type: wikipedia

text:
Simony Benelli Galasso (São Paulo, 1o de julho de 1976) é uma cantora e apresentadora brasileira.
 É notória por ser ex-integrante da Turma do Balão Mágico, atração apresentada por ela e outros integrantes durante as manhãs da TV Globo entre os anos de 1983 e 1986, vendendo mais de 10 milhões de discos.
 Biografia
 Infância
 Simony nasceu em São Paulo, num conjunto habitacional popular da Cohab. De família pobre, aos 3 anos, acompanhava a família de cantores, pois vivia no circo de seu avô.
 Foi quando insistiu que a mãe, Maricleuza Benelli, a levasse ao programa do Raul Gil, onde fez várias participações após uma primeira apresentação de sucesso. Por fim, no ano de 1983, foi convidada ao lado de Fofão (Orival Pessini), Cascatinha (Castrinho), Tob, Michael Biggs (o Mike) e, anos mais tarde, Jairzinho, a apresentar o programa Balão Mágico, da TV Globo, que a consagraria.
 Balão Mágico
 Estreou no dia 7 de março de 1983 nas manhãs da Rede Globo, o infantil A turma do Balão Mágico ou simplesmente Balão Mágico, quando liderou a audiência por 3 anos seguidos. Simony se tornou em pouco tempo a princesinha da Globo e despertava o amor de vários baixinhos daquela época. Entre shows e entrevistas, o grupo conseguiu vender mais de 10 milhões de cópias, em apenas 5 LP's lançados.
 Também integrou o elenco do programa o Fofão. Fofão é um personagem fictício interpretado por Orival Pessini, tornou-se bastante popular entre as crianças brasileiras nos anos 80. No programa Balão Mágico, Fofão fez sua primeira aparição em 1983. Inicialmente, não falava, apenas emitia sons que eram interpretados por Simony. Com o sucesso do personagem, que cada vez ganhava espaço no programa, Orival Pessini criou o boneco Fofinho, que atingiu muitas vendas.
 Foi sucesso absoluto. Simony entrou na banda aos 6 anos, fazendo par com Tob até 1984, quando este gravara seu último LP. Apesar da diferença de idade (5 anos), ela e Tob formavam uma bela dupla, emplacando sucessos como "Se enamora", "PR Você", "Mãe me dá um dinheirinho", "Você e eu" etc. Sendo assim, Simony conheceu de perto a fama e o carinho de todo o Brasil. Com 3 anos de Balão Mágico, seu companheiro Tob começou a apresentar sinais de estar entrando na adolescência, passando por mudanças de voz e ficando visivelmente mais alto do que as outras crianças. A CBS, gravadora do grupo, achou que isso poderia ser um problema e tomou uma importante decisão: Tirou Tob do grupo. Deixando a banda no ano seguinte, este gravou um LP solo, sem sucesso. Após isso, o Balão Mágico começou a decair, pois perdera um de seus membros originais. Jairzinho ficou com a tarefa de formar par com Simony, mas esse dueto durou apenas 2 LPS's do Balão (sendo que, no de 1985, quase não há presença singular dos integrantes, e sim, apelo para o coral), e quando a banda acabou, em 1986, a CBS fez um novo plano para os dois.
 O Grupo durou de 1982 a 1986 e permaneceu nas manhãs da Rede Globo até o dia 28 de junho de 1986, quando iria ao ar o último programa do Balão Mágico.
 Simony e Jairzinho e Carreira Solo
 Com o fim do Balão Mágico, então Simony com 10 anos de idade, se uniu com Jairzinho, seu companheiro do programa, e se tornaram uma das duplas mais famosas do fim dos anos 80. Em 1987, Simony e Jairzinho lançaram um LP e ficaram nas paradas de sucesso, conquistando um disco de ouro. Ainda naquele ano ela apresentava pela Rede Manchete o programa Nave da Fantasia, sendo substituída por Angélica, no ano seguinte.
 Em 1988, a dupla lança um LP em espanhol, mas a parceria só duraria até o fim daquele ano. Ainda naquele ano, Simony sai da Rede Manchete e ganhava outro programa só seu, chamado Do Ré Mi Fá Sol Lá Simony, pelo SBT.
 Em 1989, aos 13 anos de idade, Simony lança o primeiro LP solo intitulado Sonhando Acordada. No mesmo ano, o SBT passa a mudar a programação infantil com o objetivo de competir com o Xou da Xuxa, da Rede Globo, então Simony passa a apresentar o seu próprio programa, intitulado Show da Simony, enquanto que o Dó Ré Mi passa a ser comandado por Mariane, que na época estava iniciando a carreira de apresentadora, mudando o nome do programa para Dó ré mi fá sol lá si com Mariane. Até ali o hit de Simony era Acho que sou louca, uma regravação do single I Should Be So Lucky da cantora australiana Kylie Minogue.
 No ano seguinte, 1990, o SBT acaba demitindo funcionários, em razão de uma crise financeira, e, entre eles, estava Simony, que sairia do ar e sumiria da mídia.
 Carreira adulta
 Somente em 1994, então com 18 anos, Simony volta à mídia totalmente nua, sendo capa da revista Playboy.
 No ano de 1995, assume o namoro com o pagodeiro Alexandre Pires e lança seu segundo CD solo, com o sucesso Primeiros Erros, que faz parte da trilha sonora da novela da Globo Cara e Coroa.
 No ano de 1996, Simony completou 20 anos de idade, o namoro com Alexandre Pires chegaria ao fim no mesmo ano. Em seguida, lançou o terceiro CD e trouxe um novo sucesso no país: Quando te vi, tema da novela também global Salsa e Merengue.
 Já no ano de 1997, Simony, mais uma vez se afasta da mídia, devido a questões de ordem emocional: era o início da síndrome do pânico, que a atormentou por 3 anos.
 Em 2000, retornou à mídia nas capas de mais uma revista masculina, a Sexy.
 Em 2001, lançou o CD Simplesmente eu, com o hit Caixa Postal (também um hit de sucesso da banda Bala, Bombom e Chocolate).
 Depois de 14 anos afastada do mercado fonográfico, Simony lançou o CD de comemoração aos seus 25 anos de carreira, intitulado de Celebração. A partir desse trabalho, a cantora passou a assinar com 2 "ys" (Simony), e o sucesso dessa vez foi Resumo da Felicidade e "Desculpe o auê".
 No dia 15 de setembro de 2008, Simony realizou o sonho de lançar em todo o Brasil o seu primeiro projeto infantil ao longo de toda sua carreira solo, em comemoração aos 25 anos de Balão Mágico. O CD, intitulado "Superfantástica", trazia 13 faixas, incluindo "Superfantástico" e outras músicas que balançaram os baixinhos dos anos 80. No fim de outubro, o CD de Simony foi tido como o infantil mais vendido do país, ultrapassando a venda de 50 mil cópias, superando as vendas dos CDs de Xuxa e Kelly Key, lançados na mesma época (menos de 30 mil cópias). No mesmo mês, Simony personalizou e lançou seu site oficial. Em seguida, lançou a turnê "Superfantástica", por todo Brasil.
 No ano de 2010, Simony foi candidata a deputada estadual em São Paulo, pelo Partido Progressista. Apoiada pelo ex-prefeito Paulo Maluf, Simony não conseguiu se eleger, mas teve destaque com quase 7 mil votos.
 No início de 2012, sua filha Aysha foi escolhida pelo SBT para fazer parte do remake de Carrossel, interpretando Laura.
 Em abril de 2016, Simony integrou o elenco da primeira temporada do reality show brasileiro da Rede Record Power Couple, juntamente com seu marido Patrick Silva.
 Em abril de 2018, ela volta a se reunir a Mike e Tob, para celebrar os 36 anos de sua formação em uma apresentação no programa de tevê Fantástico, na Rede Globo, marcando o retorno do grupo em uma série de shows pelo Brasil.
 Vida pessoal
 No fim dos anos 1990, Simony namorou o cantor Alexandre Pires. Ela chegou a ficar grávida dele, mas após descobrir que Alexandre teve um romance extraconjugal com Carla Perez, ela sofreu um aborto espontâneo. Ele só soube que Simony estava grávida quando o aborto já havia ocorrido.
 Em 2000, a cantora começou a namorar o rapper Afro-X, então presidiário. Em setembro do mesmo ano, Simony ficou grávida e acaba tornando exposta toda a sua vida pessoal. Em junho de 2001, nasceu seu primeiro filho Ryan Eduardo Benelli de Souza, e cinco meses depois ela casou-se com Afro-X. Ela teve mais uma filha com ele, Aysha de Fátima Benelli de Souza, nascida em maio de 2003. Em meados de 2004, Simony anunciou o fim de seu casamento.
 Em 2005, ela relacionou-se durante alguns meses com o cantor Xande de Pilares. Em outubro do mesmo ano, ela conhece o jogador de futebol Diego Souza. Pouco tempo depois, os dois começaram um relacionamento, e em agosto de 2006 tiveram uma filha, Pyetra Benelli de Souza.
 Em dezembro de 2007, a cantora casou-se com o ator e rapper Marcelo Batista, e em setembro de 2012 anuncia o fim do casamento.
 Em janeiro de 2013, Simony conheceu o engenheiro Patrick Silva e engravidou do seu quarto filho, nascido em outubro do mesmo ano e batizado Anthony. Em maio de 2018, ela anunciou o fim do seu casamento.
 Desde junho de 2020, ela namora o cantor Felipe Rodriguez.
 Câncer no intestino
 Em 3 de agosto de 2022, a cantora revelou que foi diagnosticada com um câncer no intestino.
