type: contracts

jurisdiction: EU

text:
 15.7.2010
 SK
 Úradný vestník Európskej únie
 L 181/27
 ROZHODNUTIE SPOLOČNÉHO VÝBORU EHP
 č. 58/2010
 z 30. apríla 2010,
 ktorým sa mení a dopĺňa protokol 31 k Dohode o EHP o spolupráci v špecifických oblastiach mimo štyroch slobôd
 SPOLOČNÝ VÝBOR EHP,
 so zreteľom na Dohodu o Európskom hospodárskom priestore, zmenenú a doplnenú protokolom, ktorým sa upravuje Dohoda o Európskom hospodárskom priestore, ďalej len „dohoda“, a najmä na jej články 86 a 98,
 keďže:
 (1)
 Protokol 31 k dohode bol zmenený a doplnený rozhodnutím Spoločného výboru EHP č. 70/2007 z 29. júna 2007 (1).
 (2)
 Nariadenie Európskeho parlamentu a Rady (ES) č. 1692/2006 z 24. októbra 2006, ktorým sa ustanovuje druhý program Marco Polo na poskytovanie finančnej pomoci Spoločenstva na zlepšenie environmentálnych vlastností systému nákladnej dopravy („Marco Polo II“) a ktorým sa zrušuje nariadenie (ES) č. 1382/2003 (2), v znení korigenda uverejneného v Ú. v. EÚ L 65, 3.3.2007, s. 12, bolo začlené do protokolu 31 k dohode rozhodnutím Spoločného výboru EHP č. 70/2007 z 29. júna 2007 (3).
 (3)
 Je vhodné rozšíriť spoluprácu zmluvných strán dohody s cieľom zahrnúť nariadenie Európskeho parlamentu a Rady (ES) č. 923/2009 zo 16. septembra 2009, ktorým sa mení a dopĺňa nariadenie (ES) č. 1692/2006, ktorým sa ustanovuje druhý program Marco Polo na poskytovanie finančnej pomoci Spoločenstva na zlepšenie environmentálnych vlastností systému nákladnej dopravy (Marco Polo II) (4).
 (4)
 Protokol 31 k dohode je preto potrebné zmeniť a doplniť, aby sa umožnila táto rozšírená spolupráca s účinnosťou od 1. januára 2010,
 ROZHODOL TAKTO:
 Článok 1
 Do zarážky [nariadenie Európskeho parlamentu a Rady (ES) č. 1692/2006] článku 12 ods. 3 protokolu 31 k dohode sa vkladá tento text:
 „ , zmenené a doplnené týmito právnymi predpismi:
 —
 32009 R 0923: nariadenie Európskeho parlamentu a Rady (ES) č. 923/2009 zo 16. septembra 2009 (Ú. v. EÚ L 266, 9.10.2009, s. 1).“
 Článok 2
 Toto rozhodnutie nadobúda účinnosť dňom nasledujúcim po poslednom oznámení Spoločnému výboru EHP podľa článku 103 ods. 1 dohody (5).
 Uplatňuje sa od 1. januára 2010.
 Článok 3
 Toto rozhodnutie sa uverejní v oddiele EHP Úradného vestníka Európskej únie a v dodatku EHP k Úradnému vestníku Európskej únie.
 V Bruseli 30. apríla 2010
 Za Spoločný výbor EHP
 predseda
 Alan SEATTER
 (1) Ú. v. EÚ L 304, 22.11.2007, s. 54.
 (2) Ú. v. EÚ L 328, 24.11.2006, s. 1.
 (3) Ú. v. EÚ L 304, 22.11.2007, s. 54.
 (4) Ú. v. EÚ L 266, 9.10.2009, s. 1.
 (5) Ústavné požiadavky neboli oznámené.


type: caselaw

text:
9.4.2011
 IT
 Gazzetta ufficiale dell'Unione europea
 C 113/14
 Ordinanza del presidente del Tribunale 17 febbraio 2011 — Comunidad Autónoma de Galicia/Commissione
 (Causa T-520/10 R)
 (Procedimento sommario - Aiuti di Stato - Compensazione dei costi aggiuntivi di produzione di talune centrali elettriche risultanti dall’obbligo di servizio pubblico di produrre determinati volumi di elettricità a partire da carbone di origine nazionale e attuazione di un “meccanismo di chiamata prioritaria” a loro favore - Decisione di non sollevare obiezioni - Domanda di sospensione dell’esecuzione - Fumus boni iuris - Insussistenza dell’urgenza - Ponderazione degli interessi)
 2011/C 113/28
 Lingua processuale: lo spagnolo
 Parti
 Richiedente: Comunidad Autónoma de Galicia (Santiago de Compostela, Spagna) (rappresentanti: avv.ti S. Martínez Lage, H. Brokelmann e A. Rincón García Loygorri)
 Resistente: Commissione Europea (rappresentanti: É. Gippini Fournier e C. Urraca Caviedes, agenti)
 Oggetto
 Domanda di provvedimenti provvisori diretta, in sostanza, a che sia disposta la sospensione dell’esecuzione della decisione della Commissione 29 settembre 2010, C(201) 499, relativa all’aiuto di Stato N 178/2010, notificato dal Regno di Spagna sotto forma di una compensazione per l’obbligo di servizio pubblico associata ad un meccanismo di chiamata prioritaria a favore delle centrali di produzione di energia elettrica a partire da carbone di origine nazionale.
 Dispositivo
 1)
 La Hidroeléctrica del Cantábrico, SA, e la Federación Nacional de Empresarios de Minas de Carbón sono ammesse ad intervenire a sostegno delle conclusioni della Commissione europea.
 2)
 Una copia di tutti gli atti sarà trasmessa, a cura del cancelliere, alle parti menzionate al n. 1 del presente dispositivo.
 3)
 La domanda di procedimento sommario è respinta.
 4)
 Le spese sono riservate.


text:
 30.7.2011
 LV
 Eiropas Savienības Oficiālais Vēstnesis
 C 226/10
 Lūgums sniegt prejudiciālu nolēmumu, ko 2011. gada 13. aprīlī iesniedza Bundesfinanzhof (Vācija) — Finanzamt Steglitz/Ines Zimmermann
 (Lieta C-174/11)
 2011/C 226/17
 Tiesvedības valoda — vācu
 Iesniedzējtiesa
 Bundesfinanzhof
 Lietas dalībnieki pamata procesā
 Prasītājs: Finanzamt Steglitz
 Atbildētājs: Ines Zimmermann
 Prejudiciālie jautājumi
 1)
 Vai Padomes 1977. gada 17. maija Sestās direktīvas 77/388/EEK par to, kā saskaņojami dalībvalstu tiesību akti par apgrozījuma nodokļiem (1), 13. panta A daļas 1. punkta g) apakšpunkts un/vai 2. punkta a) apakšpunkts atļauj valsts likumdevējam slimām vai kopjamām personām sniegto ambulatorās aprūpes pakalpojumu atbrīvojumu no nodokļa pakļaut nosacījumam, ka šo pakalpojumu sniedzēju “aprūpes izmaksas iepriekšējā kalendārajā gadā vismaz divās trešdaļās gadījumu pilnā apmērā vai lielākajā daļā ir segušas valsts sociālās apdrošināšanas vai sociālās palīdzības iestādes” (Umsatzsteuergesetz 1993 [1993. gada Likuma par apgrozījuma nodokli] 4. panta 16. punkta e) apakšpunkts)?
 2)
 Vai, ņemot vērā pievienotās vērtības nodokļa neitralitātes principu, atbildot uz šo jautājumu ir būtiski, ka valsts likumdevējs tādus pašus pakalpojumus citā situācijā uzskata par atbrīvotiem no nodokļa, ja tos sniedz valsts atzītas brīvprātīgo labdarības organizāciju biedrības un juridiskās personas, kas darbojas kā brīvprātīgas labdarības organizācijas, personu apvienības un īpašuma apvienības, kas kā biedri ir pievienojušās kādai labdarības organizācijai (Umsatzsteuergesetz 1993, 4. panta 18. punkts)?
 (1) OV L 145, 1. lpp.


