.. Dock inte vågat utreda mig... Men tid ska beställas.. Är rädd för att bli ”för normal”... Undrar lite på vilket sätt behandling påverkar?? Hur blir man??? Vad händer??? Vill ju fortfarande vara jag...
 Men har ett yrke nu som kräver att jag är samlad, lugn och organiserad...strukturerad...hm....
 17 Victoria januari 24, 2012 kl. 10:50 e m
 Sök hjälp hellre direkt än senare. Endometrios är ju både smärtsamt och kan påverka fertiliteten, man får svårt att bli gravid. En närstående fick livmodern bortopererad till slut. Man kan också få problem med smärta när man bajsar. Inget är kul med den sjukdomen. Men kunskap är bra, det enda vapnet som finns.
 Menar, se problemet och gör vad som går att göra så snart det går. Bäst i längden.
 18 Camilla Segerlind januari 25, 2012 kl. 12:15 f m
 åh..Endometriosen är utredd och opererad sedan flera år tillbaka.Har specialistläkare privat som jag går till...och ..jo tack..toalettbesöken har varit allt annat än en dans på rosor..usch och fy..svimmade en gång.Det är ADHD som inte är utrett..vågar inte..vet inte om jag fortfarande kommer att vara jag.. Vill jag ha det på papper??? Men tillvaron är oerhört vansinnig ibland.. Det går ut över mina barn ( tidsplanering,humör)..så det är nog bara att skaffa diagnos och behandling..är 34 år nu..usch...det har inte varit lätt.. Jag vet inte vad jag ska göra.. ADHD mottagningen där jag bor kräver en remiss från vårdcentralen..hemskt att behöva gå dit till någon som inte har en aning om ADHD först och hoppas på att de förstår allvaret och ger remissen.. arbetar själv i sjukvården. . så tilltron till vissa led i vårdkedjan är lite bristfällig..
 Ha ha ..sitter just nu och förkortar och försöker få ihop texten så att jag inte svävar ut...skulle vilja skriva så mycket..det bara bubblar inombords..suck...
 19 Nim januari 27, 2012 kl. 4:41 e m
 Blev rekommenderad denna blogg eftersom jag i vuxen alder fatt ADD diagnos men det inte lost mina problem eftersom de aven ar tatt lankade till min hormoncykel som svanger extremt abnormalt men ingen har nat enda vettigt forslag pa nat man kan gora at det.
 Jag har inte bara en ”den tiden i manaden”, jag har tva, och i mitt fall ar agglossningen langt varre an mensen. Mensen gor bara ont & ar jobbig, under agglossningen ar jag sa trott och deprimerad att jag bara vill do.
 Gar pa antidepressiv medicin (remeron + cipralex). Gick pa p-piller i 20 ar, det gjorde mej bara trott JAMT eller ska man saja JAMNT for det jamnade ut det till hela tiden istallet och det var ju annu varre.
 Har provat vitaminer & progesteronkramer, motion, grona bladgronsaker dieter etc.
 Currykryddor som bockhornsklover gor mej varre (den stimulerar mjolkproduction) & intill doden trott och tung.
 Jag har inte hittat nagot som hjalper varst bra, men att ata rott kott verkar hjalpa bast av det jag provat. Sen brukar jag aven ta Tradolan under mina varsta dagar, som jag av en slump upptackte (den ar ju egentligen smartstillande) verkar som en ”direkt” anti-depressiv pa mej (den har serotonin & noradrenalin hojande ”bi-verkan”).
 Om nan forskare behover en forsokskanin sa far de garna anvanda mej for mitt liv ar pa halv stang for jamnan pga detta.
 Jattetack for en suveran blogg!
 20 Victoria januari 27, 2012 kl. 10:02 e m
 Jag lider inte av problemen själv och när jag ser hur andra kan ha det blir jag jättetacksam för att jag slipper. Det behövs verkligen mer forskning om detta för 50% av befolkningen är kvinnor och så här ska ingen behöva ha det!
 Bra att du berättar vad du provat, så andra kan läsa!
 Jag hoppas verkligen du kan komma till rätta med detta, för det verkar rent handikappande. Du är så strong som försökt alla olika saker du testat. Prenumerera på detta inlägget så kanske du får mer tips? Och prenumerera på Cattis blogginlägg om saken. Hon har skrivit kommentarer här, så klicka på hennes namn så hittar du dit, samt hänvisningar hit från hennes blogg inom [klamrar] till både enkäter och annat! Hon drar och gräver lite mer i det här nu.