 Discografia
 Álbuns com Balão Mágico
 A Turma do Balão Mágico (1982)
 A Turma do Balão Mágico (1983)
 A Turma do Balão Mágico (1984)
 A Turma do Balão Mágico (1985)
 A Turma do Balão Mágico (1986)
 Álbuns com Jairzinho
 Jairzinho & Simony (1987)
 Jairzinho & Simony (em espanhol) (1988)
 Álbuns solo
 Sonhando Acordada (1989)
 Simonny (1995)
 Certas Coisas (1996)
 Simplesmente Eu (2001)
 Celebração (2005)
 Superfantástica (2008)
 Ela Cansou de Ser Forte (2020)
 Filmografia
 Televisão
 Internet
 Prêmios
 1995 - Melhor Música do Ano — "Primeiros Erros"
 1996 - Música do Ano — "Quando Te Vi"
 2001 - Entre as 100+ do Ano — "Caixa Postal"
 2008 - Melhor CD Infantil — Superfantástica
 Singles
 1987 - Coração de Papelão
 1987 - Meu Bem
 1989 - Acho que Sou Louca
 1995 - Primeiros Erros
 1995 - Pelo Menos Uma Vez
 1996 - Quando Te Vi
 2001 - Caixa Postal
 2001 - Ficar por Ficar
 2004 - Impossível Acreditar que Perdi Você
 2005 - Resumo da Felicidade
 2006 - Começo, Meio e Fim
 2008 - Superfantástico
 2009 - Ursinho Pimpão
 2010 - Em Todo Caminhar (com Maurílio Santos)
 2010 - Dependente do Seu Amor (com Grupo Tapa no Couro)
 2011 - Segunda Chance (com a dupla Brandy e Rony)
 2011 - Não Vai Dar (com Grupo Desejos)
 2012 - Quando Chove (com Grupo Sem Querer)
 2012 - Sonhos Pra Quem Quiser
 Trilhas de novelas
 1995: Primeiros Erros — Cara e Coroa
 1996: Quando Te Vi — Salsa e Merengue
 2004: Impossível Acreditar que Perdi Você — A Escrava Isaura
 2006: Começo, Meio e Fim — Prova de Amor
 2012: Sonhos Para Quem Quiser — Carrossel (telenovela)
 Ligações externas
 Site Oficial
 Brasileiros de ascendência italiana
 Naturais da cidade de São Paulo
 Modelos de capa da Playboy (Brasil)
 Apresentadores de televisão de São Paulo
 Membros do Progressistas de São Paulo
 Meios-sopranos do Brasil
 Revelações do ano premiadas com o Troféu Imprensa
 Participantes de Power Couple Brasil
 Participantes de reality shows do Brasil
 Modelos de capa da Sexy
 Nascidos em 1976


type: legislation

jurisdiction: EU

text:
 UITVOERINGSVERORDENING (EU) .../... VAN DE COMMISSIE
 van 19.4.2018
 tot vaststelling van technische criteria voor elektronische labels voor uitrusting van zeeschepen
 (Voor de EER relevante tekst)
 DE EUROPESE COMMISSIE,
 Gezien het Verdrag betreffende de werking van de Europese Unie,
 Gezien Richtlijn 2014/90/EU van het Europees Parlement en de Raad van 23 juli 2014 inzake uitrusting van zeeschepen en tot intrekking van Richtlijn 96/98/EG van de Raad
 1
 , en met name artikel 11, lid 4,
 Overwegende hetgeen volgt:
 (1)Richtlijn 2014/90/EU kent uitvoeringsbevoegdheden toe aan de Commissie om passende technische criteria vast te stellen met betrekking tot het ontwerp, de prestaties, het aanbrengen en het gebruik van elektronische labels.
 (2)Een kostenbatenanalyse
 2
 heeft aangetoond dat het gebruik van elektronische labels een positieve aanvulling vormt op de stuurwielmarkering.
 (3)Het aanbrengen van elektronische labels op de uitrusting van zeeschepen vergt geen zware investeringen, maar levert wel voordelen op voor fabrikanten, scheepseigenaars en -exploitanten en markttoezichtautoriteiten.
 (4)De specificaties die in deze verordening worden vastgesteld, zijn gebaseerd op een vergelijking van beschikbare technologieën die werd opgesteld in het kader van de kostenbatenanalyse en op de in die kostenbatenanalyse uiteengezette voorstellen voor een passende structuur voor de identificatiecodes van de uitrusting van zeeschepen.
 (5)Op basis van de vergelijking van bestaande gegevensdragers en architecturen voor gegevensuitwisseling in het kader van de kostenbatenanalyse werden gegevensmatrixcodes en radiofrequentie-identificatie (RFID) aanbevolen als de meest geschikte technologieën.
 (6)Uit de kostenbatenanalyse is ook gebleken dat de beperkte gegevensopslagcapaciteit op het elektronische label impliceert dat de informatie op dat label een link moet bevatten naar gegevensbanken met uitgebreidere informatie. De in deze verordening gespecificeerde gegevensmatrixcodes en radiofrequentie-identificatie bevatten de belangrijkste informatie die het mogelijk maakt in een dergelijke link te voorzien.
 (7)Daarom moet gebruik worden gemaakt van een unieke identificatie van uitrusting van zeeschepen, op basis van een gestandaardiseerde codestructuur die onafhankelijk is van het type elektronisch label. Een dergelijke identificatie moet flexibel genoeg zijn om de gebruikers rechtstreeks toegang te verschaffen tot de meest relevante gegevensbanken voor uitrusting van zeeschepen.
 (8)Het formaat voor de codering van de vereiste informatie op de gegevensdrager moet gebaseerd zijn op ISO-normen. Het formaat moet ook de mogelijkheid bieden om aanvullende informatie te coderen voor gebruik door de fabrikanten; deze moeten met name aanvullende beveiligingsfuncties in de gegevensdrager kunnen inbouwen, zodat nagemaakte producten gemakkelijker kunnen worden opgespoord.
 (9)Wanneer de stuurwielmarkering van de uitrusting van zeeschepen wordt vervangen door een elektronisch label, moet een passend symbool worden aangebracht op dit label, zodat het gemakkelijk herkenbaar is bij een visuele inspectie.
 (10)De in deze verordening vervatte maatregelen zijn in overeenstemming met het advies van het Comité voor maritieme veiligheid en voorkoming van verontreiniging door schepen (COSS),
 HEEFT DE VOLGENDE VERORDENING VASTGESTELD:
 Artikel 1
 Met het oog op de toepassing van deze verordening wordt verstaan onder:
 (1) "elektronisch label": een markering met radiofrequentie-identificatie (RFID) of met een gegevensmatrixcode;
 (2) "applicatie-identificatie": een numeriek kengetal dat gebruikt wordt om de betekenis en het formaat van de gecodeerde gegevenselementen te definiëren.
 Artikel 2
 Fabrikanten van uitrusting van zeeschepen kunnen gebruik maken van de volgende elektronische labels, zoals gespecificeerd in de bijlage:
 a) RFID-labels die permanent worden bevestigd op uitrusting van zeeschepen;
 b) optisch leesbare labels met gegevensmatrixcodes die permanent worden bevestigd op uitrusting van zeeschepen; of
 b) optisch leesbare labels met gegevensmatrixcodes die permanent worden gemarkeerd op uitrusting van zeeschepen.
 Artikel 3
 Het in punt 3.1 of 3.2 van de bijlage afgebeelde symbool wordt zichtbaar, leesbaar en onuitwisbaar aangebracht op elektronische RFID-labels die de stuurwielmarkering vervangen, ofwel op het label zelf, ofwel ernaast.
 Het in punt 3.3 van de bijlage afgebeelde symbool wordt zichtbaar, leesbaar en onuitwisbaar aangebracht op uitrusting van zeeschepen met optisch leesbare labels die gegevensmatrixcodes bevatten, ofwel op het label zelf, ofwel ernaast.
 Artikel 4
 Deze verordening treedt in werking op de twintigste dag na die van de bekendmaking ervan in het Publicatieblad van de Europese Unie.
 Deze verordening is verbindend in al haar onderdelen en is rechtstreeks toepasselijk in elke lidstaat.
 Gedaan te Brussel, 19.4.2018
 Voor de Commissie
 De Voorzitter
 Jean-Claude JUNCKER
 (1)
 PB L 257 van 28.8.2014, blz. 146.
 (2)
 "The possible introduction of an electronic tag as a supplement or a replacement of the wheel mark in marine equipment", oproep tot het indienen van voorstellen nr. MOVE/D2/2015-372 V1.0 van het DG Mobiliteit en vervoer van de Europese Commissie.
 ---documentbreak---
 BIJLAGE
 1.Identificatie van uitrusting van zeeschepen:
 1.1.Elektronische labels voor uitrusting van zeeschepen bevatten een elektronisch leesbare identificatie, d.w.z. een radiofrequentie-identificatie (RFID) of een optisch leesbare gegevensmatrixcode, die de volgende informatie bevat:
 a) een passend toepassingsidentificatiesymbool, overeenkomstig ISO/IEC 15434:2006 en ISO/IEC 15418:2016, waarbij ofwel een gegevensidentificatie volgens de ASC MH10-norm, ofwel een toepassingsidentificatie volgens de GS1-norm wordt gebruikt;
 b) het in bijlage II bij Richtlijn 2014/90/EU uiteengezette type conformiteitsbeoordelingsmodule(s) dat wordt gebruikt voor de conformiteitsbeoordeling [één letter];
 c) het identificatienummer dat de Commissie overeenkomstig punt 3.1 van bijlage IV bij Richtlijn 2014/90/EU heeft toegekend aan de aangemelde instantie [vier cijfers];
 d) het (de) nummer(s) van de eenheidskeuring (module G) of het EG-typeonderzoek en de overeenstemming met typecertificaten (module B en D, E of F) [hoogstens 20 cijfers].
 1.2.Behalve de informatie die overeenkomstig punt 1.1 moet worden verstrekt, kunnen elektronische labels ook informatie bevatten over het nummer van de productielocatie, een productcode, het nummer van de partij of lading en/of aanvullende informatie die door de fabrikant is opgesteld overeenkomstig ISO/IEC 15434:2006 [waarbij ofwel gegevensidentificaties volgens de ASC MH10-norm, ofwel toepassingsidentificaties volgens de GS1-norm worden gebruikt].
 1.3.Voorbeelden:
 Modules B+D: [zie punt 1.2.]+([passende identificatie]) B 0575 40123+D 0038 040124
 Modules B+E: [zie punt 1.2.]+([passende identificatie]) B 0575 40123+E 0038 040125
 Modules B+F: [zie punt 1.2.]+([passende identificatie]) B 0575 40123+F 0038 040126
 Module G: [zie punt 1.2.]+([passende identificatie]) G 0575 040126.
 2.Elektronische labels
 2.1.RFID-labels
 RFID-transponders werken in de frequentieband van 860 tot 960 MHz, overeenkomstig ISO/IEC 18000-6:2004 Type C.
 Het elektronische label wordt stevig en op duurzame wijze bevestigd op de uitrusting van zeeschepen, zodat het leesbaar blijft tijdens de verwachte levensduur van de uitrusting.
 2.2.Gegevensmatrixcodes
 De gegevensmatrixcodes zijn in overeenstemming met ISO/IEC 16022:2006.
 Het elektronische label wordt gemarkeerd of stevig en op duurzame wijze bevestigd op de uitrusting van zeeschepen, zodat het leesbaar blijft tijdens de verwachte levensduur van de uitrusting.
 3.Symbolen
 3.1.
 3.2.
 3.3.


type: other

text:
Employee advocacy: le norme da rispettare nel Marketing con i dipendenti
 Per continuare a operare nell’emergenza Coronavirus, molte aziende stanno lanciando campagne promozionali avvalendosi dell’immagine dei propri dipendenti. Un approccio efficace, che richiede però di prestare particolare attenzione a diversi aspetti legali rilevanti, ovvero il consenso alla privacy, il trattamento dei dati personali secondo il GDPR e il diritto d’autore. Ecco come tutelarsi
 Avv. Roberta Di Vieto*
 Equity Partner Pirola Pennuto Zei & Associati
 Nel novero delle strategie marketing più utilizzate dalle imprese e organizzazioni al fine di poter accrescere la propria brand reputation sui canali social, merita una particolare menzione il fenomeno dell’employee advocacy.