type: other

text:
Tribunal de Justiça de São Paulo TJ-SP : 10113201220168260053 SP 1011320-12.2016.8.26.0053
 Tribunal de Justiça de São Paulo TJ-SP : 10113201220168260053 SP 1011320-12.2016.8.26.0053 - Inteiro Teor
 TJ-SP__10113201220168260053_de5e2.pdf
 Registro: 2018.0000079034
 Vistos, relatados e discutidos estes autos de Apelação no 1011320-12.2016.8.26.0053, da Comarca de São Paulo, em que é apelante/apelado ESTADO DE SÃO PAULO, são apelados/apelantes FATIMA DA SILVA TRINDADE (JUSTIÇA GRATUITA), DEBORA TEIXEIRA DO AMARAL, SUELI MARIA DA SILVA DE OLIVEIRA, MARIA ELIZABETH POLI DE CAMPOS LEME, HELIETE MOREIRA, JOAO CARLOS MANTESE, KAREM CHRISTINA DOS REIS MATHIAS, KELLY PONZANI GOMES, CONCEIÇÃO APARECIDA CRUZ e EDUARDO SILVA.
 ACORDAM , em sessão permanente e virtual da 7a Câmara de Direito Público do Tribunal de Justiça de São Paulo, proferir a seguinte decisão: Negaram provimento ao recurso dos autores. Deram parcial provimento ao recurso fazendário, tanto quanto ao reexame necessário, com observação. V.U.
 , de conformidade com o voto do relator, que integra este acórdão.
 O julgamento teve a participação dos Desembargadores COIMBRA SCHMIDT (Presidente) e MOACIR PERES.
 Apelação no 1011320-12.2016.8.26.0053
 Apelante/Apelado: Estado de São Paulo
 Apdos/Aptes: Fatima da Silva Trindade, Debora Teixeira do Amaral, Sueli Maria da Silva de Oliveira, Maria Elizabeth Poli de Campos Leme, Heliete Moreira, Joao
 Carlos Mantese, Karem Christina dos Reis Mathias, Kelly Ponzani Gomes, Conceição Aparecida Cruz e Eduardo Silva
 Voto no 14399
 AÇÃO ORDINÁRIA – Servidores celetistas, admitidos sob o “regime jurídico administrativo” (para usar a expressão empregada no julgamento da Ação Cautelar relativa à ADIN 3684/2006) – A despeito de se revelar amplo, na doutrina, o conceito de “servidor público”, utilizado pelo legislador na regra do artigo 129 da Constituição do Estado, certo é que a Corte Paulista vem se orientando por uma interpretação mais restritiva, afastando, assim, a inclusão do quinquênio nos vencimentos dos servidores celetistas – De qualquer forma, no caso concreto, vê-se que os servidores já são contemplados com o quinquênio, tratando-se apenas de discutir a base de cálculo da vantagem – Cálculo do quinquênio sobre os vencimentos integrais – Inteligência dos artigos 129 e 115, XVI, ambos da Constituição Estadual, afastada a incidência da vantagem sobre as verbas eventuais e as não incorporadas, com o que se adota o entendimento da douta Câmara – Recurso dos autores improvido. Apelação fazendária e reexame necessário parcialmente providos, com observação.
 Cuida-se de ação ordinária na qual os autores, servidores públicos
 estaduais, parte deles celetistas, buscam, em apertada síntese, o recálculo do quinquênio
 para que incida sobre seus vencimentos integrais, aí incluídos os adicionais e as
 gratificações recebidas, observada a prescrição quinquenal, postulando ainda a condenação
 da ré nos valores vencidos e vincendos, acrescidos de juros e correção monetária.
 O processo foi extinto, sem julgamento do mérito, com relação à
 autora Fátima da Silva Trindade, reconhecendo o magistrado a litispendência, oportunidade
 na qual condenou a autora nas custas e despesas processuais, fixando os honorários
 advocatícios em 10% sobre o valor da causa. No tocante aos demais autores, julgou a ação
 parcialmente procedente, determinando o magistrado a incidência do quinquênio sobre
 todas as verbas, à exceção do Adicional de Insalubridade e do Prêmio de Produtividade
 Médica – PPM, com pagamento das parcelas vencidas, observada a prescrição quinquenal, incidentes juros de mora, a contar da citação, e correção monetária, desde o vencimento de cada parcela, sem especificação dos critérios para incidência. Reconhecida a sucumbência recíproca, condenou cada uma das partes ao pagamento de metade das custas e despesas processuais, fixando ainda honorários advocatícios, devidos de parte a parte, no percentual mínimo sobre o valor da condenação.
 Em sede de apelação, os autores pedem que o Adicional de Insalubridade e o Prêmio de Produtividade Médica – PPM sejam incluídos na base de cálculo do quinquênio.
 A Fazenda do Estado, por sua vez, suscitou preliminar de ilegitimidade, afirmando que alguns dos autores eram servidores autárquicos, razão por que a pretensão haveria de ser por eles exercida contra o IAMSPE. Instada a indicar quais seriam os autores, na condição indicada, a ré informou que, de fato, não há servidores autárquicos, sendo todos celetistas, razão pela qual argui a preliminar de incompetência do juízo.
 Não há de se falar em incompetência da Justiça Comum para o julgamento do feito. É certo que há incidente de uniformização de jurisprudência (TJSP, Turma Especial de Direito Público, no 118.453-5/2-01, Rel. Roberto Bedaque, j. 18.03.04) no sentido de que as questões relativas a celetistas estão sujeitas à Justiça do Trabalho. Todavia, não se pode perder de vista que o Supremo Tribunal Federal concedeu liminar suspendendo toda e qualquer interpretação, dada ao artigo 114, inciso I, da Constituição Federal, que inclua, na competência da Justiça do Trabalho, apreciação de causas instauradas entre o Poder Público e seus servidores, a ele vinculados por típica relação de ordem estatutária, ou de caráter jurídico-administrativo.
 A decisão da Suprema Corte aplica-se aos servidores federais, bem
 se sabe. Todavia, vale o entendimento, mutatis mutandis, naquilo que diz respeito aos servidores estaduais celetistas, os quais estão submetidos a regime jurídico-administrativo.
 Em outras palavras, a Constituição Federal admite, induvidosamente, que certas atividades, na Administração Direta, nas autarquias e fundações públicas, possam ser desenvolvidas sob regime de emprego. E não será este só fato a explicar que tais relações jurídico-administrativas sejam arbitradas na seara da Justiça do Trabalho.
 Aplica-se à espécie a regra do artigo 3o do Decreto Federal no 20.910/32, com a interpretação que lhe deu a Súmula no 85 do Superior Tribunal de Justiça, de forma que, se a Administração Pública não indeferiu, expressamente, pedido formulado pelo servidor, prescrevem apenas as parcelas do quinquênio imediatamente anterior à propositura da ação, subsistindo o fundo de direito.
 Claro está que a Constituição do Estado, antecipando-se ao chamado regime único, previsto na Constituição Federal, longe de defini-lo, propriamente, estabelecendo suas particularidades, tratou de estender alguns direitos, antes reservados aos funcionários públicos, a outros segmentos da Administração Pública. Ao fazê-lo, reproduzindo a norma do artigo 92, VIII, da Constituição Estadual anterior, a atual Constituição acrescentou, no seu artigo 129, que o cálculo da sexta-parte haveria de observar o disposto no artigo 115, XVI.
 Como a Constituição Estadual não operou qualquer distinção entre os servidores públicos para a outorga dos benefícios assinalados, seria de se concluir, sem maiores considerações, que os autores, e as instituidoras da pensão mesmo contratados pelo regime celetista fazem jus à sexta-parte de seus vencimentos, benefício outorgado aos servidores estatutários.
 De fato, é regra elementar da hermenêutica jurídica aquela segundo a qual onde a lei não distinguiu não é lícito ao intérprete fazê-lo, notadamente para restringir direitos. A categoria dos servidores públicos, já na lição da doutrina mais antiga, compreendia também a classe dos contratados, dos mensalistas, dos diaristas e dos
 tarefeiros (Mário Mazagão, Curso de Direito Administrativo, 6a ed., SP, RT, 1977, 43). Também entre os mais modernos, servidor público é noção que abrange, além dos...
 Disponível em: http://tj-sp.jusbrasil.com.br/jurisprudencia/547993267/10113201220168260053-sp-1011320-1220168260053/inteiro-teor-547993333