 21 Jullan april 3, 2012 kl. 9:58 f m
 Jag har nyligen gjort en utredning och har fått diagnosen ADD. För 10 år sen fick jag diagnosen PCO (Polycystiskt ovariesyndrom). Har alltid haft problem med mina hormoner och har ingen mens. De har ingen förklaring och det hjälper inte med behandling. När jag får mens typ 2 ggr/år så har jag fruktansvärda smärtor och mår väldigt dåligt. Jag undrar om det finns något samband mellan ADHD/ADD och PCO? Jag blir snart 30 och fick min diagnos ADD förra veckan, så jag har under hela mitt liv haft mkt stress i kroppen. Har vart sjuk ofta och får ingen ordning på hormornerna. Skulle tycka det var intressant om det finns någon forskning på detta. Tycker att det borde finnas nått samband eftersom de kunnat konstatera att PMS har en påverkan. Är det någon som vet något om detta?
 22 Victoria april 4, 2012 kl. 5:02 e m
 Jag vet inte, men googla på adhd + pco?
 23 monalee överlycklig maj 10, 2012 kl. 1:25 e m
 jag gråter av lycka just nu, tack tack tack. har haft jätte problem precis som du beskriver, under hela mitt liv, men blev bra(toppen bra, när min bröst mjhölk produktion satte igång under graviditeten och hållt sig till 1 månad sen då jag sluta amma, jag har haft dom här tankarna och själv vart övertygad om att jag mått dåligt pga av för mkt manligt hormon, och försökt övertyga psykologer om de utan framgång, jag ville verkligen inte börja med conserta och antidepressiva för jag mådde aldrig helt bra med dom heller, inte som jag mådde när jag var gravid eller amma. Men nu vet jag att jag hade rätt och tack vare dig vet jag vad jag skla be om för behndlaing. du förstår inte hur mycket detta förändrar mitt liv... för mig, min dotter och min blivande man...jag är sååååå lycklig pga av denna blogg inlägg. jag stor gråter av de, jag kan inte fatta att de e sant. jag har varit så orolig och googla nu på hormon och adhd och fick upp detta. underbart:)
 24 monalee överlycklig maj 10, 2012 kl. 1:43 e m
 men måste fråga...om jag skulle bli behndlad med detta, fungerar de som andra lyckopiller då? för jag kunde bli likgilltig för bra saker med i humöret då?
 25 Victoria maj 12, 2012 kl. 2:38 e m
 Vad jag vet är det en väldigt låg dos lyckopiller (SSRI-preparat) vid hormonkänslighet (och även vid smärttillstånd). Man ställer också alltid in dosen under en tid, så känner du dig konstig ska du säga det till läkaren, så dosen kan justeras, eller man kan pröva ett annat läkemedel, det finns ju flera och de passar individuellt.
 26 Gloria Qvarnström juni 27, 2012 kl. 6:33 e m
 Jag har läst Elverfors avhandling, då EQ , min äldsta dotter, har PMDD. Hon har tagit fram själva behandlingsformen för detta. Vill tillägga att PMDD innebär att vissa kvinnor faktiskt hela tiden är extra känsliga. Självmordstankar, försök till självmord osv. gör sig ständigt påmiinnt. Därför är det inte gynekologen som ska behandla detta utan en Psykiatriker. Detta är en ganska okänd sjukdom med ett fruktansvärt lidande. Märker på EQ att hon är extra känslig från ägglossning fram till mens. Fluoxetin är ett bra preparat som minskar känsligheten. Jag har även märkt och bett om utredning för AQ, min andra dotter, då jag misstänker PMDD. Båda har ADHD. Själv förstår jag numera att jag själv har PMDD och ADHD. Jag behandlades för en hjärnskada med just Fluoxetin under 12 år. Sen 2010 äter jag inga SSRI-preparat och märker tydligt mina egna svängningar numera och att tankarna löper amok. Det ska tilläggas att vetskapen om sjukdomen gör det lättare att leva med. Förklaringar och kunskap kan hela det mesta. I övrigt är detta viktig information du har satt ihop. Tack för att du sprider detta.
 Förövrigt så är hennes make min Psykiatriker för ADHD-behandlingen och hon har mottagning på samma ställe. Lite lustigt då det var BUP som gett EQ sin PMDD-diagnos. Märkliga tillfälligheter.
 27 Victoria juni 27, 2012 kl. 7:20 e m
 Tack syrran!! Speciellt Cattis – i kommentarsfältet (som jag inte hittar bloggen till längre(?) – som gick igång på det jag berättade och som har försökt forska själv om detta eftersom det verkligen angår henne, värderar nog den här informationen mycket. Det är jag som bloggar i familjen, men om hormonkänsligheten så var det syrran G, som nu kommenterat som berättade om det först. Mycket viktigt att sprida informationen så inte fler lider. Och tack för hänvisningen till psykiater, före gynekolog angående behandling av de svåra hormonella besvären. Det behöver de lidande veta!
