type: legislation

jurisdiction: EU

text:
 3.2.2017
 SL
 Uradni list Evropske unije
 L 29/38
 IZVEDBENA UREDBA KOMISIJE (EU) 2017/188
 z dne 2. februarja 2017
 o določitvi standardnih uvoznih vrednosti za določitev uvozne cene za nekatere vrste sadja in zelenjave
 EVROPSKA KOMISIJA JE –
 ob upoštevanju Pogodbe o delovanju Evropske unije,
 ob upoštevanju Uredbe (EU) št. 1308/2013 Evropskega parlamenta in Sveta z dne 17. decembra 2013 o vzpostavitvi skupne ureditve trgov kmetijskih proizvodov in razveljavitvi uredb Sveta (EGS) št. 922/72, (EGS) št. 234/79, (ES) št. 1037/2001 in (ES) št. 1234/2007 (1),
 ob upoštevanju Izvedbene uredbe Komisije (EU) št. 543/2011 z dne 7. junija 2011 o določitvi podrobnih pravil za uporabo Uredbe Sveta (ES) št. 1234/2007 za sektorja sadja in zelenjave ter predelanega sadja in zelenjave (2) ter zlasti člena 136(1) Izvedbene uredbe,
 ob upoštevanju naslednjega:
 (1)
 Izvedbena uredba (EU) št. 543/2011 na podlagi izida večstranskih trgovinskih pogajanj urugvajskega kroga določa merila, po katerih Komisija določi standardne vrednosti za uvoz iz tretjih držav za proizvode in obdobja iz dela A Priloge XVI k tej uredbi.
 (2)
 Standardna uvozna vrednost se izračuna vsak delovni dan v skladu s členom 136(1) Izvedbene uredbe (EU) št. 543/2011 ob upoštevanju spremenljivih dnevnih podatkov. Zato bi morala ta uredba začeti veljati na dan objave v Uradnem listu Evropske unije –
 SPREJELA NASLEDNJO UREDBO:
 Člen 1
 Standardne uvozne vrednosti iz člena 136 Izvedbene uredbe (EU) št. 543/2011 so določene v Prilogi k tej uredbi.
 Člen 2
 Ta uredba začne veljati na dan objave v Uradnem listu Evropske unije.
 Ta uredba je v celoti zavezujoča in se neposredno uporablja v vseh državah članicah.
 V Bruslju, 2. februarja 2017
 Za Komisijo
 V imenu predsednika
 Jerzy PLEWA
 Generalni direktor
 Generalni direktorat za kmetijstvo in razvoj podeželja
 (1) UL L 347, 20.12.2013, str. 671.
 (2) UL L 157, 15.6.2011, str. 1.
 PRILOGA
 Standardne uvozne vrednosti za določitev uvozne cene za nekatere vrste sadja in zelenjave
 (EUR/100 kg)
 Oznaka KN
 Oznaka tretje države (1)
 Standardna uvozna vrednost
 0702 00 00
 IL
 299,8
 MA
 120,2
 TR
 157,6
 ZZ
 192,5
 0707 00 05
 MA
 48,2
 TR
 191,4
 ZZ
 119,8
 0709 91 00
 EG
 79,4
 ZZ
 79,4
 0709 93 10
 MA
 142,6
 TR
 234,0
 ZZ
 188,3
 0805 10 22 , 0805 10 24 , 0805 10 28
 EG
 41,3
 MA
 47,1
 TN
 52,7
 TR
 71,9
 ZZ
 53,3
 0805 21 10 , 0805 21 90 , 0805 29 00
 EG
 90,8
 IL
 135,7
 JM
 112,4
 MA
 88,4
 TR
 83,1
 ZZ
 102,1
 0805 22 00
 IL
 139,7
 MA
 85,5
 ZZ
 112,6
 0805 50 10
 EG
 85,5
 TR
 88,8
 ZZ
 87,2
 0808 10 80
 US
 205,0
 ZZ
 205,0
 0808 30 90
 CL
 81,7
 CN
 96,1
 TR
 154,0
 ZA
 99,6
 ZZ
 107,9
 (1) Nomenklatura držav, določena v Uredbi Komisije (EU) št. 1106/2012 z dne 27. novembra 2012 o izvajanju Uredbe (ES) št. 471/2009 Evropskega parlamenta in Sveta o statistiki Skupnosti o zunanji trgovini z državami nečlanicami v zvezi s posodabljanjem nomenklature držav in ozemelj (UL L 328, 28.11.2012, str. 7). Oznaka „ZZ“ predstavlja „druga porekla“.


type: caselaw

text:
 26.11.2011
 ES
 Diario Oficial de la Unión Europea
 C 347/4
 Sentencia del Tribunal de Justicia (Sala Primera) de 6 de octubre de 2011 — Comisión Europea/República Portuguesa
 (Asunto C-493/09) (1)
 (Incumplimiento de Estado - Artículos 63 TFUE y 40 del Acuerdo EEE - Libre circulación de capitales - Fondos de pensiones extranjeros y nacionales - Impuesto sobre sociedades - Dividendos - Exención - Diferencia de trato)
 2011/C 347/04
 Lengua de procedimiento: portugués
 Partes
 Demandante: Comisión Europea (representantes: R. Lyal y M. Afonso, agentes)
 Demandada: República Portuguesa (representantes: L. Inez Fernandes y H. Ferreira, agentes)
 Objeto
 Incumplimiento de Estado — Infracción del artículo 63 TFUE y del artículo 40 EEE — Restricciones a los movimientos de capitales — Fondos de pensiones extranjeros y nacionales — Dividendos — Tributación — Diferencia de trato.
 Fallo
 1)
 La República Portuguesa ha incumplido las obligaciones que le incumben en virtud de los artículos 63 TFUE y 40 del acuerdo sobre el Espacio Económico Europeo, de 2 de mayo de 1992, al reservar el beneficio de la exención del impuesto sobre sociedades únicamente a los fondos de pensiones residentes en el territorio portugués.
 2)
 Condenar en costas a la República Portuguesa.
 (1) DO C 37, de 13.2.2010.