text:
 15.12.2012
 FI
 Euroopan unionin virallinen lehti
 C 389/3
 Ennakkoratkaisupyyntö, jonka Tribunal Administrativo e Fiscal do Porto (Portugali) on esittänyt 18.9.2012 — Portgás — Sociedade de Produção e Distribuição de Gás, SA v. Ministério do Ambiente, do Ordenamento do Território e do Desenvolvimento Regional
 (Asia C-425/12)
 2012/C 389/04
 Oikeudenkäyntikieli: portugali
 Ennakkoratkaisua pyytänyt tuomioistuin
 Tribunal Administrativo e Fiscal do Porto
 Pääasian asianosaiset
 Kantaja: Portgás — Sociedade de Produção e Distribuição de Gás, SA
 Vastaaja: Ministério do Ambiente, do Ordenamento do Território e do Desenvolvimento Regional (Ympäristö-, kaavoitus- ja aluekehitysministeriö)
 Ennakkoratkaisukysymys
 Voidaanko 14.6.1993 annetun neuvoston direktiivin 93/38/ETY (1) 4 artiklan 1 kohtaa sekä saman direktiivin 14 artiklan 1 kohdan c alakohdan i alakohtaa, sellaisena kuin se on muutettuna 16.2.1998 annetulla Euroopan parlamentin ja neuvoston direktiivillä 98/04/EY (2), sekä asiassa sovellettavia kyseisten direktiivien muita säännöksiä ja yhteisön oikeuden yleisiä periaatteita tulkita siten, että niillä luodaan julkisen palvelun tehtävän toimeksiannon saaneille yksityisille [ja erityisesti yksikölle, joka kuuluu direktiivin 93/38/ETY 2 artiklan 1 kohdan b alakohdan soveltamisalaan], kun kyseistä direktiiviä ei ollut saatettu osaksi Portugalin valtion sisäistä oikeutta, velvollisuuksia, joiden noudattamatta jättämiseen Portugalin valtio voi vedota kyseistä toimeksiannon saanutta yksikköä vastaan ministeriön päätöksellä?
 (1) Vesi- ja energiahuollon, liikenteen ja teletoiminnan alan hankintoja koskevien sopimusten tekomenettelyjen yhteensovittamisesta (EYVL L 199, s. 84).
 (2) EYVL L 101, s. 1.