 Tale attività prevede il coinvolgimento di dipendenti e collaboratori in campagne di comunicazione finalizzate a promuovere l’immagine della società. In una prima fase di sviluppo di tali iniziative, il ruolo di brand ambassador veniva svolto dai founders o da figure executive in quanto ritenuti la massima espressione dei valori etici e della mission aziendale. Più di recente, invece, si riscontra un sempre maggiore coinvolgimento anche delle figure non apicali. Nell’attuale scenario, infatti, l’employee advocacy ha registrato uno sviluppo particolarmente significativo, complice il sempre più intenso e diffuso utilizzo dei social network e delle piattaforme di condivisione a distanza.
 Rimandando ad altre sedi l’analisi degli indubbi vantaggi che porta con sé una social media campaign fondata su una employee advocacy efficace, si intende in questo contesto richiamare i principali profili legali rilevanti.
 Protezione dei dati e uso dell’immagine: le normative
 Cosa fare in pratica per tutelarsi
 In particolare, ogniqualvolta un’impresa intenda pubblicare sui propri canali social contenuti digitali che ritraggano l’immagine dei propri dipendenti (per esempio mediante foto o video) è necessario che venga verificata la sussistenza dei necessari legal requirements richiesti dalla normativa applicabile in materia di protezione dei dati personali e di utilizzo dell’immagine altrui, onde evitare che la società possa essere esposta a contestazioni e pretese da parte di terzi.
 Sotto il primo profilo, partendo dall’assunto che l’immagine personale di un individuo è senza dubbio un dato personale ai sensi dell’art. 4 del GDPR, è necessario che le imprese, in qualità di data controller, avviino le operazioni di trattamento in presenza di una delle condizioni di liceità previste all’art. 6 del GDPR. A tale riguardo, è pertanto essenziale che vengano implementati appositi moduli di raccolta del consenso al trattamento dell’immagine personale del dipendente affinché l’interessato, ossia il dipendente, possa, mediante un’azione positiva, manifestare la propria volontà libera, specifica e informata in relazione alle operazioni di trattamento della propria immagine per le finalità specificatamente individuate, ferma restando la possibilità per l’interessato di revocare tale consenso.
 Non solo. Il consenso dell’interessato deve essere altresì verificabile: ciò si traduce nel fatto che l’azienda dovrà, in ossequio al principio di accountability, implementare meccanismi che le consentano di essere in grado di dimostrare che l’interessato abbia manifestato il proprio consenso in relazione a specifiche operazioni di trattamento indicate all’interno dell’informativa privacy resa all’interessato.
 A ciò si aggiunga che non potrà mancare l’implementazione degli ulteriori presidi richiesti dalla normativa in materia di protezione dei dati personali. Basti al riguardo solo ricordare la necessità che la società provveda, da un lato, a mappare le operazioni di trattamento in oggetto all’interno del registro dei trattamenti tenuto ai sensi dell’art. 30 GDPR, e dall’altro lato, a regolamentare i rapporti con eventuali soggetti esterni che gestiscono i canali social della società mediante la nomina di questi ultimi in qualità di responsabili del trattamento ai sensi dell’art. 28 GDPR.
 Tanto chiarito in punto di tutela dei dati personali, non ci si può esimere dallo specificare che la raccolta e pubblicazione dell’immagine altrui è anche oggetto di specifiche previsioni normative contenute nel codice civile (art. 10) e, più dettagliatamente, nella legge sul diritto di autore (Legge n. 633/1941).
 Sul punto, si sottolinea la circostanza che il consenso dell’individuo costituisce la base legale per poter esporre, riprodurre o mettere in commercio l’immagine del soggetto rappresentato, salva la sussistenza di una delle esimenti di stretta interpretazione di cui all’art. 97 LDA (e.g. la notorietà, l’ufficio pubblico coperto, la necessità di giustizia o di polizia, gli scopi scientifici, didattici o culturali etc.) e, in ogni caso, secondo modalità che non arrechino un pregiudizio all’onore, alla reputazione o anche al decoro della persona ritrattata.
 Da quanto fin qui illustrato consegue che, accanto al modulo di raccolta del consenso “privacy” – corredato della relativa informativa sul trattamento dei dati personali – si renderà necessario richiedere al dipendente una specifica e distinta licenza all’utilizzo della sua immagine.
 Dal punto di vista operativo, si suggerisce di circoscrivere il più possibile l’oggetto della licenza in parola, indicando la forma e il modo con cui le immagini potranno essere diffuse, così come i mezzi di comunicazione che si intendono utilizzare, televisione, canali social aziendali etc. e, se previsto, l’indicazione del corrispettivo per il dipendente.
 Sul punto, è inoltre auspicabile, soprattutto in contesti aziendali particolarmente strutturati e complessi, che vengano predisposte e diffuse social media policy finalizzate a enucleare le prescrizioni cui devono conformarsi i soggetti a diverso titolo coinvolti nella gestione dei canali social aziendali. Tali policy, in particolare, dovranno definire i mezzi di comunicazione, prevedere i limiti di utilizzo delle immagini raccolte, nonché definire le modalità di pubblicazione dei contenuti sui vari canali.


type: contracts

text:
 Avis juridique important
 |
 22001D0206(03)
 2001/94/CE: Decisión n° 1/2001 del Consejo de asociación UE-Eslovaquia, de 18 de enero de 2001, por la que se prorroga el sistema de doble control establecido por la Decisión n° 3/97 del Consejo de asociación para el período comprendido entre el 1 de enero y el 31 de diciembre de 2001
 Diario Oficial n° L 035 de 06/02/2001 p. 0038 - 0038
 Decisión no 1/2001 del Consejo de asociación UE-Eslovaquiade 18 de enero de 2001por la que se prorroga el sistema de doble control establecido por la Decisión n° 3/97 del Consejo de asociación para el período comprendido entre el 1 de enero y el 31 de diciembre de 2001(2001/94/CE)EL CONSEJO DE ASOCIACIÓN,Considerando lo siguiente:(1) El Grupo de contacto al que se refiere el artículo 10 del Protocolo 2 del Acuerdo Europeo por el que se crea una asociación entre las Comunidades Europeas y sus Estados miembros, por una parte, y la República Eslovaca, por otra, que entró en vigor el 1 de febrero de 1995, se reunió el 22 de septiembre de 2000 y acordó recomendar al Consejo de asociación creado en virtud del artículo 104 del Acuerdo que el sistema de doble control, introducido en 1998 por la Decisión n° 3/97 del Consejo de asociación(1) y prorrogado por su Decisión n° 1/2000(2) para el período comprendido entre el 1 de enero y el 31 de diciembre de 2000, se prorrogue al período comprendido entre el 1 de enero y el 31 de diciembre de 2001.(2) El Consejo de asociación, al que se ha facilitado toda la información pertinente, ha manifestado su acuerdo con esta recomendación.DECIDE:Artículo 1El sistema de doble control establecido por la Decisión n° 3/97 seguirá siendo aplicable durante el período comprendido entre el 1 de enero y el 31 de diciembre de 2001. En el preámbulo y en los apartados 1 y 3 del artículo 1 de la Decisión las referencias al período comprendido entre el 1 de enero y el 31 de diciembre de 2000 se sustituirán por referencias al período comprendido entre el 1 de enero y el 31 de diciembre de 2001.Artículo 2La presente Decisión entrará en vigor en la fecha de su adopción.Será aplicable con efectos a partir del 1 de enero de 2001.Hecho en Bruselas, el 18 de enero de 2001.Por el Consejo de asociaciónEl PresidenteA. Lindh(1) DO L 13 de 19.1.1998, p. 57.(2) DO L 67 de 15.3.2000, p. 36.


type: caselaw

text:
 7.3.2016
 FI
 Euroopan unionin virallinen lehti
 C 90/4
 Ennakkoratkaisupyyntö, jonka Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny (Puola) on esittänyt 17.11.2015 – Minister Finansów v. Aviva Towarzystwo Ubezpieczeń na Życie S.A. w Warszawie
 (Asia C-605/15)
 (2016/C 090/06)
 Oikeudenkäyntikieli: puola
 Ennakkoratkaisua pyytänyt tuomioistuin
 Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny
 Pääasian asianosaiset
 Kantaja: Minister Finansów
 Vastaaja: Aviva Towarzystwo Ubezpieczeń na Życie S.A. w Warszawie
 Ennakkoratkaisukysymykset
 1)
 Onko riippumattoman yhteenliittymän arvonlisäverovapautusta koskeva kansallinen säännös, jossa ei säädetä kilpailun vääristymistä koskevan edellytyksen täyttymistä koskevista ehdoista ja menettelyistä, yhteisestä arvonlisäverojärjestelmästä 28.11.2006 annetun neuvoston direktiivin 2006/112/EY (1) 132 artiklan 1 kohdan f alakohdan, luettuna yhdessä arvonlisäverodirektiivin 131 artiklan kanssa, sekä tehokkuusperiaatteen, oikeusvarmuuden periaatteen ja luottamuksensuojan periaatteen mukainen?
 2)
 Millaisia kriteerejä on sovellettava arvioitaessa, täyttyykö arvonlisäverodirektiivin 132 artiklan 1 kohdan f alakohdassa säädetty kilpailun vääristymistä koskeva edellytys?
 3)
 Vaikuttaako jälkimmäiseen edellä esitetyistä kysymyksistä vastaamiseen se, että riippumaton yhteenliittymä suorittaa palvelut eri jäsenvaltioiden toimivallan alaisuuteen kuuluville jäsenilleen?
 (1) EUVL L 347, s. 1.