type: other

jurisdiction: US

text: b' U.S. Department of Energy\n Office of Inspector General\n Office of Audits and Inspections\n\n\n\n\nAudit Report\nThe Department of Energy\'s\nWeatherization Assistance Program\nunder the American Recovery and\nReinvestment Act in the State of\nOhio\n\n\n\n\nOAS-RA-12-13 June 2012\n\x0c Department of Energy\n Washington, DC 20585\n June 25, 2012\n\n\nMEMORANDUM FOR THE ASSISTANT SECRETARY, ENERGY EFFICIENCY AND\n RENEWABLE ENERGY\n\n\nFROM: Rickey R. Hass\n Deputy Inspector General\n for Audit Services\n Office of Inspector General\n\nSUBJECT: INFORMATION: Audit Report on "The Department of Energy\'s\n Weatherization Assistance Program under the American Recovery and\n Reinvestment Act in the State of Ohio"\n\nINTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVE\n\nUnder the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, the Department of Energy\'s\nWeatherization Assistance Program (Weatherization Program) received $5 billion to increase the\nenergy efficiency of dwellings owned or occupied by low-income persons. Ohio administers its\nRecovery Act grant through 58 local agencies. These local agencies are responsible for\ndetermining applicant eligibility, evaluating homes to determine appropriate weatherization\nmeasures, awarding contracts and assigning in-house crews to weatherize homes, and conducting\nfinal inspections of completed homes.\n\nThe Department awarded a 3-year, $267 million Recovery Act weatherization grant to the State\nof Ohio\'s (Ohio) Department of Development. Ohio planned to use its Recovery Act funding to\nweatherize more than 32,000 homes. As of December 31, 2011, Ohio had weatherized 37,566\nhomes, exceeding its estimated goal, and had expended almost all of its Recovery Act grant\nfunds.\n\nGiven the significant increase in funding and demands associated with weatherizing thousands of\nhomes, we initiated this audit to determine whether Ohio had adequate safeguards in place to\nensure the Weatherization Program was managed efficiently and effectively.\n\nRESULTS OF AUDIT\n\nOhio had not always managed its Weatherization Program efficiently and effectively. We\nidentified weaknesses that impacted Ohio\'s ability to meet the objectives of the\nWeatherization Program and the Recovery Act. Specifically, Ohio and its local agencies had not\nalways:\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Provided quality weatherization services. In particular, 70 percent of the homes\n reinspected by Ohio during the period of September 2009 through December 2010,\n required additional work to meet Ohio\'s quality standards, even though they had\n\x0c 2\n\n\n previously passed local agency inspections. Sixteen percent of those homes had not\n passed Ohio\'s reinspection because of major quality of work issues, or a significant\n number of lesser findings that could compromise the health and safety of the occupants,\n or the homes\' structural integrity. Ohio\'s Office of Inspector General\'s November 2011,\n Report of Investigation also noted the high frequency of homes requiring action after\n Ohio\'s reinspection. Further, Ohio had not met the annual requirement to reinspect at\n least 5 percent of each local agency\'s completed homes. Additionally, Ohio and its\n local agencies had not developed systems to adequately track and summarize systemic\n quality of work issues, and crews and contractors that repeatedly underperformed;\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Procured materials, equipment and services in accordance with Federal and State\n requirements. For example, at one local agency, about 96 percent of 372 items\n reviewed had not been purchased through a competitive bidding process or supported\n by cost or price analyses. As a result of these issues, we questioned over $585,000 in\n procurement costs at two of the three local agencies reviewed;\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Ensured that recipients were selected for weatherization services based on their priority\n and that they met income eligibility requirements. In particular, we found that a local\n agency selected five weatherization applicants before 205 others who had previously\n been determined to be a higher priority. Another agency relied on income information\n that was more than 12 months old, even though Ohio required that eligibility be based\n on the 12 months of income immediately prior to application; and,\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Complied with laws and regulations governing the Weatherization Program, including\n the Davis-Bacon Act for prevailing wage rates, and Federal requirements governing the\n remittance of interest earned on Federal fund advances and the reimbursement of\n allowable costs. As a result of our work, for example, one agency retroactively paid\n employees approximately $55,000 in wages. Another agency remitted approximately\n $76,000 to Ohio in interest earned on advanced funds. We also questioned $23,400 in\n costs charged by another local agency that were not fully supported as required.\n\nThe Weatherization Program deficiencies we observed occurred for a number of reasons,\nincluding poor final inspections, staffing issues, inadequate oversight by Ohio, and the failure of\nlocal agencies to either understand or follow Federal and State requirements. For example, Ohio\nand its local agencies had not adequately tracked and summarized performance statistics to\nidentify and address commonly recurring problems or contractors and agencies that repeatedly\nunderperformed. As discussed in the body of this report, we also identified areas in which local\nagencies\' and/or Ohio\'s policies and procedures were not fully consistent with Federal\nrequirements.\n\nIt is imperative that the Weatherization Program is managed to ensure Department requirements\nare met; monies are spent with transparency, accountability and for intended purposes; and,\ndeserving households receive the services to which they are entitled. To their credit, Ohio and\nlocal agencies in our review have already begun to take action to correct previously observed\nweaknesses. We have made a number of recommendations designed to improve Ohio\'s\nWeatherization Program.\n\x0c 3\n\n\nWe analyzed Ohio\'s management of its Recovery Act Weatherization Program and reviewed the\nweatherization activities of three local agencies, IMPACT Community Action (IMPACT), the\nCommunity Action Partnership of the Greater Dayton Area (Dayton), and Cuyahoga County of\nOhio Department of Development (Cuyahoga). In September 2011, we issued separate\nexamination reports on Dayton and Cuyahoga. The reports can be found on our website at\nhttp://energy.gov/ig/calendar-year-reports. The examinations were performed by Lopez and\nCompany, LLP, an independent public accounting firm under contract with the Office of\nInspector General. The results of these examinations have been incorporated into this report to\nprovide a statewide summary of findings. While most Recovery Act funds had now been\nexpended at the time we issued this report, we believe that our recommendations should help\nOhio as it transitions its weatherization activities to a post-Recovery Act environment.\n\nAudit work at the three local agencies discussed in this report has been completed. A review of\nother weatherization activities in Ohio, however, had not been finished by the time this report\nwas issued.\n\nMANAGEMENT REACTION\n\nThe Department, Ohio, and IMPACT provided responses to our draft audit report. The\nDepartment stated it will continue to work with Ohio to implement corrective actions and resolve\nthe issues described in the report. Ohio noted that many of our recommendations have already\nbeen addressed. Additionally, Ohio reported that contracts with its local agencies had been\namended to correct the most recent Davis-Bacon Act related issues. Ohio also stated that it had\nreviewed certified payrolls submitted by local agencies and had communicated the correct Davis-\nBacon Act rates to IMPACT and all of its local agencies with the expectation of compliance.\n\nIMPACT reported that the deficiencies noted in our report have been addressed and corrected.\nDayton and Cuyahoga responded separately to examination reports issued in September 2011.\nBoth Dayton and Cuyahoga agreed with our findings and recommendations.\n\nThe comments from management are discussed in more detail in the body of the report, and are\nincluded in Appendix 4.\n\nAttachment\n\ncc: Deputy Secretary\n Associate Deputy Secretary\n Acting Under Secretary of Energy\n Chief of Staff\n\x0cTHE DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY\'S WEATHERIZATION ASSISTANCE\nPROGRAM UNDER THE AMERICAN RECOVERY AND\nREINVESTMENT ACT IN THE STATE OF OHIO\n\nTABLE OF\nCONTENTS\n\nWeatherization Efforts\n\nDetails of Finding ........................................................................................................................1\n\nRecommendations ........................................................................................................................11\n\nManagement and Auditor Comments ..........................................................................................12\n\n\nAppendices\n\n1. Objective, Scope and Methodology .......................................................................................15\n\n2. Related Reports ......................................................................................................................17\n\n3. Summary of Questioned Costs...............................................................................................19\n\n4. Management Comments ........................................................................................................20\n\x0cTHE DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY\'S WEATHERIZATION ASSISTANCE\nPROGRAM UNDER THE AMERICAN RECOVERY AND\nREINVESTMENT ACT IN THE STATE OF OHIO\nWEATHERIZATION The State of Ohio\'s (Ohio) Department of Development\nEFFORTS administers its $267 million American Recovery and Reinvestment\n Act of 2009 (Recovery Act) grant through 58 local agencies. Ohio\n provides funding directly to 34 of these agencies. For the\n remaining 24 local agencies, known as "delegate agencies," Ohio\n utilizes the services of 3 intermediary agencies that distribute\n Weatherization Assistance Program (Weatherization Program)\n funds and provide additional oversight. Local agencies are\n responsible for determining applicant eligibility, assessing homes\n to evaluate appropriate weatherization measures, awarding\n contracts and assigning in-house crews to weatherize homes, and\n conducting final inspections of completed homes.\n\n We analyzed Ohio\'s management of its Recovery Act\n Weatherization Program and reviewed the weatherization activities\n of three local agencies, IMPACT Community Action (IMPACT),\n the Community Action Partnership of the Greater Dayton Area\n (Dayton) and Cuyahoga County of Ohio Department of\n Development (Cuyahoga). In September 2011, we issued separate\n examination reports on Dayton, Community Action Partnership of\n the Greater Dayton Area \xe2\x80\x93 Weatherization Assistance Program\n Funds Provided by the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act\n of 2009, (OAS-RA-11-18, September 2011), and Cuyahoga,\n Cuyahoga County of Ohio Department of Development \xe2\x80\x93\n Weatherization Assistance Program Funds Provided by the\n American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, (OAS-RA-11-\n 19, September 2011). The examinations were performed by Lopez\n and Company, LLP, an independent public accounting firm under\n contract with the Office of Inspector General. The results of these\n examinations have been incorporated into this report to provide a\n statewide summary of findings.\n\n Ohio had made significant progress in implementing its\n Weatherization Program. As of December 31, 2011, Ohio had\n weatherized 37,566 homes, exceeding its estimated goal of 32,000,\n and had expended almost all of its Recovery Act grant funds.\n However, Ohio had not always managed its Weatherization\n Program efficiently and effectively. We found problems with the\n quality of weatherization work; procurement of materials,\n equipment and services; prioritization and eligibility of applicants\n for weatherization services; and, compliance with laws, regulations\n and Weatherization Program guidelines.\n\n\n\n\nPage 1 Details of Finding\n\x0c Quality of Weatherization Work\n\n Ohio and its local agencies had not always provided quality\n weatherization services. For example, of the 837 homes included\n in our review, 585 homes (70 percent) reinspected by Ohio\n between September 2009 and December 2010 required further\n action to meet Ohio\'s Weatherization Program standards, even\n though previously passing local agency inspections. This total\n included 136 homes (16 percent) that did not pass Ohio\'s\n reinspections due to a major quality of work problem, or a\n significant number of lesser findings that, when combined, could\n compromise the health and safety of the occupants or the homes\'\n structural integrity.\n\n We accompanied local agency staff on final inspections of homes\n weatherized by the three agencies reviewed. Of the 12 homes\n inspected, 10 (83 percent) were cited as deficient by local agency\n staff. These homes needed additional work because of improper\n air duct sealing, improperly installed exterior siding, use of the\n wrong carbon monoxide detectors and insufficient weather\n stripping.\n\n Substandard weatherization work resulted from a combination of\n program weaknesses at the State and local level, including\n inadequate final inspections conducted by local agencies,\n inadequate monitoring by Ohio, insufficient analysis of home\n inspection results and the lack of resources. Specifically:\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Final Inspections: Inadequate local agency inspections\n resulted in poor quality work going undetected and\n uncorrected. While the inspections we observed at\n Dayton, Cuyahoga and IMPACT identified workmanship\n issues, Ohio\'s reinspection results, discussed above,\n showed local agencies throughout the State often passed\n homes that required further action. In other words, homes\n deemed to be completed by local agency officials often\n had significant problems that had not been resolved. We\n also noted local agencies had not always documented final\n inspection results to ensure instances of poor\n workmanship had been corrected. For example, 8 of the\n 30 weatherization case files reviewed at Cuyahoga were\n missing required rework forms when rework was\n identified by inspectors. We observed, and agency\n inspectors confirmed, they sometimes verbally\n communicated the need for rework to contractors rather\n than documenting the deficiencies in the case file as\n\n\n\nPage 2 Details of Finding\n\x0c required. In response to this finding, Cuyahoga officials\n told us they will ensure that rework forms will be included\n in inspection files.