type: legislation

text:
 1.2.2014
 HU
 Az Európai Unió Hivatalos Lapja
 L 32/9
 A BIZOTTSÁG 90/2014/EU VÉGREHAJTÁSI RENDELETE
 (2014. január 31.)
 a dekánsavnak a 4., a 18. és a 19. terméktípusba tartozó biocid termékekben felhasználható létező hatóanyagként történő jóváhagyásáról
 (EGT-vonatkozású szöveg)
 AZ EURÓPAI BIZOTTSÁG,
 tekintettel az Európai Unió működéséről szóló szerződésre,
 tekintettel a biocid termékek forgalmazásáról és felhasználásáról szóló, 2012. május 22-i 528/2012/EU európai parlamenti és tanácsi rendeletre (1) és különösen annak 89. cikke (1) bekezdésének harmadik albekezdésére,
 mivel:
 (1)
 Az 1451/2007/EK bizottsági rendelet (2) megállapítja azon hatóanyagok jegyzékét, amelyeket a 98/8/EK európai parlamenti és bizottsági irányelv (3) I., I.A. vagy I.B. mellékletébe való felvétel lehetősége szempontjából értékelni kell. E jegyzékben szerepel a dekánsav.
 (2)
 A 98/8/EK irányelv 11. cikke (2) bekezdésének megfelelően sor került a dekánsavnak az említett irányelv V. melléklete szerinti – az 528/2012/EU rendelet V. mellékletében meghatározott 4., 18., illetve 19. terméktípusnak megfelelő – 4. terméktípusban, azaz élelmiszer- és takarmányfertőtlenítő szerekben, 18. terméktípusban, azaz rovarölő, atkaölő és más ízeltlábúak elleni szerekben, illetve 19. terméktípusban, azaz riasztó- és csalogatószerekben való felhasználás tekintetében történő értékelésére.
 (3)
 A kijelölt referens tagállam, Ausztria az 1451/2007/EK rendelet 14. cikke (4) és (6) bekezdésének megfelelően 2010. december 7-én benyújtotta a Bizottságnak az illetékes hatóság ajánlásokkal ellátott jelentéseit.
 (4)
 A tagállamok és a Bizottság megvizsgálták az illetékes hatóság jelentéseit. Az 1451/2007/EK rendelet 15. cikke (4) bekezdésének megfelelően a Biocid Termékek Állandó Bizottsága 2013. december 13-án két értékelő jelentésben összesítette a vizsgálat eredményeit.
 (5)
 Az említett jelentésekből kitűnik, hogy a 4., a 18. és a 19. terméktípusba tartozó, dekánsavat tartalmazó biocid termékek várhatóan megfelelnek a 98/8/EK irányelv 5. cikkében megfogalmazott követelményeknek.
 (6)
 Helyénvaló ezért jóváhagyni a dekánsavnak a 4., a 18. és a 19. terméktípusba tartozó biocid termékekben való felhasználását.
 (7)
 Mivel az értékelések a nanoanyagokkal nem foglalkoztak, az 528/2012/EU rendelet 4. cikkének (4) bekezdése alapján indokolt, hogy a fenti jóváhagyás az ilyen anyagokra ne terjedjen ki.
 (8)
 Ami a 4. terméktípusban való felhasználást illeti, az értékelés nem foglalkozott azzal az esettel, amikor az 1935/2004/EK európai parlamenti és tanácsi rendelet (4) 1. cikkének (1) bekezdése szerinti, élelmiszerekkel rendeltetésszerűen közvetlenül vagy közvetve érintkezésbe kerülő anyagok és tárgyak dekánsavat tartalmazó biocid termékeket tartalmaznak. Az ilyen anyagok esetében szükség lehet az 1935/2004/EK rendelet 5. cikke (1) bekezdésének e) pontjában említett, élelmiszerekbe történő kioldódásra vonatkozó különös határértékek megállapítására. A jóváhagyás ezért nem terjedhet ki az ilyen használatra, kivéve, ha a Bizottság meghatározott ilyen határértékeket, vagy ha az említett rendelet alapján megállapította, hogy nincsen szükség ilyen határértékekre.
 (9)
 Egy adott hatóanyag jóváhagyását megelőzően ésszerű időtartamot kell biztosítani arra, hogy a tagállamok, az érdekelt felek és adott esetben a Bizottság felkészülhessenek az azzal járó új követelmények teljesítésére.
 (10)
 Az ebben a rendeletben előírt intézkedések összhangban vannak a Biocid Termékek Állandó Bizottságának véleményével,
 ELFOGADTA EZT A RENDELETET:
 1. cikk
 A Bizottság jóváhagyja, hogy a dekánsavat a 4., a 18. és a 19. terméktípusba tartozó biocid termékekben – a mellékletben szereplő előírások és feltételek betartása mellett – hatóanyagként felhasználják.
 2. cikk
 Ez a rendelet az Európai Unió Hivatalos Lapjában való kihirdetését követő huszadik napon lép hatályba.
 Ez a rendelet teljes egészében kötelező és közvetlenül alkalmazandó valamennyi tagállamban.
 Kelt Brüsszelben, 2014. január 31-én.
 a Bizottság részéről
 az elnök
 José Manuel BARROSO
 (1) HL L 167., 2012.6.27., 1. o.
 (2) A Bizottság 2007. december 4-i 1451/2007/EK rendelete a biocid termékek forgalomba hozataláról szóló 98/8/EK európai parlamenti és tanácsi irányelv 16. cikkének (2) bekezdésében említett 10 éves munkaprogram második szakaszáról (HL L 325., 2007.12.11., 3. o.).
 (3) Az Európai Parlament és a Tanács 1998. február 16-i 98/8/EK irányelve a biocid termékek forgalomba hozataláról (HL L 123., 1998.4.24., 1. o.).
 (4) Az Európai Parlament és a Tanács 2004. október 27-i 1935/2004/EK rendelete az élelmiszerekkel rendeltetésszerűen érintkezésbe kerülő anyagokról és tárgyakról, valamint a 80/590/EGK és a 89/109/EGK irányelv hatályon kívül helyezéséről (HL L 338., 2004.11.13., 4. o.).
 MELLÉKLET
 Közhasználatú név
 IUPAC-név
 Azonosító számok
 A hatóanyag minimális tisztasági foka (1)
 A jóváhagyás időpontja
 A jóváhagyás lejártának időpontja
 Terméktípus
 Különös feltételek (2)
 dekánsav
 IUPAC-név:
 n-dekánsav
 EK-szám: 206-376-4
 CAS-szám: 334-48-5
 985 g/kg
 2015. szeptember 1.
 2025. augusztus 31.
 4
 A termék értékelése során különleges figyelmet kell fordítani az engedélyezés iránti kérelemben foglalt olyan felhasználásokhoz kapcsolódó expozícióra, kockázatokra és hatékonyságra, amelyekre a hatóanyag uniós szinten folytatott kockázatértékelése nem terjedt ki.
 Az engedélyezés feltételei:
 Az ipari felhasználók és a terméket foglalkozásszerűen alkalmazó felhasználók számára biztonságos munkafolyamatokat és megfelelő szervezeti intézkedéseket kell meghatározni. A termékeket megfelelő egyéni védőeszközökkel kell használni, kivéve, ha az expozíció mértéke más módon is elfogadható szintre csökkenthető.
 Az olyan termékek esetében, amelyek használata során az anyagból szermaradékok képződhetnek az élelmiszerekben vagy a takarmányokban, meg kell vizsgálni, hogy – összhangban a 470/2009/EK európai parlamenti és tanácsi rendelettel (3) vagy a 396/2005/EK európai parlamenti és tanácsi rendelettel (4) – szükség van-e új maradékanyag-határértékek (MRL) meghatározására vagy a meglévőek módosítására, és minden megfelelő kockázatcsökkentő intézkedést meg kell hozni az alkalmazandó határértékek betartásának biztosítására.
 Olyan anyagok és tárgyak, amelyek az 1935/2004/EK rendelet 1. cikkének (1) bekezdése szerint rendeltetésszerűen érintkezésbe kerülnek élelmiszerekkel, nem tartalmazhatnak dekánsavat tartalmazó biocid termékeket, kivéve, ha a Bizottság különös határértékeket határoz meg a dekánsav élelmiszerekbe történő kioldódására, vagy az említett rendelet alapján megállapítja, hogy nincs szükség ilyen határértékek meghatározására.
 18
 A termék értékelése során különleges figyelmet kell fordítani az engedélyezés iránti kérelemben foglalt olyan felhasználásokhoz kapcsolódó expozícióra, kockázatokra és hatékonyságra, amelyekre a hatóanyag uniós szinten folytatott kockázatértékelése nem terjedt ki.
 Az engedélyezés feltételei:
 A nem foglalkozásszerű felhasználásra szánt termékek engedélyeit csak abban az esetben adják ki, ha a termék csomagolását a felhasználók expozíciójának lehető legkisebbre csökkentését szem előtt tartva tervezték meg, kivéve, ha a termék engedélyezése iránti kérelem bizonyítja, hogy az emberi egészséget érintő kockázatok más módon is csökkenthetők.
 Az olyan termékek esetében, amelyek használata során az anyagból szermaradékok képződhetnek az élelmiszerekben vagy a takarmányokban, meg kell vizsgálni, hogy – összhangban a 470/2009/EK rendelettel vagy a 396/2005/EK rendelettel – szükség van-e új maradékanyag-határértékek (MRL) meghatározására vagy a meglévőek módosítására, és minden megfelelő kockázatcsökkentő intézkedést meg kell hozni az alkalmazandó határértékek betartásának biztosítására.
 19
 A termék értékelése során különleges figyelmet kell fordítani az engedélyezés iránti kérelemben foglalt olyan felhasználásokhoz kapcsolódó expozícióra, kockázatokra és hatékonyságra, amelyekre a hatóanyag uniós szinten folytatott kockázatértékelése nem terjedt ki.
 (1) Az ebben az oszlopban jelzett tisztaság az 528/2012/EU rendelet 8. cikke alapján végzett értékeléshez használt hatóanyag minimális tisztasági fokának felel meg. A forgalomba hozott termékben lévő hatóanyag ezzel megegyező, de ettől eltérő tisztaságú is lehet, ha az értékelt hatóanyaggal technikailag bizonyítottan egyenértékű.
 (2) Az 528/2012/EU rendelet VI. mellékletben előírt közös elvek alkalmazásához az értékelő jelentések tartalma és következtetései a Bizottság alábbi internetes oldalán olvashatók: http://ec.europa.eu/comm/environment/biocides/index.htm
 (3) Az Európai Parlament és a Tanács 2009. május 6-i 470/2009/EK rendelete az állati eredetű élelmiszerekben előforduló farmakológiai hatóanyagok maradékanyag-határértékeinek meghatározására irányuló közösségi eljárásokról, a 2377/90/EGK tanácsi rendelet hatályon kívül helyezéséről, és a 2001/82/EK európai parlamenti és tanácsi irányelv, valamint a 726/2004/EK európai parlamenti és tanácsi rendelet módosításáról (HL L 152., 2009.6.16., 11. o.).
 (4) Az Európai Parlament és a Tanács 2005. február 23-i 396/2005/EK rendelete a növényi és állati eredetű élelmiszerekben és takarmányokban, illetve azok felületén található megengedett növényvédőszer-maradékok határértékéről, valamint a 91/414/EGK tanácsi irányelv módosításáról (HL L 70., 2005.3.16., 1. o.).


