text:
 6.5.2021
 PL
 Dziennik Urzędowy Unii Europejskiej
 L 158/11
 ROZPORZĄDZENIE WYKONAWCZE KOMISJI (UE) 2021/733
 z dnia 5 maja 2021 r.
 zmieniające rozporządzenie wykonawcze (UE) nr 887/2011 i rozporządzenie wykonawcze (UE) 2017/961 w odniesieniu do nazwy posiadacza zezwolenia na stosowanie Enterococcus faecium CECT 4515 jako dodatku paszowego oraz zmieniające rozporządzenie wykonawcze (UE) 2020/1395 w odniesieniu do nazwy posiadacza zezwolenia na stosowanie Bacillus amyloliquefaciens CECT 5940 jako dodatku paszowego
 (Tekst mający znaczenie dla EOG)
 KOMISJA EUROPEJSKA,
 uwzględniając Traktat o funkcjonowaniu Unii Europejskiej,
 uwzględniając rozporządzenie (WE) nr 1831/2003 Parlamentu Europejskiego i Rady z dnia 22 września 2003 r. w sprawie dodatków stosowanych w żywieniu zwierząt (1), w szczególności jego art. 13 ust. 3,
 a także mając na uwadze, co następuje:
 (1)
 W rozporządzeniu (WE) nr 1831/2003 przewidziano udzielanie zezwoleń na stosowanie dodatków w żywieniu zwierząt oraz określono sposób uzasadniania i procedury udzielania takich zezwoleń.
 (2)
 Przedsiębiorstwo Evonik Nutrition & Care GmbH złożyło wniosek zgodnie z art. 13 ust. 3 rozporządzenia (WE) nr 1831/2003, w którym to wniosku zaproponowało zmianę nazwy posiadacza zezwolenia w odniesieniu do rozporządzenia wykonawczego Komisji (UE) nr 887/2011 (2), rozporządzenia wykonawczego Komisji (UE) 2017/961 (3) i rozporządzenia wykonawczego Komisji (UE) 2020/1395 (4).
 (3)
 Wnioskodawca poinformował, że przedsiębiorstwo Evonik Nutrition & Care GmbH zmieniło nazwę na Evonik Operations GmbH. Do wniosku dołączono odnośne dane na jego poparcie.
 (4)
 Proponowana zmiana warunków zezwolenia ma charakter wyłącznie administracyjny i nie wymaga przeprowadzenia ponownej oceny dodatku. O wniosku powiadomiono Europejski Urząd ds. Bezpieczeństwa Żywności.
 (5)
 W celu umożliwienia wnioskodawcy korzystania z praw do obrotu pod nazwą Evonik Operations GmbH niezbędna jest zmiana warunków zezwolenia.
 (6)
 Należy zatem odpowiednio zmienić rozporządzenie wykonawcze (UE) nr 887/2011, rozporządzenie wykonawcze (UE) 2017/961 i rozporządzenie wykonawcze (UE) 2020/1395.
 (7)
 Ponieważ względy bezpieczeństwa nie wymagają natychmiastowego zastosowania zmiany wprowadzonej niniejszym rozporządzeniem w rozporządzeniu wykonawczym (UE) nr 887/2011, rozporządzeniu wykonawczym (UE) 2017/961 i rozporządzeniu wykonawczym (UE) 2020/1395, należy ustanowić okres przejściowy, w trakcie którego można będzie wykorzystać istniejące zapasy.
 (8)
 Środki przewidziane w niniejszym rozporządzeniu są zgodne z opinią Stałego Komitetu ds. Roślin, Zwierząt, Żywności i Pasz,
 PRZYJMUJE NINIEJSZE ROZPORZĄDZENIE:
 Artykuł 1
 Zmiany w rozporządzeniu wykonawczym (UE) nr 887/2011
 W rozporządzeniu wykonawczym (UE) nr 887/2011 wprowadza się następujące zmiany:
 1)
 w tytule słowa „posiadacz zezwolenia Evonik Nutrition & Care GmbH” zastępuje się słowami „posiadacz zezwolenia Evonik Operations GmbH”;
 2)
 w drugiej kolumnie załącznika – „Nazwa posiadacza zezwolenia” – słowa „Evonik Nutrition & Care GmbH” zastępuje się słowami „Evonik Operations GmbH”.
 Artykuł 2
 Zmiany w rozporządzeniu wykonawczym (UE) 2017/961
 W rozporządzeniu wykonawczym (UE) 2017/961 wprowadza się następujące zmiany:
 1)
 w tytule słowa „posiadacz zezwolenia Evonik Nutrition & Care GmbH” zastępuje się słowami „posiadacz zezwolenia Evonik Operations GmbH”;
 2)
 w drugiej kolumnie załącznika – „Nazwa posiadacza zezwolenia” – słowa „Evonik Nutrition & Care GmbH” zastępuje się słowami „Evonik Operations GmbH”.
 Artykuł 3
 Zmiany w rozporządzeniu wykonawczym (UE) 2020/1395
 W rozporządzeniu wykonawczym (UE) 2020/1395 wprowadza się następujące zmiany:
 1)
 w tytule słowa „posiadacz zezwolenia: Evonik Nutrition & Care GmbH” zastępuje się słowami „posiadacz zezwolenia Evonik Operations GmbH”;
 2)
 w drugiej kolumnie załącznika – „Nazwa posiadacza zezwolenia” – słowa „Evonik Nutrition & Care GmbH” zastępuje się słowami „Evonik Operations GmbH”.
 Artykuł 4
 Środki przejściowe
 Istniejące zapasy dodatków zgodne z przepisami mającymi zastosowanie przed datą wejścia w życie niniejszego rozporządzenia mogą być w dalszym ciągu wprowadzane do obrotu i stosowane do czasu ich wyczerpania.
 Artykuł 5
 Wejście w życie
 Niniejsze rozporządzenie wchodzi w życie dwudziestego dnia po jego opublikowaniu w Dzienniku Urzędowym Unii Europejskiej.
 Niniejsze rozporządzenie wiąże w całości i jest bezpośrednio stosowane we wszystkich państwach członkowskich.
 Sporządzono w Brukseli dnia 5 maja 2021 r.
 W imieniu Komisji
 Ursula VON DER LEYEN
 Przewodnicząca
 (1) Dz.U. L 268 z 18.10.2003, s. 29.
 (2) Rozporządzenie wykonawcze Komisji (UE) nr 887/2011 z dnia 5 września 2011 r. dotyczące zezwolenia na stosowanie preparatu Enterococcus faecium CECT 4515 jako dodatku paszowego dla kurcząt rzeźnych (posiadacz zezwolenia Evonik Nutrition & Care GmbH) (Dz.U. L 229 z 6.9.2011, s. 7).
 (3) Rozporządzenie wykonawcze Komisji (UE) 2017/961 z dnia 7 czerwca 2017 r. dotyczące zezwolenia na stosowanie preparatu Enterococcus faecium CECT 4515 jako dodatku paszowego dla prosiąt odsadzonych od maciory oraz na nowe zastosowanie w wodzie do pojenia dla prosiąt odsadzonych od maciory i kurcząt rzeźnych oraz zmieniające rozporządzenie (WE) nr 2036/2005 i rozporządzenie (UE) nr 887/2011 (posiadacz zezwolenia Evonik Nutrition & Care GmbH) (Dz.U. L 145 z 8.6.2017, s. 7).
 (4) Rozporządzenie wykonawcze Komisji (UE) 2020/1395 z dnia 5 października 2020 r. dotyczące odnowienia zezwolenia na stosowanie Bacillus amyloliquefaciens CECT 5940 jako dodatku paszowego dla kurcząt rzeźnych, zezwolenia na jego stosowanie u kurcząt odchowywanych na kury nioski oraz uchylenia rozporządzenia (WE) nr 1292/2008 (posiadacz zezwolenia: Evonik Nutrition & Care GmbH) (Dz.U. L 324 z 6.10.2020, s. 3).


type: caselaw

jurisdiction: EU

text:
 16.3.2015
 LV
 Eiropas Savienības Oficiālais Vēstnesis
 C 89/41
 Prasība, kas celta 2015. gada 23. janvārī – Telecom Castilla-La Mancha/Komisija
 (Lieta T-38/15)
 (2015/C 089/50)
 Tiesvedības valoda – spāņu
 Lietas dalībnieki
 Prasītāja: Telecom Castilla-La Mancha, SA (Toledo, Spānija) (pārstāvji – J. Buendía Sierra, A. Lamadrid de Pablo, A. Balcells Cartagena un M. Bolsa Ferruz, advokāti)
 Atbildētāja: Eiropas Komisija
 Prasītājas prasījumi:
 —
 atcelt apstrīdēto lēmumu un konkrēti lēmuma 1. pantu, ciktāl tajā ir konstatēts ar iekšējo tirgu nesaderīgs valsts atbalsts;
 —
 līdz ar to atcelt lēmuma 3. un 4. pantā ietvertos rīkojumus to atgūt un
 —
 piespriest Komisijai atdzināt šīs tiesvedības tiesāšanās izdevumus.
 Pamati un galvenie argumenti
 Pamati un galvenie argumenti ir tie paši, kas ir minēti lietā T-36/15 HISPASAT/Komisija.


type: legislation

text:
 EUROPSKA KOMISIJA
 Bruxelles, 11.4.2016.
 COM(2016) 208 final
 2016/0111(NLE)
 Prijedlog
 UREDBE VIJEĆA
 o izmjeni Uredbe (EU) br. 1370/2013 o utvrđivanju mjera za određivanje određenih potpora i subvencija vezanih uz zajedničku organizaciju tržišta poljoprivrednih proizvoda u pogledu primjenjivih količinskih ograničenja za otkup maslaca i obranog mlijeka u prahu
 OBRAZLOŽENJE
 1.KONTEKST PRIJEDLOGA
 1.1.Razlozi i ciljevi prijedloga
 Sektor mlijeka i mliječnih proizvoda prolazi kroz dulje razdoblje ozbiljne tržišne neravnoteže. Globalna potražnja za mlijekom i mliječnim proizvodima smanjila se tijekom 2015., posebno zbog uvođenja i produljenja ruske zabrane uvoza i slabljenja uvoza iz Kine, vodećeg svjetskog uvoznika mliječnih proizvoda. Istovremeno se općenito povećala ponuda mlijeka u glavnim regijama izvoznicama.
 Proizvodnja mlijeka u Uniji stalno raste, s obzirom na to da su se zbog isteka mliječnih kvota i pozitivnih srednjoročnih izgleda na svjetskom tržištu povećala ulaganja u kapacitet proizvodnje mlijeka u Uniji. Isporuke mlijeka u Uniji povećale su se u 2015. za 2,5 %, što čini više od 3,5 milijuna tona dodatnog sirovog mlijeka. Višak proizvedenih količina mlijeka potrebno je preraditi u proizvode koji se mogu dugoročno pohraniti, kao što su maslac i obrano mlijeko u prahu. Proizvodnja obranog mlijeka u prahu u 2015. tako se doista povećala za 8,1 %, a proizvodnja maslaca za 4,7 %. GU AGRI predviđa daljnje povećanje isporuka mlijeka u EU-u u 2016. za 1,4 %.
 Cijene maslaca i obranog mlijeka u prahu u Uniji posljedično su se smanjile 2014. i 2015., kada su cijene obranog mlijeka u prahu dosegnule cijenu javne intervencije. Cijene maslaca još uvijek su više od cijene javne intervencije, ali su pod pritiskom smanjenja.
 Člankom 3. Uredbe Vijeća (EU) br. 1370/2013 utvrđena su količinska ograničenja za otkup maslaca i obranog mlijeka u prahu po fiksnoj cijeni iz članka 2. te Uredbe (50 000 tona za maslac i 109 000 tona za obrano mlijeko u prahu). Kada se dosegnu ta ograničenja, otkup se vrši putem natječajnog postupka kako bi se utvrdila maksimalna otkupna cijena.
 Delegiranom Uredbom Komisije (EU) 2015/1549 pomaknut je početak razdoblja javne intervencije za maslac i obrano mlijeko u prahu u 2016. na 1. siječnja, kao izvanredna mjera za osiguravanje neprekinute dostupnosti mehanizma javne intervencije u situaciji tržišnog poremećaja u sektoru mlijeka i mliječnih proizvoda.
 U dodatnom razdoblju javne intervencije otvorenom Delegiranom uredbom Komisije (EU) 2015/1549 za 2016. (siječanj – veljača 2016.) ponuđene su 54 522 tone obranog mlijeka u prahu, što čini polovinu količinskog ograničenja za otkup po fiksnoj cijeni određenog Uredbom Vijeća (EU) br. 1370/2013.
 Kako bi se u sektoru mlijeka i mliječnih proizvoda uspostavila nova ravnoteža u teškoj situaciji koja prevladava na tržištu te kako bi se očuvalo povjerenje u učinkovitost mehanizama intervencije, prikladno je povećati količinska ograničenja za otkup maslaca i obranog mlijeka u prahu po fiksnoj cijeni u 2016.
 Budući da je moguće da se do trenutka stupanja na snagu ove Uredbe automatski pokrene natječajni postupak za otkup, količine otkupljene u okviru tog postupka ne smiju se uzeti u obzir, tako da se ne odbiju od novih raspoloživih gornjih granica.
 Kako bi se osiguralo da privremene mjere predviđene ovom Uredbom imaju neposredan učinak na tržište i pridonesu stabilizaciji cijena, ova bi Uredba trebala stupiti na snagu sljedećeg dana od dana njezine objave.
 1.2.Dosljednost s postojećim odredbama politike u određenom području
 Ovaj je prijedlog u skladu s duhom zajedničke organizacije tržišta poljoprivrednih proizvoda čiji je cilj stabilizacija tržišta i osiguranje primjerenog životnog standarda poljoprivredne zajednice.
 Prijedlog je u skladu s člankom 43. stavkom 3. UFEU-a kojim Vijeće na prijedlog Komisije usvaja mjere o utvrđivanju cijena, nameta, potpora i količinskih ograničenja te o utvrđivanju i raspodjeli mogućnosti ribolova.
 1.3.Dosljednost u odnosu na druge politike Unije
 Nije dostupno
 2.PRAVNA OSNOVA, SUPSIDIJARNOST I PROPORCIONALNOST
 2.1.Pravna osnova
 Članak 43. stavak 3. Ugovora o funkcioniranju Europske unije.
 2.2.Supsidijarnost (za neisključivu nadležnost)
 Ovaj je prijedlog u zajedničkoj nadležnosti EU-a i država članica i u skladu je s načelom supsidijarnosti.
 2.3.Proporcionalnost
 Prijedlog je u skladu s načelom proporcionalnosti.