\n\n Additionally, contrary to Ohio guidance, we found\n IMPACT had allowed inspectors to perform both the\n initial home assessment and the final inspection. Ohio\n guidelines suggest that having final inspections conducted\n by someone other than the person who did the initial\n assessment can result in better controls over quality.\n However, IMPACT inspectors were allowed to perform\n minor repairs to heating, ventilating and air-conditioning\n systems and to approve and certify the quality of their own\n work. In response to our audit, IMPACT reportedly\n modified its home inspection process to require a crew\n member not associated with the weatherization of the\n home to perform the final inspection.\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Monitoring: Inadequate monitoring by Ohio also\n contributed to continued substandard workmanship.\n During the first 2 years of its Recovery Act\n Weatherization Program, Ohio had not met the annual\n requirement to reinspect at least 5 percent of each agency\'s\n completed homes. Specifically, we found for program\n year 2010, which ended March 31, 2011, Ohio had not\n met the requirement for 15 of its 56 agencies (27 percent).\n This was an improvement over the previous program year\n in which Ohio had not met the requirement for 38 of its 56\n agencies (68 percent) that provided weatherization\n services. For example, in program year 2010, Ohio had\n only reinspected 12 of IMPACT\'s 611 (2 percent)\n completed units. In December 2011, Ohio implemented\n new processes to better calculate the number of units\n requiring reinspection at each local agency.\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Tracking and Summarizing Home Inspection Results:\n Ohio and its local agencies had not adequately tracked and\n summarized home inspection results to assess program\n performance. Neither Ohio nor the local agencies we\n reviewed had tracked the percentage of homes that did not\n pass inspections, or adequately summarized major\n findings from monitoring visits to identify systemic\n quality of work issues. For example, after reviewing\n individual Ohio monitoring reports, we were able to\n identify recurring problems related to substandard\n workmanship. Based on a sample of nearly 300 units,\n\n\nPage 3 Details of Finding\n\x0c which either failed or required rework, we found Ohio had\n repeatedly required agencies to return to completed homes\n for the same types of deficiencies. Specifically, 30\n percent of the units we reviewed required a callback to\n seal ductwork and 15 percent required agencies to repair\n or replace venting for clothes dryers. During home\n reinspections, Ohio officials also noted issues such as the\n need to clean and tune gas appliances; insulate walls, attics\n and piping; and, install temperature and humidity gauges.\n\n We recognize that Ohio tracked certain aspects of its\n monitoring efforts, including documenting the number of\n homes reinspected and client files reviewed, success\n stories at local agencies, and due dates for deliverables.\n However, even those efforts were not always useful\n because of reporting inaccuracies. We found that\n information in the tracking system often differed from that\n in Ohio\'s technical and administrative monitoring reports.\n For example, of the 81 technical monitoring reports we\n reviewed, 14 contained a different number of homes\n reinspected than the number reported in Ohio\'s tracking\n system.\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Resources: Ohio officials told us they had not attained\n necessary staffing levels to adequately monitor the\n program until about a year into their Recovery Act\n implementation. Ohio officials noted that production was\n higher than anticipated because of lower than projected\n per home costs, increasing Ohio\'s and local agencies\'\n workloads. In addition, local agency officials told us it\n took time to train and certify newly hired inspectors.\n\n Ohio Inspector General Concerns Regarding Workmanship\n\n Consistent with our findings in this area, Ohio\'s Office of Inspector\n General (Ohio IG) also reported issues concerning the quality of\n work in Ohio\'s Weatherization Program. In its November 2011,\n Report of Investigation, the Ohio IG noted the high frequency of\n homes requiring action after Ohio\'s reinspection, noncompliance\n with the 5 percent reinspection requirement, Ohio\'s failure to\n increase the number and frequency of reinspections when evidence\n arose that agencies were not properly weatherizing homes,\n untimely monitoring reports and failure to take disciplinary or\n corrective action toward agencies failing to properly weatherize\n homes. Additionally, the Ohio IG noted that some of Ohio\'s\n technical monitors improperly allowed the agencies to select the\n\n\n\nPage 4 Details of Finding\n\x0c units for reinspection. The Ohio IG made a number of\n recommendations to correct the deficiencies identified. In its\n January 2012 response, Ohio reported its concurrence with the\n recommendations and outlined related corrective actions.\n\n Procurement of Materials, Equipment and Services\n\n Local agencies had not always followed Federal and State\n procurement requirements. For example, Dayton could not\n provide evidence that 79 of 119 (62 percent) of the inventory items\n we sampled, totaling about $49,400, had either been procured\n through a competitive bid process or determined to be reasonably\n priced, as required. Federal and State regulations require a\n documented cost or price analysis for every procurement action.\n Additionally, Dayton had not always followed Federal and State\n procurement guidelines for the selection of service contractors.\n We found the agency selected six contractors through sole-source\n procurements without documenting why soliciting bids was not\n feasible or justifying costs totaling $21,400. In total, we\n questioned about $70,800. Dayton officials told us they were not\n aware of Federal and State requirements regarding competitive\n bidding and cost/price analyses. However, as a result of our audit,\n Dayton is developing new policies and procedures, including those\n related to bid solicitations.\n\n We had similar concerns at IMPACT where the agency could not\n always provide documentation evidencing compliance with\n procurement rules to ensure the best price for materials and\n services was obtained. Ohio\'s guidelines require that procurements\n in excess of $5,000 be competitively bid unless the requirement is\n specifically waived by Ohio. However, we found that:\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2 The agency was unable to provide either bid solicitation or\n cost/price analysis documentation for 356 material items\n totaling $63,300 of the 372 (96 percent) reviewed;\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2 The agency had not competitively solicited bids for the\n procurement of spray foam insulation totaling about\n $451,800. Instead, from October 2009 through August\n 2011, the agency split the procurement into 92 smaller\n purchases. Each purchase was valued at $4,911.12, an\n amount just under the $5,000 threshold required for\n competitive bidding. In fact, IMPACT made eight separate\n purchases of spray foam insulation in the same week,\n including four on the same day. IMPACT reportedly split\n the procurements because an official did not want to exceed\n\n\nPage 5 Details of Finding\n\x0c the $5,000 threshold which would have required a\n competitive bidding process. However, splitting\n transactions violates accountability and transparency\n requirements of both the Recovery Act and Ohio\n procurement policies that require free and open competition\n for large purchases. After we brought this issue to\n IMPACT\'s attention, an official told us the agency had\n requested three quotes for a recent spray foam insulation\n procurement that resulted in the per unit price decreasing\n by almost 20 percent and assured us that future\n procurements would be competitively bid; and,\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2 IMPACT had not solicited bids for new service contractors\n in 2010, as required by Ohio policies and procedures.\n Officials believed new contractor solicitations were not\n required until the 3-year grant had expired, rather than\n during each program year.\n\n In total, because Federal and State procurement regulations had not\n been followed, we questioned IMPACT\'s purchases totaling about\n $515,100.\n\n Prioritization and Eligibility of Applicants\n\n IMPACT had not selected applicants for weatherization services\n based on priorities established by Federal and State guidelines.\n For example, we reviewed case files for 23 applicants whose\n homes were weatherized in January 2011, and found that 5\n applicants had received services before 205 others who had been\n identified as higher priority. Additionally, 69 of 278\n weatherization projects approved for services, as of January 2011,\n had been waiting for more than 1 year and had higher priority than\n others selected. The State had established a point system to\n prioritize applicants in accordance with guidelines. Although\n IMPACT had determined each applicant\'s priority points, it had\n not used the priority points as the basis for selecting applicants for\n weatherization work. IMPACT officials stated they made an effort\n to select elderly applicants for priority services. However, we\n were told that remaining applicants were selected using various\n selection methods including at random, alphabetically, or "first-\n come, first-served." None of these methods ensured that services\n were allocated based on priorities established by Federal and State\n guidelines.\n\n Both Federal and State guidelines require agencies to prioritize\n applicants categorized as elderly, disabled, families with children,\n\n\n\nPage 6 Details of Finding\n\x0c high residential energy users, and households with a high energy\n burden. Although Ohio had developed and published adequate\n prioritization guidelines for its local agencies, it had not ensured\n that IMPACT had implemented these guidelines for the application\n selection process. Without a sound and consistent applicant\n prioritization and selection process, services may not be provided\n to individuals whom the Weatherization Program was most\n intended to serve. In response to our audit, an IMPACT official\n told us that the process has been revised and applicants are now\n being selected based on priority points.\n\n Additionally, we found that Cuyahoga applicants may have been\n approved for weatherization services based on outdated income\n information. Cuyahoga relied on income information maintained\n by Ohio for determining applicant eligibility. In 12 of the 30 files\n we reviewed, eligibility was calculated using income information\n that was more than 12 months old, even though Ohio requires that\n eligibility be based on the 12 months of income immediately prior\n to application. For the remaining 18 applicant files, we were\n unable to make an income eligibility determination because Ohio\n did not have the documentation. Under guidance issued by the\n Department, Ohio was not required to retain documentation.\n Cuyahoga agreed with the finding and plans to adjust its current\n policy to reverify an applicant\'s income if more than 8 months\n have elapsed since the date of Ohio\'s verification.\n\n Compliance with Laws, Regulations and Program Guidelines\n\n Ohio and its agencies had not always ensured compliance with\n applicable laws, regulations and program guidelines including the\n Davis-Bacon Act; Office of Management and Budget (OMB)\n Circular A-122, Cost Principles for Non-Profit Organizations;\n Federal Financial Assistance Regulations; Recovery Act; and,\n Ohio Weatherization Program guidelines.\n\n Davis-Bacon Act Wage Requirements\n\n IMPACT had not paid weatherization crews prevailing wages in\n accordance with the Davis-Bacon Act. During the period March\n 2010 to March 2011, we found 33 of the 38 weatherization crew\n members were paid, in aggregate, approximately $100,000 less\n than what was required according to certified payrolls. The\n Recovery Act requires that all laborers employed on projects\n funded by the Recovery Act be paid prevailing wages in\n accordance with the Davis-Bacon Act. In addition, wages must be\n paid on a weekly basis and documented through certified payroll\n records.\n\nPage 7 Details of Finding\n\x0c Davis-Bacon Act errors were caused by a number of issues.\n According to a July 2010 Department monitoring report, Ohio\'s\n contracts with its local agencies had not been amended to include\n the latest Davis-Bacon Act wage revisions. For example, Ohio\'s\n contract with IMPACT was not formally amended to reflect the\n latest Davis-Bacon Act wage revisions until September 2010, even\n though higher wage rates went into effect about 6 months earlier.\n Instead, Ohio communicated the updated Davis-Bacon Act rates\n via email, with an expectation that its local agencies comply with\n the new prevailing wage requirements. However, IMPACT failed\n to revise its wages and continued to underpay workers. Although\n Ohio had reportedly reviewed IMPACT\'s certified payrolls to\n ensure compliance with Davis-Bacon Act requirements, they had\n not detected the discrepancies in the workers\' wages.\n\n IMPACT officials reported that as a result of our work, they had\n retroactively paid affected employees approximately $55,000 and\n adjusted wages going forward. Officials told us that after\n reviewing their records, they determined that 13 of the 33\n employees had been misclassified on the certified payrolls.