text:
Milenii: Mileniul I î.Hr. - Mileniul I - Mileniul al II-lea
 Secole: Secolul al III-lea - Secolul al IV-lea - Secolul al V-lea
 Decenii: Anii 340 Anii 350 Anii 360 Anii 370 Anii 380 - Anii 390 - Anii 400 Anii 410 Anii 420 Anii 430 Anii 440
 Ani: 393 394 395 396 397 - 398 - 399 400 401 402 403
 Evenimente
 Arte, științe, literatură și filozofie
 Nașteri
 Decese
 398


jurisdiction: US

text: b' Office of Inspector General\n Audit Report\n\n\nPHMSA\xe2\x80\x99S STATE PIPELINE SAFETY PROGRAM\n LACKS EFFECTIVE MANAGEMENT AND\n OVERSIGHT\nPipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration\n\n Report Number: AV-2014-041\n Date Issued: May 7, 2014\n\x0c U.S. Department of\n Memorandum\n Transportation\n Office of the Secretary\n of Transportation\n Office of Inspector General\n\n\nSubject: ACTION: PHMSA\xe2\x80\x99s State Pipeline Safety Date: May 7, 2014\n Program Lacks Effective Management and\n Oversight\n Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety\n Administration\n Report No. AV-2014-041\n\n From: Jeffrey B. Guzzetti Reply to\n Attn. of: JA-10\n Assistant Inspector General\n for Aviation Audits\n\n To: Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administrator\n\n The Nation\xe2\x80\x99s network of approximately 2.5 million miles of pipelines moves\n millions of gallons of hazardous liquids and 55 billion cubic feet of natural gas\n every day. Eighty-five percent of these pipelines are under State authority. The\n Department of Transportation\xe2\x80\x99s (DOT) Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety\n Administration (PHMSA) authorizes States to oversee and enforce operators\xe2\x80\x99\n compliance with Federal pipeline safety regulations through its State Pipeline\n Safety Program. 1 PHMSA also allocates grants to State programs. Between 2008\n and 2013, funding for these grants more than doubled from $19.5 million to over\n $46 million.\n\n In September 2010, an intra-State natural gas pipeline exploded in San Bruno, CA,\n resulting in 8 fatalities, 58 injuries, and 38 destroyed homes. The National\n Transportation Safety Board\xe2\x80\x99s (NTSB) investigation 2 found weaknesses in\n PHMSA\xe2\x80\x99s oversight of State programs. Because of these weaknesses, NTSB\n recommended that DOT assess the effectiveness of PHMSA\xe2\x80\x99s oversight of\n intra-State pipeline safety and whether State programs use Federal grants\n effectively. In a January 2012 letter to NTSB, the Secretary stated that our office\n would conduct the audit.\n\n\n\n 1\n The program is comprised of PHMSA\xe2\x80\x99s Natural Gas Program and PHMSA\xe2\x80\x99s Hazardous Liquid Program.\n 2\n NTSB, \xe2\x80\x9cPacific Gas and Electric Company Natural Gas Transmission Pipeline Rupture and Fire San Bruno,\n California, September 9, 2010,\xe2\x80\x9d NTSB/PAR-11/01 PB2011-916501.\n\x0c 2\n\n\nAccordingly, we assessed PHMSA\xe2\x80\x99s (1) policies and procedures for managing its\nState Pipeline Safety Program, including guidelines to participating States, and\n(2) oversight of State pipeline safety programs. We conducted this audit in\naccordance with generally accepted Government auditing standards. Our review is\nlimited to States certified under PHMSA\xe2\x80\x99s Natural Gas Program. Exhibit A\nprovides details on our scope and methodology. Exhibit B lists organizations we\nvisited or contacted.\n\nRESULTS IN BRIEF\nPHMSA\xe2\x80\x99s guidelines, 3 policies, and procedures for State pipeline safety\nprograms\xe2\x80\x94such as inspector staffing, training, scheduling, and inspection\nforms\xe2\x80\x94lack elements to ensure State inspections cover all Federal requirements\nand pipeline operators maintain safety standards. For example, PHMSA\xe2\x80\x99s\nguidelines include an outdated staffing formula that does not account for the\neffects of new inspection types on State inspector needs and lack minimum\nqualifications for State inspectors to lead standard pipeline operator inspections.\nThe guidelines also do not sufficiently detail how States should use risk factors for\nscheduling inspections or specify appropriate time intervals between inspections to\nensure States\xe2\x80\x99 inspections detect and mitigate safety risks in a timely manner.\nSimilarly, PHMSA\xe2\x80\x99s policies and procedures for conducting State inspections do\nnot require its evaluators to review the adequacy of States\xe2\x80\x99 inspection procedures,\nand the Agency does not have procedures to inform States of updated inspection\nforms. As a result, States may not properly execute and cover all inspection\nrequirements. Finally, while PHMSA\xe2\x80\x99s triennial financial reviews of State\nprogram expenditures are effective, the Agency lacks formal written procedures to\nguide the conduct of these reviews. This lack of procedures could undermine the\nreliability of future reviews.\n\nPHMSA\xe2\x80\x99s oversight of State pipeline safety programs is not sufficient to ensure\nStates comply with program evaluation requirements and properly use suspension\ngrant funds. 4 Lapses in oversight have resulted in undisclosed safety weaknesses\nin State programs. Our review of 400 program evaluation requirements 5 for\n5 randomly selected States 6 detected 135 non-compliances with program\nrequirements, while PHMSA identified 12. For example, States (1) could not\nprovide evidence that all inspections were conducted within required timeframes;\n(2) did not have inspection procedures for all types of inspection activities; and\n(3) lacked trend analyses of operators\xe2\x80\x99 annual reports. Because it has not\n3\n Guidelines for States Participating in the Pipeline Safety Program (rev. 2011).\n4\n PHMSA awards suspension grant funds to fiscally challenged States to help them maintain or expand their pipeline\nsafety programs.\n5\n We reviewed 80 program evaluation requirements for each of the 5 States for a total of 400 requirements.\n6\n Our review is limited to States pipeline safety programs implemented in calendar year 2010 and 2011. Our sample\nwas selected from 48 certified States.\n\x0c 3\n\n\naccounted for these non-compliances, the Agency cannot be sure that States\ncorrect program deficiencies. PHMSA officials acknowledged that staff are not\nfamiliar with program evaluation requirements and lack training on reviewing\nStates\xe2\x80\x99 adherence to requirements. Furthermore, PHMSA has not provided\nsufficient guidance to States and has not completed financial audits of States\xe2\x80\x99 use\nof suspension funds. This lack of suspension fund audits makes it difficult for\nPHMSA to be sure that States have appropriately used and accounted for the\nfunds.\n\nWe are making recommendations to improve PHMSA\xe2\x80\x99s oversight of State\npipeline safety programs and grants.\n\nBACKGROUND\nThrough its authority under the Natural Gas Pipeline Safety Act of 1968, 7 PHMSA\ngives State agencies inspection and enforcement responsibilities over pipeline gas\nfacilities. States must self-certify that they are qualified to oversee intra-State\npipeline operators and enforce Federal pipeline safety regulations. Forty-eight\nStates (51 State agencies) are certified to participate in the State Pipeline Safety\nProgram. 8\n\nPHMSA provides grant funds to States to assume these pipeline safety\nresponsibilities. Grant fund awards are based on States\xe2\x80\x99 performance scores, which\nPHMSA generates by assessing each State\xe2\x80\x99s oversight of its pipeline safety\nprogram. PHMSA can reimburse each State agency up to 80 percent of the actual\ncosts of implementing a program, which may include personnel, operations, and\nequipment. To determine the performance score and grant reimbursement for each\nState, PHMSA uses the following method. 9\n\n\xe2\x80\xa2 The State\xe2\x80\x99s Annual Self-Certification (maximum of 50 points). One-half of\n the total performance score is based on information a State submits in its\n annual self-certification documents. These documents explain how the State\n met certification requirements during the past year and how it plans to meet\n requirements in the upcoming year. Certification requirements include\n adopting Federal regulations and confirming that State inspectors are trained\n and qualified.\n\n\xe2\x80\xa2 PHMSA\xe2\x80\x99s Annual Evaluation of the State\xe2\x80\x99s Program (maximum of\n 50 points). The other half of a State\xe2\x80\x99s performance score is based on\n\n7\n P. L. 90-481 (1968)\n8\n This is limited to PHMSA\xe2\x80\x99s Natural Gas Program. Every State is certified to participate in this program, except\nHawaii and Alaska. Also, there are more State agencies than States because Puerto Rico and District of Columbia are\ncertified State agencies, and Arkansas includes two certified State agencies.\n9\n 49 Code of Federal Regulations 198.13\n\x0c 4\n\n\n PHMSA\xe2\x80\x99s annual on-site evaluation of the State\xe2\x80\x99s program policies, plans,\n procedures, and records, and the State\xe2\x80\x99s field inspections of pipeline operators.\n During this evaluation, PHMSA also verifies the information that the State\n submitted in its self-certification. 10\n\n\xe2\x80\xa2 Grant Allocation. To calculate each State\xe2\x80\x99s grant allocation, PHMSA applies\n the scoring from the State\xe2\x80\x99s annual certification and program evaluation using\n the following formula:\n\n 80 percent of State\xe2\x80\x99s Total Program Costs x State\xe2\x80\x99s Performance Score =\n Grant Allocation\n\nCurrently, PHMSA has six evaluators to review and score annual certifications\nand program evaluations, and oversee State agencies that participate in its State\nPipeline Safety Program. Five of these evaluators also perform in-depth triennial\ngrant reviews at State agencies.\n\nSince 2009, PHMSA has awarded additional funds, known as suspension funds, to\nStates that have experienced financial hardships during the recent recession.\nSuspension funds were available only to those States that could not provide\nmatching funds, as stipulated in the maintenance-of-effort (MOE) clause of the\nPipeline Inspection, Protection, Enforcement, and Safety Act of 2006. 11 Because\nmany States were operating under hiring freezes and other financial restrictions\nthat made the requirements of the MOE clause unattainable, the Department\n\xe2\x80\x9csuspended\xe2\x80\x9d the matching funds requirement for fiscal years 2009, 2010, and\n2011. PHMSA provided the funds to sustain pipeline safety efforts and help State\nprograms grow, and States must account for the funds separately from other grant\nfunds and use them for specific purposes. In 2011, suspension funds accounted for\napproximately $6 million of the $35 million that PHMSA awarded to States.\n\nPHMSA\xe2\x80\x99S GUIDELINES, POLICIES, AND PROCEDURES LACK\nSTEPS FOR EFFECTIVE MANAGEMENT\nPHMSA\xe2\x80\x99s guidelines, policies, and procedures for State programs lack steps to\neffectively manage the State Pipeline Safety Program and identify safety\nweaknesses in State programs. Specifically, PHMSA uses an outdated formula to\ndetermine how many inspectors each State needs to conduct inspections. PHMSA\nalso lacks qualification requirements for State inspectors to lead standard\ninspections and does not detail in its guidelines how States should use\nrecommended risk factors for scheduling inspections. The Agency also lacks\nwritten procedures for its triennial reviews.\n\n10\n For both a State\xe2\x80\x99s annual self-certification and PHMSA\xe2\x80\x99s annual evaluation of a State\xe2\x80\x99s program, PHMSA may\ndeduct points for non-compliances with program requirements.\n11\n P.L. 109-468 (2006), known as the \xe2\x80\x9cPIPES\xe2\x80\x9d Act. The MOE clause requires States to provide matching funds that\nequal at least the previous 3-years\xe2\x80\x99 average program costs.\n\x0c 5\n\n\nPHMSA\xe2\x80\x99s Formula for Calculating Required Inspector Staffing Levels\nIs Outdated\nPHMSA\xe2\x80\x99s staffing formula, used to calculate the minimum level of staff that\nStates need to conduct pipeline inspections, predates certain inspection types and\ndoes not consider risks such as pipe age and composition. This formula, developed\nin the 1990s, includes three components common to all State pipeline programs to\ndetermine the number of needed inspectors: miles of pipeline, number of gas\nservice lines, and inspection units. 