 2.4.Odabir instrumenta
 Nije dostupno
 3.REZULTATI EX POST EVALUACIJA, SAVJETOVANJA S DIONICIMA I PROCJENE UČINAKA
 3.1.Ex post evaluacije / provjere primjerenosti postojećeg zakonodavstva
 Nije dostupno
 3.2.Savjetovanja s dionicima
 Nije dostupno
 3.3.Prikupljanje i primjena stručnih znanja
 Nije dostupno
 3.4.Procjena učinka
 Nije dostupno
 3.5.Primjerenost propisa i pojednostavnjivanje
 Nije dostupno
 3.6.Temeljna prava
 Nije dostupno
 4.UTJECAJ NA PRORAČUN
 Proračunski učinak ovog prijedloga ograničen je na razliku u cijeni između fiksne cijene iz članka 2. Uredbe Vijeća (EU) br. 1370/2013 i cijene koja bi konačno bila utvrđena u okviru natječajnog postupka. U trenutačnim okolnostima (i na temelju prošlih iskustava) vjerojatno je da bi potonja cijena bila utvrđena na razini blizu fiksne cijene, stoga bi stvarni utjecaj na proračun bio zanemariv.
 5.OSTALI DIJELOVI
 5.1.Planovi provedbe i mehanizmi praćenja, evaluacije i izvješćivanja
 Nije dostupno
 5.2.Dokumenti s obrazloženjima (za direktive)
 Nije dostupno
 5.3.Detaljno obrazloženje posebnih odredbi prijedloga
 Nije dostupno
 2016/0111 (NLE)
 Prijedlog
 UREDBE VIJEĆA
 o izmjeni Uredbe (EU) br. 1370/2013 o utvrđivanju mjera za određivanje određenih potpora i subvencija vezanih uz zajedničku organizaciju tržišta poljoprivrednih proizvoda u pogledu primjenjivih količinskih ograničenja za otkup maslaca i obranog mlijeka u prahu
 VIJEĆE EUROPSKE UNIJE,
 uzimajući u obzir Ugovor o funkcioniranju Europske unije, a posebno njegov članak 43. stavak 3.,
 uzimajući u obzir prijedlog Europske komisije,
 budući da:
 (1)Sektor mlijeka i mliječnih proizvoda prolazi kroz dulje razdoblje ozbiljne tržišne neravnoteže. Iako je globalna potražnja za uvozom mlijeka i mliječnih proizvoda u 2015. općenito ostala stabilna u usporedbi s 2014., proizvodnja se znatno povećala u Uniji i u drugim glavnim regijama izvoznicama.
 (2)Proizvodnja mlijeka u Uniji stalno raste, s obzirom na to da su se zbog isteka mliječnih kvota i pozitivnih srednjoročnih izgleda na svjetskom tržištu povećala ulaganja u kapacitet proizvodnje mlijeka u Uniji. Višak proizvedenih količina mlijeka prerađuje se u proizvode koji se mogu dugoročno pohraniti, kao što su maslac i obrano mlijeko u prahu.
 (3)Cijene maslaca i obranog mlijeka u prahu u Uniji posljedično su se smanjile 2014. i 2015., kada su cijene obranog mlijeka u prahu dosegnule cijenu javne intervencije. Cijene maslaca još uvijek su više od cijene javne intervencije, ali su pod pritiskom smanjenja.
 (4)Člankom 3. Uredbe Vijeća (EU) br. 1370/2013
 1
 utvrđena su količinska ograničenja za otkup maslaca i obranog mlijeka u prahu po fiksnoj cijeni iz članka 2. te Uredbe. Kada se dosegnu ta ograničenja, otkup se vrši putem natječajnog postupka kako bi se utvrdila maksimalna otkupna cijena.
 (5)Člankom 1. drugim stavkom Delegirane uredbe Komisije (EU) 2015/1549
 2
 pomaknut je početak razdoblja javne intervencije za maslac i obrano mlijeko u prahu u 2016. na 1. siječnja, kao izvanredna mjera za osiguravanje neprekinute dostupnosti mehanizma javne intervencije u situaciji tržišnog poremećaja u sektoru mlijeka i mliječnih proizvoda.
 (6)U dodatnom razdoblju javne intervencije otvorenom Delegiranom uredbom Komisije (EU) 2015/1549 za 2016. dosegnuta je polovina količinskog ograničenja za otkup obranog mlijeka u prahu po fiksnoj cijeni određenog Uredbom Vijeća (EU) br. 1370/2013.
 (7)Kako bi se u sektoru mlijeka i mliječnih proizvoda uspostavila nova ravnoteža u teškoj situaciji koja prevladava na tržištu te kako bi se očuvalo povjerenje u učinkovitost mehanizama javne intervencije, prikladno je povećati količinska ograničenja za otkup maslaca i obranog mlijeka u prahu po fiksnoj cijeni u 2016.
 (8)U slučaju da se natječajni postupak provodi prije stupanja na snagu ove Uredbe, količine koje su eventualno otkupljene u okviru tog postupka ne smiju se uzeti u obzir pri određivanju raspoloživih količina za otkup maslaca i obranog mlijeka u prahu po fiksnoj cijeni u 2016.
 (9)Kako bi se osiguralo da privremene mjere predviđene ovom Uredbom imaju neposredan učinak na tržište i pridonesu stabilizaciji cijena, ova bi Uredba trebala stupiti na snagu sljedećeg dana od dana njezine objave,
 DONIJELO JE OVU UREDBU:
 Članak 1.
 U članku 3. stavku 1. Uredbe Vijeća (EU) br. 1370/2013 dodaje se sljedeći drugi podstavak:
 „U 2016. količinska ograničenja za otkup maslaca i obranog mlijeka u prahu po fiksnoj cijeni iznose 100 000 tona maslaca i 218 000 tona obranog mlijeka u prahu. U slučaju da se natječajni postupak provodio prije [datum objave], količine otkupljene u okviru tog postupka ne odbijaju se od prethodno navedenih količinskih ograničenja.”
 Članak 2.
 Ova Uredba stupa na snagu sljedećeg dana od dana objave u Službenom listu Europske unije.
 Ova je Uredba u cijelosti obvezujuća i izravno se primjenjuje u svim državama članicama.
 Sastavljeno u Bruxellesu,
 Za Vijeće
 Predsjednik
 FINANCIJSKI IZVJEŠTAJ
 FS/16/CM/1489821
 agri.ddg2.c.3(2016) 1362121 – Rev1
 6.142.2016.1
 DATUM: 25. 3. 2016.
 1.
 NASLOV PRORAČUNA:
 05 02 12 02
 05 02 12 04
 ODOBRENA SREDSTVA:
 u milijunima EUR
 17,0
 15,0
 2.
 NASLOV:
 Nacrt UREDBE VIJEĆA o izmjeni Uredbe (EU) br. 1370/2013 o utvrđivanju mjera za određivanje određenih potpora i subvencija za zajedničku organizaciju tržišta poljoprivrednih proizvoda u pogledu primjenjivih količinskih ograničenja za otkup maslaca i obranog mlijeka u prahu
 3.
 PRAVNA OSNOVA:
 Članak 43. stavak 3. Ugovora o funkcioniranju Europske unije
 4.
 CILJEVI:
 Ovim nacrtom uredbe povećavaju se količinska ograničenja za otkup maslaca i obranog mlijeka u prahu po fiksnoj cijeni u 2016.
 5.
 FINANCIJSKI UTJECAJ
 RAZDOBLJE OD 12 MJESECI
 (u milijunima EUR)
 TEKUĆA FINANCIJSKA GODINA
 2016.
 (u milijunima EUR)
 SLJEDEĆA FINANCIJSKA GODINA
 2017.
 (u milijunima EUR)
 5.0.
 RASHODI
 –
 NA TERET PRORAČUNA EU-a
 (POVRATI/INTERVENCIJE)
 –
 NACIONALNA TIJELA
 –
 OSTALO
 –
 –
 –
 –
 –
 –
 5.1.
 PRIHODI
 –
 VLASTITA SREDSTVA EU-a
 (PRISTOJBE/CARINE)
 –
 NACIONALNI
 2018.
 2019.
 2020.
 2021.
 5.0.1.
 PREDVIĐENI RASHODI
 5.1.1.
 PREDVIĐENI PRIHODI
 5.2.
 NAČIN IZRAČUNAVANJA:
 6.0.
 MOŽE LI SE PROJEKT FINANCIRATI ODOBRENIM SREDSTVIMA IZ ODGOVARAJUĆEG POGLAVLJA TEKUĆEG PRORAČUNA?
 DA
 6.1.
 MOŽE LI SE PROJEKT FINANCIRATI PRIJENOSOM SREDSTAVA IZ JEDNOG POGLAVLJA TEKUĆEG PRORAČUNA U DRUGO?
 DA
 6.2.
 HOĆE LI BITI POTREBAN DODATNI PRORAČUN?
 NE
 6.3.
 HOĆE LI BITI POTREBNO UNIJETI ODOBRENA SREDSTVA U BUDUĆE PRORAČUNE?
 NE
 NAPOMENE:
 Predlaže se povećanje količinskih ograničenja za otkup u okviru javne intervencije po fiksnoj cijeni za maslac (100 000 tona umjesto 50 000 tona) i obrano mlijeko u prahu (218 000 tona umjesto 109 000 tona). Bez tog povećanja otkup bi se morao provoditi putem natječajnog postupka kako bi se utvrdila maksimalna otkupna cijena. Međutim procjenjuje se da bi otkupne cijene utvrđene na temelju tog natječajnog postupka bile vrlo blizu utvrđene interventne cijene. Stoga se pretpostavlja da je financijski utjecaj prijedloga zanemariv, ali bi se u kontekstu teške situacije koja prevladava na tržištu njime ipak očuvalo povjerenje u mehanizam javne intervencije. Trenutačno se ne očekuje da će stvarni interventni otkup dosegnuti te povećane gornje granice.
 (1)
 Uredba Vijeća (EU) br. 1370/2013 od 16. prosinca 2013. o utvrđivanju mjera za određivanje određenih potpora i subvencija vezanih uz zajedničku organizaciju tržišta poljoprivrednih proizvoda (SL L 346, 20.12.2013., str. 12.).
 (2)
 Delegirana uredba Komisije (EU) 2015/1549 оd 17. rujna 2015. o utvrđivanju privremenih izvanrednih mjera za sektor mlijeka i mliječnih proizvoda u obliku produljenja razdoblja javne intervencije za maslac i obrano mlijeko u prahu u 2015. te pomicanja razdoblja javne intervencije za maslac i obrano mlijeko u prahu u 2016. (SL L 242, 18.9.2015., str. 28.).