 28 Victoria juni 27, 2012 kl. 7:22 e m
 Och tack igen för alla tips på viktiga saker att sprida sis!
 29 Gloria Qvarnström juni 27, 2012 kl. 6:43 e m
 Måste tillägga att jag också har Endometrios och att de misstänker att just att min dotter har det också.Ja, det är jag som beskrivit symptomen och smärtorna som EQ har, för BUP, de är identiska med de smärtor jag upplevt och dessa kramper och typ förstoppning under mens som EQ har. Nu har jag ingen livmoder längre, men dock äggstockar så cellerna går ut i buken ändå. En läkare sa att de kan spridas och att man hittat dessa celler i hjärnan. Fast minns inte riktigt vad och hur han beskrev det. Så länge äggstockarna producerar ägg så har man PMDD samt Endometrios. Så det är bara att ta bort allt eller avvakta nästa övergångsfas. 🙂
 30 Lina juni 28, 2018 kl. 9:31 e m
 Tack för något av det mest informativa jag läst om just kombon ADHD och PMDS (som jag har)! Det har varit ett helsike att få rätt hjälp! Har provat det mesta mot min PMDS som jag också känt till längre. När jag fick ADHD-diagnosen och hjälp med medicinering föt den så blev även min PMDS bättre. Tror jag haft för låga nivåer av dopamin och noradrenalin och därför har inte enbart SSRI kunnat hjälpa mig. Elvanse och citalopram står jag på nu och det verkar funka!
 31 Victoria Qvarnström juli 24, 2019 kl. 5:06 e m
 Vad skönt att höra att du mår bättre nu, så mycket som du måste lidit innan. Man får köra på det som fukar! Kunskapen borde dock vara större inom vården.
 1 ADHD + PMDS/PMDD + Endo = Vadå? | PåRiktigt 2.0 Trackback vid januari 12, 2012 kl. 9:18 e m
 2 Finns det ett samband mellan ADHD och Endometrios? - Undersökning | PåRiktigt 2.0 Trackback vid januari 17, 2012 kl. 5:11 e m
 3 Finns det ett samband mellan ADHD och Endometrios? – Enkät Trackback vid januari 18, 2012 kl. 12:34 e m
 4 Endokrina sjukdomar eller ADHD. « Victorias ADHD-blogg. Trackback vid februari 29, 2012 kl. 1:42 e m
 5 Rehabilitering till arbete eller habilitering till liv. « Victorias ADHD-blogg. Trackback vid juni 4, 2012 kl. 6:28 e m
 6 Mina bästa ADHD-inlägg här. | Victorias ADHD-npf-blogg - om att vara mal placé. Trackback vid maj 29, 2014 kl. 1:33 e m
 7 Svenny Kopps avhandling om diagnosflickor behöver mer spridning! | Victorias ADHD - autism - blogg om NPF Trackback vid juli 15, 2014 kl. 10:13 f m
 8 Spontana FLICKVECKAN – blogglavin? | Victorias ADHD - autism - blogg om NPF Trackback vid juli 15, 2014 kl. 8:13 e m
 10 Diagnosflickorna – för deras skull – nu tar vi det IGEN och sprider! | Victorias ADHD - autism - blogg om NPF Trackback vid februari 11, 2015 kl. 11:37 e m


type: legislation

jurisdiction: EU

text:
 14.8.2015
 BG
 Официален вестник на Европейския съюз
 L 215/34
 РЕГЛАМЕНТ ЗА ИЗПЪЛНЕНИЕ (ЕС) 2015/1392 НА КОМИСИЯТА
 от 13 август 2015 година
 за одобряване на основното вещество фруктоза в съответствие с Регламент (ЕО) No 1107/2009 на Европейския парламент и на Съвета относно пускането на пазара на продукти за растителна защита и за изменение на приложението към Регламент за изпълнение (ЕС) No 540/2011 на Комисията
 (текст от значение за ЕИП)
 ЕВРОПЕЙСКАТА КОМИСИЯ,
 като взе предвид Договора за функционирането на Европейския съюз,
 като взе предвид Регламент (ЕО) No 1107/2009 на Европейския парламент и на Съвета от 21 октомври 2009 г. относно пускането на пазара на продукти за растителна защита и за отмяна на директиви 79/117/ЕИО и 91/414/ЕИО на Съвета (1), и по-специално член 23, параграф 5 във връзка с член 13, параграф 2 от него,
 като има предвид, че:
 (1)
 В съответствие с член 23, параграф 3 от Регламент (ЕО) No 1107/2009 на 12 март 2014 г. Комисията получи заявление от Institut Technique de l'Agriculture Biologique (ITAB) за одобрение на фруктоза като основно вещество. Заявлението бе придружено от информацията, изисквана в член 23, параграф 3, втора алинея.