12 However, the formula does not account for\nthe more recent non-standard inspections 13\xe2\x80\x94integrity management, operator\nqualification, and operator training programs\xe2\x80\x94or address factors that impact\npipeline risk, such as age and material composition, and the size of inspection\nunits. For example:\n\n\xe2\x80\xa2 Texas reported that despite meeting its formula-derived staffing levels for 2010\n and 2011, it lacked sufficient inspector resources to accomplish its integrity\n management inspections of gas transmission pipeline operators. This problem\n will become more acute because a PHMSA regulation that went into effect in\n 2010 14 requires States to inspect gas distribution integrity management\n programs as well as gas transmission.\n\n\xe2\x80\xa2 More than 20 percent of the Nation\xe2\x80\x99s total gas distribution pipelines are over\n 50 years old or composed of materials such as cast iron or bare steel. These\n pipelines are at a higher risk for failure than newer pipelines made of more\n resilient materials. However, PHMSA\xe2\x80\x99s staffing formula does not factor in the\n additional resources needed to inspect these pipelines\xe2\x80\x99 risks.\n\nBecause the formula does not factor in States\xe2\x80\x99 needs for non-standard inspections,\nStates may not be staffed appropriately to meet inspection needs associated with\nnew inspection types, such as those that assess integrity management programs, 15\nand risky pipelines.\n\n\n\n\n12\n An inspection unit consists of all or part of an operator\xe2\x80\x99s pipeline facilities that are under the control of an\nadministrative unit responsible for design, construction, and operation and maintenance, such as 500 miles of pipeline\nor a municipality-owned utility that distributes natural gas.\n13\n Non-standard inspections focus on operators\xe2\x80\x99 programs. Inspectors review the operator\xe2\x80\x99s plans, processes, and\nprocedures for quality and completeness. They also perform field inspections to ensure that operators do what their\nplans say and to determine whether or not their plans are effective.\n14\n The Gas Distribution Integrity Management Final Rule, effective February 2010, requires gas distribution operators\nto establish integrity management programs for their gas distribution pipelines, and requires State programs to review\nthe adequacy of these plans and their implementation.\n15\n An integrity management program includes plans, processes, and procedures aimed at reducing the likelihood and\nseverity of accidents.\n\x0c 6\n\n\nAs part of a 2010 study, PHMSA and the National Association of Pipeline Safety\nRepresentatives reviewed the staffing formula to determine whether it needed\nenhancements. A staffing formula task group recommended quantifying certain\nrisk factors to determine what additional staffing States needed to conduct\nintegrity management and other new inspections and oversee leak- and failure-\nprone pipe. The study also revealed that States inconsistently designated\ninspection units\xe2\x80\x94a factor in the staffing formula. A PHMSA official confirmed\nthat States could under- or overstate their staffing needs depending on how they\nreported their inspection units. For example, Texas program officials illustrated\nhow a reduction in its inspection units from 1,897 to 1,423 would decrease its\nstaffing need from 30 to 22 inspectors.\n\nA PHMSA official stated that the Agency has not changed the staffing formula in\npart because the study found an insufficient correlation between low staffing\nlevels and reduced pipeline safety. 16 Because it has not incorporated risk factors\ninto the formula and does not consider how States define an inspection unit,\nPHMSA cannot be sure that States\xe2\x80\x99 are accurately estimating their staffing needs.\n\nPHMSA Has Not Established Minimum Qualifications for State\nInspectors to Lead Standard Inspections\nAlthough PHMSA stipulates several training requirements for State inspectors, the\nAgency\xe2\x80\x99s guidelines do not establish minimum standards for the qualifications of\nState inspectors to lead standard pipeline operator inspections. According to\nPHMSA officials, the Agency requires State inspectors to meet the same training\nand qualification requirements as Federal inspectors. Specifically, State inspectors\nhave 5 years to successfully complete 6 classes in order to become fully trained in\nstandard inspections. PHMSA requires additional training for State inspectors to\nlead certain non-standard inspections, including operator qualification and\nintegrity management inspections.\n\nWork experience combined with PHMSA training is expected to provide\ninspectors with the capabilities they need to conduct standard inspections. Leaders\nof standard pipeline safety inspections are responsible for ensuring that the\ninspections are conducted according to Federal requirements and that pipeline\noperators are maintaining safety. 17 However, PHMSA has not set minimum\nqualifications for State inspectors to lead standard pipeline safety inspections.\nInstead, the guidelines allow State program managers to decide when an inspector\ncan lead standard inspections. For example, in one State, an individual who had\nbeen an inspector for less than a year was allowed to lead standard inspections\ndespite taking none of the six required courses. Because it has not set minimum\n\n16\n Only two state pipeline programs could be considered as needing significant improvement, but PHMSA was unclear\nif staffing was an issue.\n17\n Leaders of standard pipeline safety inspections may lead a group of inspectors or conduct inspections alone.\n\x0c 7\n\n\nqualifications for State inspectors to lead standard inspections, PHMSA cannot be\nsure that State inspections cover all Federal requirements and ensure pipeline\noperators maintain safety.\n\nPHMSA\xe2\x80\x99s Guidelines Do Not Detail How States Should Use Risk\nFactors for Scheduling Inspections\nTo ensure States identify high-risk pipeline operators and prioritize inspections\naccordingly, PHMSA requires States to consider 14 risk factors when scheduling\ninspections (see Figure 1). However, PHMSA\xe2\x80\x99s guidelines do not weigh or\ninclude thresholds for the risk factors. For example, the guidelines do not state\nwhich risk factors are more critical than others or indicate how many instances of\nnon-compliance make an operator a high risk.\n\nFigure 1. Risk Factors for Scheduling Pipeline Inspections\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Length of time since last inspection \xe2\x80\xa2 Population density\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Leakage \xe2\x80\xa2 Excavation damage\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Incident \xe2\x80\xa2 Corrosion\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Compliance activities \xe2\x80\xa2 Natural forces\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Construction \xe2\x80\xa2 Outside forces\n \xe2\x80\xa2 High consequence areas \xe2\x80\xa2 Material and welds\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Geographic area \xe2\x80\xa2 Equipment\n\n\n\nSource: PHMSA\xe2\x80\x99s Annual Program Evaluation\n\nThe 5 States we reviewed did not use most of the 14 risk factors to schedule 2010\nand 2011 inspections. Four States used only 1 risk factor\xe2\x80\x94time intervals between\ninspections\xe2\x80\x94while another State used 5 factors, including population density and\npipeline material. This non-risk based approach to scheduling inspections makes it\ndifficult for PHMSA to ensure that States properly oversee problematic operators.\n\nFurthermore, one State allowed lengthy intervals between pipeline safety\ninspections. PHMSA requires States to inspect all types of operators and\ninspection units in accordance with the time intervals they have established in their\nprocedures, but the Agency\xe2\x80\x99s guidelines do not specify minimum timeframes for\nthe frequency of the inspections. PHMSA noted that many States go beyond their\nrisk-based requirement because they conduct inspections of all operators every\nyear. However, we found that one State allowed as long as 8 years between\ninspections. Because of these oversight gaps, PHMSA cannot be sure that States\ndetect and mitigate safety risks.\n\x0c 8\n\n\nPHMSA\xe2\x80\x99s Policy and Guidelines for Conducting Inspections Are\nIncomplete\nWhile PHMSA requires State programs to establish procedures for all types of\ninspections, the Agency does not require its evaluators to review the adequacy of\nthese procedures. As a result, PHMSA cannot be sure States properly execute all\nrequired inspections. One State\xe2\x80\x99s guidance provided brief definitions of inspection\ntypes, but not the steps required to conduct inspections.\n\nFurthermore, PHMSA does not have procedures to inform States of updates to its\npipeline safety inspection requirements. PHMSA requires State inspection forms\nto cover all applicable code requirements addressed in Federal inspection forms.\nStates use the forms from PHMSA\xe2\x80\x99s Web site to meet this requirement. PHMSA\nupdates its Federal inspection forms throughout the year to incorporate new\ninspection requirements, but it does not alert State programs of the changes to the\nforms or archive the revisions. Four States used outdated Federal inspection forms\nat various times. Because PHMSA does not immediately inform State program\nofficials of changes to its forms, States may not cover all applicable Federal\ninspection requirements.\n\nPHMSA\xe2\x80\x99s Triennial Reviews Are Effective, but Lack Written\nProcedures\nEvery 3 years, PHMSA reviews States\xe2\x80\x99 pipeline safety program grant\nexpenditures, including an examination of supporting documentation for the prior\nyears. 18 These triennial financial reviews have generally been thorough and found\nState reimbursement requests that included unallowable costs. For example, one\nreviewer identified ineligible personnel, training, and education costs that a State\nsubmitted in 2010 and 2011. This resulted in a deduction of $119,434 from\nPHMSA\xe2\x80\x99s next grant reimbursement to the State. However, a lack of written\nprocedures for conducting these reviews increases the risk of errors and\ninconsistencies, especially when new evaluators begin conducting grant reviews.\nMoreover, the lack of written procedures could impact PHMSA\xe2\x80\x99s goal of having\nall States use similar processes for calculating and allocating costs to streamline\nreview processes and ensure equity across States.\n\nPHMSA\xe2\x80\x99S OVERSIGHT IS INSUFFICIENT TO ACCURATELY\nASSESS STATES\xe2\x80\x99 SAFETY PROGRAMS AND USE OF FUNDS\nPHMSA\xe2\x80\x99s assessments of State pipeline safety programs are not accurate. The\nAgency did not detect that: States did not track the timeliness of their inspections;\nsome States did not have the required procedures for all types of inspections; and\n\n18\n Evaluators review supporting documentation for States\xe2\x80\x99 grant expenditures\xe2\x80\x94such as salary data and equipment\npurchases\xe2\x80\x94and deduct unsupported costs.\n\x0c 9\n\n\nthat States lacked trend analyses of operators\xe2\x80\x99 annual reports, which can detect\ninformation about incidents such as pipeline leaks and excavation damage. The\nAgency also lacks sufficient guidance on the use of suspension funds. Moreover, it\nhas not audited States\xe2\x80\x99 use of these funds.\n\nPHMSA\xe2\x80\x99s Assessments of States\xe2\x80\x99 Compliance With Program\nEvaluation Requirements Are Not Accurate\nThrough its annual program evaluations, PHMSA assesses States\xe2\x80\x99 compliance\nwith performance factors, scores their safety programs accordingly, and notifies\nStates of non-compliance and needed corrective actions. However, our review of\n400 program evaluation requirements for 5 randomly selected States\xe2\x80\x99 2010 and\n2011 pipeline safety programs showed that PHMSA evaluators did not identify a\nlarge number of non-compliances. Specifically, we identified\n135 non-compliances with program requirements, while PHMSA identified 12.\nThese non-compliances include three critical categories.