type: wikipedia

text:
Lietuvos valstiečių ir žaliųjų sąjunga (LVŽS) – Ramūno Karbauskio vadovaujama centro kairioji Lietuvos politinė partija, save kildinanti iš Lietuvos valstiečių sąjungos.
 Istorija
 1905-1922 m.
 1905 m. gruodžio 22 d. Vilniuje įkurta Lietuvos valstiečių sąjunga, nuo 1906 m. rugsėjo 30 d. bendro suvažiavimo veikė kaip autonominė kairioji Lietuvos demokratų partijos dalis. Organizacijos veikla išblėso 1915 m. Lietuvą okupavus kaizerinei kariuomenei. LVS veikla atnaujinta 1918 m., iš Rusijos sugrįžus buvusios partijos ideologams ir vadovams. 1922 m. LVS įsijungė į Lietuvos valstiečių liaudininkų sąjungą.
 1922–1936 m.
 Lietuvos valstiečių liaudininkų sąjunga įkurta 1922 m. gruodžio 3–5 d. Pagrindiniai ideologai buvo dr. Kazys Grinius (CK pirmininkas 1926 m. antroje pusėje), Albinas Rimka, Vincas Kvieska, svarbiausi lyderiai Felicija Bortkevičienė, Jonas Kriščiūnas, Vladas Lašas, Mykolas Sleževičius (CK pirmininkas 1922–1926 m. birželio mėn. ir nuo 1926 m. gruodžio iki 1936 m.), Justinas Staugaitis, Zenonas Toliušis, Jonas Vileišis.
 Ideologija rėmėsi reformistinio socializmo doktrina. Pripažino tik parlamentinės kovos metodus. Pagrindinis dėmesys buvo skiriamas žemės ūkiui. 1923 m. programoje buvo kalbama apie žemės suvisuomeninimą, vėliau, 1926 m. ir 1933 m. programose krypstama į kooperaciją, tačiau siekiama apriboti dvarininkų valdomos žemės plotą iki 50, vėliau – iki 100 ha.
 LVLS II Seime turėjo 16 atstovų iš 78, dalyvavo koalicijoje su krikščionimis demokratais. 1924 m. ši koalicija subyrėjo. Kairioji politika išprovokavo dešiniųjų jėgų, ypač iš dvarininkijos kilusių karininkų nepasitenkinimą ir 1926 m. gruodžio 17 d. valstybės perversmą, kuriam nesugebėta pasipriešinti. Po perversmo partijos veikėjai buvo persekiojami, o 1936 m. LVLS veikla buvo uždrausta.
 1990–2001 m.
 Steigiamajame suvažiavime 1990 m. rugpjūčio 18 d. buvo atkurta Lietuvos valstiečių partija. Teisingumo ministerijoje įregistruota 1990 m. spalio 10 d. Partijos pirmininku išrinktas prof. Petras Bėčius.
 1994–1995 metais įvyko ideologinė LVP slinktis iš centro dešinės į centro kairės pozicijas.
 1998 m. lapkričio 28 d. Vilniuje įvyko III Lietuvos valstiečių partijos suvažiavimas. Naujuoju organizacijos pirmininku išrinktas Seimo narys Ramūnas Karbauskis.
 2001 m. gruodžio 15 d. bendrame Valstiečių ir Naujosios demokratijos partijų suvažiavime buvo pasirašyta jungimosi sutartis. Naujosios partijos pirmininke išrinkta prof. Kazimiera Prunskienė, pirmininkės pirmuoju pavaduotoju – Ramūnas Karbauskis.
 2001–2004 m.
 Susijungiant Naujosios demokratijos ir Lietuvos valstiečių partijoms buvo siekta užsitikrinti daugiau galimybių būsimuosiuose rinkimuose ir tapti parlamentine partija. Kitaip Valstiečių partija būtų rizikavusi likti regionine partija, turinčia įtakos tik rajonų savivaldybių tarybose (2000 m. kovo 19 d. vykusiuose savivaldybių tarybų rinkimuose Lietuvos valstiečių partija iš viso gavo net 209 mandatus (daugiau gavo tik Naujoji sąjunga – 270), tačiau Seimo rinkimuose nesugebėjo susitarti su krikščionimis demokratais ir nepateko į Seimą pagal partijų sąrašus). Susijungimas pasiteisino. 2004 m. Europarlamento rinkimuose VNDS gavo 7,14 proc. balsų ir vieną mandatą – Europos Parlamento nariu tapo Gintaras Didžiokas. 2004 m. Seimo rinkimuose Valstiečių ir Naujosios demokratijos partijų sąjunga laimėjo 10 mandatų ir kartu su Lietuvos lenkų rinkimų akcija sudarė 12 narių frakciją.
 2004–2008 m.
 2005 m. įvykusiame Valstiečių ir Naujosios demokratijos partijų sąjungos suvažiavime, nutarta pasivadinti Lietuvos valstiečių liaudininkų sąjunga, tuo pabrėžiant Kazio Griniaus 1922 m. įkurtos partijos darbų tęstinumą. 2005 m. partijos pirmininke išrinkta buvusios Naujosios demokratijos (moterų) partijos vadovė, pirmoji atkurtos Lietuvos premjerė, prof. habil. dr. Kazimiera Prunskienė. 2004-2008 m. Seime Valstiečių liaudininkų sąjungos frakcijoje buvo 14 narių, partija buvo valdančiosios koalicijos dalis, XIV vyriausybėje buvo partijos deleguoti trys ministrai (užsienio reikalų, žemės ūkio, ūkio). Partija 2004-2009 m. turėjo ir savo atstovą Europos Parlamente - Gintarą Didžioką.
 2008–2012 m.
 2008 m. Seimo rinkimai partijai buvo nesėkmingi: daugiamandatėje apygardoje neperkoptas 5 % barjeras, o vienmandatėse gautos 3 vietos Seime. 2008-2012 m. Seime trys partijos nariai išrinkti į Seimą liko dirbti Mišrioje Seimo narių grupėje. 2009 m. gegužę ilgametė partijos pirmininkė prof. Kazimiera Prunskienė nusprendė kaip nepriklausoma kandidatė balotiruotis LR Prezidento rinkimuose ir atsisakė antrąkart kandidatuoti į partijos vadovo postą. 2009 m. vasarį Partijos pirmininku išrinktas buvusios Valstiečių partijos pirmininkas ir valstiečių liaudininkų vicepirmininkas 2005–2007 m. Ramūnas Karbauskis. Buvusi lyderė Kazimiera Prunskienė trumpam buvo tapusi partijos Garbės pirmininke.
 2012–2016 m.
 2012 m. partija naujai pasivadino Lietuvos valstiečių ir žaliųjų sąjunga. Partija Lietuvos žaliųjų sąjūdis (pirmininkas Juozas Dautartas)
 išreiškė abejones dėl „žaliosios” ideologijos (ekologinė žemdirbystė ir pan.) praktikavimo, žaliąsias idėjas išpažįstančių partijos narių gausos.
 2012 m. LVŽS partija kartu su visuomeninėmis organizacijomis rinko parašus, kad būtų surengtas patariamasis referendumas dėl naujos atominės elektrinės statybos (žr. Visagino atominė elektrinė). Koordinacinę grupę sudarė LVŽS, Lietuvos žaliųjų sąjūdis, Lietuvos žaliųjų judėjimas, Susivienijimas „Žali.lt“ ir kiti.
 Buvę „Lietuvos žaliųjų sąjūdžio” vadovai perėjo LVŽS partiją. Joje Albinas Morkūnas, buvęs LŽS vadovas, tapo LVŽS Miškų politikos komiteto pirmininku, Virginija Vingrienė – kaip LVŽS sąrašo kandidatė – buvo išrinkta 2016–2020 m. Seimo nare. Buvęs LŽS vicepirmininkas Juozas Dautartas LVŽS sąraše dalyvavo 2012 m. spalio 14 d. Lietuvos Respublikos Seimo rinkimuose, tačiau vienmandatėje Vilkaviškio (Nr.68) apygardoje I ture surinko vos 2,31 % balsų, todėl į II turą nepateko.
 2014 m. Europos Parlamento rinkimuose partija surinko 6,62 proc. rinkėjų balsų ir gavo mandatą. EP nariu tapo ilgametis Ignalinos meras Bronis Ropė.
 2016-2020 m.
 2016 m. Lietuvos Respublikos Seimo rinkimų pirmame ture partija surinko 21,53 % dalyvavusių rinkėjų balsų ir užėmė antrą vietą bei gavo 19 mandatų. Į antrąjį turą pateko 42 partijos nariai. Jame partija laimėjo 35 mandatus, dar 2 mandatus laimėjo nepriklausomi kandidatai, ėję LVŽS sąraše, taigi iš viso po rinkimų LVŽS užsitikrino 56 vietas Seime. Naujajam Seimui pradėjus savo darbą, prie LVŽS frakcijos prisijungė dar keli nepriklausomi Seimo nariai, taigi LVŽS savo frakcijoje turės 59 vietas ir kartu su Lietuvos socialdemokratų partija (laimėtos 17 vietų, prie frakcijos taip pat prisidėjo 2 Seimo nariai iš Darbo partijos) sudarys valdančiąją daugumą.
 Rinkimų rezultatai
 Seimas
 Europos Parlamentas
 Šaltiniai
 Nuorodos
 Partijos tinklalapis
 Lietuvos valstiečių liaudininkų sąjunga