\n Specifically, one employee was not a weatherization worker and\n 12 employees should have been classified at a lower-wage\n category, one comparable to the level of weatherization work\n actually performed. After adjusting for the misclassification of\n employees, IMPACT recalculated and determined that the\n aggregate underpayment to employees was approximately $55,000\n instead of our original estimate of $100,000 based on certified\n payrolls. We did not evaluate the appropriateness of IMPACT\'s\n reclassification of employees, an action that should be reviewed by\n Ohio. We notified the U.S. Department of Labor of IMPACT\'s\n lack of adherence to the Davis-Bacon Act requirements and were\n informed that no further action was necessary.\n\n Labor Cost Distribution\n\n Dayton had not ensured that administrative personnel labor costs\n were adequately documented. Specifically, not all timecards had\n been signed by employees or approved by appropriate supervisory\n personnel, as required by Federal regulations. OMB Circular A-\n 122 requires that reports reflect an after-the-fact determination of\n actual employee activity and be signed by the individual employee\n or a responsible, knowledgeable supervisor. However, based on\n our review of 19 timecards for 5 administrative employees, we\n found:\n\n\n\n\nPage 8 Details of Finding\n\x0c \xe2\x80\xa2 Fourteen timecards lacked employee signatures or\n supervisory approval; and,\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Time cards for three employees did not appear to reflect\n actual work activity. For multiple periods, timecards with\n similar numbers of hours were charged to the\n Weatherization Program.\n\n Consequently, we questioned $23,400 in administrative labor costs\n charged to the Weatherization Program.\n\n This issue occurred because Dayton\'s policies and procedures\n related to timecard preparation and supervisory review did not\n comply with OMB Circular A-122 that requires all timecards have\n employee signatures or approvals by appropriate supervisory\n personnel. Officials believed they were only required to sign\n timecards once a month even though submitted twice a month. As\n a result of our audit, Dayton reportedly implemented policies and\n procedures requiring all timecards to be signed by employees and\n supervisors.\n\n Interest Earned on Advanced Funds\n\n As of June 30, 2011, Ohio had not collected and remitted to the\n U.S. Department of the Treasury (U.S. Treasury) more than\n $130,000 in interest earned on funds advanced for weatherization\n activities. For example, Cuyahoga, the largest interest earner in\n Ohio, had accumulated more than $76,000 in interest. In July\n 2011, after we brought the issue to their attention, Cuyahoga\n officials corrected the error and remitted the interest earned.\n Federal regulations require state and local governments to remit\n interest greater than $100 at least quarterly, and nonprofit agencies\n to remit interest greater than $250 annually. Despite Ohio\'s own\n policy on remitting interest annually, Ohio officials told us they\n believed interest should be remitted at the end of the grant period.\n\n We also noted Ohio\'s policy regarding remittance of accrued\n interest was not fully compliant with Federal requirements.\n Specifically, Ohio policy required all local agencies, including\n local governments such as Cuyahoga, to remit interest over $250\n on an annual basis. While Federal regulations allow nonprofit\n organizations to remit interest annually, local governments are\n required to remit interest greater than $100 on a quarterly basis. In\n response to our audit, both Ohio and Cuyahoga reported that\n policies had been revised for consistency with Federal regulations.\n\n\n\n\nPage 9 Details of Finding\n\x0c Jobs Reported\n\n Two agencies we reviewed had misreported jobs created. For\n example, because an official inadvertently double counted jobs,\n IMPACT reported creating about 36 more jobs with Recovery Act\n funds than had actually been created. Cuyahoga underreported\n weatherization labor hours on 13 projects and about 700 hours of\n work contracted to a local certified public accounting firm.\n Cuyahoga lacked formal policies and procedures and was not\n aware that the firm\'s labor hours should have been included in\n reports submitted to Ohio. The Recovery Act requires recipients to\n report the number of jobs created and retained using Recovery Act\n funds. In response to our audit, Cuyahoga reported that it had\n corrected its Jobs Created and Retained Reports to include all\n hours worked and paid for with Recovery Act funds.\n\n Client Follow-up Program\n\n Local agencies had not always followed up with weatherization\n clients, as required, to reinforce energy efficiency actions\n previously agreed upon by the clients. Our review of 60 IMPACT\n and Dayton files, for example, found that staff had followed up\n with clients in only one instance. Ohio requires local agencies to\n contact 25 percent of its clients and document results. Follow-up\n is important to ensure energy gains are realized from actions such\n as lowering thermostat levels, using less hot water in baths and\n showers, and changing the furnace filter once a month during the\n winter.\n\n Ohio\'s administrative monitoring visits to IMPACT in April 2010,\n and again in March 2011, underscore our concerns about\n IMPACT\'s client follow-up practices. As a result of Ohio\'s March\n monitoring visit, IMPACT officials agreed that client follow-up\n surveys would be mailed to all clients and the returned survey\n results would be placed in the clients\' files. Proper implementation\n of the follow-up program would help ensure clients reduce energy\n consumption.\n\n In response to our audit, both IMPACT and Dayton informed us\n that changes have been made to better track and document follow-\n up with weatherization clients.\n\n\n\n\nPage 10 Details of Finding\n\x0cPath Forward Substandard weatherization work can pose health and safety risks\n to occupants, hinder production and increase costs. It is imperative\n that the Weatherization Program is managed to ensure Department\n requirements are met; monies are spent with transparency,\n accountability and for their intended purposes; and, deserving\n households receive the services to which entitled. Individually and\n collectively the problems we identified have the practical effect of\n limiting the achievement of overall Weatherization Program goals.\n While Ohio and local agencies have taken action designed to\n correct previously observed weaknesses, lingering problems\n remain. Additional action is needed to preserve the integrity of the\n Weatherization Program.\n\nRECOMMENDATIONS\n\n To address the deficiencies we observed during our audit, we\n recommend that the Assistant Secretary for Energy Efficiency and\n Renewable Energy:\n\n 1. Take necessary action to ensure that Ohio:\n\n a. Reinspects at least 5 percent of the completed\n homes weatherized by each local agency\n annually;\n\n b. Tracks and summarizes its monitoring results\n to identify systemic work quality issues and\n takes appropriate corrective action;\n\n c. Takes corrective action on violations of Federal\n and State procurement rules, including splitting\n purchases to avoid soliciting bids;\n\n d. Reviews IMPACT\'s actions to reclassify and\n adjust worker wages to ensure all necessary\n actions have been taken;\n\n e. Monitors all local agencies for Davis-Bacon\n Act compliance and amends grant agreements\n in a timely manner, to include Davis-Bacon\n Act wage revisions; and,\n\n f. Revises its policy on local agency remittance\n of interest on advances to be consistent with\n Federal regulations and ensures interest earned\n\n\n\n\nPage 11 Recommendations\n\x0c on Federal advances of funds is returned to the\n U. S. Treasury as required.\n\n 2. Take necessary action to ensure that Ohio requires its\n local agencies to:\n\n a. Ensure a separation of duties between the\n initial home inspector, persons performing\n weatherization work, and the final inspector to\n allow for a more effective home weatherization\n process;\n\n b. Analyze home inspection results to identify\n contractors, inspectors and crew members who\n repeatedly underperform and take corrective\n action for systemic problems;\n\n c. Procure materials, equipment and services\n according to Federal and State guidelines;\n\n d. Prioritize recipients of weatherization services\n according to Federal and State guidelines;\n\n e. Monitor and revise certified payrolls as needed\n to ensure weatherization crews and contractors\n are paid the appropriate prevailing wage;\n\n f. Ensure all jobs created and retained are\n accurately reported to Ohio; and,\n\n g. Implement a client follow-up program, as\n mandated by Ohio to ensure that follow-up\n contact with previous clients is performed and\n documented.\n\n 3. Resolve identified questioned costs. See Appendix 3 for\n a summary of questioned costs referenced in our report.\n\nMANAGEMENT AND The Department, Ohio and IMPACT provided reponses to our\nAUDITOR COMMENTS draft audit report while Dayton and Cuyahoga responded\n separately to examination reports issued in September 2011. All\n responses are included in their entirety in Appendix 4. We revised\n our report as appropriate to address comments received. A\n summary of key comments and our responses is provided in the\n following section.\n\n\n\n\nPage 12 Management and Auditor Comments\n\x0c Management Comments (Department)\n\n The Department concurred with our recommendations and stated it\n will continue to work with Ohio to implement corrective actions\n and resolve the issues described in the report. For example, the\n Department plans to monitor Ohio\'s progress during an upcoming\n monitoring visit and obtain written confirmation from Ohio that\n outstanding issues are remedied. In addition, the Department is\n working with Ohio to review and resolve all questioned costs.\n\n Auditor Response to Department Comments\n\n The Department\'s comments were responsive to our\n recommendations.\n\n Management Comments (State)\n\n Ohio noted two concerns related to the conclusions expressed in\n the report. Ohio suggested we revise the report to reflect recent\n improvements and provided comments on the State\'s compliance\n with the Davis-Bacon Act. Specifically, Ohio reported that\n contracts had been amended to reflect the most recent Davis Bacon\n Act wages, and was later revised to automatically adopt the U.S.\n Department of Labor\'s most recent updates to the Davis Bacon Act\n wages. Ohio requested that we update the report to note that it had\n communicated the correct Davis-Bacon Act rates to IMPACT and\n all local agencies, with an expectation that the local agencies\n comply with these requirements. Further, it was stated that\n certified payrolls submitted to Ohio had been reviewed.\n\n Auditor Response to State Comments\n\n Ohio\'s comments were generally responsive to our findings and\n conclusions. As suggested, we revised the report to note that Ohio\n stated that it had already addressed many of our recommendations\n and had communicated Davis-Bacon Act wage rates to local\n agencies. Despite its monitoring efforts, however, Ohio had not\n detected the underpayments made to many IMPACT workers over\n a period of 1 year.\n\n Management Comments (Local Agencies)\n\n IMPACT responded that all deficiencies noted in the report had\n been addressed and corrected. Actions reportedly taken by\n IMPACT included segregating initial assessment and final\n inspection duties, complying with Federal and State procurement\n\n\n\nPage 13 Comments\n\x0c requirements, improving applicant selection, retroactively paying\n workers prevailing wages, and revamping the client survey\n process. IMPACT also noted that there were delays in\n establishment of Davis-Bacon Act prevailing wage rates. Finally,\n it acknowledged that it may have misunderstood the formula used\n to calculate jobs, due to its complexity.\n\n In regard to findings on its procurement process, Dayton stated that\n its procurements were approved by the State and that in some\n cases, the issue was lack of documentation rather than not\n following proper procurement procedures. However, Dayton\n officials outlined the corrective actions it was taking to address\n procurement issues, such as writing a policy and procedure manual\n and finalizing an open bidding process to select subcontractors in\n accordance with Federal and State regulations. Further, Dayton\n stated it had developed a new system of tracking and reporting job\n progress, had implemented policies and procedures requiring all\n timecards be signed and had begun tracking client follow-up\n reports.\n\n Cuyahoga also noted actions that it was taking to address findings\n regarding its Weatherization Program. Specifically, Cuyahoga,\n stated that it had implemented a policy to re-verify applicants\'\n income as appropriate, revised its policy to pay interest quarterly,\n developed a tracking system to evaluate contractor performance\n and made improvements in its Davis-Bacon Act reporting.\n\n Auditor Response to Local Agencies\' Comments\n\n Local agency comments and actions taken were responsive to our\n recommendations. Each local agency was reportedly taking action\n to address the issues identified in our report. However, IMPACT\n did not address our findings that inspectors were allowed to\n perform minor repairs to heating, ventilating and air conditioning\n systems and to approve and certify the quality of their own work.\n We reiterate the need to ensure a separation of duties between\n persons performing weatherization work and the those conducting\n final inspections. We agree with IMPACT\'s statement concerning\n delays in establishing the initial prevailing wage rates for the\n Weatherization Program; however, this initial delay had no effect\n on IMPACT\'s failure to accurately pay its workers according to\n revised Davis-Bacon Act wages from March 2010 to March 2011.\n\n\n\n\nPage 14 Comments\n\x0cAppendix 1\nOBJECTIVE The objective of the audit was to determine whether the State of\n Ohio (Ohio) had adequate safeguards in place to ensure that the\n Weatherization Assistance Program (Weatherization Program) was\n managed efficiently and effectively.