\n\nFirst, States did not track whether they performed all inspections within required\ntimeframes. PHMSA is required to verify whether States assess all operators and\ninspection units in accordance with the timeframes established in the States\xe2\x80\x99\nprocedures. None of the five States could provide evidence that they had inspected\nall operators according to their time intervals, and PHMSA did not identify these\nnon-compliances. The five States provided selected individual inspections to\nPHMSA during their program evaluations, but could not provide evidence for their\nentire programs. Consequently, PHMSA cannot be sure that these States are\nconducting all safety inspections frequently enough to detect and mitigate safety\nrisks.\n\nSecond, three of the five States did not comply with PHMSA requirements to have\ninspection procedures for all types of inspections, 19 but PHMSA identified only\none of the three non-compliant States. Specifically, PHMSA noted that the State\ndid not have any inspection procedures for on-site operator training in 2011. We\nfound, however, that the State did not include procedures for integrity\nmanagement inspections or on-site operator training inspections in 2010 and 2011.\n\nFinally, States did not conduct trend analyses of operators\xe2\x80\x99 annual reports, which\nprovide critical historical information, such as pipeline leaks and excavation\ndamage. PHMSA requires States to analyze operators\xe2\x80\x99 annual reports to pinpoint\nhigh-risk areas. All five States said they did not conduct these trend analyses in\n2010 and 2011, but PHMSA did not identify any instances of non-compliance\nwith this requirement in its program evaluation.\n\n\n19\n We reviewed seven types of inspections: standard, integrity management, operators\xe2\x80\x99 qualifications, damage\nprevention, on-site operator training, construction, and incident/accident.\n\x0c 10\n\n\nAccording to PHMSA officials, the Agency\xe2\x80\x99s evaluators\xe2\x80\x94who have at least 18\nyears of pipeline experience\xe2\x80\x94have the overall technical expertise and training to\nperform and evaluate pipeline inspections. However, they lack training on how to\nreview overall State programs in accordance with PHMSA\xe2\x80\x99s specific program\nevaluation requirements and procedures. For example, PHMSA requires courses\non pipeline corrosion control but does not provide training for evaluating and\nverifying States\xe2\x80\x99 application of assessment criteria, such as timeframes and trend\nanalyses. The lack of this training makes it difficult for PHMSA to be sure that its\npersonnel are capable of evaluating compliance with all program requirements and\nconsequently to ensure that safety risks are mitigated as much as possible.\n\nPHMSA Has Not Provided Sufficient Guidance on or Audited States\xe2\x80\x99\nUse of Suspension Funds\nPHMSA provides States general guidance on suspension funds\xe2\x80\x94including how to\napply and account for these funds\xe2\x80\x94but the guidance is incomplete and, in part,\ndifficult to follow. For example, one of the four States 20 did not comply with\nPHMSA\xe2\x80\x99s requirements to account for the funds separately from other grant funds\nand provide supporting expense documentation. Another State was unsure how it\nshould apply suspension funds in its next year\xe2\x80\x99s program cycle because States\ncannot include them in subsequent years\xe2\x80\x99 budgets, which are the basis for grant\nrequests.\n\nA PHMSA official stated that the Agency will begin suspension fund audits in\n2014, but it has yet to develop an audit plan or determine the impact these audits\nwill have on its evaluation resources. Furthermore, while it has requested that\nStates submit their 2009 suspension fund data so it can recover any unspent funds,\nPHMSA will not audit the supporting documentation until it conducts the next\ntriennial review of each State, which could be as much as 3 years later. As a result,\nPHMSA cannot determine whether the funds are being used appropriately or\nachieving the purpose of helping States maintain and grow their programs, or\nidentify the type of guidance States need to better prepare for upcoming audits.\n\nCONCLUSION\nPHMSA\xe2\x80\x99s State Pipeline Safety Program plays a significant role in maintaining a\nsafe and reliable intra-State gas pipeline system. While PHMSA has several efforts\nunder way to meet this mission, it is critical that PHMSA strengthen its\nmanagement and oversight of States\xe2\x80\x99 pipeline safety programs. To effectively\nexecute the program, PHMSA must take actions to further refine its policies and\nprocedures for managing the program, including its guidelines to the States and\nimprove its oversight to ensure States fulfill their role in pipeline safety. Until such\n\n20\n Florida was not included because it does not accept State pipeline safety grant funds.\n\x0c 11\n\n\nactions are taken, the Agency cannot be sure that all safety weaknesses are\nidentified and mitigated.\n\nRECOMMENDATIONS\nWe recommend that PHMSA:\n\n1. Revise the staffing formula so that it accounts for risk and non-standard\n inspections, and periodically analyze State-provided inspection unit data to\n validate staffing formula results.\n\n2. Develop and include in PHMSA\xe2\x80\x99s State Program Guidelines:\n\n a. Minimum training requirements for State inspectors\xe2\x80\x99 qualification to lead\n standard inspections (i.e. classroom and/or on-the-job training).\n b. A system that tracks revisions to Federal inspection forms and actively\n notifies States when these new forms are available.\n c. Standards for time allowed between inspections for all inspection types.\n\n3. Develop and implement procedures to review the adequacy of inspection\n procedures as part of the annual program evaluation.\n\n4. Provide States with comprehensive guidance to ensure States effectively\n implement PHMSA\xe2\x80\x99s risk analysis methods for scheduling inspections.\n\n5. Document the procedures for conducting triennial grant reviews to ensure\n consistency of oversight.\n\n6. Develop a training program that ensures PHMSA evaluators can successfully\n conduct the following program evaluation procedures:\n\n a. Determine and verify whether States have complied with all Program\n evaluation requirements according to its procedures.\n\n b. Accurately notify States in writing of non-compliance with Program\n evaluation requirements to ensure States take correct action to achieve\n compliance.\n\n7. Develop and implement a plan for auditing States\xe2\x80\x99 use of suspension funds,\n and work with State program managers to identify current suspension fund\n administration challenges requiring additional guidance.\n\x0c 12\n\n\nAGENCY COMMENTS AND OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL\nRESPONSE\nWe provided a draft of this report to PHMSA on February 20, 2014, and received\nits response on April 24, 2014, which is included in its entirety as an appendix to\nthis report. In its response, PHMSA concurred with recommendations 2, 5, and 7;\nand partially concurred with recommendations 1, 3, 4, and 6. As detailed below,\nwe are requesting that PHMSA reconsider its response to recommendation 1, and\nprovide additional information on its planned actions for recommendation 3. For\nrecommendations 2, 4, 5, 6, and 7, PHMSA\xe2\x80\x99s actions taken and planned meet the\nintent of our recommendations. However, we are requesting PHMSA provide\nadditional documentation to verify that these actions fully address our\nrecommendations.\n\nFor recommendation 1, PHMSA asserts that it has taken action independent of our\nrecommendation that addresses our concerns regarding the staffing formula.\nPHMSA referenced a 2010 study in which a joint team of State pipeline safety\nprogram representatives and PHMSA participants evaluated the merits of the\nexisting staffing formula and made recommendations for improvements. We\nacknowledged PHMSA\xe2\x80\x99s efforts to improve the staffing formula in our report, but\nbelieve that those actions do not go far enough. To resolve our recommendation,\nPHSMA officials stated that they wil1 review the considerations from the 2010\nstudy. However, these planned actions do not adequately address our\nrecommendation that the Agency revise the formula to account for non-standard\ninspections\xe2\x80\x94integrity management, operator qualification, and operator training\nprograms\xe2\x80\x94and address factors that impact pipeline risk such as age and material\ncomposition, and the size of inspection units. Accordingly, we request that the\nAgency reconsider its position on this recommendation. We consider this\nrecommendation open and unresolved.\n\nFor recommendation 2, PHMSA states that it will review and update its guidance\nto help State program managers determine the proper training level inspectors\nshould have before they perform unassisted inspections. The Agency also stated\nthat its current inspection forms are already posted on its Web site (and that States\nhave been notified as such), that it established a 5-year maximum interval between\nstandard inspections in its recent State guidance, and that maximum time intervals\nwill be established for other inspections. However, we are requesting that PHSMA\nprovide additional information regarding those actions. Specifically, we request\nthat PHSMA provide (1) additional information on whether its update to the States\nguidance will include minimum training requirements for State inspectors\xe2\x80\x99\nqualification to lead standard inspections, (2) a copy of PHMSA\xe2\x80\x99s February 2014\nemail sent to the States alerting them to the location of the most recent inspection\nforms, (3) evidence of the Agency\xe2\x80\x99s intention to alert States of future changes to\n\x0c 13\n\n\nthe forms, and (4) a copy of the revised State guidance establishing maximum time\nintervals for all inspections. We consider recommendation 2 resolved but open\npending receipt of this information.\n\nFor recommendation 3, PHMSA states that it plans to enhance its existing\ninspection guidance to States to address our recommendation. However, PHMSA\ndid not provide the specific enhancements it plans to make to the guidance to\nensure States\xe2\x80\x99 inspection procedures are adequate, or how it will oversee States\xe2\x80\x99\nimplementation of this guidance. Additionally, PHMSA\xe2\x80\x99s response does not\naddress actions to develop and implement procedures for its evaluators\xe2\x80\x99 use in\ndetermining the adequacy of inspection procedures during annual program\nevaluations. Accordingly, we request that the Agency clarify how its planned\nactions will meet the intent of this recommendation. We consider recommendation\n3 unresolved pending receipt of this information.\n\nFor recommendation 4, PHMSA states that it will review and revise the current\nrisk elements for States\xe2\x80\x99 inspection scheduling, and will provide guidance to States\non the methodologies to be used in line with PHMSA\xe2\x80\x99s methodologies for\ninspection unit risk ranking. The Agency also stated that it has developed Web-\nbased training regarding risk assessment methods. However, we are requesting\nthat PHSMA provide us with copies of the revisions to its States\xe2\x80\x99 guidance\naddressing effective implementation of PHMSA\xe2\x80\x99s risk analysis methods for\nscheduling inspections, and a copy of the Web-based training. We consider\nrecommendation 4 resolved but open pending receipt of this information.\n\nFor recommendation 5, PHMSA requested that we close this recommendation\nbecause it has taken actions to address it. While these actions appear to address the\nintent of our recommendation, we are requesting that PHSMA provide us with the\nprocedures it has developed for conducting triennial reviews. We consider\nrecommendation 5 resolved but open pending receipt of this information.\n\nFor recommendation 6, PHMSA again requested that we close this\nrecommendation because it has taken actions to address it. However, we are\nrequesting that PHSMA provide us with a copy of its 2013 training manual for\nPHMSA evaluators, evidence of the Agency\xe2\x80\x99s intention to provide this training\nannually to all evaluators, and a copy of its forthcoming policy for the 2013 grant\ncycle that addresses State funding and program evaluation scores. We consider\nrecommendation 6 resolved but open pending receipt of this information.