text:
 30.11.2013
 LV
 Eiropas Savienības Oficiālais Vēstnesis
 C 352/26
 Prasība, kas celta 2013. gada 21. jūnijā — ZZ/Komisija
 (Lieta F-58/13)
 2013/C 352/51
 Tiesvedības valoda — itāļu
 Lietas dalībnieki
 Prasītājs: ZZ (pārstāvis — L. Mansullo, avvocato)
 Atbildētāja: Eiropas Komisija
 Strīda priekšmets un apraksts
 Prasība atcelt lēmumu, ar kuru noraidīts prasītāja lūgums atlīdzināt zaudējumus, kas radīti viņa tiesību uz konfidencialitāti iespējamā pārkāpuma dēļ, ko radījusi atbildētājas veiktā vēstules attiecībā uz prasītāja situāciju nosūtīšana advokātam, kurš viņu nepārstāv
 Prasītāja prasījumi:
 —
 atcelt lēmumu — lai arī kādā formā tas būtu pausts — ar kuru ir noraidīts 2012. gada 9. marta lūgums, ko prasītājs iesniedzis Komisijai un kuru tā bija pienācīgi saņēmusi;
 —
 atcelt 2012. gada 28. jūnija paziņojumu;
 —
 atcelt lēmumu — lai arī kādā formā tas būtu pausts — ar kuru noraidīta 2012. gada 26. septembra sūdzība, ko prasītājs bija iesniedzis Komisijai un kuru tā bija pienācīgi saņēmusi par 2012. gada 9. marta lūguma noraidījumu;
 —
 ciktāl nepieciešams, atcelt 2013. gada 1. februāra paziņojumu;
 —
 piespriest Komisijai atlīdzināt prasītājam EUR 10 000 kopā ar procentiem, kas maksājami par šo summu, ar likmi 10 % gadā ar ikgadējo kapitalizāciju, sākot no 2012. gada 9. marta līdz faktiskai minētās summas samaksai;
 —
 piespriest Komisijai atlīdzināt tiesāšanās izdevumus.