\n\nSCOPE The audit was conducted between December 2010 and February\n 2012. In performance of our audit, we analyzed Ohio\'s\n Department of Development Management of the Weatherization\n Program and reviewed the weatherization activities of IMPACT\n Community Action in Columbus, OH. Additionally, we contracted\n with Lopez and Company, LLP (Lopez), an independent public\n accounting firm, to conduct examinations of the weatherization\n activities of the Community Action Partnership of the Greater\n Dayton Area (Dayton) in Dayton, OH, and Cuyahoga County of\n Ohio Department of Development (Cuyahoga) in Cleveland, OH.\n\nMETHODOLOGY To accomplish our objective, we:\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Interviewed officials from Ohio and local agencies;\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Reviewed laws, regulations, policies and procedures\n pertaining to the Weatherization Program;\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Reviewed prior Office of Inspector General (OIG) and U.S.\n Government Accountability Office (GAO) reports, and\n other related reports on the Weatherization Program;\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Accompanied Ohio and local agency officials on home\n inspections, and reviewed past Ohio monitoring reports that\n evaluated the quality of weatherization work and\n compliance with Ohio\'s Weatherization Program standards;\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Evaluated local agencies for compliance with the Davis-\n Bacon Act, prioritization and eligibility of weatherization\n applicants, and justification for procurements of\n weatherization materials, equipment and contractor\n services;\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Assessed Ohio\'s progress towards meeting annual\n monitoring requirements and its general administration of\n the Weatherization Program; and,\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Assessed whether jobs created and retained were accurately\n reported and whether local agencies were in compliance\n with Ohio\'s client follow-up program.\n\n\n\nPage 15 Objective, Scope and Methodology\n\x0cAppendix 1 (continued)\n We conducted this performance audit in accordance with generally\n accepted Government auditing standards. Those standards require\n that we plan and perform the audit to obtain sufficient, appropriate\n evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our findings and\n conclusions based on our audit objective. We believe the evidence\n obtained provides a reasonable basis for our conclusions based on\n our audit objective. Accordingly, the audit included test of\n controls and compliance with laws and regulations to the extent\n necessary to satisfy the objective. In particular, we assessed the\n implementation of the GPRA Modernization Act of 2010 as it\n relates to the audit objective and found that the Department of\n Energy (Department) had established performance measures\n related to the use of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act\n of 2009 (Recovery Act) funds for the Weatherization Program.\n Because our review was limited, it would not necessarily have\n disclosed all internal control deficiencies that may have existed at\n the time of our audit. We conducted a limited reliability\n assessment of computer-processed data and deemed the data\n sufficiently reliable to achieve our audit objective.\n\n In conducting our audit, we relied on the work of Lopez. Lopez\'s\n examinations were conducted in accordance with attestation\n standards established by the American Institute of Certified Public\n Accountants and the GAO; and, accordingly, included examining,\n on a test basis, evidence supporting management\'s compliance with\n relevant Weatherization Program Federal and Ohio laws,\n regulations and program guidelines, and performing such other\n procedures considered necessary in the circumstances. We\n performed procedures that provided a sufficient basis for using\n Lopez\'s work, such as reviewing the qualifications and\n independence of Lopez and its staff; reviewing Lopez\'s\n examination plans, documentation and reports; and, performing a\n limited amount of testing of Lopez\'s work. We determined that the\n scope, quality and timing of the examination work performed were\n adequate for reliance in the context of our audit objective. Lopez\'s\n complete examination reports for Dayton and Cuyahoga can be\n found on our website at http://energy.gov/ig/calendar-year-reports.\n\n Department officials waived an exit conference. We held an exit\n conference with State of Ohio officials on May 7, 2012.\n\n\n\n\nPage 16 Objective, Scope and Methodology\n\x0cAppendix 2\n\n RELATED REPORTS\n\nUnder the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, the Office of Inspector General\nhas initiated a series of audits designed to evaluate the Department of Energy\'s Weatherization\nAssistance Program\'s internal control structures at the Federal, state, and local levels. During our\naudits, we have noted similar findings such as deficiencies in agencies\' initial assessments and\nfinal inspections and poor quality in the work of contractors and in-house crews. However, it\nmust be noted that these issues do not exist in all the states we have reviewed. Our series of\nreports include the following:\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Audit Report on The Department of Energy\'s Weatherization Assistance Program\n Funded under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act for the State of New York\n (OAS-RA-12-07, March 2012)\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Examination Report on Saratoga County Economic Opportunity Council, Inc. \xe2\x80\x93\n Weatherization Assistance Program Funds Provided by the American Recovery and\n Reinvestment Act of 2009 (OAS-RA-12-05, January 2012)\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Examination Report on Action for a Better Community, Inc. \xe2\x80\x93 Weatherization Assistance\n Program Funds Provided by the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009\n (OAS-RA-11-21, September 2011)\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Examination Report on People\'s Equal Action and Community Effort, Inc. \xe2\x80\x93\n Weatherization Assistance Program Funds Provided by the American Recovery and\n Reinvestment Act of 2009 (OAS-RA-11-20, September 2011)\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Examination Report on Cuyahoga County of Ohio Department of Development \xe2\x80\x93\n Weatherization Assistance Program Funds Provided by the American Recovery and\n Reinvestment Act of 2009 (OAS-RA-11-19, September 2011)\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Examination Report on Community Action Partnership of the Greater Dayton Area \xe2\x80\x93\n Weatherization Assistance Program Funds Provided by the American Recovery and\n Reinvestment Act of 2009 (OAS-RA-11-18, September 2011)\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Audit Report on The Department of Energy\'s Weatherization Assistance Program under\n the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act in the State of Tennessee (OAS-RA-11-17,\n September 2011)\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Audit Report on The Department of Energy\'s Weatherization Assistance Program\n Funded under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act for the Commonwealth of\n Virginia (OAS-RA-11-14, August 2011)\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Audit Report on The Department of Energy\'s Weatherization Assistance Program\n Funded under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act in the State of Indiana\n (OAS-RA-11-13, August 2011)\n\n\n\nPage 17 Related Reports\n\x0cAppendix 2 (continued)\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Audit Report on The Department of Energy\'s Weatherization Assistance Program under\n the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act in the State of Missouri (OAS-RA-11-12,\n August 2011)\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Audit Report on The Department of Energy\'s Weatherization Assistance Program under\n the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act in the State of West Virginia (OAS-RA-11-\n 09, June 2011)\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Audit Report on The Department of Energy\'s Weatherization Assistance Program\n Funded under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act for the State of Wisconsin\n (OAS-RA-11-07, May 2011)\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Audit Report on The Department of Energy\'s Weatherization Assistance Program under\n the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act for the Capital Area Community Action\n Agency \xe2\x80\x93 Agreed-Upon Procedures (OAS-RA-11-04, February 2011)\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Audit Report on The Department of Energy\'s Weatherization Assistance Program under\n the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act for the City of Phoenix \xe2\x80\x93 Agreed-Upon\n Procedures (OAS-RA-11-03, November 2010)\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Audit Report on Selected Aspects of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania\'s Efforts to\n Implement the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act Weatherization Assistance\n Program (OAS-RA-11-02, November 2010)\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Audit Report on The State of Illinois Weatherization Assistance Program (OAS-RA-11-\n 01, October 2010)\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Audit Report on The Department of Energy\'s Use of the Weatherization Assistance\n Program Formula for Allocating Funds Under the American Recovery and Reinvestment\n Act (OAS-RA-10-13, June 2010)\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Preliminary Audit Report on Management Controls over the Commonwealth of Virginia\'s\n Efforts to Implement the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act Weatherization\n Assistance Program (OAS-RA-10-11, May 2010)\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Special Report on Progress in Implementing the Department of Energy\'s Weatherization\n Assistance Program Under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (OAS-RA-10-\n 04, February 2010)\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Audit Report on Management Alert on the Department\'s Monitoring of the\n Weatherization Assistance Program in the State of Illinois (OAS-RA-10-02, December\n 2010)\n\n\n\n\nPage 18 Related Reports\n\x0cAppendix 3\n\n SUMMARY OF QUESTIONED COSTS\n\nIn our report on the Community Action Partnership of the Greater Dayton Area (Dayton),\nCommunity Action Partnership of the Greater Dayton Area\xe2\x80\x93Weatherization Assistance Program\nFunds Provided by the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (OAS-RA-11-18,\nSeptember 2011), we previously questioned costs of $94,200 related to procurement of\nequipment, materials and services; and, deficiencies in employee timecards. In this report, we\nquestion an additional $515,100 in costs related to procurement activities at IMPACT\nCommunity Action (IMPACT), for an overall State of Ohio total of $609,300. The following\ntable provides a summary of costs previously questioned in our report on Dayton, and the\nadditional costs we questioned in this report.\n\n\n Questioned\n Finding\n Costs\n Lack of Cost or Price Analysis and $49,400\n Competitive Bidding for Equipment\n and Materials \xe2\x80\x93 Dayton\n Lack of Justification for Sole- $21,400\n Source Contracts \xe2\x80\x93 Dayton\n Deficiencies in Administrative $23,400\n Timecards \xe2\x80\x93 Dayton\n Total Questioned Costs - Dayton $94,200\n Lack of Cost or Price Analysis for $63,300\n Materials in Inventory - IMPACT\n Split purchases to Circumvent $451,800\n Threshold for Competitive Bidding\n \xe2\x80\x93 IMPACT\n Total Questioned Costs - IMPACT $515,100\n\n Total Questioned Costs for State $609,300\n of Ohio\n\n\n\n\nPage 19 Questioned Costs\n\x0cAppendix 4\n\n MANAGEMENT COMMENTS\n\n\n\n\nPage 20 Management Comments\n\x0cAppendix 4\n\n\n\n\nPage 21 Management Comments\n\x0cAppendix 4\n\n\n\n\nPage 22 Management Comments\n\x0cAppendix 4\n\n\n\n\nPage 23 Management Comments\n\x0cAppendix 4\n\n\n\n\nPage 24 Management Comments\n\x0c IG Report No. OAS-RA-12-13\n\n CUSTOMER RESPONSE FORM\nThe Office of Inspector General has a continuing interest in improving the usefulness of its\nproducts. We wish to make our reports as responsive as possible to our customers\' requirements,\nand, therefore, ask that you consider sharing your thoughts with us. On the back of this form,\nyou may suggest improvements to enhance the effectiveness of future reports. Please include\nanswers to the following questions if they are applicable to you:\n\n 1. What additional background information about the selection, scheduling, scope, or\n procedures of the audit or inspection would have been helpful to the reader in\n understanding this report?\n\n 2. What additional information related to findings and recommendations could have been\n included in the report to assist management in implementing corrective actions?\n\n 3. What format, stylistic, or organizational changes might have made this report\'s overall\n message more clear to the reader?\n\n 4. What additional actions could the Office of Inspector General have taken on the issues\n discussed in this report which would have been helpful?\n\n 5. Please include your name and telephone number so that we may contact you should we\n have any questions about your comments.\n\n\nName Date\n\nTelephone Organization\n\nWhen you have completed this form, you may telefax it to the Office of Inspector General at\n(202) 586-0948, or you may mail it to:\n\n Office of Inspector General (IG-1)\n Department of Energy\n Washington, DC 20585\n\n ATTN: Customer Relations\n\nIf you wish to discuss this report or your comments with a staff member of the Office of\nInspector General, please contact our office at (202) 253-2162.\n\x0cThis page intentionally left blank.\n\x0cThe Office of Inspector General wants to make the distribution of its reports as customer friendly and cost\n effective as possible. Therefore, this report will be available electronically through the Internet at the\n following address:\n\n U.S. Department of Energy Office of Inspector General Home Page\n http://energy.gov/ig\n\n Your comments would be appreciated and can be provided on the Customer Response Form.\n\x0c'