 (2)
 Комисията поиска научно съдействие от Европейския орган за безопасност на храните (наричан по-долу „Органът“). На 24 октомври 2014 г. (2) Органът представи на Комисията технически доклад за съответното вещество. Комисията представи на Постоянния комитет по растенията, животните, храните и фуражите доклада за преразглеждане (3) и проект на настоящия регламент на 20 март 2015 г. и ги изготви в окончателен вид за заседанието на същия комитет на 14 юли 2015 г.
 (3)
 Документацията, предоставена от заявителя, показва, че фруктозата отговаря на критериите за хранителен продукт съгласно определението в член 2 от Регламент (ЕО) No 178/2002 на Европейския парламент и на Съвета (4). Освен това веществото не се употребява преимуществено за целите на растителната защита, но независимо от това е полезно за растителната защита в състава на продукт, състоящ се от веществото и вода. Следователно то трябва да се счита за основно вещество.
 (4)
 Проведените анализи показаха, че може да се очаква, че фруктозата принципно отговаря на изискванията, предвидени в член 23 от Регламент (ЕО) No 1107/2009, по-специално по отношение на видовете употреба, които са проучени и подробно описани в изготвения от Комисията доклад за преразглеждане. Поради това е целесъобразно фруктозата да бъде одобрена като основно вещество.
 (5)
 В съответствие с член 13, параграф 2 от Регламент (ЕО) No 1107/2009 във връзка с член 6 от посочения регламент и предвид съвременните научно-технически познания обаче е необходимо да бъдат включени определени условия за одобрението, които са изложени подробно в приложение I към настоящия регламент.
 (6)
 В съответствие с член 13, параграф 4 от Регламент (ЕО) No 1107/2009 приложението към Регламент за изпълнение (ЕС) No 540/2011 на Комисията (5) следва да бъде съответно изменено.
 (7)
 Мерките, предвидени в настоящия регламент, са в съответствие със становището на Постоянния комитет по растенията, животните, храните и фуражите,
 ПРИЕ НАСТОЯЩИЯ РЕГЛАМЕНТ:
 Член 1
 Одобряване на основно вещество
 Веществото фруктоза, посочено в приложение I, се одобрява като основно вещество при предвидените в същото приложение условия.
 Член 2
 Изменения на Регламент за изпълнение (ЕС) No 540/2011
 Регламент за изпълнение (ЕС) No 540/2011 се изменя в съответствие с приложение II към настоящия регламент.
 Член 3
 Влизане в сила
 Настоящият регламент влиза в сила на двадесетия ден след деня на публикуването му в Официален вестник на Европейския съюз.
 Настоящият регламент е задължителен в своята цялост и се прилага пряко във всички държави членки.
 Съставено в Брюксел на 13 август 2015 година.
 За Комисията
 Председател
 Jean-Claude JUNCKER
 (1) ОВ L 309, 24.11.2009 г., стр. 1.
 (2) Европейски орган за безопасност на храните, 2014. Резултати от консултацията с държавите членки и ЕОБХ във връзка със заявлението за основното вещество фруктоза за употреба за растителна защита по ябълкови дървета с непряко действие при борбата с насекомите. Допълнителна публикация на ЕОБХ 2014: EN-684. стр. 27.
 (3) http://ec.europa.eu/food/plant/pesticides/eu-pesticides-database/public/?event=activesubstance.selection&language=EN
 (4) Регламент (ЕО) No 178/2002 на Европейския парламент и на Съвета от 28 януари 2002 г. за установяване на общите принципи и изисквания на законодателството в областта на храните, за създаване на Европейски орган за безопасност на храните и за определяне на процедури относно безопасността на храните (ОВ L 31, 1.2.2002 г., стр. 1).
 (5) Регламент за изпълнение (ЕС) No 540/2011 на Комисията от 25 май 2011 г. за прилагане на Регламент (ЕО) No 1107/2009 на Европейския парламент и на Съвета по отношение на списъка на одобрените активни вещества (ОВ L 153, 11.6.2011 г., стр. 1).
 ПРИЛОЖЕНИЕ I
 Популярно наименование, идентификационни номера
 Наименование по IUPAC
 Чистота (1)
 Дата на одобрението
 Специфични разпоредби
 Фруктоза
 CAS No: 57-48-7
 β-D-фруктофураноза
 За хранителни цели
 1 октомври 2015 г.
 Одобрени са единствено видове употреба като основно вещество — елиситор на естествените механизми за защита на културата.