type: other

jurisdiction: US

text: b' UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION\n OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL\n\n AUDIT SERVICES\n\n\n\n September 29, 2014\n\n Control Number\n ED-OIG/A06L0003\nJames W. Runcie\nChief Operating Officer\nFederal Student Aid\nU.S. Department of Education\nWashington, D.C. 20202\n\nDear Mr. Runcie:\n\nThis final audit report, entitled Oversight of Guaranty Agencies During the Phase-Out of the\nFederal Family Education Loan Program, presents the results of our audit. The audit objectives\nwere to evaluate Federal Student Aid\xe2\x80\x99s (FSA) (1) process for ensuring the continued protection\nof Federal funds at Guaranty Agencies (GA); (2) oversight of GAs\xe2\x80\x99 ability to perform their\nduties; and (3) actions for the GAs\xe2\x80\x99 successful participation during the phase-out of the Federal\nFamily Education Loan Program (FFELP) loans. The SAFRA Act (SAFRA), part of the Health\nCare and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010 (Pub. L. 111-152), mandated that no new loans\nbe made or insured under FFELP after June 30, 2010. The audit evaluated FSA\xe2\x80\x99s policies and\nprocedures for its oversight of GAs during the phase-out of FFELP from July 1, 2009, through\nJune 30, 2011, and we performed additional audit work related to updates to FSA\xe2\x80\x99s actions for\nthe GAs\' FFELP participation through May 1, 2014.\n\nWe determined that FSA does not have an adequate process to protect Federal funds because the\nmethodology FSA uses to calculate a GA\xe2\x80\x99s current reserve ratio is not in compliance with the\nrequirement that the Federal fund balance used in the reserve ratio is calculated using an accrual\nbasis of accounting. FSA\xe2\x80\x99s method overstates the financial position of the GAs.\n\nWe found that FSA performed monitoring of the GAs\xe2\x80\x99 ability to perform their duties. However,\nFSA did not establish criteria for GAs to use to develop the financial projections that FSA\nrequired GAs to report on the Guaranty Agency Financial Report Annual Form 2000 (Annual\nForm 2000). We also found that FSA did not document the procedures for actions it should have\ntaken on information GAs reported on the Guaranty Agency Financial Report Monthly Annual\nForm 2000 (Monthly Annual Form 2000) that identified GAs under possible financial stress.\n\nFSA developed a methodology, named the Transition Evaluation Process, to select a successor\nGA for a GA that requested to end its participation in FFELP in fiscal year (FY) 2011. FSA\nsubsequently modified that methodology for another GA that also wanted to end its participation\nin FFELP in FY 2012. We determined that both the initial and modified methodologies\n The Department of Education\'s mission is to promote student achievement and preparation for global competitiveness by fostering educational\n excellence and ensuring equal access.\n\x0cFinal Report\nED-OIG/A06L0003 Page 2 of 21\n\ncontained deficiencies. During a follow up interview, FSA officials stated that they planned to\nuse the second Transition Evaluation Process for GAs that want to transition out of FFELP.\nFSA took actions for the GAs\xe2\x80\x99 successful participation during the phase-out of FFELP by\nattempting to implement Voluntary Flexible Agreements (VFA). 1 FSA issued two Federal\nRegister notices (on May 31, 2011 and August 14, 2013) to invite GAs to submit proposals to\nenter into VFAs. The VFAs would have permitted a more flexible agreement between the\nSecretary of Education (Secretary) and the GAs than the standard agreements and would have\npermitted GAs to develop, use, and evaluate alternative models for ensuring that they carried out\ntheir responsibilities in a more cost effective and efficient manner. The purpose of the May 2011\nVFA solicitation was to establish new GA structures and financing mechanisms to protect the\nFederal fiscal interest in light of the diminishing outstanding FFELP portfolio. However, FSA\ndid not enter into any VFAs because the GAs did not submit proposals that met FSA\xe2\x80\x99s\nrequirements in the Federal Register notice. The purpose of the August 2013 VFA solicitation\nwas to establish VFAs with a small number of GAs, each of which would assume responsibility\nof some or all of a terminating GA\xe2\x80\x99s defaulted and non-defaulted loans. FSA received 13 letters\nof request and completed an analysis of the letters. However, FSA put the August 2013 VFA on\nhold because of changes to GA compensation made in the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2013 (Public\nLaw 113-67)(Act). 2 According to FSA, the Act changed the payment schedule for the GAs and\nFSA\xe2\x80\x99s Director of Policy Liaison and Implementation stated that FSA did not think it could\nselect GAs based on the requirements it had identified for the August 2013 VFA. When we\ncontacted FSA on May 1, 2014, to update our information regarding plans for GA FFELP\nparticipation, the Director of Policy Liaison and Implementation stated that FSA has had\nminimal discussions regarding the August 2013 VFA and is unsure about how to go forward\nwith the VFA. FSA officials stated that if several moderately sized GAs chose to transition out\nof FFELP, FSA could easily use larger GAs as successors. As a result, there has been no change\nin the relationships between FSA and the GAs participating in FFELP because of SAFRA.\n\nIn its response to the draft of this report, FSA concurred with the findings and agreed to take\naction that is responsive to the recommendations in the report. We made changes to the report in\nresponse to FSA\xe2\x80\x99s comments. Specifically, we changed the Finding 2 caption, removed the\ndiscussion in the draft report under Finding 3 about the GA recovery rate, and changed the\nFinding 3 draft report conclusion to identify that the reordering of the Transition Evaluation\nProcess steps would result in a more logical process. The comments are summarized at the end\nof each finding along with the OIG\xe2\x80\x99s response. The full text of FSA\xe2\x80\x99s comments to the draft\nreport is included as Attachment 5 to the report.\n\n\n\n\n BACKGROUND\n\n\nAccording to Section 141(a)(1) of the Higher Education Act of 1965, as amended (HEA), FSA is\nresponsible for managing the administrative and oversight functions supporting the Title IV\n\n1\n Section 428A of the HEA authorizes the Secretary to enter into VFAs with GAs in lieu of the standard agreements\nbetween the Secretary and the GAs.\n2\n The Act reduced the maximum fee GAs could charge borrowers when GAs sold their rehabilitated FFELP loans\nand required GAs that sold rehabilitated loans to repay all (rather than a portion) of the default insurance payments\non such loans beginning on July 1, 2014.\n\x0cFinal Report\nED-OIG/A06L0003 Page 3 of 21\n\nstudent financial assistance programs. As such, FSA is responsible for monitoring GAs\xe2\x80\x99\nprogram compliance with the HEA. FSA\xe2\x80\x99s responsibilities include ensuring that GAs\n(1) maintain adequate service levels to perform default aversion activities, (2) report on loan\ndefault collections, and (3) protect Federal funds.\n\nA GA is a State or private nonprofit agency that has agreements with the Secretary to administer\ncertain aspects of the FFELP loans, including insuring private lenders against losses due to a\nborrower\xe2\x80\x99s default. FFELP is a federally guaranteed loan program in which private lenders\nprovided loans, GAs insure those loans, and the U.S. Department of Education (Department)\nreinsures the loans. One GA stated that it is also responsible for informing schools, students,\nlenders, secondary markets, and servicers of FFELP requirements. Although there are no new\nFFELP loan originations, GAs continue to insure FFELP loans already disbursed, perform\ndefault aversion activities, oversee lenders, collect defaulted FFELP loans, pay lender default\nclaims, and report on loan statuses. In addition to performing their responsibilities under their\nagreements with the Department, GAs\xe2\x80\x99 other lines of business can include managing State\ngrants, managing non-Federal student loan programs, and developing financial literacy training\nprograms.\n\nAs of September 30, 2013, the guaranteed loan portfolio consisted of about $264 billion in\noutstanding FFELP loans held by private lenders. FSA held $153.4 billion in defaulted FFELP\nloans, which included both loans that GAs were responsible for collecting and loans that were\nassigned to FSA to collect.\n\nSignificant statutory changes affecting FFELP included the Ensuring Continued Access to\nStudent Loan Act (ECASLA) of 2008 (Pub. L. 110\xe2\x80\x93227), which authorized the Secretary to\ncreate programs to allow FFELP loan holders to sell certain FFELP loans to the Secretary. The\nSecretary concluded that as a result of ECASLA \xe2\x80\x9cthe outstanding portfolio of [FFELP] loans\nunder guarantee has declined by more than $100 billion, reducing both the short-term and long-\nterm revenues of [GAs].\xe2\x80\x9d In addition, SAFRA mandated that no new loans be made or insured\nunder FFELP after June 30, 2010. According to the Federal Register, as a result of SAFRA,\nGAs would not have an \xe2\x80\x9cestimated $75 billion of annual new loan volume that otherwise would\nhave been added to their portfolios, resulting in further reductions to [GA] revenues.\xe2\x80\x9d The total\ndollar amount of FFELP loans held or insured by GAs has diminished and will continue to\ndiminish, resulting in less revenue available to these agencies and jeopardizing their ability to\nmeet their FFELP responsibilities.\n\nVoluntary Flexible Agreements\nThe purpose of a VFA is to permit a more flexible agreement than the standard agreements\nbetween the Secretary and the GAs. Under Sections 428(b) and (c) of the HEA, GAs perform\ncertain roles in FFELP pursuant to agreements with the Secretary. Section 428A of the HEA\nauthorizes the Secretary to enter into VFAs with GAs in lieu of the agreements entered into\nunder Sections 428(b) and (c) of the HEA. This authority allows the Secretary to work with GAs\nto develop, use, and evaluate alternate ways of ensuring that the responsibilities of the GAs are\nfulfilled in the most cost-effective and efficient manner possible.\n\nFSA Selection of Successor GAs for GAs Ending Participation in FFELP\nFSA may decide to terminate its agreement with a GA. A GA can choose to continue\nperforming the activities under its FFELP agreement with FSA or request to end participation in\n\x0cFinal Report\nED-OIG/A06L0003 Page 4 of 21\n\nFFELP. When a GA\xe2\x80\x99s participation in FFELP ends, its FFELP loan portfolio is transitioned to\nanother GA.\n\nFSA Monitoring of GAs\n\nFederal Fund and Operating Fund\nGAs are responsible for managing two separate funds: the Federal fund and the operating fund.\nThe Federal fund is the property of the Federal Government. The operating fund is the property\nof the GA. The HEA requires a GA to deposit revenue from specified sources into the Federal\nfund and limits the use of Federal fund assets. GAs must use assets from the Federal fund to pay\nlender claims and to pay default aversion fees they earn into their operating fund. Default\naversion fees are paid to a GA for performing default aversion activities. These activities are\ndirectly related to providing collection assistance to the lender on a delinquent loan before the\nloan is placed in a default status. The HEA also specifies deposits into the operating fund and\nthe general uses of operating fund assets. Except for funds transferred from the Federal fund, the\nGA owns the operating fund and uses it to pay its daily operating expenses. GAs use money in\nthe operating fund for repayment status management, default aversion activities, default\ncollection activities, financial aid awareness and related outreach activities, and compliance\nmonitoring.\n\nGuaranty Agency Financial Report Annual Form 2000\nGAs report their annual financial information on the Annual Form 2000. The Annual Form 2000\nis used for billing and information purposes and contains data for the GAs\xe2\x80\x99 operating fund,\nFederal fund, balance sheet, and financial information used to calculate the reserve ratio. The\nreserve ratio is a financial indicator calculated by FSA to determine a GA\xe2\x80\x99s ability to pay claims\non defaulted student loans. FSA also uses the information on the Annual Form 2000 to monitor\nthe GAs\xe2\x80\x99 financial activities, including activities relating to the operating and Federal funds. In\naddition, information in the balance sheet is used by FSA to conduct annual reconciliations. The\nannual reconciliation is the process by which FSA compares the information each GA reported\non its Annual Form 2000 to the information it reported on its Monthly Annual Forms 2000 to\ndetermine whether inconsistencies or data anomalies exist. If FSA finds inconsistencies or\nanomalies, it contacts the applicable GA for corrections and updates as necessary. The Annual\nForm 2000 is also used by GAs to request payments from and make payments to the Department.