type: wikipedia

text:
A perjeszittyó-szakállasmoly (Glyphipterix bergstrasserella) a valódi lepkék (Glossata) alrendjébe tartozó szakállasmolyfélék (Glyphipterigidae) családjának egyik, hazánkban is elterjedt faja.
 Elterjedése, élőhelye
 Közép-európai faj, de Magyarországon idáig csak néhány pontról került elő..
 Megjelenése
 Barna szárnyait, csillogó aranysárga foltok díszítik. A szárny fesztávolsága 12–14 mm.
 Életmódja
 Évente egy nemzedéke kel ki; a rajzás májustól júliusig tart. Csak nappal repülnek, és gyakran lepihennek, ilyenkor könnyű őket észrevenni.
 Hernyója ősszel a perjeszittyó (Luzula) fajok szárában él.
 Külső hivatkozások
 Szakállasmolyfélék
 Rovarfajok
 Magyarország lepkéi


text:
 Avis juridique important
 |
 52000PC0569
 Förslag till rådets förordning (EG, EKSG, Euratom) ändring av tjänsteföreskrifterna för tjänstemän och anställningsvillkor för övriga anställda i Europeiska gemenskaperna vad gäller justering av löner och den tillfälliga avgiften (framlagt av kommissionen i enlighet med artikel 283 i fördraget om upprättandet av Europeiska gemenskapen) /* KOM/2000/0569 slutlig - CNS 2000/0231 */
 Europeiska gemenskapernas officiella tidning nr 029 E , 30/01/2001 s. 0198 - 0198
 Förslag till RÅDETS FÖRORDNING (EG, EKSG, EURATOM) ändring av tjänsteföreskrifterna för tjänstemän och anställningsvillkor för övriga anställda i Europeiska gemenskaperna vad gäller justering av löner och den tillfälliga avgiftenMOTIVERINGDen nuvarande metoden för årlig justering av löner (inbegripet tillägg och pensioner) för personalen vid EU:s institutioner och den tillfälliga avgiften löper ut den 30 juni 2001.Mot bakgrund av den tid som behövs för att genomföra samråd enligt tjänsteföreskrifterna skulle det vara omöjligt för kommissionen att ta hänsyn till konsekvenserna av reformen i det förslag den skulle behöva lägga fram detta år för att en metod skulle kunna träda i kraft i juli 2001.Med tanke på sambandet mellan, å ena sidan löner och pensioner, och å andra sidan reformen och de komplikationer som skulle uppstå genom två på varandra följande omfattande förhandlingar, vore det bästa tillvägagångssättet för personalen och institutionerna att en enda förhandlingsomgång fördes om löner och pensioner samt reformen.Därför föreslår kommissionen att giltighetstiden för det nuvarande systemet för löner och pensioner förlängs med två år och åtar sig att lägga fram ett heltäckande förslag om ändring av tjänsteföreskrifterna som täcker reformen, den nya metoden och den försäkringstekniska balansen i pensionssystemet för rådet senast i december 2001.I förslaget nedan förlängs följaktligen giltighetstiden med två år för både den nuvarande metoden för justering av lönerna och den tillfälliga avgiften; giltighetstiden för båda skulle annars löpa ut den 30 juni 2001.2000/0231(CNS)Förslag tillRÅDETS FÖRORDNING (EG, EKSG, EURATOM)ändring av tjänsteföreskrifterna för tjänstemän och anställningsvillkor för övriga anställda i Europeiska gemenskaperna vad gäller justering av löner och den tillfälliga avgiftenEUROPEISKA UNIONENS RÅD HAR ANTAGIT DENNA FÖRORDNINGmed beaktande av Fördraget om upprättandet av Europeiska gemenskapen, särskilt artikel 283.1 i detta,med beaktande av Rådets förordning (EEG, Euratom, EKSG) nr 259/68 om fastställande av tjänsteföreskrifter för tjänstemännen i Europeiska gemenskaperna och anställningsvillkor för övriga anställda i dessa gemenskaper [1], senast ändrad genom förordning (EG, Euratom, EKSG) nr ... [2], och särskilt artiklarna 63, 64, 65, 65a och 82 i tjänsteföreskrifterna, bilaga XI till tjänsteföreskrifterna och artiklarna 20.1 och 64 i anställningsvillkoren,[1] EGT L 56, 4.3.1968, s. 1.[2] EGT ...med beaktande av kommissionens förslag som framlagts efter samråd med Kommittén för tjänsteföreskrifter,med beaktande av Europaparlamentets yttrande [3],[3] EGT C ... och yttrande av den .... (ännu inte offentliggjort i Europeiska gemenskapernas officiella tidning).med beaktande av EG-domstolens yttrande [4],[4] EGT C ...med beaktande av revisionsrättens yttrande [5],[5] EGT C ...[och efter att ha tagit del av innehållet i rapporten från den samrådskommitté som inrättades genom rådets beslut av den 23 juni 1981,] ochav följande skäl:(1) I enlighet med sina beslut av den 20 mars 1972, den 26 juni 1976 och den 31 december 1981, genom förordningarna (EG, EKSG, Euratom) nr 3830/1991 och 3831/1991, [6] bifogade rådet Bilaga XI till tjänsteföreskrifterna vilken bekräftar och förtydligar metoden för justering av löner, och artikel 66 a i vilken en tillfällig avgift införs, genom avdrag från de löner som betalas till tjänstemän och övriga anställda i gemenskaperna.[6] EGT L 361, 31.12.1991.(2) Samförstånd mellan parterna har varit utmärkande för kontakterna mellan gemenskapsinstitutionerna och deras personal och övriga anställda vad gäller justeringen av löner.(3) Den nuvarande metoden och den tillfälliga avgiften kommer att löpa ut den 30 juni 2001 medan förslaget från kommissionen till rådet om ändring av tjänsteföreskrifterna i samband med reformen planeras till december 2001.(4) Genom att utsträcka giltighetstiden för överenskommelsen om metoden med två år undviks att två olika förhandlingar måste föras mellan personalen och institutionerna; en om reformen och en om löner och pensioner.(5) Tjänsteföreskrifterna för tjänstemän och anställningsvillkor för övriga anställda skall därför ändras för att förlänga giltighetstiden för metoden för justering av löner och den tillfälliga avgiften.HÄRIGENOM FÖRESKRIVS FÖLJANDE.Artikel 1I artikel 66a.1 i tjänsteföreskrifterna för tjänstemän i Europeiska gemenskaperna ersätts "den 1 juli 2001" med "den 1 juli 2003".I artikel 15.1 i bilaga XI till tjänsteföreskrifterna för tjänstemän i Europeiska gemenskaperna ersätts "den 30 juni 2001" med "den 30 juni 2003".Artikel 2Denna förordning träder i kraft den dag den offentliggörs i Europeiska gemenskapernas officiella tidning.[Den skall tillämpas från den 1 juli 2001.]Denna förordning är till alla delar bindande och direkt tillämplig i alla medlemsstater.Utfärdad i Bryssel denPå rådets vägnarOrdförandeFINANSIERINGSÖVERSIKTBeräkning av de budgetmässiga konsekvenserna av att giltighetstiden förlängs med två år för å ena sidan, den nuvarande metoden för justering av löner och pensioner och, å andra sidan, den tillfälliga avgiften, som annars för båda dessa skulle löpa ut den 30 juni 2001.Dessa budgetmässiga konsekvenser har redan beaktats i det preliminära budgetförslaget 2001.Beräkning i miljoner euro per justeringsår>Plats för tabell>* Grundas på prognosen från februari 2000 för den årliga justeringen 2001 (ungefär 2%) och de budgetmässiga konsekvenserna av den årliga justeringen 1999 (72 miljoner euro för en justering på 2,7 %). Kostnaden för perioden 7/2002 till 6/2003 (111 miljoner euro) omfattar också de ytterligare kostnaderna för perioden 2001-2002 (55 miljoner euro).** Budget 2000: artikel 403Beräkning i miljoner euro per budgetår>Plats för tabell>