 Фруктозата трябва да се използва в съответствие със специфичните условия, включени в заключенията от доклада за преразглеждане относно фруктозата (SANCO/12680/2014), и по-специално допълнения I и II към него.
 (1) Допълнителни подробности за идентичността, спецификацията и начина на употреба на основното вещество са представени в доклада за преразглеждане.
 ПРИЛОЖЕНИЕ II
 В част В от приложението към Регламент за изпълнение (ЕС) No 540/2011 се добавя следното вписване:
 Номер
 Популярно наименование, идентификационни номера
 Наименование по IUPAC
 Чистота (1)
 Дата на одобрението
 Специфични разпоредби
 „8
 Фруктоза
 CAS No: 57-48-7
 β-D-фруктофураноза
 За хранителни цели
 1 октомври 2015 г.
 Одобрени са единствено видове употреба като основно вещество — елиситор на естествените механизми за защита на културата.
 Фруктозата трябва да се използва в съответствие със специфичните условия, включени в заключенията от доклада за преразглеждане относно фруктозата (SANCO/12680/2014), и по-специално допълнения I и II към него.“
 (1) Допълнителни подробности за идентичността, спецификацията и начина на употреба на основното вещество са представени в доклада за преразглеждане.


type: caselaw

text:
 12.9.2009
 EL
 Επίσημη Εφημερίδα της Ευρωπαϊκής Ένωσης
 C 220/10
 Απόφαση του Δικαστηρίου (δεύτερο τμήμα) της 16ης Ιουλίου 2009 [αίτηση του Hof van Cassatie van België (Βέλγιο) για την έκδοση προδικαστικής αποφάσεως] — Distillerie Smeets Hasselt NV κατά Belgische Staat, Louis De Vos, Bollen, Mathay & Co BVBA, liquidateur de Transterminal Logistics NV, Daniel Van den Langenbergh, Firma De Vos NV και Belgische Staat κατά Bollen, Mathay & Co BVBA, liquidateur de Transterminal Logistics NV και Louis De Vos κατά Belgische Staat
 (Υπόθεση C-126/08) (1)
 (Κανονισμός (ΕΟΚ) 2913/92 - Κοινοτικός τελωνειακός κώδικας - Εκ των υστέρων είσπραξη εισαγωγικών ή εξαγωγικών δασμών - Βεβαίωση του ποσού των δασμών - Εγγραφή στα λογιστικά βιβλία ή σε οποιοδήποτε άλλο υπόθεμα επέχει θέση τέτοιων βιβλίων - Ισχύουσα ως βεβαίωση εγγραφή σε έκθεση - Παράδοση αντιγράφου της εκθέσεως ισχύουσα ως γνωστοποίηση του ποσού των νομίμως οφειλομένων δασμών)
 2009/C 220/15
 Γλώσσα διαδικασίας: η ολλανδική
 Αιτούν δικαστήριο
 Hof van Cassatie van België
 Διάδικοι στην υπόθεση της κύριας δίκης
 Distillerie Smeets Hasselt NV, Belgische Staat, Louis De Vos
 κατά
 Belgische Staat, Louis De Vos, Bollen, Mathay & Co BVBA, liquidateur de Transterminal Logistics NV, Daniel Van den Langenbergh, Firma De Vos NV
 Αντικείμενο
 Ερμηνεία των άρθρων 217, παράγραφος 1, και 221, παράγραφος 1, του κανονισμού (ΕΟΚ) 2913/92 του Συμβουλίου, της 12ης Οκτωβρίου 1992, περί θεσπίσεως κοινοτικού τελωνειακού κώδικα (ΕΕ L 302, σ. 1) — Εκ των υστέρων είσπραξη εισαγωγικών ή εξαγωγικών δασμών — Απαίτηση βεβαιώσεως του ποσού των δασμών πριν από τη γνωστοποίησή του στον οφειλέτη — Έννοια της «εγγραφής στα λογιστικά βιβλία ή σε οποιοδήποτε άλλο υπόθεμα επέχει θέση βιβλίων»
 Διατακτικό
 Το άρθρο 217 του κανονισμού (ΕΟΚ) 2913/92 του Συμβουλίου, της 12ης Οκτωβρίου 1992, περί θεσπίσεως κοινοτικού τελωνειακού κώδικα, πρέπει να ερμηνευθεί υπό την έννοια ότι τα κράτη μέλη δύνανται να ορίσουν ότι η βεβαίωση του ποσού των δασμών που απορρέει από τελωνειακή οφειλή γίνεται με την εγγραφή του εν λόγω ποσού στην έκθεση που συντάσσεται από τις αρμόδιες τελωνειακές αρχές με την οποία διαπιστώνεται μια παράβαση της εφαρμοστέας τελωνειακής νομοθεσίας.