\n\nGuaranty Agency Financial Report Monthly Annual Form 2000\nGAs report their financial information on the Monthly Annual Form 2000. GAs submit their\nmonthly financial data to FSA by the 20th day of the month following the month the financial\nactivity occurred. The Monthly Annual Form 2000 includes the same line items as the Annual\nForm 2000; however, all of the individual line items in the Monthly Annual Form 2000 are\nestimates. According to FSA, the line items are estimates because the information is due on a\nmonthly basis from the GAs and subject to change when finalized numbers are reported on the\nAnnual Form 2000.\n\nFSA prepares three reports using the information on the Monthly Annual Form 2000: the\nMonthly Variance Report, the Monthly Annual Data Report, and the Quarterly Trend Analysis.\nThe Monthly Variance Report displays the dollar and percentage changes from month to month.\n\nThe Monthly Annual Data Report displays the financial data for beginning and ending balances;\nthe reinsurance amounts compared to the claims expensed to the lenders that hold the loans\n\x0cFinal Report\nED-OIG/A06L0003 Page 5 of 21\n\nguaranteed by the GAs; the Secretary\xe2\x80\x99s and GAs\xe2\x80\x99 share of collections, if applicable; default\naversion fees; and other expenses for each agency. The report also includes monthly amounts of\neach GA\xe2\x80\x99s Federal and operating funds and balance sheet calculations.\n\nThe Quarterly Trend Analysis report contains information regarding the GAs\xe2\x80\x99 financial solvency\nand ability to pay claims based on changes in the Federal fund and operating fund balances and\nthe trigger rate. The trigger rate is calculated by dividing the total reinsurance claims the\nDepartment paid to a GA during the current fiscal year by the amount of loans in repayment\ninsured by that GA at the end of the preceding fiscal year. The trigger rate determines the\npercentage rate at which the Department will reimburse a GA for losses on default claims paid to\nlenders.\n\n\n\n\n AUDIT RESULTS\n\n\nThe objectives of our audit were to evaluate FSA\xe2\x80\x99s (1) process for ensuring the continued\nprotection of Federal funds at GAs; (2) oversight of GAs\xe2\x80\x99 ability to perform their duties; and\n(3) actions for the GAs\xe2\x80\x99 successful participation during the phase-out of FFELP loans.\n\nWe determined that FSA does not have an adequate process to ensure the continued protection of\nFederal funds because the methodology FSA uses to calculate a GA\xe2\x80\x99s current reserve ratio is not\nin compliance with the requirement that the Federal fund balance used in the reserve ratio be\ncalculated using an accrual basis of accounting. The current reserve ratio calculation overstates\nGAs\xe2\x80\x99 Federal fund and results in an inflated reserve ratio and understates the level of financial\nstress a GA may be under.\n\nWe also found that FSA performed monitoring of the GAs\xe2\x80\x99 ability to perform their duties.\nHowever, FSA did not establish criteria for GAs to use to develop financial projections that FSA\nrequired GAs to report on the Annual Form 2000. We also found that FSA did not document the\nprocedures for actions it should have taken on information GAs reported on the Monthly Annual\nForm 2000 that identified GAs under possible financial stress.\n\nWe also determined that FSA\xe2\x80\x99s initial methodology used to select successor GAs for GAs ending\nparticipation in FFELP was deficient. FSA modified the initial methodology but the modified\nmethodology also contained deficiencies. FSA officials stated that they planned to use the\nsecond Transition Evaluation Process for GAs that want to transition out of FFELP. FSA has\nused the modified process to transition two GAs out of FFELP and transfer their portfolios to\nother GAs.\n\nIn addition, FSA took actions for the GAs\xe2\x80\x99 successful participation during the phase-out of the\nFFELP program by attempting to implement VFAs. The VFAs would have permitted a more\nflexible agreement between the Secretary and the GAs than the standard agreements and would\nhave permitted GAs to develop, use, and evaluate alternative models for ensuring that they\ncarried out their responsibilities in a more cost effective and efficient manner. However, FSA\ndid not enter into any VFAs. The GAs did not submit proposals that were responsive to FSA\xe2\x80\x99s\nrequirements in the May 2011 Federal Register notice and FSA placed the August 2013 VFA\n\x0cFinal Report\nED-OIG/A06L0003 Page 6 of 21\n\nprocess on hold to consider the impact of the Act on the revenues available to GAs. As a result,\nthere has been no change in the relationships between FSA and the GAs participating in FFELP\nbecause of SAFRA.\n\nIn its response to the draft of this report, FSA concurred with the findings and agreed to take\naction that is responsive to the recommendations in the report. We made changes to the report in\nresponse to FSA\xe2\x80\x99s comments regarding the suggestion for a revised Finding 2 caption, the use of\nthe gross GA recovery rate as a performance indicator and that the reordering of the Transition\nEvaluation Process steps for identifying the future successor GAs would make the process more\nlogical. Specifically, we changed the Finding 2 caption, removed the discussion in the draft\nreport under Finding 3 about the GA recovery rate, and changed the Finding 3 draft report\nconclusion to identify that the reordering of the Transition Evaluation Process steps would result\nin a more logical process. The comments are summarized at the end of each finding along with\nthe OIG\xe2\x80\x99s response. The full text of FSA\xe2\x80\x99s comments to the draft report is included as\nAttachment 5 to the report.\n\n FINDING NO. 1 \xe2\x80\x93 FSA\xe2\x80\x99s Methodology for Calculating a GA\xe2\x80\x99s Federal Fund\n Reserve Ratio Overstates the GA\xe2\x80\x99s Financial Health\n\nWe determined that the methodology FSA uses to calculate a GA\xe2\x80\x99s Federal fund reserve ratio is\nnot in compliance with the requirement at 34 C.F.R. \xc2\xa7 682.419(f)(1) that the Federal fund\nbalance used in the calculation be based on accrual accounting, which resulted in the\noverstatement of GA financial health.\n\nAccrual accounting matches revenues to expenses when the transaction occurs rather than when\npayment is made or received. FSA\xe2\x80\x99s current methodology for calculating a GA\xe2\x80\x99s reserve ratio\noverstates the GA\xe2\x80\x99s reserve ratio, which FSA uses to assess the financial solvency of the GA.\n\nSection 428(c)(9)(A) of the HEA requires GAs to meet a minimum reserve ratio of at least\n0.25 percent. This means that a GA\xe2\x80\x99s Federal fund balance must equal at least 0.25 percent of\nthe outstanding loans it guaranteed. Under Section 428(c)(9)(C) of the HEA, if the GA does not\nmeet the reserve ratio for 2 consecutive years, or if the Secretary determines that the GA\xe2\x80\x99s\nadministrative or financial condition jeopardizes the agency\xe2\x80\x99s continued ability to perform its\nresponsibilities under its guaranty agreement, the Secretary will require the GA to submit and\nimplement a management plan that is acceptable to the Secretary within 45 days of any such\nevent. Under Section 428(c)(9)(D) of the HEA, the management plan must include the means by\nwhich the GA will improve its financial and administrative condition to the required level within\n18 months.\n\nFSA uses data from the Annual Form 2000 Balance Sheet Section (Federal fund) to calculate the\nreserve ratio. The Annual Form 2000 reporting instructions for this section state, \xe2\x80\x9cThe balances\nreported in this section should reconcile to amounts reported on the Guarantor\xe2\x80\x99s audited financial\nstatements Balance Sheet as of the end of the Federal fiscal year.\xe2\x80\x9d The reporting instructions\nfurther state that \xe2\x80\x9c[a]ll reporting [on the form] should be on an accrual basis and in accordance\nwith Generally Accepted Accounting Principles.\xe2\x80\x9d In addition, the instructions for the Federal\nfund balance line item state \xe2\x80\x9cthis amount should represent the equity on the audited balance sheet\nsection of the Federal Fund.\xe2\x80\x9d The Federal fund balance line item is reported on an accrual basis.\nFSA\xe2\x80\x99s methodology for calculating the reserve ratio adds allowances and other non-cash charges\n\x0cFinal Report\nED-OIG/A06L0003 Page 7 of 21\n\nfrom the Annual Form 2000 to the accrual accounting Federal fund balance, resulting in an\ninflated reserve ratio calculation as shown below.\n\n Federal Fund Balance + Allowances and Other Non-Cash Charges\n Original Principal Outstanding\n\nBecause the Annual Form 2000 already requires accrual accounting, no adjustments to the\nFederal fund balance line item are needed to meet the accrual accounting requirement for the\nFederal fund balance used in the reserve ratio calculation. That is, the allowances and other non-\ncash charges have already been properly deducted from the Federal fund balance reported in the\nAnnual Form 2000 and should not be added back to the Federal fund balance line item.\n\nIn our April 2009 audit report, \xe2\x80\x9cFederal Student Aid\xe2\x80\x99s Oversight and Monitoring of Guaranty\nAgencies, Lenders, and Servicers Needs Improvement\xe2\x80\x9d (ED-OIG/A20I0001), we identified that\nFSA\xe2\x80\x99s reserve ratio calculation improperly overstated the financial condition of GAs.\n\nWe recalculated the reserve ratio using the accrual basis of accounting for all 32 GAs for\nFY 2010. We used only the accrual accounting Federal fund balance from the FY 2010 Annual\nForm 2000 in the numerator without adding allowances and other non-cash charges, as required\nby the regulations. We determined that using FSA\xe2\x80\x99s current methodology made GAs appear to\nhave a stronger financial position. As shown in Table 1, three GAs would not have met the\nminimum reserve ratio using the accrual accounting Federal fund balance, but met the minimum\nreserve ratio requirement using FSA\xe2\x80\x99s current methodology. Overall, FSA\xe2\x80\x99s current\nmethodology inflated GA reserve ratios by an average of 27 percent above the reserve ratios\ncalculated using accrual accounting.\n\n Table 1. Comparison of Reserve Ratio Calculation for FY 2010\n FSA\xe2\x80\x99s Reserve Accrual\n Ratio Accounting\n Guaranty Agency Calculation Reserve\n Ratio\n Recalculation\n American Student Assistance\n 0.30 0.22\n (Massachusetts)\n Kentucky Higher Education Assistance\n 0.36 0.24\n Authority\n College Assist (Colorado) 0.26 0.19\n\nWe performed the same recalculation described above for the 32 GAs using the FY 2011\nAnnual Form 2000 information. As shown in Table 2, four GAs would not have met the\nminimum reserve ratio using the accrual accounting Federal fund balance, but met the minimum\nrequirement using FSA\xe2\x80\x99s current methodology. American Student Assistance did not meet the\nminimum reserve ratio using either calculation. FSA\xe2\x80\x99s current methodology inflated GA reserve\nratios by an average of 30 percent above the reserve ratios calculated using accrual accounting\nand presented each GA in a stronger financial position in FY 2011.\n\x0cFinal Report\nED-OIG/A06L0003 Page 8 of 21\n\n Table 2. Comparison of Reserve Ratio Calculation for FY 2011\n FSA\xe2\x80\x99s Reserve Accrual\n Ratio Accounting\n Guaranty Agency Calculation Reserve\n Ratio\n Recalculation\n American Student Assistance\n 0.24 0.16\n (Massachusetts)\n Kentucky Higher Education Assistance\n 0.31 0.19\n Authority\n College Assist (Colorado) 0.25 0.18\n Student Loan Guarantee Foundation of\n 0.33 0.20\n Arkansas\n New York State Higher Education\n 0.28 0.19\n Services Corporation\n\nWe performed the same recalculation described above for the all GAs using the FY 2012\nAnnual Form 2000 information. As shown in Table 3, seven GAs would not have met the\nminimum reserve ratio using the accrual accounting Federal fund balance, but met the minimum\nrequirement using FSA\xe2\x80\x99s current methodology. FSA\xe2\x80\x99s current methodology inflated GA reserve\nratios by an average of 43 percent above the reserve ratios calculated using accrual accounting\nand presented each GA in a stronger financial position in FY 2012.\n\n Table 3. Comparison of Reserve Ratio Calculation for FY 2012\n FSA\xe2\x80\x99s Reserve Accrual\n Ratio Accounting\n Guaranty Agency Calculation Reserve\n Ratio\n Recalculation\n American Student Assistance\n 0.25 0.18\n (Massachusetts)\n Kentucky Higher Education Assistance\n 0.29 0.16\n Authority\n College Assist (Colorado) 0.26 0.19\n Student Loan Guarantee Foundation of\n 0.27 0.15\n Arkansas\n New York State Higher Education\n 0.28 0.20\n Services Corporation\n Michigan Guaranty Agency 0.35 0.24\n Higher Education Student Assistance\n 0.84 0.14\n (New Jersey)\n\x0cFinal Report\nED-OIG/A06L0003 Page 9 of 21\n\nFSA\xe2\x80\x99s erroneous calculation identified that all GAs met the minimum reserve ratio in FY 2010,\nall but one GA (Massachusetts) met the minimum reserve ratio in FY 2011, and all GAs met the\nminimum reserve ratio in 2012 (see attachments 2, 3 and 4 for all GAs reserve ratio\nrecalculations). Based on the correct calculation, College Assist, Kentucky Higher Education\nAssistance Authority, Student Loan Guarantee Foundation of Arkansas (Arkansas), American\nStudent Assistance, and New York State Higher Education Services Corporation fell below the\nminimum ratio for two consecutive years and should have been placed on management plans.