type: contracts

text:
 Avis juridique important
 |
 22000D1109(10)
 Décision du Comité mixte de l'EEE no 55/1999 du 30 avril 1999 modifiant l'annexe XIII (Transports) de l'accord EEE
 Journal officiel n° L 284 du 09/11/2000 p. 0015 - 0016
 Décision du Comité mixte de l'EEEn° 55/1999du 30 avril 1999modifiant l'annexe XIII (Transports) de l'accord EEELE COMITÉ MIXTE DE L'EEE,vu l'accord sur l'Espace économique européen, modifié par le protocole portant adaptation de cet accord, ci-après dénommé "l'accord", et notamment son article 98,considérant ce qui suit:(1) L'annexe XIII de l'accord a été modifiée par la décision no 40/1999 du Comité mixte de l'EEE du 26 mars 1996(1).(2) Le règlement (CE) no 2135/98 du Conseil du 24 septembre 1998 modifiant le règlement (CEE) no 3821/85 concernant l'appareil de contrôle dans le domaine des transports par route et la directive 88/599/CEE concernant l'application des règlements (CEE) no 3820/85 et n° 3821/85(2), doit être intégré à l'accord.(3) Les adaptations apportées au règlement (CEE) no 3821/85 par le chapitre VI, titre A, point 3, de l'annexe I de l'acte concernant les conditions d'adhésion de la République d'Autriche, de la République de Finlande et du Royaume de Suède et les adaptations aux traités sur lesquels l'Union européenne est fondée(3) doivent être intégrées à l'accord.(4) L'annexe XIII de l'accord doit être adaptée par suite de l'adhésion de l'Autriche, de la Finlande et de la Suède à l'Union européenne,DÉCIDE:Article premierAu point 21 [règlement (CEE) n° 3821/85 du Conseil] de l'annexe XIII de l'accord:a) le tiret suivant est ajouté entre les troisième et quatrième tirets:"- 1 94 N: acte concernant les conditions d'adhésion de la République d'Autriche, de la République de Finlande et du Royaume de Suède et les adaptations aux traités sur lesquels l'Union européenne est fondée (JO C 241 du 29.8.1994, p. 21, adapté par le JO L 1 du 1.1.1995, p. 1).",b) le tiret suivant est ajouté:"- 398 R 2135: règlement (CE) n° 2135/98 du Conseil du 24 septembre 1998 (JO L 274 du 9.10.1998, p. 1), tel que rectifié par le JO L 49 du 25.2.1999, p. 46.Aux fins du présent accord, le règlement est adapté comme suit:a) au chapitre IV, point A, de l'annexe I B concernant la page 1 de la carte de conducteur, les éléments suivants sont ajoutés au point 3 a):'is: Ekilskort'.'no: Sjåførkort';b) au chapitre IV, point A, de l'annexe I B concernant la page 1 de la carte de conducteur, la phrase introductive du point 3 c) est adaptée comme suit par les États de l'AELE:'le signe distinctif de l'État de l'AELE délivrant la carte, entouré de l'ellipse visée à l'article 37 de la convention des Nations unies sur la circulation routière du 8 novembre 1968 (avec la même toile de fond que la carte de conducteur); les signes distinctifs sont les suivants:';c) au chapitre IV, point A, de l'annexe I B concernant la page 1 de la carte de conducteur, les éléments suivants sont ajoutés au point 3 c):'IS IslandeFL LiechtensteinN Norvège'."Article 2Au point 23 (directive 88/599/CEE du Conseil) de l'annexe XIII de l'accord:a) l'adaptation et la phrase introductive sont supprimées;b) le texte suivant est ajouté:"modifiée par:- 398 R 2135: règlement (CE) n° 2135/98 du Conseil du 24 septembre 1998 (JO L 274 du 9.10.1998, p. 1), tel que rectifié par le JO L 49 du 25.2.1999, p 46."Article 3Les textes du règlement (CE) n° 2135/98 et des adaptations apportées au règlement (CEE) no 3821/85 par le chapitre VI, titre A, point 3, de l'annexe I de l'acte concernant les conditions d'adhésion de la République d'Autriche, de la République de Finlande et du Royaume de Suède et les adaptations aux traités sur lesquels l'Union européenne est fondée en langues islandaise et norvégienne, annexés aux versions linguistiques respectives de la présente décision, font foi.Article 4La présente décision entre en vigueur le 1er mai 1999, pour autant que toutes les notifications prévues à l'article 103, paragraphe 1, de l'accord aient été faites au Comité mixte de l'EEE.Article 5La présente décision est publiée dans la section EEE et au supplément EEE du Journal officiel des Communautés européennes.Fait à Bruxelles, le 30 avril 1999.Par le Comité mixte de l'EEELe présidentF. Barbaso(1) JO L 266 du 19.10.2000.(2) JO L 274 du 9.10.1998, p. 1. JO L 49 du 5.2.1999, p. 46 (rectificatif).(3) JO C 241 du 29.8.1994, p. 21, adapté par le JO L 1 du 1.1.1995, p. 1.


text:
Thijs Bouma (Hardenberg, 2 april 1992) is een Nederlands model en voormalig voetballer. Als voetballer speelde hij in de jeugd van FC Twente en kwam hij uit voor VfL Osnabrück, Almere City FC en De Graafschap. Sinds het beëindigen van zijn voetballoopbaan in 2016 timmert hij aan de weg als model.
 Voetballoopbaan
 Bouma is afkomstig van amateurvereniging VV Hardenberg '85. Vanaf de D-jeugd was hij verbonden aan de voetbalacademie FC Twente. In 2009 tekende hij een driejarig opleidingscontract bij FC Twente. In april 2012 werd dit contract met drie jaar verlengd. Bouma kwam op dat moment uit voor het beloftenteam van FC Twente. Eenmalig zat hij bij een officiële wedstrijd van FC Twente op de reservebank; op 14 december 2011 in de uitwedstrijd tegen Wisła Kraków in de UEFA Europa League.
 In seizoen 2012/13 werd Bouma uitgeleend aan VfL Osnabrück, waarvoor hij in de Duitse 3. Liga zijn debuut in het betaalde voetbal maakte. In 2013/14 speelde hij voor Jong FC Twente, dat vanaf dat jaar uitkwam in de Eerste divisie. In de zomer van 2014 mocht hij FC Twente verlaten. Hij tekende vervolgens een eenjarig contract bij Almere City FC.
 Bouma tekende in juni 2015 een contract tot medio 2016 bij De Graafschap, dat hem transfervrij overnam van Almere City. In zijn verbintenis werd een optie voor nog een seizoen opgenomen. Op 11 augustus 2015 maakte hij zijn debuut in de Eredivisie, in een uitwedstrijd tegen sc Heerenveen. Bouma brak zijn kuitbeen op 29 augustus 2015, toen zijn been bleef haken in het competitieduel tegen SBV Excelsior (3-0). Hij kwam in seizoen 2015/16 nog twee keer in actie voor De Graafschap, als invaller tegen Feyenoord en AFC Ajax. Door het 1-1 gelijke spel in de laatste wedstrijd liep Ajax het kampioenschap mis. De Graafschap degradeerde en medio 2016 liep het contract van Bouma af. De optie werd niet gelicht en hij vond hierna geen nieuwe club.
 Modellenloopbaan
 Al tijdens zijn voetballoopbaan deed Bouma modellenklussen. Toen hij na het eindigen van zijn contract bij De Graafschap geen nieuwe club vond, ging hij zich meer richten op een loopbaan als model. Hij onderhield een Instagramaccount, waar hij in 2017 al ruim 100.000 volgers op had. Behalve met het werk als model hield hij zich bezig met het organiseren van feesten in zijn woonplaats Amsterdam. Vanaf september 2019 is Bouma deelnemer in het tweede Nederlandse seizoen van het televisieprogramma Love Island.
 Statistieken
 Zie ook
 Lijst van spelers van FC Twente
 Externe link
 Profiel en statistieken van Thijs Bouma op fussballdaten.de
 Nederlands voetballer
 Nederlands model