 (1) ΕΕ C 142 της 7.6.2008.


type: wikipedia

text:
Реселѐц е село в Северна България. То се намира в община Червен бряг, област Плевен.
 История
 Името на Реселец идва от „разселвам“. Вероятно след една от големите чумни епидемии през XIV век (1336 – 1372) оцелелите жители на селището, намиращо се недалеч над днешния Реселец, се разселват. Част от тях основават днешното село.
 С произхода на името е свързана легенда за живота на девойка от селото, която се казвала Ресела. Тя не пожелала да смени вярата си по време на османската власт и се хвърлила от скала с още едно момиче – нейната сестричка. Оттогава селото е кръстено Ресела, а местността от която са скочили, кръстили на името на другото момиче Добрана – „Добранин дол“.
 Важен административен център в средновековна България, през първите векове на османското владичество Реселец е вилает – документи за това има в турските регистри от 1430 година. Населението на вилаета е било 126 пълноценни семейства и 19 вдовици. Реселец е седалище на самия феодал, тоест на владетеля на този вилает. Ореховските бейове и аги наричат Реселец „Чучук Стамбул", тоест Малкия Цариград. През XVII век Реселец губи статуса си на град и е записан като село. В землището на Реселец са регистрирани и описани множество археологически паметници – четири надгробни могили, праисторически селища, антична крепост, средновековен некропол. В миналото Реселец е известно и с водениците си. От 14 действащи воденици само една е запазена и работи.
 В 1893 година е завършена църквата „Свети Георги“. Живописта в нея е от 1894 година и е дело на дебърските майстори Мирон Илиев и тайфата му, в която влизат Велко Илиев, Мелетий Божинов, Григор Петров и Саве Попбожинов. Изрисуват всички икони и стенописи в църквата.
 В началото на 1951 година, по време на колективизацията, жителите на селото организират подписка с искане да им се разреши да ожънат самостоятелно засетите частно ниви, но не им е разрешено да я представят пред земеделското министерство. Тогава те решават да разтурят създаденото малко преди това Трудово кооперативно земеделско стопанство (ТКЗС) и на 9 април нападат кошарите му и си връщат добитъка, като при инцидента е ранен местният милиционер. От Бяла Слатина са изпратени 50 милиционери и лоялни към режима доброволци, които отново им взимат животните, но селяните получават разрешение за частната жътва. Двама души са осъдени на 10 години затвор, а смятаната за главен подбудител Цена Георгиева – на 15 години. Въпреки насилията 200 души отказват да оттеглят подадените заявления за напускане на ТКЗС.
 През 1952 година в селото е създаден първият в страната пионерски хор за народно пеене, ръководен от директора на училището Христо Ковачев.
 Културни и природни забележителности
 На около километър край селото се намира природният феномен „Калето“. Представлява район с дължина приблизително 750 метра и широчина 30 – 40 m, който е пропаднал с около 60 m. Отвсякъде го обграждат отвесни скали и слизането в него става по пътека между тях. Това е едно от малкото места в България, където се среща скорпион. В района е обособена екопътека „Тектонски грабен Калето“, която предоставя възможност за лека разходка между отвесните скали на природния феномен.
 Караджейките - енергията на водите на реките Белилката и Ръчене са използвани от най-дълбока древност за работа на много водни съоръжения – тепавици, воденици, дараци и др. В периода преди Освобождението в района са функционирали около 30 караджейки. От екопътеката се вижда функциониращата и днес Банковска воденица. В миналото тя е работила с два камъка, впоследствие единият от тях е преустроен в тепавица.
 Водопад Скока на река Белилката (река Белилото) се намира на около 300-400 метра от табелата за край на село Реселец, посока село Бресте. Самият водопад е висок 10 метра. Интересна скална ниша, образувана зад водната завеса, позволява преминаването от единия на другия бряг непосредствено зад водопада.
 Между селото и град Червен бряг има редовна автобусна линия, а може и да се слезе на жп спирка Реселец (линията София – Горна Оряховица – Варна – Русе, но там спират само пътнически влакове) и да се ходи пеш 3 km. В непосредствена близост е природната забележителност „Реселешки кукли“ – група от скални фигури.
 Реселешка сватба с обичая „повратки". Къпанки (пренасяне през река Ръчене на Ивановден) е обичай, съхранен в Реселец.
 Селото е известно с празника на водния лук, провеждан ежегодно в края на септември или началото на октомври. Празникът е включен в културния календар на община Червен бряг и се организира от кметството и местното читалище. Традиционно на този празник се организира и кулинарна изложба конкурс на ястия с традиционния Реселешки воден лук.