\n\nRecommendations\nWe recommend that the Chief Operating Officer of Federal Student Aid\xe2\x80\x94\n\n 1.1 Cease adding allowances and other non-cash charges to the accrual accounting Federal\n fund balance when calculating the reserve ratio.\n\n 1.2 Recalculate the reserve ratio for all GAs for the two most recently completed fiscal years\n using the accrual basis of accounting Federal fund balance to determine whether any of\n the GAs would have failed to meet the ratio and should be required to submit a\n management plan.\n\nFSA\xe2\x80\x99s Comments\n\nFSA concurred with Finding No. 1 and stated it would take the actions described in the\nrecommendations.\n\nOIG Response\n\nFSA\xe2\x80\x99s planned corrective actions, if properly implemented, are responsive to the finding and\nrecommendations.\n\nFINDING NO. 2 \xe2\x80\x93 FSA Did Not Document the Procedures for Actions it\n Should Have Taken on Information That Identified\n Guaranty Agencies Under Possible Financial Stress\nFSA did not establish criteria for GAs to use in developing the financial projections that FSA\nrequired GAs to report on the Annual Form 2000 and FSA did not document the procedures for\nactions it should have taken on the information GAs reported on the Monthly Annual Form 2000\nthat identified GAs under possible financial stress. FSA required GAs to project revenues and\nexpenses for 5 years in both the Federal and operating funds accounts on the Annual Form 2000.\nIn the absence of criteria for developing projections, each GA used its own methodology, which\nmade it impossible for FSA to meaningfully compare GAs. Also, FSA did not require GAs to\nsubmit support for the projections, so FSA could not be confident that the projections were\nreasonable estimates.\n\nIn addition, GAs must submit a Monthly Annual Form 2000 that contains financial information\nfor both the Federal and operating fund accounts. We found that FSA\xe2\x80\x99s procedures state that\nFSA staff should use the Monthly Variance Report, the Monthly Annual Data Report, and the\nQuarterly Trend Analysis to identify inconsistencies or data anomalies and for the annual\nreconciliation process. The procedures do not state that staff should act on information in the\n\x0cFinal Report\nED-OIG/A06L0003 Page 10 of 21\n\nthree reports that identifies GAs under possible financial stress, and we did not find evidence that\nstaff used the three reports for that purpose. For example, the Quarterly Trend Analysis report\ncontains information regarding the GAs\xe2\x80\x99 financial solvency and ability to pay claims. For the\nfirst quarter of FY 2011, the Quarterly Trend Analysis report identified four GAs with a high risk\nof becoming insolvent and 14 GAs as not having the ability to pay claims. There was no\nindication that FSA increased its monitoring of the GAs identified with a high risk of insolvency\nor the inability to pay claims based on the information reported in the Quarterly Trend Analysis.\n\nBased on our work discussed in Finding 1, six GAs we identified as failing to meet the reserve\nratio were also identified in the Quarterly Trend Analysis report as not having the ability to pay\nclaims. Two of the six GAs were also identified as having a high risk of becoming financially\ninsolvent. On March 19, 2014, Arkansas submitted a formal request to FSA to transition out of\nFFELP and have its portfolio transferred to a GA better suited to pay claims. Arkansas requested\nthat FSA complete the process by September 30, 2014. As reported in Finding 1, Arkansas\nfailed to meet the reserve ratio requirement for FY 2011 and FY 2012 as recalculated by the\nOffice of Inspector General (OIG) and should have been placed on a management plan.\nArkansas was one of the GAs identified in the FY 2011 Quarterly Trend Analysis report as not\nhaving the ability to pay claims and as having a medium risk for financial insolvency.\n\nAccording to Section 428(c)(9) of the HEA the Secretary is required to evaluate the financial and\nadministrative condition of GAs. The statute also allows the Secretary to terminate GA\nagreements if the GA is not meeting the requirements of the program.\n\nAccording to the Director of Business Operations, FSA recognizes that the projections are not\ncalculated consistently between each GA and, as such, FSA places little importance on the\naccuracy of the GA projections on the Annual Form 2000. Although FSA uses the Monthly\nAnnual Form 2000 to identify anomalies and discrepancies, FSA did not use the reported data to\ndetermine whether a GA is under financial stress and did not take action based on that\ninformation.\n\nRecommendations\nWe recommend that the Chief Operating Officer of Federal Student Aid\xe2\x80\x94\n\n 2.1 Develop criteria for fund projections that GAs are required to report on the Annual\n Form 2000.\n\n 2.2 Develop action plans when available information indicates that a GA is under possible\n financial stress.\n\nFSA\xe2\x80\x99s Comments\n\nFSA concurred with Finding No. 2 and stated it would take the actions described in the\nrecommendations. However, FSA stated that the finding caption was not accurate.\n\nOIG Response\n\nBased on FSA\xe2\x80\x99s response, we changed the finding caption. FSA\xe2\x80\x99s planned corrective actions, if\nproperly implemented, are responsive to the finding and recommendations.\n\x0cFinal Report\nED-OIG/A06L0003 Page 11 of 21\n\nFINDING NO. 3 \xe2\x80\x93 FSA\xe2\x80\x99s Transition Evaluation Process for Selecting\n Successor GAs Has Deficiencies\n\nWe identified deficiencies in the methodology FSA developed to transition two GAs out of\nFFELP. Specifically, the analysis FSA used to select these potential successors GAs contained\ndeficiencies related to projected fund balances, used subjective factors, and did not provide a\nrationale for why the variables FSA selected to predict GA financial solvency were the most\nrelevant variables.\n\nFSA Initial Methodology for Identifying Successor GAs\nFor GAs that no longer want to participate in FFELP, FSA developed a methodology to select\nsuccessor GAs. In response to a GA\xe2\x80\x99s request to exit FFELP in March 2011, FSA developed a\nprocess it called the \xe2\x80\x9cTransition Evaluation Process\xe2\x80\x9d to evaluate successor GA capacity.\n\nThe Transition Evaluation Process involved FSA officials reviewing eight variables and using\ntheir personal knowledge about individual GAs to identify acceptable successors. The eight\nvariables were Financial Health, trigger rate, recovery rate, 2010 Federal fund, 2010 operating\nfund, financial bandwidth, data and asset security, and cohort default rate FY 2009. We\nidentified deficiencies with this process. Specifically, as part of its analysis, FSA used the\nreported operating and Federal fund projections through 2015, which GAs submitted on their\nAnnual Forms 2000. As discussed in Finding 2, since each GA used its own methodology for\nthese projections, FSA cannot make meaningful comparisons among them.\n\nIn addition, FSA officials used their personal knowledge of the GAs to add or remove GAs from\nconsideration as successor GAs. FSA officials did not have documentation of or explanations\nfor the criteria they used to make these decisions. The personal knowledge criteria varied and\nwere based on FSA officials\xe2\x80\x99 experience working with the GAs.\n\nFSA used this process to identify three acceptable successors GAs for the GA that requested to\nexit FFELP in March 2011. As of October 2013, the requesting GA was still participating in\nFFELP.\n\nFSA\xe2\x80\x99s Modified Methodology for Identifying Successor GAs\nIn November 2011, a second GA requested to end its participation in FFELP. FSA modified the\ninitial Transition Evaluation Process by using seven instead of eight variables\xe2\x80\x94it eliminated the\nuse of the operating and Federal fund projections variable. FSA also did not rely on FSA\nofficials\xe2\x80\x99 personal knowledge about individual GAs to make successor selections. Nonetheless,\nthis modified process also contained deficiencies.\n\nThe modified methodology was a two-step process. First, FSA ranked the 32 GAs according to\nthe seven variables. Second, FSA selected the 10 highest ranked GAs for further evaluation\nbased on GA capacity and size. In the first step of the process for ranking GAs, FSA gave a\nhigher score to GAs with lower 2-year cohort default rates and lower trigger rates.\n\nIn the second step of the process, FSA evaluated the GAs ranked in the top 10 from step one.\nFSA then eliminated six GAs that it determined did not have the capacity to serve as a successor\nGA. FSA\xe2\x80\x99s criteria for determining whether a GA had the capacity to serve as a successor GA\nwas whether the GA had both defaulted and non-defaulted loan portfolios at least two-thirds the\n\x0cFinal Report\nED-OIG/A06L0003 Page 12 of 21\n\nsize of the transitioning GA. FSA should have eliminated GAs that did not meet the capacity\nthreshold from consideration before establishing relative rankings based on the seven variables\nso that the GAs that ultimately were ranked among the top 10 would all have been viable\ncandidates for selection. This would have resulted in a more logical process.\n\nThis modified process resulted in FSA selecting four GAs as potential successor GAs. FSA\nallowed the transitioning GA to select which of the four potential successors the GA preferred to\nwork with. The transitioning GA selected a successor, which the Secretary then approved. FSA\nterminated the exiting GA\xe2\x80\x99s participation in FFELP and transitioned the GA\xe2\x80\x99s portfolio to the\nsuccessor GA.\n\nRecommendation\nWe recommend that the Chief Operating Officer of Federal Student Aid\xe2\x80\x94\n\n 3.1 Correct the deficiencies in the Transition Evaluation Process, if circumstances require\n this process to be used in future selections of successor GAs, and consider these\n deficiencies in developing a process to evaluate GAs in the future.\n\nFSA\xe2\x80\x99s Comments\n\nFSA concurred with Finding No. 3 and stated it would take the actions described in the\nrecommendation. In its response, FSA stated that it considers the GA recovery rate to be a\nperformance indicator, not an indicator of financial health. FSA also agreed to reconsider the\nsteps for selecting successor GAs in the Transition Evaluation Process to make the process more\nlogical.\n\nOIG Response\n\nBased on FSA\xe2\x80\x99s comments we removed the discussion in the draft report about the GA recovery\nrate. Additionally, we changed the draft Finding 3 conclusion that a ranking process that first\neliminated from consideration any GAs that did not meet the capacity threshold would have been\nmore efficient than the existing process. We now conclude that such a process would be more\nlogical rather than more efficient. FSA\xe2\x80\x99s planned corrective actions, if properly implemented,\nare responsive to the finding and recommendation.\n\n\n\n\n OBJECTIVES, SCOPE, AND METHODOLOGY\n\n\nThe audit objectives were to evaluate FSA\xe2\x80\x99s (1) process for ensuring the continued protection of\nFederal funds at GAs; (2) oversight of GAs\xe2\x80\x99 ability to perform their duties; and (3) actions for\nthe GAs\xe2\x80\x99 successful participation during the phase-out of FFELP loans.\n\nWe revised the second objective which originally included a review of FSA\xe2\x80\x99s oversight of GAs\xe2\x80\x99\ncompliance with program requirements. While FSA had policies and procedures for oversight of\nGAs, we did not develop sufficient, appropriate evidence to answer the second objective as\noriginally written. For the program reviews conducted prior to SAFRA, we did not believe the\n\x0cFinal Report\nED-OIG/A06L0003 Page 13 of 21\n\nreviews were relevant to our audit because we decided to focus only on the oversight of financial\nsolvency of GAs. During the audit period, FSA\xe2\x80\x99s oversight included developing and\nimplementing annual risk matrices, annual work plans, and conducting various program reviews\nfocused on the risk identified. We identified risk areas within FSA\xe2\x80\x99s annual risk matrices that\nwere related to the audit objectives, such as GAs transitioning out of FFELP and the financial\nsolvency of GAs. FSA also developed and implemented work plans aligned to the risk areas\nidentified. After SAFRA, FSA completed five program reviews during FY 2012. We evaluated\nthe reports for the programs reviews conducted and determined that the reviews did not focus on\nthe financial solvency of the GAs.