jurisdiction: US

text: b' U.S. Department of Agriculture\n\n Office of Inspector General\n\n\n\n\n Audit Report\n\nAgreed-Upon Procedures \xe2\x80\x93 Farm Service Agency\n Average Crop Revenue Election Program,\n Sheridan County, Montana\n\n\n\n\n Report No. 03099-199-KC\n December 2010\n\x0c U.S. Department of Agriculture\n Office of Inspector General\n Washington, D.C. 20250\n\n\nDATE: December 10, 2010\n\nAUDIT\nNUMBER: 03099-199-KC\n\nTO: Michael T. Scuse\n Deputy Under Secretary\n for Farm and Foreign Agricultural Services\n\nATTN: Jonathan W. Coppess\n Administrator\n Farm Service Agency\n\nFROM: Gil H. Harden /s/\n Assistant Inspector General\n for Audit\n\nSUBJECT: Agreed-Upon Procedures \xe2\x80\x93 Farm Service Agency Average Crop Revenue\n Election Program, Sheridan County, Montana\n\n\nThis report presents the results of the Agreed-Upon Procedures performed on the Farm Service\nAgency\xe2\x80\x99s (FSA) implementation of the Average Crop Revenue Election Program (ACRE) in\nSheridan County, Montana, in 2009. This report contains no recommendations and, therefore, no\nfurther action by the Farm Service Agency is required.\n\nWe determined whether allegations that the Sheridan County FSA Office provided incorrect\nprogram information to producers about ACRE could be substantiated and whether alleged\nmisinformation may have influenced producers to erroneously sign up for ACRE. We also\nreviewed how the ACRE signup register was implemented and whether it was administered by\nthe county office according to procedures.\n\nThe review included such tests of program and accounting records as considered necessary to\nmeet the review objective. This engagement to apply the Agreed-Upon Procedures was\nperformed in accordance with applicable government auditing standards and statement of\nstandards for attestation engagements established by the American Institute of Certified Public\nAccountants.\n\nIf you have any questions, please contact me at (202) 720-6945, or have a member of your staff\ncontact Ernest M. Hayashi at (202) 720-2887.\n\nAttachment\n\x0cFSA Average Crop Revenue Election Program, Sheridan County,\nMontana\nExecutive Summary\nWe have performed the procedures described in Exhibit A which were agreed to by the Office of\nInspector General, the Farm Service Agency (FSA), and the Office of the Under Secretary for\nFarm and Foreign Agricultural Services. This review addresses the allegations raised by several\nproducers enrolled in the Average Crop Revenue Election Program (ACRE) in Sheridan County,\nMontana.\nACRE provides an alternative revenue-based safety net to the Direct and Counter-Cyclical\nPayment Program\xe2\x80\x99s (DCP) existing price-based safety net for crop years 2009 through 2012. To\nenroll, producers must first irrevocably elect ACRE on a farm-by-farm basis. Producers who\nelect to participate in ACRE agree to forgo counter-cyclical payments. Additionally, they agree\nthat FSA will reduce their direct payments by 20 percent and their marketing assistance loan\nrates by 30 percent. Loan deficiency payment (LDP) rates for ACRE producers are thus\ncalculated by reducing the marketing assistance loan rate by 30 percent before subtracting the\nposted county price. 1\n\nIn Sheridan County, Montana, 27 producers enrolled in ACRE by the August 14, 2009, deadline.\nAn additional 36 producers were placed on a signup register. Those placed on the register were\nallowed until September 30, 2009, to complete applications for sign up. By the end of\nSeptember 2009, the price of durum wheat had dropped significantly, triggering LDPs for durum\nwheat, the main crop in Sheridan County, Montana. For the first time in several years, producers\nwere eligible to receive LDPs on durum wheat. However, in light of the LDPs being triggered\nfor durum wheat, most producers realized that the program\xe2\x80\x99s 30-percent reduction in loan rates\nmeant that they could only receive significantly reduced LDPs, if any at all. Only 3 of the 36\nproducers utilized the register to enroll in ACRE, one of whom appealed his ACRE election. Of\nthe 27 Sheridan County producers who enrolled in ACRE by the August 14, 2009, deadline, 23\nappealed to rescind or to reverse their ACRE enrollment. FSA estimated that it could be at risk\nto provide relief up to $2.7 million.2\n\n\n1\n Marketing assistance loans are marketing tools available to producers beginning upon harvest. For farmers who\nforgo the use of marketing assistance loans, loan deficiency payments rules apply. County and regional loan rates\nare based on each commodity\xe2\x80\x99s national loan rate and vary by county or region, and are based on the average prices\nand production of the county or region where the commodity is stored.\nThe LDP payment rate equals the amount by which the applicable loan rate exceeds the posted county price for the\nrespective commodity. The LDP amount equals the LDP rate times the quantity of the commodity for which the\nLDP is requested.\nThe posted county price is the local market price established by the Commodity Credit Corporation. Posted county\nprices are announced daily for wheat, feed grains, and soybeans; and weekly for other oilseeds.\n2\n This amount is based upon the number of acres of durum wheat planted on the enrolled ACRE farms in 2009 in\nSheridan County and assumes that relief could be granted in the form of cancelled ACRE contracts and/or producers\nbeing allowed to qualify for an LDP for which they would have been entitled if they were not in ACRE.\n\x0cIn late September 2009, ACRE producers alleged that the register was not used consistently or\nequitably because some producers were allowed to extend the deadline by 45 days while others\nwere not informed of this option. According to Notice DCP-220, \xe2\x80\x9cUsing Register for DCP\nEnrollment and ACRE Election and Enrollment,\xe2\x80\x9d dated July 27, 2009, a producer may request\nthat a farm be placed on the register when the county office cannot schedule an appointment to\nelect and/or enroll in ACRE on or before August 14, 2009, due to workload, computer, or other\ncounty office-related issues. Additionally, in the Montana State FSA Office Memo DCP-012,\n\xe2\x80\x9cDCP and ACRE Register,\xe2\x80\x9d dated May 12, 2009, the State office permitted the use of the\nregister to allow producers more time to acquire signatures of landowners. Nevertheless, Notice\nDCP-220, \xe2\x80\x9cUsing Register for DCP Enrollment and ACRE Election and Enrollment,\xe2\x80\x9d dated July\n27, 2009, stated the register cannot be used to circumvent the deadline. However, producers\nclaimed that those on the register used the extra time (between August 14 and September 30) to\nobserve market trends, including the falling price of durum wheat, and make a more informed\ndecision.\n\nAdditionally, after the LDPs were triggered, several producers claimed that Sheridan County\nFSA Office staff gave incorrect information regarding ACRE\xe2\x80\x99s LDP calculations. These\nproducers claimed that both in meetings with the program technician and in the informational\nmeetings held by FSA on February 26 and 27, 2009, and March 2, 2009, by Montana State\nUniversity\xe2\x80\x99s Extension Service, they were told that if they enrolled in ACRE, their direct\npayments would be reduced by 20 percent, their marketing assistance loan rate by 30 percent,\nand their LDP rates by 30 percent. They additionally claimed they were told they would\nforgo their counter-cyclical payments. Thus, rather than the actual 30-percent reduction in\nloan rate, producers thought they would receive LDPs which would be reduced by 30 percent.\nOn December 8, 2009, the program technician wrote to the Sheridan County FSA Committee,\nstating that she provided incorrect information to Sheridan County producers and that she also\ndid not provide the CCC-509 Appendix, dated April 29, 2009, to ACRE enrollees at the time of\ntheir enrollment. 3 On January 4, 2010, AGWEEK published an article highlighting the concerns\nof producers in Sheridan County who claimed they were misinformed.\n\nWe worked with FSA at the Headquarters level to develop agreed-upon procedures in order to\ndetermine the facts and circumstances surrounding FSA\xe2\x80\x99s implementation and administration of\nACRE in Sheridan County, Montana. Specifically, we reviewed how the ACRE signup register\nwas implemented and whether it was administered by the county office according to procedures.\nWe also determined whether allegations that the Sheridan County FSA Office provided incorrect\nprogram information to producers about ACRE could be substantiated and whether alleged\nmisinformation may have influenced producers to erroneously sign up for ACRE.\n\nBetween February and October 2010, we reviewed background information regarding the alleged\nmisinformation, FSA Handbooks, Federal Register, Code of Federal Regulations, FSA Notices,\nState and county office employee emails, and ACRE and LDP appeal requests. We also\nreviewed CCC-509 contracts, appendices to the CCC-509, archived LDP and PCP rates, the\nregister for DCP enrollment and ACRE election, and county office correspondence regarding\n\n\n3\n CCC-509 Appendix, \xe2\x80\x9cAppendix to Form CCC-509, Direct and Counter-Cyclical Program (DCP) Contract or\nAverage Crop Revenue Election (ACRE) Program Contract,\xe2\x80\x9d dated April 29, 2009.\n\x0cACRE appeals. We also interviewed State and county office employees, producers, and\nMontana State University Extension Service employees.\n\nAlleged Abuse of ACRE Signup Register\n\nTo address claims that the register in Sheridan County was used inappropriately, we\ninterviewed 12 of the 36 producers placed on the register and determined that 8 of the\n12 producers were not aware of being placed on the register, nor did they request to be. The\nprogram technician admitted during her interview that she placed producers on the register\nwithout their knowledge. Further, the program technician placed producers with uninitiated 4\ncontracts on the register, which is in violation of Montana State FSA Office\xe2\x80\x99s Memo DCP-012,\n\xe2\x80\x9cDCP and ACRE Register,\xe2\x80\x9d dated May 12, 2009. While the program technician claimed that\nmany producers were placed upon the register in order to allow time to secure necessary\nsignatures from landowners, our review disclosed that 24 of the 36 producers on the register\neither had power of attorney or were landowners themselves and thus could have signed the\napplication. The program technician informed two of the producers we interviewed that they\ncould have until September 30, 2009, to decide whether to enroll, so long as they ensured that\nthey did not obtain all signatures before the August 14, 2009, deadline.