 Скалните кукли „Купените“
 Намират се непосредствено до село Реселец. Издигат се на 30 – 40 м над река Белило по десния ѝ бряг и са защитени като природна забележителност през 1972 г. Това е една от най-красивите варовикови формации в България и представляват скални пирамиди, които отчетливо се открояват на фона на растителността в основата им и около тях. На цвят са от кремаво до светлосиво, а в структурно отношение са плътни, здрави, с дебелина 30 – 150 м. Образували са се преди около 70 млн. години в нормално солено плитко и топло море и са резултат от действието на атмосферните води върху голите варовикови склонове. В състава им участват добре запазени вкаменелости на черупчест детртус, бриозои, бивалвии, брахиоподи, гастроподи, морски таралежи и рядко амонити.
 Личности
 Мако Даков (1920 – 2006) – политик от БКП
 Василка Хинкова (1927) – българска писателка
 Николай Маринов – политик
 Редовни събития
 Храмовият празник на селото се чества на 6 май (Гергьовден), а съборът на село Реселец се състои всяка година на 7 май, ритуалът „Къпанки“ се състои на 7 януари (Ивановден). Празник на Реселешкия воден лук се състои в средата на месец септември.
 Външни препратки
 Единственият по рода си празник на водния лук. В края на септември или началото на октомври (петък) мало и голямо се събира в центъра на червенобрежкото село Реселец – столицата на... водния лук.
 Екопътека Тектонски гребен Калето – с. Реселец
 Бележки
 Села в област Плевен
 Населени места в община Червен бряг


text:
Ísis Dias de Oliveira (São Paulo, 29 de agosto de 1941 – Rio de Janeiro, 1972) foi uma estudante de Ciência Política e militante da Ação Libertadora Nacional (ALN) durante a Ditadura militar brasileira, momento no qual atuava sob o codinome de Fátima.
 Ísis desapareceu no Rio de Janeiro no dia 30 de janeiro de 1972. Ela faz parte dos desaparecidos políticos no Brasil durante o regime militar e seu caso é investigado pela Comissão Nacional da Verdade (CNV), um colegiado organizado pelo governo do Brasil para apurar mortes e desaparecimentos ocorridos durante o período.
 Biografia
 Ísis Dias de Oliveira nasceu em 29 de agosto de 1941, filha de Edmundo Dias de Oliveira e Felícia Mardini de Oliveira. Ela realizou o ensino primário no Grupo Estadual Pereira Barreto. No ginásio (atual ensino secundário), Ísis frequentou a Escola Estadual Presidente Roosevelt e fez o clássico (atual ensino médio) no Colégio Santa Marcelina.
 Estudiosa, Ísis sabia tocar o piano e participava de aulas de pintura na Fundação Alvares Penteado. Além do português, sabia falar inglês, espanhol e o francês. As habilidades com idiomas até garantiram futuramente um trabalho para ela como secretária bilíngue na empresa Swift.
 ísis se tornou professora e estudante universitária da USP (Universidade de São Paulo), mas não chegou a concluir o curso. Ísis era militante da Ação Libertadora Nacional (ALN) e do Partido Comunista Brasileiro (PCB), em 1965 começou a cursar Ciências Políticas na Universidade de São Paulo e se mudou para o Conjunto Residencial da USP (CRUSP).
 Em 1967, Ísis trabalhou no cursinho do Grêmio da Faculdade de Filosofia. No mesmo ano, casou-se com José Luiz del Roio, secretário político do Partido Comunista Brasileiro na Universidade de São Paulo e militante da ALN. Ambos se conheceram em 1965 na faculdade, ficaram casados durante dois anos. O último ano de casamento marcou, também, o último contato que tiveram.
 Em 1968, Ísis interrompeu o seu 3° ano na FFLCH (Faculdade de Filosofia, Letras e Ciências Humanas) e foi para Cuba para fazer um treino de guerrilha, voltando um ano depois de forma ilegítima. Se mudou para o Rio de Janeiro no meio do ano de 1970.
 Ísis esteve em seis processos, nos quais foi julgada à revelia:
 Assalto ao Hospital da Ordem Terceira da Penitenciária.
 Depredação de postos de gasolina em que haviam cartazes de procurados políticos.
 Assalto à banco.
 Presa em 31 de janeiro de 1972, Ísis teve seu pedido de habeas corpus publicado na imprensa no dia 4 de março do mesmo ano. Em contrapartida, o Exército informou que a militante nunca esteve presa. De acordo com documento do Ministério da Aeronáutica, datado em 6 de outubro de 1972, traz a informação de que Ísis Dias de Oliveira desapareceu na mesma época que Paulo César Botelho Massa. Em um panfleto, o qual recebeu o nome de "Ação", que se declarava órgão da Ação Libertadora Nacional, dizia que Botelho Massa havia sido assassinado pela "repressão".