\n\nTo complete our audit work, as discussed below, we limited our review to FSA\xe2\x80\x99s policies and\nprocedures for its oversight of GAs during the phase-out of FFELP. The audit evaluated FSA\xe2\x80\x99s\npolicies and procedures for its oversight of GAs during the phase-out of FFELP from\nJuly 1, 2009, through June 30, 2011, and we performed additional audit work related to FSA\xe2\x80\x99s\nactions for the GAs FFELP participation through May 1, 2014. During the follow up\ndiscussions, we learned that FSA planned to use the second Transition Evaluation Process for\nGAs that wanted to end their participation in FFELP and that two GAs had successfully\ntransitioned out of FFELP and transferred their portfolios to other GAs within the last two years.\nWe interviewed officials from FSA\xe2\x80\x99s Business Operations, Financial Institution Oversight\nService, and Funds Control and Operations Branch at the FSA headquarters in Washington, D.C.\nWe also performed audit work at three GAs: College Assist, Texas Guaranty, and United Student\nAid Funds. We selected 3 of the 32 GAs to review based on the following criteria: one GA with\na small FFELP portfolio that applied for a VFA (May 2011), one GA with a large FFELP\nportfolio that applied for a VFA (May 2011), and one GA with a large FFELP portfolio that did\nnot apply for a VFA.\n\nTo accomplish our objectives, we performed the following procedures.\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Reviewed FSA\xe2\x80\x99s organizational charts.\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Reviewed prior reports issued by OIG related to FSA\xe2\x80\x99s oversight, FFELP, and GAs and a\n Government Accountability Office report related to a prior VFA process.\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Interviewed FSA officials from the office of the Chief Operating Officer, the Business\n Operations Group, the Financial Institution Oversight Service, the Funds Control and\n Accounting Branch, and GA management and staff.\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Reviewed and verified Monthly Annual Form 2000 and Annual Form 2000 information\n at the three GAs visited. We also reviewed the Annual Form 2000 for all GAs, used by\n FSA to calculate the reserve ratios.\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Reviewed the initial VFA proposals submitted in reference to the Federal Register issued\n on May 13, 2011, and the resubmitted proposals to determine whether the initial and\n revised proposals met the requirements of the Federal Register.\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Reviewed the Federal Register issued on August 14, 2013, to evaluate the VFA\n requirements for GAs submitting proposals.\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Evaluated FSA\xe2\x80\x99s risk matrices for FY 2009 through FY 2012 to determine whether FSA\n included risk elements associated with the decline in loan balances at GAs after the\n passage of the SAFRA Act. The risk matrices identified critical and high-risk areas.\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Evaluated the program review guides to determine that the methodologies used by FSA\n would address the risk identified and were reviewed in FY 2009 through FY 2012. We\n identified the following program reviews: Analysis of Managerial Controls, Verification\n\x0cFinal Report\nED-OIG/A06L0003 Page 14 of 21\n\n of Claims, Post Default Due Diligence, Payment Application, Conflict of Interest\n Review, GA Profitability Program Review, and Financial Reviews.\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Reviewed FSA\xe2\x80\x99s work plans for FY 2009 through FY 2012 3 to determine the number and\n type of reviews that were conducted by FSA with regards to the risk areas associated with\n GAs. The work plans included reviews that were pertinent to our objectives; specifically,\n 12 profitability reviews; 2 reviews of merging GAs, 4 GA transition reviews, and 15 GA\n program reviews.\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Evaluated the review guides and reports for the five financial reviews conducted after\n SAFRA in FY 2012.\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Reviewed policy and procedures of the Business Operations Group, as it relates to\n monitoring the GAs and reports submitted by GAs; and the Financial Institution\n Oversight Service, as it relates to program reviews.\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Reviewed two Transition Evaluation Processes.\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Recalculated reserve ratios of all 32 GAs for FY 2010, FY 2011, and FY 2012 using the\n accrual calculation and compared to FSA\xe2\x80\x99s current reserve ratio methodology.\n\nTo achieve our audit objective related to evaluating FSA\xe2\x80\x99s ability to protect Federal funds, we\nrelied, in part, on computer-processed data. To recalculate the reserve ratio, we obtained the\nAnnual Form 2000 data for FY 2010 and FY 2011 from FSA\xe2\x80\x99s Financial Management System.\nTo verify data completeness, we obtained a copy of the Annual Form 2000 information from\nFSA. We then reviewed the Annual Form 2000 information to ensure that all appropriate data\nfields were completed for each of the 32 GAs. We verified the reliability of the data by\nreviewing 3 months of Monthly Annual Form 2000 at the three GAs visited and compared all the\nfields in the Monthly Annual Form 2000 to source documents. We noted that the information in\nthe GAs source documents agreed with the information reported on the Annual Form 2000.\nBased on our testing, we concluded that the data were complete and sufficiently reliable for the\npurposes of our audit. For FY 2012, we obtained Annual Form 2000 information from FSA\xe2\x80\x99s\nFinancial Partners Publications website.\n\nWe conducted site visits at FSA during the weeks of July 11, 2011, and January 30, 2012. We\nalso completed audit work at College Assist during the week of September 19, 2011, Texas\nGuaranty during the week of October 11, 2011, and United Student Aid Funds during the week\nof November 14, 2011. We held an exit conference with FSA on May 30, 2013, to discuss the\nresults of the audit. We also held a subsequent meeting with FSA in September 2013 and\nanother meeting in May 2014 to gain an understanding of the status of the VFA solicitation\nissued on August 14, 2013.\n\nInternal Controls\nWe gained an understanding of the internal controls concerning oversight of GAs at FSA. We\ndetermined the control activities standard of internal control was significant to our audit\nobjectives. We tested the control activities through inquiries of FSA and GA personnel, review\nof written policies and procedures, and inspection of documents and records. We identified\nweaknesses in the auditee\xe2\x80\x99s control activities, which are fully discussed in the audit findings.\nWe determined FSA did not have adequate control activities to ensure the continued protection\nof Federal funds at GAs.\n\n\n3\n The work plan and program reviews for FY 2012 were completed after the SAFRA Act.\n\x0cFinal Report\nED-OIG/A06L0003 Page 15 of 21\n\nWe conducted this performance audit in accordance with generally accepted government\nauditing standards, except for obtaining sufficient, appropriate evidence to address our\nsecond objective. Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain\nsufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our findings and\nconclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe that the evidence obtained\nprovides a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit\nobjectives.\n\n\n\n\n ADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS\n\n\nCorrective actions proposed (resolution phase) and implemented (closure phase) by your office\nwill be monitored and tracked through the Department\xe2\x80\x99s Audit Accountability and Resolution\nTracking System (AARTS). ED policy requires that you develop a final corrective action plan\n(CAP) for our review in the automated system within 30 days of the issuance of this report. The\nCAP should set forth the specific action items, and targeted completion dates, necessary to\nimplement final corrective actions on the findings and recommendations contained in this final\naudit report. An electronic copy of this report has been provided to your Audit Liaison\nOfficer(s).\n\nIn accordance with the Inspector General Act of 1978, as amended, the Office of Inspector\nGeneral is required to report to Congress twice a year on the audits that remain unresolved after\nsix months from the date of issuance.\n\nStatements that managerial practices need improvements, as well as other conclusions and\nrecommendations in this report, represent the opinions of the Office of Inspector General.\nDetermination of corrective action to be taken will be made by the appropriate Department of\nEducation officials.\n\nIn accordance with the Freedom of Information Act (5 U.S.C. \xc2\xa7552), reports issued by the Office\nof Inspector General are available to members of the press and general public to the extent\ninformation contained therein is not subject to exemptions in the Act.\n\nWe appreciate the cooperation given us during this review. If you have any questions, please\ncall Daniel P. Schultz at (646) 428-3888.\n\n Sincerely,\n\n /s/\n\n Patrick J. Howard\n Assistant Inspector General for Audit\nAttachment(s)\n\x0cFinal Report\nED-OIG/A06L0003 Page 16 of 21\n\n Attachment 1: Abbreviations, Acronyms, and Short Forms Used in This\n Report\nAct Bipartisan Budget Act of 2013\n\nAnnual Form 2000 Guaranty Agency Financial Report Annual Form 2000\n\nDepartment U.S. Department of Education\n\nECASLA Ensuring Continued Access to Student Loan Act of 2008\n\nFFELP Federal Family Education Loan Program\n\nFSA Federal Student Aid\n\nFY Fiscal Year\n\nGA Guaranty Agencies\n\nHEA Higher Education Act of 1965, as amended\n\nMonthly Annual Form 2000 Guaranty Agency Financial Report Monthly Annual Form 2000\n\nOIG The Office of Inspector General\n\nSAFRA The SAFRA Act\n\nSecretary Secretary of Education\n\nVFA Voluntary Flexible Agreement\n\x0cFinal Report\nED-OIG/A06L0003 Page 17 of 21\n\n Attachment 2: OIG\xe2\x80\x99s Recalculation of the Reserve Ratio for FY 2010 for All\n GAs\n\n\n FSA\xe2\x80\x99s Accrual Percentage\n Reserve Ratio Reserve Ratio Percentage Point Increase from\n GA Short Name Percentage Percentage Difference Accrual to FSA\n Arkansas 0.41 0.27 0.13 52%\n Colorado 0.26 0.19 0.07 37%\n Florida 0.92 0.73 0.19 26%\n Georgia 0.73 0.57 0.16 28%\n Illinois 0.76 0.67 0.09 13%\n Iowa 0.79 0.71 0.08 11%\n Kentucky 0.36 0.24 0.11 50%\n Louisiana 0.64 0.48 0.15 33%\n Maine 0.46 0.40 0.06 15%\n Massachusetts 0.30 0.22 0.08 36%\n Michigan 0.40 0.28 0.12 43%\n Missouri 0.69 0.59 0.11 17%\n Montana 0.47 0.44 0.03 7%\n Nebraska 0.51 0.39 0.13 31%\n New Hampshire 0.75 0.40 0.34 88%\n New Jersey 0.74 0.34 0.40 118%\n New Mexico 0.55 0.47 0.08 17%\n New York 0.33 0.26 0.07 27%\n North Carolina 0.62 0.57 0.04 9%\n North Dakota 0.87 0.76 0.11 14%\n Oklahoma 0.75 0.62 0.13 21%\n Pennsylvania 0.39 0.33 0.06 18%\n Rhode Island 0.85 0.60 0.25 42%\n South Carolina 0.60 0.56 0.04 7%\n Tennessee 0.55 0.45 0.09 22%\n Texas 1.47 1.39 0.09 6%\n Utah 2.09 1.82 0.26 15%\n Vermont 0.80 0.76 0.04 5%\n Washington 0.45 0.38 0.07 18%\n Wisconsin 0.74 0.68 0.07 9%\n United Student\n 0.40 0.33\n Aid Funds 0.07 21%\n ECMC 1.22 1.05 0.16 16%\n\n Average 0.12 27%\nNote: All numbers rounded to the nearest percentage point.\n\x0cFinal Report\nED-OIG/A06L0003 Page 18 of 21\n\n Attachment 3: OIG\xe2\x80\x99s Recalculation of the Reserve Ratio for FY 2011 for All\n GAs\n\n\n FSA\xe2\x80\x99s Accrual Percentage\n Reserve Ratio Reserve Ratio Percentage Point Increase from\n GA Short Name Percentage Percentage Difference Accrual to FSA\n Arkansas 0.33 0.20 0.13 65%\n Colorado 0.25 0.18 0.07 39%\n Florida 0.99 0.80 0.19 24%\n Georgia 0.66 0.55 0.11 20%\n Illinois 0.76 0.67 0.09 13%\n Iowa 0.88 0.81 0.06 9%\n Kentucky 0.31 0.19 0.13 63%\n Louisiana 0.65 0.52 0.13 25%\n Maine 0.49 0.43 0.06 14%\n Massachusetts 0.24 0.16 0.08 50%\n Michigan 0.41 0.32 0.10 28%\n Missouri 0.72 0.61 0.12 18%\n Montana 0.44 0.40 0.04 10%\n Nebraska 0.47 0.34 0.13 38%\n New Hampshire 0.89 0.59 0.30 51%\n New Jersey 0.81 0.26 0.55 212%\n New Mexico 0.55 0.48 0.07 15%\n New York 0.28 0.19 0.09 47%\n North Carolina 0.60 0.57 0.03 5%\n North Dakota 0.86 0.71 0.15 21%\n Oklahoma 0.81 0.65 0.16 25%\n Pennsylvania 0.40 0.34 0.06 18%\n Rhode Island 0.89 0.62 0.27 44%\n South Carolina 0.57 0.52 0.05 10%\n Tennessee 0.44 0.33 0.11 33%\n Texas 1.91 1.81 0.11 6%\n Utah 2.32 2.12 0.19 9%\n Vermont 0.81 0.77 0.04 5%\n Washington 0.42 0.35 0.06 20%\n Wisconsin 0.74 0.69 0.06 7%\n United Student\n 0.39 0.33 0.07 18%\n Aid Funds\n ECMC 1.70 1.55 0.15 10%\n\n Average 0.12 30%\nNote: All numbers rounded to the nearest percentage point.