\n\nFor recommendation 7, PHMSA states that it has developed a plan for auditing\nStates\xe2\x80\x99 use of suspension funds and will meet with State program managers to\nidentify administrative challenges and develop guidance on suspension funds.\nHowever, we are requesting that PHSMA provide us with a copy of its plan and\nintended actions for developing guidance for State program managers to validate\n\x0c 14\n\n\nthe actions it has taken. We consider recommendation 7 resolved but open pending\nreceipt of this information.\n\nDespite its general concurrence with our recommendations, PHMSA took issue\nwith one of our findings, asserting that it requested but was never provided with\ninformation regarding the purported 135 missed non-compliances. However, our\nreport includes 3 examples that describe the non-compliances. Further, we\ndiscussed the types of non-compliances we found with PHMSA officials on\nmultiple occasions prior to issuing our draft audit report. Nevertheless, we are\nready to again review our results with PHMSA so the Agency can take steps\nnecessary to improve training on reviewing State grant programs.\n\nACTIONS REQUIRED\nWe consider recommendations 2, 4, 5, 6, and 7 resolved but open pending receipt\nof the information requested above. We consider recommendations 1 and 3 open\nand unresolved and request that PHMSA reconsider its position for\nrecommendation 1 and clarify how its planned actions will meet the intent of\nrecommendation 3.\n\nIn accordance with Department of Transportation Order 8000.1C, we request that\nPHMSA provide us this additional information within 30 days. We appreciate the\ncourtesies and cooperation of PHMSA representatives during this audit. If you\nhave any questions concerning this report, please call me at (202) 366-0500, or\nScott Macey, Program Director, at (415) 744-3090.\n\n #\n\ncc: DOT Audit Liaison, M-1\n PHMSA Audit Liaison, PH-4\n\x0c 15\n\n\n\nEXHIBIT A. SCOPE AND METHODOLOGY\nWe conducted this audit in accordance with generally accepted Government\nauditing standards between April 2012 and February 2014. Those standards\nrequire that we plan and perform the audit to obtain sufficient, appropriate\nevidence to provide a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based on\nour audit objectives. We believe that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable\nbasis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives.\n\nWe reviewed States certified under PHMSA\xe2\x80\x99s Natural Gas Program, which\nincludes transmission 21 and distribution 22 systems, for calendar years 2010 to\n2011. We randomly selected 5 of the 48 certified States (51 State agencies) to\nreview and visit\xe2\x80\x94California, Oklahoma, Florida, Georgia, and Texas.\n\nTo evaluate the effectiveness of PHMSA\xe2\x80\x99s State Pipeline Safety Program, we:\n\n\xe2\x80\xa2 Reviewed PHMSA\xe2\x80\x99s guidance, policies, and procedures.\n\n\xe2\x80\xa2 Interviewed PHMSA management and program evaluators responsible for\n Program management and oversight at Headquarters and selected States.\n\n\xe2\x80\xa2 Shadowed PHMSA\xe2\x80\x99s annual program evaluations at three selected States, and\n shadowed PHMSA\xe2\x80\x99s triennial grant review of one selected State.\n\n\xe2\x80\xa2 Interviewed State program directors and inspectors.\n\n\xe2\x80\xa2 Reviewed documentation from PHMSA and each of the selected States for the\n annual program evaluation. 23 We selected the 2010 and 2011 program\n evaluations from each of the 5 randomly selected states we visited for a total of\n 10 program evaluations. A program evaluation can have up to 115 questions\n and each question can have up to 5 program evaluation requirements. We\n selected a total of 400 program evaluation requirements (80 per State) that\n were non-technical and had a direct impact on safety.\n\n\xe2\x80\xa2 Reviewed documentation supporting a sample of expenses that California,\n Oklahoma, Georgia, and Texas 24 submitted to PHMSA for reimbursement. We\n stratified payment request cost items for the 4 states and randomly selected 19\n\n\n21\n Transmission pipelines are large pipelines that operate under high pressure. They are typically used to transport gas\nto a distribution center or to supply a large-volume customer. In San Bruno, a transmission pipeline between two\ndistribution systems ruptured.\n22\n Distribution pipelines are small pipelines that operate under low pressure. They are typically used to transport natural\ngas to individual households and users.\n23\n Each State completed one program evaluation per year.\n24\n Florida does not receive PHMSA State Pipeline Safety Program grant funding.\n\n\nExhibit A. Scope and Methodology\n\x0c 16\n\n\n out of 143 cost items. 25 These cost items represented $7.6 million or 39 percent\n of $19.2 million in reimbursements PHMSA paid to these 4 states in\n 2010/2011. From this sample, we randomly selected and reviewed 188 line\n items out of 1,664.\n\n\xe2\x80\xa2 Reviewed and analyzed staffing formula documentation that PHMSA used to\n assess State staffing levels.\n\xe2\x80\xa2 Interviewed NTSB and other stakeholders regarding the Program\xe2\x80\x99s\n effectiveness.\n\n\n\n\n25\n One cost item was selected twice due to our \xe2\x80\x98with replacement\xe2\x80\x99 sampling methodology reducing the number of\n unique cost items selected from 20 to 19.\n\n\nExhibit A. Scope and Methodology\n\x0c 17\n\n\n\nEXHIBIT B. ACTIVITIES VISITED OR CONTACTED\nPHMSA\nState Program Office\nInspector Training & Qualifications Office\n\nState Agencies\nCalifornia Public Utilities Commission\nFlorida Public Service Commission\nGeorgia Public Service Commission\nOklahoma Corporation Commission\nRailroad Commission of Texas\n\nNational Transportation Safety Board\nOffice of Railroad, Pipeline, and Hazardous Materials Investigation\nOffice of Safety Recommendations & Advocacy\n\nStakeholders\nNational Association of Pipeline Safety Representatives\nNational Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners\nPipeline Safety Trust\n\n\n\n\nExhibit B: Activities Visited or Contacted\n\x0c 18\n\n\nAPPENDIX\n\n\n\n\nU.S. Department Administrator\n 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE\nof Transportation Washington, DC 0590\nPipeline and Hazardous\nMaterial Safety\nAdministration\n\n April 24, 2014\n\nMEMORANDUM\n\n\n\nTO: Jeffry B. Guzzetti\n Assistant Inspector General for Aviation Audits\n\nFROM: Cynthia L. Quarterman\n\nSUBJECT: Management Response to Office of Inspector General Draft Report\n on\n New Approaches Are Needed To Improve PHMSA\xe2\x80\x99s State Pipeline\n Safety Program (Project No. 12A3008A000)\n\nThe Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration\xe2\x80\x99s Office of Pipeline\nSafety\xe2\x80\x99s mission is to protect people and the environment from the risks of\npipeline incidents. With over 500 Federal and State employees committed to\nsupporting that mission and improving pipeline safety, PHMSA establishes\nnational policy, sets and enforces standards, educates stakeholders, and conducts\nresearch and development activities.\n\nSince 1971 when a national uniform standard of pipeline safety regulations was\nimplemented, States have had the ability, through PHMSA, to regulate the safety\nof intrastate pipelines and pass additional safety regulations more stringent than\nthe minimum Federal regulations. Before that federal program was created, many\nstates already performed those functions under state law. Through these federally\napproved pipeline safety programs, most States have established more stringent\nsafety regulations. PHMSA assumes the oversight responsibility for the full cost\nof pipeline safety programs if a State chooses not to participate. Currently, all\n\n\nAppendix\n\x0c 19\n\n\nStates except Alaska and Hawaii, participate in PHMSA\xe2\x80\x99s pipeline safety\nprogram.\n\nPHMSA Oversees and Supports State Pipeline Safety Programs\n\nFor over 40 years, PHMSA has worked diligently to foster a close working\nrelationship with State pipeline safety programs. PHMSA depends on the States\nto manage their programs, including evaluating their inspectors\xe2\x80\x99 ability to perform\nstandard inspections. PHMSA\xe2\x80\x99s role is to oversee the individual State programs to\nensure their actions are in compliance with PHMSA\xe2\x80\x99s certification requirements\nand that appropriated funds are appropriately spent.\n\nCurrent PHMSA staffing of State Evaluators have a total of 169 years of\ncumulative pipeline safety knowledge, or 28 years on average of experience, with\npipeline safety issues. They use this knowledge and skill during State evaluations.\n\nOur program oversight includes annual on-site Program Evaluations and triennial\nGrant Reviews. PHMSA works with States to collect and analyze annual Progress\nReports, provide comprehensive program guidance, ensure compliance with and\nanswer questions, and help them improve their individual programs.\n\n\nState Pipeline Safety Programs Accomplish Program Goals\n\nState pipeline safety programs successfully accomplish the Department of\nTransportation\xe2\x80\x99s (DOT) public safety goals. Under PHMSA\xe2\x80\x99s oversight, State\npipeline safety programs have reduced the rate of serious pipeline incidents for gas\ndistribution pipelines by approximately two-thirds over the last 30 years. In\naddition, the mileage of gas distribution pipelines has increased by over 50\npercent. In 1990, State pipeline safety programs broke through the six-sigma\nthreshold (1:1,000,000), the gold standard for acceptable risk for serious\ndistribution incidents, and have continued to reduce serious incidents even more\nwith an incident rate averaging half the six sigma threshold over the past 5 years.\nThe total number of serious incidents on distribution pipelines in calendar years\n2012 and 2013 were 24 and 21, respectively, which were the lowest number of\nserious incidents on record for the past 30 years. Since CY2010, in which there\nwere five serious incidents on intrastate transmission lines under State safety\nauthority, including the tragic incident in San Bruno, California, there have been\nno other serious incidents to date on intrastate transmission pipelines.\n\n\n\n\nAppendix\n\x0c 20\n\n\nPHMSA Strongly Supports the Education and Training of Pipeline Safety\nInspectors\n\nPHMSA has developed 25 pipeline-specific training courses and 28 Web Based\nTraining (WBT) modules for Federal and State pipeline safety inspectors. There\nis no charge associated with the training provided to States participating in the\npipeline safety program. PHMSA also mentors State pipeline safety inspectors by\nallowing them to audit Federal pipeline safety inspections and support Federal\nstaff with integrity management inspections when resources allow.\n\nIn August of 2013, PHMSA opened a new training facility in Oklahoma City, OK,\nincreasing its capability and commitment to the education and training of the\npipeline safety inspector workforce. The new location provides offices and four\nclassrooms, along with supervisory control and data acquisition (SCADA),\nWelding and Corrosion Labs, and fully integrated audiovisual systems throughout\nthe training areas. The PHMSA Training Center provides dedicated space for\ndemonstrating new technologies, methods, and procedures to Federal and State\ninspectors.\n\n\nConclusion\n\nThe OIG\xe2\x80\x99s Draft Report asserts that PHMSA\xe2\x80\x99s State Evaluators missed a large\nnumber of \xe2\x80\x9cnon-compliances\xe2\x80\x9d (135 among 5 States) during their program\nevaluation. While the areas identified by the OIG are a non-technical subset of the\nentire question set, PHMSA needs specific information to assess the nature of its\nfindings. However, PHMSA requested but was never provided with information\nregarding what the purported missed \xe2\x80\x9cnon-compliances\xe2\x80\x9d were. Therefore,\nPHMSA is unable to verify this finding or, more importantly, use that finding to\nimprove its training for program evaluators. Receiving the requested information\nfrom the OIG will allow PHMSA an opportunity for training, program\nimprovement, and increased safety.\n\nRecommendations and Responses\n\n Recommendation 1: Revise the staffing formula so that it accounts for risk\n and non-standard inspections, and periodically analyze State-provided\n inspection unit data to validate staffing formula results.