text:
 Avis juridique important
 |
 22002A0515(03)
 Acuerdo en forma de Canje de Notas entre la Comunidad y Jordania relativo a las importaciones en la Comunidad de flores y capullos frescos cortados de la partida 0603 10 del arancel aduanero común
 Diario Oficial n° L 129 de 15/05/2002 p. 0177 - 0178
 ACUERDO EN FORMA DE CANJE DE NOTASentre la Comunidad y Jordania relativo a las importaciones en la Comunidad de flores y capullos frescos cortados de la partida 0603 10 del arancel aduanero comúnA. Nota de la ComunidadSeñor:La Comunidad y Jordania han acordado lo siguiente:Los actuales acuerdos establecen la eliminación de los derechos de aduana en las importaciones en la Comunidad de flores y capullos frescos cortados de la partida 0603 10 del arancel aduanero común y originarios de Jordania, sujetas a un límite de 100 toneladas.Jordania se compromete a cumplir las condiciones establecidas a continuación en las importaciones en la Comunidad de rosas y claveles que se acogen a la eliminación de este arancel:- el nivel de precios de las importaciones en la Comunidad debe ser igual como mínimo al 85 % del nivel de precios en la Comunidad para los mismos productos y en los mismos períodos,- el nivel de precios jordano debe determinarse registrando los precios de los productos importados en mercados representativos de importación en la Comunidad,- el nivel de precios comunitario se basará en los precios del productor registrados en mercados representativos de los principales Estados miembros productores,- el nivel de precios se registrará cada dos semanas y se ponderará con las cantidades respectivas. Esta disposición es válida tanto para los precios comunitarios como para los jordanos,- tanto para los precios de los productores comunitarios como para los precios de importación de los productos jordanos debe establecerse una distinción entre las rosas de flores grandes y las de flores pequeñas, y entre los claveles uniflorales y multiflorales,- si el nivel de precios jordano para un producto determinado está un 85 % por debajo del nivel de precios comunitario, la preferencia arancelaria se eliminará. La Comunidad reinstaurará la preferencia arancelaria cuando se registre un nivel de precios jordano igual o superior al 85 % del precio comunitario.Le agradecería tuviese la amabilidad de confirmar el acuerdo de Jordania con el contenido de la presente Nota.Le ruego acepte el testimonio de mi mayor consideración.En nombre del Consejo de la Unión EuropeaB. Nota de JordaniaSeñor:Tengo el honor de acusar recibo de su Nota del día de hoy cuyo contenido es el siguiente: "La Comunidad y Jordania han acordado lo siguiente:Los actuales acuerdos establecen la eliminación de los derechos de aduana en las importaciones en la Comunidad de flores y capullos frescos cortados de la partida 0603 10 del arancel aduanero común y originarios de Jordania, sujetas a un límite de 100 toneladas.Jordania se compromete a cumplir las condiciones establecidas a continuación en las importaciones en la Comunidad de rosas y claveles que se acogen a la eliminación de este arancel:- el nivel de precios de las importaciones en la Comunidad debe ser igual como mínimo al 85 % del nivel de precios en la Comunidad para los mismos productos y en los mismos períodos,- el nivel de precios jordano debe determinarse registrando los precios de los productos importados en mercados representativos de importación en la Comunidad,- el nivel de precios comunitario se basará en los precios del productor registrados en mercados representativos de los principales Estados miembros productores,- el nivel de precios se registrará cada dos semanas y se ponderará con las cantidades respectivas. Esta disposición es válida tanto para los precios comunitarios como para los jordanos,- tanto para los precios de los productores comunitarios como para los precios de importación de los productos jordanos debe establecerse una distinción entre las rosas de flores grandes y las de flores pequeñas, y entre los claveles uniflorales y multiflorales,- si el nivel de precios jordano para un producto determinado está un 85 % por debajo del nivel de precios comunitario, la preferencia arancelaria se eliminará. La Comunidad reinstaurará la preferencia arancelaria cuando se registre un nivel de precios jordano igual o superior al 85 % del precio comunitario.Le agradecería tuviese la amabilidad de confirmar el acuerdo de Jordania con el contenido de la presente Nota."Tengo el honor de confirmarle el acuerdo de Jordania con el contenido de dicha Nota.Le ruego acepte el testimonio de mi mayor consideración.Por el Gobierno del Reino Hachemita de Jordania


text:
GMBl 2001, 733
 Thema: Inhalt Ausgabe Nr. 37/2001
 Referenz: GMBl 2001, 733 - 752 (Ausgabe 37 v. 24.10.2001)
 Inhalt Ausgabe Nr. 37/2001
 AVwV v. 30. 8. 01 über die Ausstellung amtlicher Pässe der Bundesrepublik Deutschland 734
 RdSchr. v. 13. 8. 01, Änderungstarifvertrag Nr. 16 v. 20. 6. 2001 zum Tarifvertrag über das Lohngruppenverzeichnis des Bundes zum MTArb 736
 Bek.v. 10. 8. 01, Abkürzungsverzeichnis 744
 Bek. v. 21. 8. 01, Verlängerung der Geltungsdauer der Ausnahmegenehmigung n. § 37 Abs. 5 LMBG für das Herstellen und Inverkehrbringen von diätetischen Lebensmitteln für Kinder mit einem Zusatz von Kaliumjodid 749
 Bek. v. 22. 8. 01, Ausnahmegenehmigung n. § 37 LMBG für das Herstellen und Inverkehrbringen von koffeinhaltigen Limonaden mit mehr als 250 mg Koffein/l sowie mit Zusatz von Taurin, Inosit und Glucuronolacton 749
 Bek. v. 24. 8. 01, Ausnahmegenehmigung n. § 37 Abs. 1 und 2 Nr. 1 LMBG für das Herstellen und Inverkehrbringen eines Nahrungsergänzungsmittels in Kapselform mit Aminosäuren und Zinkoxid zu ernährungsphysiologischen Zwecken 750
 Bek. v. 27. 8. 01, Ausnahmegenehmigung n. § 37 Abs. 1 und 2 Nr. 1 LMBG für das Herstellen und Inverkehrbringen eines Nahrungsergänzungsmittels mit Zusatz von Spurenelementen als Vitamin-Mineral-Tabletten 750
 Bek. v. 31. 8. 01, Verlängerung der Geltungsdauer der Ausnahmegenehmigung n. § 37 Abs. 5 Satz 2 LMBG für das Herstellen und Inverkehrbringen von koffeinhaltigen Getränken in Pulverform mit Zusatz von L-Tyrosin und Inosit 751
 Bek. v. 31. 8. 01, Verlängerung der Geltungsdauer der Ausnahmegenehmigung n. § 37 Abs. 5 LMBG für das Herstellen und Inverkehrbringen einer Vitamin- und Mineralbrausetablette mit einem Zusatz von Zinksulfat 751
 Bek. v. 3. 9. 01, Ausnahmegenehmigung n. § 37 Abs. 1 und 2 Nr. 1 LMBG für das Herstellen und Inverkehrbringen einer Nahrungsergänzung in Kapselform mit Zusatz von Zink und B-Vitaminen 751
 Inhalt Ausgabe Nr. 36/2001
 Inhalt Ausgabe Nr. 38/2001


text:
 Avviż Legali Importanti
 |
 22002D0108
 Official Journal L 298 , 31/10/2002 P. 0031 - 0032
 Deċiżjoni tal-Kumitat Konġunt taż-ŻEENru 108/2002tat-12 ta' Lulju 2002li jemenda l-Anness XXI (Statistiċi) għal-Ftehim ŻEEIL-KUMITAT KONĠUNT TAŻ-ŻEE,Wara li kkunsidraw il-Ftehim ta' Arja Ekonomika Ewropea, kif emendat fil-Protokoll lili jbiddel il-il-Ftehim fuq l-Arji Ekonomiċi Ewropej, min hawn il-quddiem riferut bħala "Il-Ftehim", u b'mod partikolari l-Artikolu 98 ta' dan,Billi:(1) L-Anness I XXI tal-Ftehim kien emendat bid-deċiżjoni tal-Kumitat Konġunt Nru 92/2002 tal-25 ta' Ġunju 2002 [1].(2) Regolament tal-Kummissjoni (KE) Nru 72/2002 tas-16 ta' Jannar 2002 li jimplementaw ir-Regolament tal-Kunsill (KE) Nru 530/1999 fejn tidħol l-evalwazzjoni tal-kwalità ta' statistiċi strutturali fuq il-gwandanji [2] għandu jkun inkorportat f'dan il-Ftehim,IDDEĊIEDA DAN LI ĠEJ:Artikolu 1Il-punt li ġej għandu jkun imdaħħal wara punt 18e (Regolament tal-Kummissjoni (KE) Nru 1726/1999) ta' l-Anness XXI tal-Ftehim:"18f. 32002 R 0072: Regolament tal-Kummissjoni (KE) Nru 72/2002 tas-16 ta' Jannar 2002 li jimplimenta r-Regolament tal-Kunsill (KE) Nru 530/1999 fejn tidħol evalwazzjoni ta' kwalità ta' statistiċi strutturali fuq gwadanji (ĠU L 15, tas-17.1.2002, p. 7)."Artikolu 2It-testijiet tar-Regolament (KE) Nru 72/2002 fil-lingwi Nrurveġiżi u ta'l-Islanda, li għandhom jiġu ppublikati fis-suppliment ŻEE tal-Ġurnal Uffiċjail tal-Komunitajiet Ewropej għandu jkun awtentiku.Artikolu 3Din id-deċiżjoni għandha tidħol fis-seħħ fit-13 ta' Lulju 2002, provdut li kull notifika taħt l-Artikolu 103(1) tal-Ftehim kienu magħmula mill-Kumitat Konġunt ŻEE [3].Artikolu 4Din id-Deċiżjoni għandha tkun ippubblikata fis-sezzjoni ŻEE ta', fis-suppliment ŻEE tal-Ġurnal Uffiċjali tal-Komunitajiet Ewropej.Magħmul fi Brussel, 12 July 2002.Għall-Kumitat Konġunt taż-ŻEEIl-PresidentG. S. Gunnarsson[1] ĠU L 266, tat-3.10.2002, p. 67.[2] ĠU L 15, tas-17.1.2002, p. 7.[3] L-ebda ħtieġa kostituzzjonali indikat.--------------------------------------------------