\n\x0cFinal Report\nED-OIG/A06L0003 Page 19 of 21\n\n Attachment 4: OIG\xe2\x80\x99s Recalculation of the Reserve Ratio for FY 2012 for All\n GAs\n\n\n FSA\xe2\x80\x99s Accrual Percentage\n Reserve Ratio Reserve Ratio Percentage Point Increase from\n GA Short Name Percentage Percentage Difference Accrual to FSA\n Arkansas 0.27 0.15 0.12 79%\n Colorado 0.26 0.19 0.08 40%\n Florida 1.02 0.84 0.18 22%\n Georgia 0.62 0.51 0.11 23%\n Illinois 0.80 0.72 0.08 11%\n Iowa 1.01 0.93 0.07 8%\n Kentucky 0.29 0.16 0.13 78%\n Louisiana 0.61 0.50 0.11 22%\n Maine 0.47 0.39 0.08 20%\n Massachusetts 0.25 0.18 0.08 42%\n Michigan 0.35 0.24 0.11 44%\n Missouri 0.72 0.62 0.10 17%\n Montana 0.43 0.39 0.03 9%\n Nebraska 0.40 0.26 0.14 55%\n New Hampshire 0.99 0.73 0.26 35%\n New Jersey 0.84 0.14 0.70 490%\n New Mexico 0.44 0.36 0.08 21%\n New York 0.28 0.20 0.07 36%\n North Carolina 0.56 0.50 0.06 12%\n North Dakota 0.89 0.86 0.04 4%\n Oklahoma 0.93 0.77 0.16 21%\n Pennsylvania 0.35 0.28 0.08 28%\n Rhode Island 0.95 0.42 0.53 125%\n South Carolina 0.52 0.46 0.07 14%\n Tennessee 0.47 0.37 0.10 29%\n Texas 2.26 2.17 0.09 4%\n Utah 2.58 2.42 0.17 7%\n Vermont 0.84 0.79 0.05 7%\n Washington 0.40 0.33 0.07 20%\n Wisconsin 0.73 0.65 0.07 11%\n United Student 24%\n 0.07\n Aid Funds 0.35 0.28\n ECMC 0.92 0.77 0.14 18%\n\n Average 0.13 43%\nNote: All numbers rounded to the nearest percentage point.\n\x0cFinal Report\nED-OIG/A06L0003 Page 20 of 21\n\n Attachment 5: FSA\xe2\x80\x99s Comments on the Draft Report\n\n\n\n\n Federal Student PROU D SPONSOR of\n th\xe2\x80\xa2 AMERICAN MIND \'"\n\n Se ptember 24. 20 14\n\n\n M.r\xc2\xb7. Daniel P. Schuitl\n Rt!gim al Jnspcctur Cicneml lb: /\\udir\n Otlice of Inspector General\n "2 Old Slip\n ~6\xc2\xb0 Fk10r\n Ne.w York. NY I 0005\n\n Oe<~r ~.<Jr. S<.:hultz:\n\n SUBJECf: R~lf)<lfll\'IC In Ornli A .tdir ficpvr1. Ow:r;~lgh: u_{Grr<n-cm~v A~tt:ndl\':i Dwiu,g tk(\' .\'\'ha.~\xc2\xb7~~-Out o.f\n t!t(\xe2\x80\xa2 / .....\'(/cr<d Fumi(y J::ducatioul..omr Prop.mm. (ED-OlG AOl>-l0003)\n\n On .o\\ugusr I , 2014, rh:: Ollicc of Inspector General (OIGi issued a dr-aft <llld:t report en!iliOO ..uv~sighr\n of(.iuar.lnly Age:tcit-s Du.riuj,p hc l\' hasc-Out oflhe Ft.\'tler<al Family Ed u~:ui on Loan Progr;;m" (Cootrol\n Nutubcr ED\xc2\xb7OIG :\\06\xc2\xb7l0003). Jn thc t\'e port. the OIG COllCJIJded :IKrl federal S!udent .Atd ( 1 \xc2\xb7~/o.) d<1cs not\n l:aw an <cdt.\'<Juatc pn>e:.-ss to p r<)lect Fcrlcrl\'ll fiu.1ds and lh;;tl fSA did 001~ct on iafCm:ation that Guar<\'mty\n Agencies (GAs) rcpor110 us. While we agree with l\'lli\\Oy o f !lu: OtG\'s liudings and rc<:Qmmcndations. we\n do helic\\c that we have an 01doquatc process to proccc\xe2\x80\xa2 Fcdcr.d funds and tbm we do act oo infonnation\n \xe2\x80\xa2h.,tthc GAs rcpon to us. FS1\\ closely monitors guaranty <tJ.;CilC)\' Opcr:lling and Pcderlll fund ba.lances to\n pmtcct f cde-m) as:o:ets, to ensure timd}\' l).\'l)\'Lnent Qf l; nda claimS-, and to cnsur~ that Feder.1l Fam i l~\xc2\xb7\n 1-\'.<h:c;:.tion L 0..11) (FFEJ..) bon\'Owc;-s n~cei v~ 6c service to which they 1.m~. entitled. T he succcs; of <:au\xe2\x80\xa2\xc2\xb7\n eft<.:.rts h) control tO: risks me evident in that there have bee n no k-sscs o f PcdCI\'JI I\'UJ)(I assets. we an: not\n awf.rc ora ny kndcr clairns be i n~ p:t.id UJltintely: ;;;nd w<: m-e :aut aware of r;ny instance where an\n iosullicient Operatir)g fund Je,el has cau~cd u FF\'f. l. borrower to no( receive the ser,\xe2\x80\xa2iees to wbjch the\n borrower is e mitlod.\n\n J.\'JNDtNG XO. I - FSA \'s f\\f<\xe2\x80\xa2thodulogy for C11.lculatin~ a (;A \xe2\x80\xa2s l<\'ederal Fund Recc rve R:trl<t\n O\'\xe2\x80\xa2erstatc~ the GA ~~ F iuanciul tlenlch\n\n\n FSA C01l Cu1,; wilh the lindi\xe2\x80\xa2lJ:;.th:\\1 thc- l\'ll~\'.hcd<>l<)g_y 1hm FS;\\ uses h.) cvl (l~llt\xe2\x80\xa2 tc:: the: gtu,tnmtor \'s FOOcrnl\n f:sml r~crvc ratio is not in oompliancc: witJ1the regulntory roquiremcnts o f 34 CFR 6S2.41\'J(f)(l) and that\n i1 \xe2\x80\xa2\'CS~\xe2\x80\xa2 I ts in an Ut)(k.:\'SfO\'l\xc2\xa2lll\\.1U <>ftl..:. ri:s.k t~:>~OCi <tted wilb th.,; OA \':s ability to pay lender ci<Jims t:mely.\n T he skltancnt t hat it "overstates GA\' s fi nancial health\'\' spedlicnlly refers t ~) the \xe2\x80\xa2isk associated wjth Ihe\n OA\xc2\xb7~ al>iJity tv pay );.:ul t:~ ~.:laim:> t im~.:ly. T o c!foxd \xe2\x80\xa2,.t:l:r\xc2\xb7 UJjJigatc thi:s.tisk iu tht pa..;t, o i\\cn OA:i will\n 1r.:msfCr money ifom \xe2\x80\xa2he Operating fund t:) ~be Fede ral fimd a ft~r ba\\ing. di s~ussions with us.\n\n Startiug with the fisca1 y~.u 20 1 5 <:rucdatiou. FSA will cease adding allowaltces a1<1 otbct ll(ln-tash\n charges to lhe accrual accountu1g Ft\'lderal fund balanc~;; \\Vbt.-\'1: <:<tlculahng lhc ol h CHII rcs:cne mtm. Any\n GAs fa_il ing to meet th \xc2\xb7~ rntio calcui:Jtcd tOr fiscol )"Car 2015 ~ od the revised rntio calculated fO\xe2\x80\xa2\xc2\xb7 liscal yet~r\n 20 14 wil: bc.reqLirtd tu :.ubmit a ru;u1<.~emen t plan.\n\n\n\n\n 830 Fnst St\xc2\xb7ee:. NE. Washngtcn. DC 20202\n StucentAd.go\xc2\xb7,\n\x0cFinal Report\nED-OIG/A06L0003 Page 21 of 21\n\n\n\n\n fiND ING NO. 2- Fetlcnd Studcnl Aid Did NOI Act on lnJonnation ihal Identified (;uaranly\n Agencies Under Possible Fi1:mcill Stress\n\n FSA concurs wi1h thi~ lindins,. lhous h "\'"\'believe:. :.lOre :.<:cur:ue tl ..:~ripli on c r 1hc lindin~ :.: lhal J!SA\n did ll<)l il:)l:u n\xe2\x80\xa2tln l the prO;;e~s Or <M iou~ wo;: l.ook on :n fon:mtio\xe2\x80\xa2~ tb~t id~nt: fics GAs under po~>siblc\n fl nanckli str-cs~.\n\n SJ~i fic:. ll y. we <.:(ltiCllr th<lt lltt.re is n<.\xe2\x80\xa2.st:;~n<.iard methodok\' b.\'Y n:quirento:nt for Annul!! form 2000\n projections. FSA will determine the fca~ibili1 y :.r.d develop con s:i~\xe2\x80\xa2cnl <: riceri:tl~l :lrld::u\xe2\x80\xa2d mechodoll)gy\n r\xc2\xa2q\\\xe2\x80\xa2i r<:m~n l s (wbcrc appl i c:.<~blc) for fund projections that GAs are noqu:rcd to report on the Annual Form\n 2000 :tnd upd:\'ltC the (\'.uar:uuy Agency Fill:"u te ial Reponing lllflii\'U<:Ii()n ;K."e(Jn:l \' insly. bl :)ddilion, rsA will\n modit} tbc :abcling on the Quarterly Tr-end Analysis to more accurately reflect the accual risks that the\n J)l\'()j.:Cl i C)a.~ highligln $0 l ht~ ! :\'t$$lunpc i<\'I1H mfo<lc onti1C dt~ l:l :\'I:\'C :i<:Cur:ilC. f.<.lrC:<:llt)pfc, 1hc OIC piJiJ)\\<:d\n out that u is repol1 i:icnliliod four G!\\s with a ltigh risk of bc~oming insolvent and 14 GAs as not having\n the abilit}\' \\v JJI.\'IY ~lai\xe2\x80\xa2.ns. Tbi ~ i;S fl.~"~ (1\\\xc2\xb7;,a:;tr.\\-.:u\xc2\xb7n;:ul since i1) \\l1c 1l11t.v 1<.:o~1~ ~ii)~.:C Lllc dJ~,n \xe2\x80\xa2..:\xe2\x80\xa2.101t w;,1s li.\xe2\x80\xa2 ~t\n issutal m; u. ~ Otx\xc2\xb7amc insoh\xc2\xb7cm <~uti we a~ um:warc ofa ny lender claim thai went unpa.d.\n\n PSA J~ r10 nfi;S ;.m ;:.mtlys-ill o f Ill\xc2\xa2 prOj<.:ttiotu pJVvidW by lhC G:\\ \xc2\xb7~ <.1o tl1c Annual Form 2{11)0 to m<tke\n lllCE.ningful ASSC$$1HCiliS. The analysis <\xe2\x80\xa2I\' j)l(lj<:Ctions used in C)UI\' o~lolli.\'IU1)\' ~CO~)\' Analy~illo Oui...h: i:;\n used to d~h::nnin~ tht! lung tenn \\liability ~\xe2\x80\xa2fd.e agency and a lt:\\\'1:1 u f risk. T!tcse pr~c:tt inn.\'i are also\n reviewed in C(lnjunc~ion wi1b 1hc Annu;ll F\'orm 2000 onnlysis for rc<\\SOU.1blc\xe2\x80\xa2:css. Ahhough foore is not;,)\n <:onsis~l!.nt methodolt,J;Y n:quiremcm fbr the projcclions, as JXln ofonr Fonns 2000 review, FSA e nsures\n 1hat tOC\' projcC~:kms at-e reason::.ble. :\\geoc.ies il.re :x.n1ac100 as part of the n::vtew process 1u cJiS<.:uss the\n recon<:1halion \xc2\xb7:)I ;my disaepanctes, In ensure lhm j)l\\)jections :uc rc:\'l:;()n:;.blc. ~nd ,..,\xc2\xb7hen ;~pplicai;Jc, 10\n diSCtlSS long\xc2\xb7tenu plans that th\xc2\xb7; projections :nay requiu::, We wiJJ \xc2\xb7;,euer docwnent the p:lx:edu~s we\n lbll ~lw w:\xc2\xb7u:n laking ac1ion with ( iAl\'> r<) !ldclr.::ss risks a:)::;ocimcd w tb dctcrio rtJling op~ mt i ng l\'olld C\xe2\x80\xa2l\'\n redero: fund balances.\n\n l\'lNUlNt; NU. 3- to~A \xe2\x80\xa2s Tr:uuitinn EY.aluutjon Process for Selecting Succ~w r GAs Has\n Deficiencies\n\n J"!SA concurs with tbc OIG\'s find ing tl\'<\\1 previous itermio:as oflbe p\xe2\x80\xa2ooess to identify a su~x:.t::ssor GA had\n clcficien<:ic:s.. As the Ql(i points c)ut in their repoli, r:SA impro\\\'cd upon tbc J)roccss in 201 1. e liminating\n two oft h~ dcfici~ocies c ited fonllc ;>t\'e-201 i process.\n T he other two ddcicncics cited by the O:G a rc tl:c usc o f t h~ liA rcCO\\\'Cr:\' r;ue in the selection proce.-.s\n and the order <of the Sh!pS in the selc..:tion pn1<:~. We do not bdicvc that :he u~c <1fthe ~ross fiA\n recover,\xe2\x80\xa2 rot~ is a deficiency. The GA J\'COO\\\'Ct\'Y rate is mcam as a pe:t\'lbmlance indicator. not ne;:ccssarily\n an indit::aturnf the-GA \'s lin.1ncial health. therefore we would kocp the g:rO$S recovery rate as p.\'llt oft be\n mcthodoloJW. We will re-consider the otdet o r the process s!eps wltfo~l identif)\'inJil: furore sucressor GJ.\\s\n and mu\\:c the process more-logical. :L" nCCC$.<iaty.\n Thank you for pnwidiog us wi:h an opportu nit~\xc2\xb7 to ~vi ew atld respoud 10 the OIG\'s dratl repOrt.\n\n\n\n Sinceoely, ~\n\n\n 9!:::.::!~\n ChiefOpcroti11g Oniecr\n Fcdcrul Student Aid\n\n\n\n\n 2\n\x0c'


type: contracts

text:
 Ważna informacja prawna
 |
 21994D0929(02)
 Dziennik Urzędowy L 253 , 29/09/1994 P. 0034 - 0035
 Decyzja Wspólnego Komitetu EOGnr 11/94z dnia 12 sierpnia 1994 r.zmieniająca Protokół 31 do Porozumienia EOG w sprawie współpracy w konkretnych dziedzinach poza czterema swobodamiWSPÓLNY KOMITET EOG,uwzględniając Porozumienie o Europejskim Obszarze Gospodarczym dostosowane Protokołem Dostosowującym Porozumienie o Europejskim Obszarze Gospodarczym, zwane dalej "Porozumieniem", w szczególności jego art. 86 i 98,a także mając na uwadze, co następuje:artykuł 3 ust. 2 Protokołu 31 do Porozumienia przewiduje niezwłoczne po wejściu w życie Porozumienia podjęcie decyzji koniecznych do zapewnienia udziału Państw EFTA w działalności Europejskiej Agencji Ochrony Środowiska;w związku z powyższym Protokół 31 do Porozumienia powinien zostać zmieniony w celu umożliwienia pełnego uczestnictwa Państw EFTA w działalności Europejskiej Agencji Ochrony Środowiska oraz Europejskiej Sieci Informacji i Obserwacji Środowiska, ustanowionej przez rozporządzenie Rady (EWG) nr 1210/90 [1], z dnia 1 lipca 1994 r.,STANOWI, CO NASTĘPUJE:Artykuł 1Artykuł 3 ust. 2 Protokołu 31 do Porozumienia otrzymuje następujące brzmienie:"2. a) Państwa EFTA w pełni uczestniczą w działalności Europejskiej Agencji Ochrony Środowiska, zwanej dalej Agencją, oraz mają dostęp do systemu informacji i obserwacji europejskiego środowiska naturalnego, ustanowionego rozporządzeniem Rady (EWG) nr 1210/90 [2];b) Państwa EFTA uczestniczą w finansowaniu działań określonych w lit. a) zgodnie z art. 82 ust. 1 Protokołu 32 do Porozumienia;c) Państwa EFTA w wyniku stosowania lit. b) uczestniczą w pełni bez prawa głosu w posiedzeniach Zarządu Agencji i w pracach Komitetu Naukowego Agencji. Przepis niniejszy nie stoi w sprzeczności z wynikami przyszłych dyskusji dotyczących przyznania prawa głosu;d) Państwa EFTA w terminie trzech miesięcy od dnia wejścia w życie decyzji 11/94 z dnia 12 sierpnia 1994 r. poinformują Agencję o głównych elementach ich krajowych systemów informacyjnych zgodnie z art. 4 ust. 2 rozporządzenia (EWG) nr 1210/90;e) Państwa EFTA mogą w szczególności dokonać wyboru pomiędzy instytucjami określonymi w lit. d) lub innymi organizacjami powołanymi na ich terytorium, będącymi głównymi ośrodkami koordynacji i przekazywania informacji na poziomie krajowym do Agencji oraz do instytucji lub organów stanowiących część systemu, włączając w to ośrodki tematyczne do których odnosi się lit. f);f) Państwa EFTA mogą również w terminie określonym w lit. d) określić instytucje lub inne organizacje powołane na ich terytorium, którym mogą zostać powierzone zadania współpracy z Agencją w odniesieniu do niektórych zagadnień o szczególnym znaczeniu. Instytucje, o których mowa, w celu wykonywania funkcji ośrodka tematycznego należącego do systemu do szczególnych zadań w określonym obszarze geograficznym, muszą mieć możliwość zawierania umów z Agencją. Ośrodki powyższe będą współpracować z innymi instytucjami stanowiącymi część systemu;g) w terminie trzech miesięcy od otrzymania informacji określonej w lit. d), e) oraz f), Zarząd Agencji dokona przeglądu głównych elementów systemu, biorąc pod uwagę udział Państw EFTA;h) Agencja może podjąć decyzję o zawarciu z instytucjami lub organami wskazanymi przez Państwa EFTA stanowiącymi część systemu, zgodnie z lit. d), e) oraz f), koniecznych porozumień, a w szczególności umów w celu umożliwienia im wypełniania zadań, które zostały im przekazane;i) dane dotyczące przeglądu stanu środowiska naturalnego dostarczone Agencji lub od niej otrzymane mogą zostać opublikowane i będą dostępne dla opinii publicznej, jeżeli informacje poufne w Państwach EFTA, podlegają w takim samym stopniu ochronie jak we Wspólnocie;j) Agencja posiada osobowość prawną. We wszystkich umawiających się Państwach korzysta ona z najszerszej zdolności prawnej i zdolności do czynności prawnej przyznawanej przez prawo krajowe osobom prawnym;k) Państwa EFTA stosują do Agencji Protokół o przywilejach i immunitetach Wspólnot Europejskich;l) w drodze odstępstwa od przepisów art. 12 ust. 2 w sprawie warunków zatrudnienia innych pracowników Wspólnot Europejskich obywatele Państw EFTA korzystają z pełnego prawa zatrudnienia na podstawie umowy z dyrektorem wykonawczym Agencji;m) na mocy art. 79 ust. 3, część VII (postanowienia instytucjonalne) Porozumienia stosuje się do niniejszego ustępu."Artykuł 2Niniejsza decyzja wchodzi w życie z dniem 1 listopada 1994 r., pod warunkiem że wszystkie notyfikacje na mocy art. 103 ust. 1 Porozumienia zostały dokonane wobec Wspólnego Komitetu EOG.Artykuł 3Niniejsza decyzja zostanie opublikowana w sekcji EOG i w dodatku EOG do Dziennika Urzędowego Wspólnot Europejskich.Sporządzono w Brukseli, dnia 12 sierpnia 1994 r.W imieniu Wspólnego Komitetu EOGH. HafsteinPrzewodniczący[1] Dz.U. 120 z 11.5.1990, str. 1.[2] Dz.U. L 120 z 11.5.1990, str. 1.--------------------------------------------------