\n\n\n\n\nAppendix\n\x0c 21\n\n\n Response: Partially Concur. PHMSA has already taken action independent of\n this audit and recommendation. PHMSA uses its staffing formula to estimate\n the minimum staff a program should have based on the recommended number\n of inspection days required to be conducted in a given year. PHMSA does not\n use the staffing formula to prohibit or discourage a State from increasing its\n staff to meet its individual state inspection needs nor does it attempt to reduce\n the number of inspection staff in a State pipeline safety program. In fact,\n PHMSA encourages States to increase State pipeline safety program staffing\n by increasing available grant funding and suspending the maintenance of effort\n clause for the State Base Grant during difficult economic times. This approach\n has added approximately 40 State inspectors to pipeline safety programs during\n recent tough economic times.\n\n In 2010, PHMSA evaluated the merits of the existing staffing formula with a\n team of State pipeline safety program representatives. This team determined\n that the existing formula is appropriate for setting a baseline inspector corps\n and made recommendations for improving the formula including providing\n additional criteria concerning increasing staff levels. PHMSA continues to\n believe the recently revised staffing formula is appropriate.\n\n PHMSA recognizes that the number of inspection units and their size can\n affect the staffing formula results. For this reason, PHMSA annually reviews\n this program element with States through Question B8 of its Program\n Evaluation form and addresses concerns as they arise. For example, PHMSA\n addressed the concern regarding the size of inspection units in its letter to the\n California Public Utilities Commission for its CY2012 pipeline safety\n program.\n\n PHMSA\xe2\x80\x99s \xe2\x80\x9cGuidelines for States Participating in the Pipeline Safety Program\xe2\x80\x9d\n lists 10 additional considerations for State staffing levels, including pipe age\n and material composition (such as cast iron), which may be unique to an\n individual State and support staffing over the base level (Section 4.2.1).\n Additionally, Section 4.2.2 of those guidelines allow States to propose an\n alternate staffing level based on supporting detailed information including\n aging infrastructure or the need for more non-standard inspections.\n\n PHMSA recognizes that program improvement is a continuous process and\n takes this responsibility seriously. In response to this recommendation,\n PHMSA agrees to review the considerations identified in the 2010 Staffing\n Task Group to improve PHMSA\xe2\x80\x99s current State guidance. PHMSA will\n complete this review by December 31, 2014.\n\nAppendix\n\x0c 22\n\n\n Recommendation 2: Develop and include in PHMSA\xe2\x80\x99s State Program\n Guidelines:\n\n a. Minimum training standards for State inspector qualifications for\n leading inspections (i.e., classroom and/or on-the-job training).\n b. A system that tracks revisions to Federal inspection forms and actively\n notifies States when these new forms are available.\n c. Standards for time allowed between inspections for all inspection types.\n\n\n Response: Concur. a) PHMSA had not established minimum qualifications\n because we wanted to allow State program managers the flexibility to use their\n available resources, as appropriate and consistent with inspector skill levels.\n By December 31, 2014, PHMSA will review and update guidance to help State\n program managers determine the proper training level inspectors should have\n before they perform unassisted inspections.\n\n b) PHMSA already posts the most current inspection forms on its website and\n will now alert States when there are changes to the Federal inspection forms.\n On February 27, 2014, PHMSA sent an email to all States alerting them to the\n location of the most recent inspection forms and of PHMSA\xe2\x80\x99s intentions to\n alert them to future changes. PHMSA will continue to alert states of future\n changes.\n\n c) PHMSA established a 5-year maximum interval between standard\n inspections in guidance to States for CY2014. PHMSA required public\n education effectiveness inspections to be completed by the end of CY2013 and\n distribution integrity management inspections to be completed by the end of\n CY2014. By December 31, 2014, PHMSA will establish maximum inspection\n intervals for other types of inspections.\n\n Recommendation 3: Develop and implement procedures to review the\n adequacy of inspection procedures as part of the annual program evaluation.\n\n Response: Partially Concur. PHMSA provides States with guidelines for\n administering their pipeline safety programs. Under the guidelines, each\n pipeline safety program requires States to establish and follow written\n inspection procedures that provide for methodical, systematic, comprehensive,\n and consistent inspections.\n\n PHMSA annually evaluates each State\xe2\x80\x99s adherence to its inspection\n procedures. As shown in the statistics section of the \xe2\x80\x9cState Pipeline Safety\n\n\nAppendix\n\x0c 23\n\n\n Programs are Accomplishing Program Goals.\xe2\x80\x9d State pipeline safety programs\n have been very successful in meeting safety goals. Nevertheless, PHMSA\n does recognize that program improvement is a continuous process. By\n December 31, 2014, PHMSA will provide States with standardized inspection\n forms and will enhance our existing general inspection guidance.\n\n Recommendation 4: Provide States with comprehensive guidance to ensure\n States effectively implement PHMSA\xe2\x80\x99s risk analysis methods for scheduling\n inspections.\n\n Response: Partially Concur. Prior to this audit, PHMSA was working with\n States on this matter in transitioning to an advanced risk-informed\n methodology focused on mitigating overall risk to people and the environment.\n PHMSA has supported risk inspection prioritization for several years and\n believes prioritizing inspection units according to risk is especially important\n when inspection resources are limited. PHMSA has also established key\n factors for States to consider when risk-ranking inspection units. Additionally,\n PHMSA developed a Web Based Training titled, \xe2\x80\x9cIntroduction to Risk\n Assessment Methods,\xe2\x80\x9d which provides a basis and background for assessing\n risk and is available to all State program managers and inspectors.\n\n Moving forward, PHMSA is committed to reviewing the current key elements\n of the existing guidance to assess if any modifications are needed. Further,\n PHMSA will revise the risk-ranking elements and provide guidance to the\n States on the appropriate methodologies to be used in line with PHMSA\xe2\x80\x99s\n methodologies for inspection unit risk-ranking. PHMSA will have this\n additional guidance in place by December 31, 2014.\n\n Recommendation 5: Document the procedures for conducting triennial grant\n reviews to ensure consistency of oversight.\n\n Response: Concur. PHMSA appreciates the OIG\xe2\x80\x99s recognition of how\n thorough PHMSA\xe2\x80\x99s triennial grant reviews and efforts are to assure the\n appropriate expenditure of Federal grant funds. PHMSA proposes closure of\n this recommendation based on the following actions already taken:\n\n\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2 PHMSA\xe2\x80\x99s evaluators involved with grant monitoring have completed a\n Grant Certification program by Management Concepts and take\n refresher courses each year.\n\n\n\nAppendix\n\x0c 24\n\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2 PHMSA has enhanced existing forms, guidance, and training for\n conducting triennial grant reviews to include procedures being\n implemented for CY2014 Grant Reviews.\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2 On February 13, 2014, PHMSA held a webcast with all its State\n Evaluators involved in grant management. The purpose of this webcast\n was to review PHMSA\xe2\x80\x99s procedures for conducting grant monitoring\n and to address grant review form updates for monitoring One Call, State\n Damage Prevention, and MOE Suspension Grant Fund expenditures.\n\n\n Recommendation 6: Develop a training program that ensures PHMSA\n evaluators can successfully conduct the following program evaluation\n procedures:\n\n a. Determine and verify whether States have complied with all Program\n Evaluation requirements according to its procedures.\n b. Accurately notify States of non-compliance with Program Evaluation\n requirements to ensure States take correct action to achieve compliance.\n\n\n Response: Partially Concur. PHMSA proposes closure of this\n recommendation based on the following actions:\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2 PHMSA has taken action to develop a more robust annual review and\n training of State guidance materials for conducting Program\n Evaluations. In PHMSA\xe2\x80\x99s annual meeting with State Evaluators from\n November 5-7, 2013, PHMSA went over each of the Program\n Evaluation questions and the associated guidance with each State\n Evaluator to discuss what each State Evaluator reviews and considers in\n determining if there are areas needing improvement and if grant\n allocation points should be deducted. PHMSA will continue to conduct\n this annual training to enhance consistency with Program Evaluations.\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2 PHMSA periodically rotates the State Evaluators among the States so a\n different perspective is brought to the State Evaluation over time to\n identify inconsistencies with State Evaluator perception, interpretation,\n or time given to review a particular issue. PHMSA is implementing a\n new policy for the 2013 grant cycle to not reduce a State\xe2\x80\x99s funding\n unless the State loses points for the same question it lost points for in\n\n\nAppendix\n\x0c 25\n\n\n the previous evaluation, which allows States to make program changes\n before PHMSA reduces their grant funding.\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2 PHMSA requested six additional positions in the FY2015 budget\n request to help support more in-depth evaluations of State pipeline\n safety programs. This requests, if granted, will effectively double\n PHMSA\xe2\x80\x99s capacity for conducting thorough and effective program\n evaluations.\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2 PHMSA, by formal correspondence, continues to communicate annually\n with State senior officials regarding pipeline safety issues identified\n from the annual Program Evaluations. PHMSA\xe2\x80\x99s State Evaluators\n continue to offer to brief State pipeline safety senior officials on the\n Program Evaluation results at the conclusion of the evaluations.\n\n\n Recommendation 7: Develop and implement a plan for auditing States\xe2\x80\x99 use\n of suspension funds, and work with State program managers to identify current\n suspension fund administration challenges requiring additional guidance.\n\n Response: Concur. An audit plan has been developed for auditing States\xe2\x80\x99 use\n of Suspension funds. By December 31, 2014, PHMSA will meet with State\n program managers to identify administrative challenges and develop additional\n guidance with regard to Suspension funds. This guidance will be included in\n the 2015 \xe2\x80\x9cGuidance to States Participating in the Pipeline Safety Program.\xe2\x80\x9d\n\n\n\n\nAppendix\n\x0c'


text:
 Avis juridique important
 |
 11957E/PRO/BEI/22
 Euroopan yhteisön perustamissopimus - Pöytäkirja Euroopan investointipankin perussäännöstä - 22 artikla
 Euroopan yhteisön perustamissopimus - Pöytäkirja Euroopan investointipankin perussäännöstä - 22 artikla1. Pankki lainaa tehtäviensä toteuttamiseksi tarvittavat varat kansainvälisiltä pääomamarkkinoilta.2. Pankki voi lainata jäsenvaltion pääomamarkkinoilta joko sen lainsäädännön mukaisesti jota sovelletaan kotimaisiin liikkeeseenlaskuihin tai jos jäsenvaltiossa ei ole tällaista lainsäädäntöä kun kyseinen jäsenvaltio ja pankki ovat sopineet yhteistoiminnasta ja ovat yhtä mieltä lainasta.Asianomaisen jäsenvaltion toimivaltaiset laitokset voivat evätä suostumuksensa vain jos kyseisen valtion pääomamarkkinoilla on pelättävissä vakavia häiriöitä.