 Circunstâncias da Morte
 Ísis vivia de forma clandestina no Rio de Janeiro junto com outro militante chamado Paulo César Massa, quando em 1972 ambos foram presos pelo DOI/CODI (Destacamento de Operações de Informação - Centro de Operações de Defesa Interna) da cidade. Após a prisão, nunca mais foi vista por familiares e amigos.
 O que levou a família saber da prisão foi uma ligação feita por Aurora Maria do Nascimento Furtado, também militante, dizendo que Ísis havia sido presa pelo Exército. Desde então, os familiares começaram as buscas para encontrá-la. A mãe então recebeu a ligação de um primo dizendo que Ísis estava na Ilha das Flores, mas em todas as suas idas ao local, sua entrada nunca foi aceita. Apesar das diversas cartas escritas pela mãe de Ísis, sendo destinadas ao governo, nenhuma foi respondida.
 Depois de ter sido transferida de local várias vezes e os familiares serem constantemente enganados por membros do Exército, foi confirmada a morte de Ísis, Paulo e mais dez desaparecidos no dia 28 de janeiro de 1979 pelo general Adyr Fiúza de Castro na Folha de S.Paulo.
 O desaparecimento de Ísis começou a ser objeto de investigação da Comissão da Verdade em 2014, segundo a qual Oliveira foi assassinada no contexto das violações sistemáticas na ditadura militar no centro ilegal de tortura, a casa da morte em Petrópolis (Rio de Janeiro).
 José Luiz del Roio pediu que a Comissão da Verdade solicitasse oficialmente ao Arquivo Nacional uma cópia da Informação 4.057, de 11/09/1975, do Serviço Nacional de Informação (SNI). Neste documento de circulação interna do órgão consta que Isis teria sido morta em 31/01/1972, o mesmo dia que foi presa.
 Legado e homenagem
 O caso jurídico envolvendo seu desaparecimento foi objeto no documentário "Advogados contra a Ditadura", que relata em cinco episódios como a ditadura enganou os pais de militantes, inclusive os de Ísis, para que não soubessem seu paradeiro.
 O Centro Universitário de Pesquisas e Estudos Sociais (CeUPES) da Universidade de São Paulo recebe o nome de Ísis Dias de Oliveira. Ísis também foi homenageada na praça perto de onde ela viveu quando era mais jovem. O nome de Ísis intitula a praça no Alto da Lapa, em São Paulo, desde 11 de setembro de 1997. No Rio de Janeiro e no Recife, Ísis também foi homenageada. O nome dela aparece no bairro carioca Recreio dos Bandeirantes e no bairro recifense Macaxeira.
 Foi listada como uma das "Mulheres esquecidas da ditadura", cuja memória foi invisibilizada pela ditadura militar.
 Em 31 de janeiro de 2017 aconteceu a Corrida por Ísis, uma maratona para relembrar os 45 anos do desaparecimento da militante. O evento aconteceu sob coordenação do maratonista e jornalista, Rodolfo Lucena. Foram selecionados alguns locais importantes para a memória da militante da Ação Libertadora Nacional para fazerem parte do percurso, entre eles o antigo prédio da Faculdade de Filosofia, Ciências e Letras (FFCL) da USP, na Rua Maria Antônia, região central de São Paulo, além de seu antigo endereço na Rua da Palmeiras, na Santa Cecilia, onde ela morou com seu antigo companheiro José Luiz del Roio, que fundou, com Carlos Marighella, a Ação Libertadora Nacional. O ponto de chegada da corrida é a a praça no Alto da Lapa, em São Paulo, que leva o nome da militante.
 Comissão Nacional da Verdade
 Em 25 de março de 2014, a Comissão Nacional da Verdade citou, no Arquivo Nacional no Rio de Janeiro, o nome da paulistana Ísis Dias de Oliveira durante a audiência pública. A audiência tratava sobre a casa da morte de Petrópolis, um centro clandestino de tortura em funcionamento na ditadura militar. A denúncia aconteceu graças à Inês Ettiene Romeu, que também listou uma série de nomes de pessoas que teriam passado por lá.
 Ver também
 Lista de mortos e de desaparecidos políticos na ditadura brasileira
 Ligações externas
 Página sobre Ísis Dias de Oliveira no Dossiê de Mortos e Desaparecidos Políticos
 Nascidos em 1941
 Mortos e desaparecidos no combate à ditadura militar no Brasil (1964–1985)