text:
Rajapinta - rinnakkais-sarjamuuntimet, sarja-rinnakkaismuuntimet | Integroidut piirit (IC:t) | DigiKey
 Tuotehakemisto > Integroidut piirit (IC:t) > Rajapinta - rinnakkais-sarjamuuntimet, sarja-rinnakkaismuuntimet
 Rajapinta - rinnakkais-sarjamuuntimet, sarja-rinnakkaismuuntimet
 Valmistaja ams CEL Cypress Semiconductor Corp Maxim Integrated Microsemi Corporation NJR Corporation/NJRC NXP USA Inc. ON Semiconductor Renesas Electronics America Inc Rohm Semiconductor Texas Instruments
 Sarja * - 65LVDS Automotive, AEC-Q100 Automotive, AEC-Q100, 65LVDS Automotive, AEC-Q100, THine® Automotive, AEC-Q100, THine®, V-by-One® Automotive, AEC-Q101 Automotive, Clockless LinkTM THine® THine® V-by-One® μSerDesTM
 Funktio - Rinnakkaismuunnin Sarjamuunnin Sarjamuunnin/rinnakkaismuunnin
 Datansiirtonopeus - 1,03Gbps 1,05Gbps 1,12Gbps 1,218Gbps 1,25Gbps 1,2Gbps 1,386Gbps 1,3Gbps 1,428Gbps 1,485Gbps 1,4Gbps 1,5Gbps 1,63Gbps 1,6Gbps 1,755Gbps 1,785Gbps 1,82Gbps 1,87Gbps 1,8Gbps 1,904Gbps 2,1Gbps 2,376Gbps 2,38Gbps 2,488Gbps 2,4Gbps 2,52Gbps 2,56Gbps 2,5Gbps 2,5Gbs 2,72Gbps 2,7Gbps 2,94Gbps 2,975Gbps 2,97Gbps 3,125Gbps 3,12Gbps 3,1Gbps 3,36Gbps 3,4Gbps 3,4Gbs 3,75Gbps 3,78Gbps 3,92Gbps 4,16Gbps 5,28Gbps 5,38Gbps 5,57Gbps 5,95Gbps 6,384Gbps 614,4Mbps 200kHz 1Mbps 2Mbps 104MHz 135Mbps 175Mbps 200Mbps 201Mbps 220Mbps 306Mbps 307Mbps 320Mbps 400Mbps 405Mbps 450Mbps 468Mbps 480Mbps 520Mbps 560Mbps 595Mbps 600Mbps 622Mbps 660Mbps 676Mbps 688Mbps 700Mbps 756Mbps 784Mbps 800Mbps 810Mbps 840Mbps 900Mbps 903Mbps 945Mbps 960Mbps 1Gbps 3Gbps 3.675Gbps 4Gbps
 Tulon tyyppi - BLVDS, LVDS, LVTTL BLVDS, LVTTL Channel Link II (CML) Channel Link II (LVCMOS) Channel Link II (LVDS) Channel Link III (CML) Channel Link III (LVCMOS) CML CML, LVCMOS CMOS CMOS, LVCMOS CMOS/TTL CSI-2, MIPI Digitaalinen FPD-Link II, LVDS FPD-Link III FPD-Link III, LVCMOS FPD-Link III, LVDS FPD-Link, LVDS HCMOS/LSTTL HCMOS/TTL HDMI LCDS LVCMOS LVCMOS, LVDS, LVTTL LVCMOS, LVTTL LVDS LVDS, LVTTL LVPECL LVTTL MIPI DSI PECL Rinnakkainen Sarjaväylä SSTL (Stub-Series Terminated Logic) TTL V-by-One®HS
 Lähdön tyyppi - BLVDS, LVDS, LVTTL Channel Link II (CML) Channel Link II (LVCMOS) Channel Link II (LVDS) Channel Link III (CML) Channel Link III (LVCMOS) CML CML, LVCMOS CMOS CMOS, LVCMOS CMOS, TTL CMOS/TTL CSI-2, MIPI Differentiaalinen FPD-Link II, LVDS FPD-Link III, LVCMOS FPD-Link III, LVDS FPD-Link, LVDS HCMOS/TTL LCDS LVCMOS LVCMOS, LVDS, LVTTL LVCMOS, LVTTL LVDS LVTTL MPL PECL Rinnakkainen Sarjaväylä SMAART-johdin TTL TTL, VML V-by-One®HS VML
 Tulojen lukumäärä - 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 10 10/1 10/2 12 12/2 13 14 14/2 16 16/1 18 18/1 20 20/4 21 22 22/1 22/3 22/4 24 24/1 24/2 24/32 27 28 30 31 32 35 40 42 48 53 56 70,00 80,00
 Lähtöjen lukumäärä - 1 1/10 1/16 1/18 1/22 1/24 2 2/10 2/12 2/14 2/24 3 3/22 4 4/20 4/22 4/24 5 6 7 8 10 12 13 14 16 18 20 21 22 24 24/32 27 28 29 30 31 32 35 42 48 56 70,00
 Jännite - syöttö - 1,045V – 1,155V, 1,71V – 1,89V 1,045V – 1,155V, 1,71V – 1,89V, 3,135V – 3,465V 1,14V – 1,26V, 3V – 3,6V 1,2V, 1,8V, 3,3V 1,62V – 1,98V 1,62V – 3,6V 1,65V – 1,95V 1,65V – 3,6V 1,6V – 2V 1,6V – 3V 1,71V – 1,89V 1,71V – 1,89V, 3V – 3,6V 1,71V – 3,6V 1,74V – 3V 1,7V – 1,9V 1,7V – 3,3V 1,7V – 3,6V 1,8V 1,8V – 3,3V 1,8V, 3,3V 1.1V ~ 1.3V, 1.7V ~ 2V, 2V ~ 3V, 3V ~ 3.6V 2,375V – 3,465V 2,37V – 3,46V 2,3V – 2,7V 2,3V – 3,6V 2,4V – 5,5V 2,5V, 3,3V 2,97V – 3,63V 3,135V – 3,465V 3,14V – 3,46V 3,15V – 3,45V 3,3V 3V – 3,6V 4,5V – 5,5V 4,75V – 5,25V 10V – 34V 18V – 30V
 Käyttölämpötila -55°C – 125°C (TA) -40°C – 105°C -40°C – 105°C (TA) -40°C – 115°C -40°C – 115°C (TA) -40°C – 125°C (TA) -40°C – 85°C -40°C – 85°C (TA) -40°C – 90°C (TA) -30°C – 70°C (TA) -30°C – 85°C (TA) -25°C – 85°C -25°C – 85°C (TA) -20°C – 70°C (TA) -20°C – 85°C (TA) -10°C – 70°C (TA) - 0°C – 70°C (TA) 0°C – 85°C (TA)
 Pakkaus / kotelo - 8-DIP (0,300", 7,62mm) 8-SOIC (0,209", 5,30mm leveys) 8-TSSOP, 8-MSOP (0,118", 3,00mm leveys) 8-XFBGA, WLCSP 14-DIP (0,300", 7,62mm) 16-DIP (0,325", 8,25mm) 16-SOIC (0,209", 5,30mm leveys) 16-WFQFN paljas antura 22-SDIP (0,300", 7,62mm) 24-SDIP (0,300", 7,62mm) 24-SOIC (0,213", 5,40mm leveys) 24-SSOP (0,209", 5,30mm leveys) 24-VFQFN paljas antura 24-WFQFN paljas antura 28-LCC (J-johdin) 28-PowerTSSOP (0,173", 4,40mm leveys) 28-SDIP (0,400", 10,16mm) 28-SOIC (0,295", 7,50mm leveys) 28-SSOP (0,209", 5,30mm leveys) 28-TSSOP (0,173", 4,40mm leveys) 28-WFQFN paljas antura 32-LQFP 32-TSSOP (0,240", 6,10mm leveys) 32-VFQFN paljas antura 32-WFQFN paljas antura 36-WFQFN paljas antura 40-FQFN paljas antura 40-VFQFN paljas antura 40-WFQFN paljas antura 40-XFQFN paljas antura 42-VFBGA 44-QFP 44-WFQFN paljas antura 48-LQFP 48-TFSOP (0,240", 6,10mm leveys) 48-TFSOP (0,240", 6,10mm leveys) paljas antura 48-TQFP 48-TQFP paljas antura 48-VFBGA 48-VFQFN paljas antura 48-WFQFN paljas antura 48-XFQFN paljas antura 49-LFBGA 49-TFBGA 49-VFBGA 56-TFSOP (0,240", 6,10mm leveys) 56-VFBGA 56-VFQFN paljas antura 56-WFQFN paljas antura 60-WFQFN paljas antura 64-LQFP 64-PowerTQFP 64-QFP 64-TFSOP (0,240", 6,10mm leveys) 64-TFSOP (0,240", 6,10mm leveys) paljas antura 64-TQFP 64-TQFP paljas antura 64-VFQFN 64-VFQFN paljas antura 64-VFQFP paljas antura 64-WFQFN paljas antura 72-TFBGA 80-LQFP 80-VFBGA 92-VFQFN kaksi riviä, paljas antura 100-LFBGA 100-TQFP 100-TQFP paljas antura 105-TFBGA 105-TFBGA, CSPBGA 128-TQFP 144-LQFP 144-LQFP paljas antura 145-TFBGA 196-LBGA 217-BBGA 256-LBGA paljas antura
 Valmistajan laitepakkaus - 8-DIP 8-DMP 8-VSP 14-DIP 16-DIP 16-DMP 16-TQFN (3x3) 22-SDIP 22-SOP 24-DMP 24-SSOP 24-TQFN (4x4) 24-TQFN-EP (4x4) 24-VQFN (4x4) 28-HTSSOP 28-PLCC (11,51x11,51) 28-SDIP 28-SOIC 28-SSOP 28-TQFN (5x5) 32-LQFP/32-TQFP (7x7) 32-QFN (5x5) 32-TQFN (5x5) 32-TQFN-EP (5x5) 32-TSSOP 32-VQFN (5x5) 32-WQFN (5x5) 36-TQFN-EP (6x6) 36-WQFN (6x6) 40-LLP-EP (6x6) 40-QFN (5x5) 40-TQFN (5x5) 40-TQFN-EP (5x5) 40-TQFN-EP (6x6) 40-WQFN (5x5) 40-WQFN (6x6) 40-X2QFN (6x6) 42-USS-BGA (3,5x4,5) 44-PQFP 44-TQFN-EP (7x7) 48-BGA MICROSTAR JUNIOR (4x4) 48-LQFP (7x7) 48-LQFP/48-TQFP (7x7) 48-QFN (7x7) 48-SWTQFN-EP (7x7) 48-TQFN (7x7) 48-TQFN-EP (6x6) 48-TQFN-EP (7x7) 48-TQFP (7x7) 48-TQFP-EP (7x7) 48-TSSOP 48-VQFN (7x7) 48-VQFN-EP (7x7) 48-VQFP 48-WQFN (6x6) 48-WQFN (7x7) 48-X2QFN (6x6) 49-BGA (7x7) 49-CTBGA (7x7) 49-NFBGA (4x4) 49-VFBGA (5x5) 56-BGA MICROSTAR JUNIOR (7,0x4,5) 56-QFN (7x7) 56-QFND-EP (8x8) 56-SWTQFN-EP (8x8) 56-TQFN (8x8) 56-TQFN-EP (8x8) 56-TSSOP 60-WQFN (9x9) 64-HTQFP (10x10) 64-HVQFP 64-LQFP (10x10) 64-PQFP (14x14) 64-QFN (9x9) 64-TQFP (10x10) 64-TQFP-EP (10x10) 64-TSSOP 64-VQFN (9x9) 64-WQFN (9x9) 72-TFBGA (7x7) 80-BGA Microstar Junior (5x5) 80-LQFP (12x12) 92-VQFN-MR (7x7) 100-FBGA (10x10) 100-HTQFP (14x14) 100-TQFP (14x14) 105-TFBGA (10x10) 128-TQFP (14x14) 144-LQFP (20x20) 144-LQFP-EP (20x20) 145-TFBGA (12x12) 196-NFBGA (15x15) 217-PBGA (23x23) 256-BGA (27x27) 32-MLP (5x5) 40-MLP (6x6) 49-MicroArray
 Tulosten lajitteluperuste: - ▲ Digi-Keyn osanumero ▼ Digi-Keyn osanumero ▲ Valmistajan osanumero ▼ Valmistajan osanumero ▲ Valmistaja ▼ Valmistaja ▲ Kuvaus ▼ Kuvaus ▲ Saatavana oleva määrä ▼ Saatavana oleva määrä ▲ Yksikköhinta EUR ▼ Yksikköhinta EUR ▲ Vähimmäismäärä ▼ Vähimmäismäärä ▲ Kotelointi ▼ Kotelointi ▲ Sarja ▼ Sarja ▲ Osan tila ▼ Osan tila ▲ Funktio ▼ Funktio ▲ Datansiirtonopeus ▼ Datansiirtonopeus ▲ Tulon tyyppi ▼ Tulon tyyppi ▲ Lähdön tyyppi ▼ Lähdön tyyppi ▲ Tulojen lukumäärä ▼ Tulojen lukumäärä ▲ Lähtöjen lukumäärä ▼ Lähtöjen lukumäärä ▲ Jännite - syöttö ▼ Jännite - syöttö ▲ Käyttölämpötila ▼ Käyttölämpötila ▲ Kiinnitystyyppi ▼ Kiinnitystyyppi ▲ Pakkaus / kotelo ▼ Pakkaus / kotelo ▲ Valmistajan laitepakkaus ▼ Valmistajan laitepakkaus
 FIN3385MTDX ON Semiconductor IC SERIALIZER/DESERIAL 56-TSSOP 2 000 - Välitön Saatavana: 2 000 1,94991 € 1 000 Vähimmäismäärä: 1 000 Rullattu teippi (TR)
 Vaihtoehtoinen pakkaus - Aktiivinen Sarjamuunnin 2,38Gbps LVTTL LVDS 28 4 3V – 3,6V -40°C – 85°C (TA) Kiinnitys pintaan 56-TFSOP (0,240", 6,10mm leveys) 56-TSSOP
 FIN3385MTDX ON Semiconductor IC SERIALIZER/DESERIAL 56-TSSOP 2 357 - Välitön Saatavana: 2 357 4,00000 € 1 Vähimmäismäärä: 1 Cut Tape (CT)
 FIN3385MTDX ON Semiconductor IC SERIALIZER/DESERIAL 56-TSSOP 2 357 - Välitön Saatavana: 2 357 Digi-Reel® 1 Vähimmäismäärä: 1 Digi-Reel®
 SN65HVS882PWPR Texas Instruments IC SERIALIZER 1MBPS 28HTSSOP 4 000 - Välitön
 10 000 - Tehtaan varastossa Saatavana: 4 000 2,03879 € 2 000 Vähimmäismäärä: 2 000 Rullattu teippi (TR)
 Vaihtoehtoinen pakkaus - Aktiivinen Sarjamuunnin 1Mbps Sarjaväylä Sarjaväylä 8 1 10V – 34V -40°C – 125°C (TA) Kiinnitys pintaan 28-PowerTSSOP (0,173", 4,40mm leveys) 28-HTSSOP
 SN65HVS882PWPR Texas Instruments IC SERIALIZER 1MBPS 28HTSSOP 5 120 - Välitön
 10 001 - Tehtaan varastossa Saatavana: 5 120 4,34000 € 1 Vähimmäismäärä: 1 Cut Tape (CT)
 10 001 - Tehtaan varastossa Saatavana: 5 120 Digi-Reel® 1 Vähimmäismäärä: 1 Digi-Reel®
 SN65LV1224BDBR Texas Instruments IC DESERIALIZER 660MBPS 28SSOP 6 000 - Välitön
 10 000 - Tehtaan varastossa Saatavana: 6 000 3,79987 € 2 000 Vähimmäismäärä: 2 000 Rullattu teippi (TR)
 Vaihtoehtoinen pakkaus - Aktiivinen Rinnakkaismuunnin 660Mbps LVDS LVTTL 1 10 3V – 3,6V -40°C – 85°C (TA) Kiinnitys pintaan 28-SSOP (0,209", 5,30mm leveys) 28-SSOP
 SN65LV1224BDBR Texas Instruments IC DESERIALIZER 660MBPS 28SSOP 6 297 - Välitön
 10 001 - Tehtaan varastossa Saatavana: 6 297 7,45000 € 1 Vähimmäismäärä: 1 Cut Tape (CT)
 10 001 - Tehtaan varastossa Saatavana: 6 297 Digi-Reel® 1 Vähimmäismäärä: 1 Digi-Reel®
 DS90UB933TRTVRQ1 Texas Instruments IC SERIALIZER FPD-LINK 32WQFN 2 500 - Välitön Saatavana: 2 500 3,88245 € 2 500 Vähimmäismäärä: 2 500 Rullattu teippi (TR)
 Vaihtoehtoinen pakkaus Automotive, AEC-Q100 Aktiivinen Sarjamuunnin - LVCMOS LVCMOS 12 2 1,71V – 1,89V -40°C – 105°C (TA) Kiinnitys pintaan 32-WFQFN paljas antura 32-WQFN (5x5)
 DS90UB933TRTVRQ1 Texas Instruments IC SERIALIZER FPD-LINK 32WQFN 2 767 - Välitön Saatavana: 2 767 7,61000 € 1 Vähimmäismäärä: 1 Cut Tape (CT)
 DS90UB933TRTVRQ1 Texas Instruments IC SERIALIZER FPD-LINK 32WQFN 2 767 - Välitön Saatavana: 2 767 Digi-Reel® 1 Vähimmäismäärä: 1 Digi-Reel®
 DS90UB914ATRHSJQ1 Texas Instruments IC SER/DES 25-100MHZ FPD 48WQFN 5 000 - Välitön
 10 000 - Tehtaan varastossa Saatavana: 5 000 3,96956 € 2 500 Vähimmäismäärä: 2 500 Rullattu teippi (TR)
 Vaihtoehtoinen pakkaus Automotive, AEC-Q100 Aktiivinen Rinnakkaismuunnin 1,4Gbps FPD-Link III, LVDS LVCMOS 1 12 1,71V – 3,6V -40°C – 105°C (TA) Kiinnitys pintaan 48-WFQFN paljas antura 48-WQFN (7x7)
 DS90UB914ATRHSJQ1 Texas Instruments IC SER/DES 25-100MHZ FPD 48WQFN 5 357 - Välitön
 10 001 - Tehtaan varastossa Saatavana: 5 357 7,78000 € 1 Vähimmäismäärä: 1 Cut Tape (CT)
 10 001 - Tehtaan varastossa Saatavana: 5 357 Digi-Reel® 1 Vähimmäismäärä: 1 Digi-Reel®
 SN65LV1023ARHBR Texas Instruments IC SERIALIZER 10:1 LVDS 32-QFN 3 000 - Välitön
 9 000 - Tehtaan varastossa Saatavana: 3 000 3,97521 € 3 000 Vähimmäismäärä: 3 000 Rullattu teippi (TR)
 Vaihtoehtoinen pakkaus - Aktiivinen Sarjamuunnin 660Mbps LVTTL LVDS 10 1 3V – 3,6V -40°C – 85°C (TA) Kiinnitys pintaan 32-VFQFN paljas antura 32-VQFN (5x5)
 SN65LV1023ARHBR Texas Instruments IC SERIALIZER 10:1 LVDS 32-QFN 4 829 - Välitön
 10 001 - Tehtaan varastossa Saatavana: 4 829 7,79000 € 1 Vähimmäismäärä: 1 Cut Tape (CT)
 10 001 - Tehtaan varastossa Saatavana: 4 829 Digi-Reel® 1 Vähimmäismäärä: 1 Digi-Reel®
 SN65LV1023ADBR Texas Instruments IC SERIAL/DESERIAL 10:1 28-SSOP 2 000 - Välitön Saatavana: 2 000 3,97522 € 2 000 Vähimmäismäärä: 2 000 Rullattu teippi (TR)
 Vaihtoehtoinen pakkaus - Aktiivinen Sarjamuunnin 660Mbps LVTTL LVDS 10 1 3V – 3,6V -40°C – 85°C (TA) Kiinnitys pintaan 28-SSOP (0,209", 5,30mm leveys) 28-SSOP
 SN65LV1023ADBR Texas Instruments IC SERIAL/DESERIAL 10:1 28-SSOP 2 814 - Välitön Saatavana: 2 814 7,79000 € 1 Vähimmäismäärä: 1 Cut Tape (CT)
 SN65LV1023ADBR Texas Instruments IC SERIAL/DESERIAL 10:1 28-SSOP 2 814 - Välitön Saatavana: 2 814 Digi-Reel® 1 Vähimmäismäärä: 1 Digi-Reel®
 DS90UB913ATRTVRQ1 Texas Instruments IC SER/DES 10-100MHZ FPD 32WQFN 1 000 - Välitön Saatavana: 1 000 4,12834 € 1 000 Vähimmäismäärä: 1 000 Rullattu teippi (TR)
 Vaihtoehtoinen pakkaus Automotive, AEC-Q100 Aktiivinen Sarjamuunnin 1,4Gbps LVCMOS FPD-Link III, LVDS 12 1 1,71V – 1,89V, 3V – 3,6V -40°C – 105°C (TA) Kiinnitys pintaan 32-WFQFN paljas antura 32-WQFN (5x5)
 DS90UB913ATRTVRQ1 Texas Instruments IC SER/DES 10-100MHZ FPD 32WQFN 1 669 - Välitön Saatavana: 1 669 7,78000 € 1 Vähimmäismäärä: 1 Cut Tape (CT)
 DS90UB913ATRTVRQ1 Texas Instruments IC SER/DES 10-100MHZ FPD 32WQFN 1 669 - Välitön Saatavana: 1 669 Digi-Reel® 1 Vähimmäismäärä: 1 Digi-Reel®
 SN65LVDS93ADGGR Texas Instruments IC TX LVDS SERDES 56TSSOP 1 959 - Välitön Saatavana: 1 959 4,42998 € 2 000 Vähimmäismäärä: 2 000 Rullattu teippi (TR)
 Vaihtoehtoinen pakkaus - Aktiivinen Sarjamuunnin 3,78Gbps LVTTL LVDS 28 4 3V – 3,6V -40°C – 85°C (TA) Kiinnitys pintaan 56-TFSOP (0,240", 6,10mm leveys) 56-TSSOP
 16:19:42 2.27.2020