\n\nAlleged Misinformation by the County Office Program Technician\n\nBased on our interviews with the program technician assigned to ACRE, ACRE producers,\nproducers placed on the register, county office employees, and county office employees in\nsurrounding counties, we could not substantiate the program technician\xe2\x80\x99s assertions made to the\nState office and county committee that she misinformed producers. In the course of our\ninterview, the program technician admitted that she herself drafted appeal letters to be submitted\nto FSA, which she provided to producers, including the extension agent. Those appeal letters\nclaim that the program technician misinformed producers and the county office misused the\nregister. We interviewed a total of 21 producers enrolled in ACRE, including 18 of the 24\nproducers who appealed their ACRE election and 3 producers who did not appeal their ACRE\nelection. Of the 21 ACRE producers interviewed, 16 stated that the program technician did not\nmisinform them prior to or at the time of enrollment. Further, we could not corroborate the\nclaims of the five producers who maintained that they were misinformed. Additionally, one of\nthese five producers has withdrawn his appeal to rescind or to reverse his ACRE enrollment.\n\nAdditionally, the program technician\xe2\x80\x99s treatment of the CCC-509 Appendix, dated April 29,\n2009, was inconsistent. Though another program technician in the county office provided her\nwith amended appendices in time to distribute before the August 14, 2009, deadline, the program\ntechnician for ACRE claimed that the documents were thrown out. Further, while the program\ntechnician initially claimed in the letter to the county committee that she did not provide the\nappendix to any producers at the time of enrollment, our review of producers\xe2\x80\x99 ACRE files\ndisclosed that two producers dated and initialed the amended appendix on the date of their\n\n\n4\n According to FSA, the term \xe2\x80\x9cinitiating\xe2\x80\x9d refers to the process of entering the ACRE contract into the computer\nsystem. A contract is \xe2\x80\x9cinitiated\xe2\x80\x9d when signature dates are entered into the computer system. An \xe2\x80\x9cinitiated\xe2\x80\x9d contract\nis therefore one which has been started but not completed. \xe2\x80\x9cUninitiated\xe2\x80\x9d contracts have not been started.\n\x0cenrollment, proving at least two producers were in possession of the appendix. 5 When presented\nwith this information, the program technician modified her claim, informing us that she did not\nalways provide producers with the appendix at the time of enrollment but sent them in the mail at\na later date. In the course of interviewing the program technician, she gave responses directly\ncontradictory to evidence obtained during our review and often times at odds with her prior\nassertions. Only after being shown direct evidence contradicting her initial statement did she\nrecant her previous responses and provide a voluntary sworn statement.\n\nAlleged Misinformation at FSA Informational Meetings\n\nWe could not substantiate producers\xe2\x80\x99 (including the extension agent\xe2\x80\x99s) claims that they were\nmisinformed at two FSA informational meetings held 6 months before the decision date, on\nFebruary 26 and 27, 2009, and at an informational meeting directed by Montana State\nUniversity\xe2\x80\x99s Extension Service on March 2, 2009. We obtained evidence through our email\nreview and interviews that contradicts producers\xe2\x80\x99 claims that these informational meetings\nprovided misinformation regarding how LDPs were to be calculated for ACRE producers. While\nthe county executive director claimed in our interview that she was asked in the first meeting if\nLDP payments would be reduced like direct payments and loan rates, she claimed to have\nanswered that she did not believe so but would check with the State office for clarification. After\nemailing the State office, she received the response: \xe2\x80\x9cThe loan rate for the farm is reduced by\n30% so that would affect the LDP rate.\xe2\x80\x9d This message was then forwarded to all county office\nstaff, including the program technician. Therefore the program technician and all county office\nstaff who presented at the informational meetings had access to the correct information. We\nhave confirmed this through email review. For subsequent meetings, the county executive\ndirector, district director, county committee members, and Montana State University professors\npresent do not remember a question or response explaining how LDPs would be affected for\nACRE enrolled producers.\n\nWe did not perform an audit with the objective to express an assessment of the internal control\nstructure or compliance with applicable laws, regulations, and procedures as a whole. This\nengagement to apply the agreed-upon procedures was performed in accordance with applicable\ngovernment auditing standards and statement of standards for attestation engagements\nestablished by the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants. The sufficiency of the\nprocedures is solely the responsibility of FSA. Consequently, we make no representations\nregarding the procedures described either for the purpose for which this report has been\nrequested or for any other purpose.\n\nThe Agreed-Upon Procedures performed and the facts obtained associated with each procedure\nperformed are detailed in exhibit A.\n\n\n\n\n5\n Regardless of whether or not producers received the CCC-509 Appendix, dated April 29, 2009, at the time of\nenrollment, producers certified in the application that they had received and understood the contents of the CCC-509\nAppendix, dated April 29, 2009. The Appendix is not required to be attached or filed in the producer\xe2\x80\x99s file.\n\x0c Exhibit A: Procedures Performed and Results\n\n I. Obtain county committee meeting minutes, and track dates of county committee\xe2\x80\x99s discussion\n and approval of the ACRE contract.\n\n Our review of the minutes from July 8, 2009, through February 10, 2010, disclosed that the\n county committee approved nine ACRE contracts on August 4, 2009, but did not document\n discussion. We also found that the county executive director and/or acting county executive\n director approved all other ACRE contracts.\n\n II. Obtain a step-by-step explanation of county office employee responsibilities when each\n producer comes in to sign up for ACRE. Where are these procedures documented? Were\n those steps documented and performed for each ACRE contract/participant?\n\n Because these employees stated to us that they followed the procedures in Handbook 1-DCP\n Revision 3, \xe2\x80\x9cDirect and Counter-Cyclical Program and Average Crop Revenue Election for\n 2009 and Subsequent Crop Years,\xe2\x80\x9d dated July 24, 2009, we did not find it necessary to\n obtain verbal step-by-step explanations from each county office employee on their\n responsibilities when each producer came into the office to sign up for ACRE. While the\n program technician disregarded a litigation hold and failed to attach initiated contract\n reports to the register (see result IV.1), nothing came to our attention during the course of\n our review to indicate that the Sheridan County FSA Office staff did not follow FSA\n Handbook 1-DCP Revision 3, \xe2\x80\x9cDirect and Counter-Cyclical Program and Average Crop\n Revenue Election for 2009 and Subsequent Crop Years,\xe2\x80\x9d dated July 24, 2009, for producers\n that signed up for ACRE.\n\nIII. ACRE FILE REVIEWS - Determine the following for each of the approved ACRE contracts\n in Sheridan County:\n\n 1. The date the initial application was received.\n\n The initial applications were received from July 23, 2009, to August 21, 2009. 6\n\n 2. Dates of the interviews with FSA staff and whom.\n\n Because program procedures did not require appointments and interviews with\n producers to be documented if they signed up with ACRE before the deadline, we\n were unable to determine the exact dates of interviews with ACRE producers.\n Likewise, due to a lack of documentation, we were unable to determine the exact\n dates of interviews with the three producers who signed up after the deadline. Our\n interviews with Sheridan County producers and county office staff disclosed that\n\n\n 6\n The three producers who enrolled from the signup register enrolled on August 17, 20, and 21, 2009.\n\x0c producers only met with the program technician assigned to ACRE to discuss the\n program, sometimes on more than one occasion.\n\n 3. The date the contract was signed by the producer and the county office, etc.\n\n Producers enrolled in ACRE signed their contracts from July 23 to August 21, 2009. 7\n Our review also disclosed that the contracts were approved by the county committee\n and/or county executive director from August 4 to August 31, 2009.\n\n 4. If the appropriate documents were signed for each participant in ACRE to make the\n ACRE participation valid.\n\n We determined all producers enrolled in ACRE signed the form to make ACRE\n participation valid, namely Form CCC-509, \xe2\x80\x9cDirect and Counter-Cyclical Program\n (DCP) Contract and Average Crop Revenue Program (ACRE) Contract\xe2\x80\x9d, dated\n April 16, 2009. 8\n\n 5. If the correct appendix was used and attached to each signed ACRE contract.\n\n Our review disclosed that two contracts had only the first page of the correct,\n amended appendix, which was initialed and dated on the day of application. 9 The\n correct appendix was not attached to any other signed ACRE contract that we\n reviewed. However, this was not a requirement.\n\n 6. If the agency followed the prescribed procedures for approving ACRE contracts.\n\n The Sheridan County FSA Office staff followed FSA Handbook 1-DCP revision\n 3, \xe2\x80\x9cDirect and Counter-Cyclical Program and Average Crop Revenue Election for\n 2009 and Subsequent Crop Years,\xe2\x80\x9d and did not implement any additional\n requirements for approving ACRE contracts.\n\n\n\n\n7\n The three producers who enrolled from the signup register enrolled on August 17, 20, and 21, 2009.\n8\n The CCC-509 Appendix, dated April 29, 2009, was not necessary to make the ACRE contract valid. However, by\nsigning the contract the producer certified to have received and agreed to the contents of the appendix. One ACRE\ncontract for one farm did not have the appropriate signature. A landowner mistakenly signed for a farm without\nhaving power of attorney for his wife. However, the landowner completed all other ACRE contracts for his farms\nappropriately. Further, all other contracts were properly signed and valid.\n9\n This contradicts the program technician\xe2\x80\x99s initial claim from her letter to the county committee that she did not\nprovide any producers with the correct, amended form CCC-509 ACRE Appendix at the time of enrollment. She\nlater modified this statement.\n\x0cIV. Register Review\n\n 1. Determine when the applicants on the register initially submitted applications.\n\n The three producers who enrolled in ACRE from the register submitted applications\n on August 17, 20, and 21, 2009. The applications for the producers on the register\n who did not enroll were printed out but not initiated into the computer system.\n Montana State FSA Office Memo DCP-012, \xe2\x80\x9cDCP and ACRE Register,\xe2\x80\x9d dated May\n 12, 2009, requires that program technicians attach initiated contract reports to the\n register to ensure all applications were already underway by the August 14 deadline.\n However, the Sheridan County program technician failed to do so. Because the\n program technician admitted to shredding these applications after printing them, we\n cannot ascertain whether these contracts were signed. Shredding the applications\n was a direct violation of the litigation hold placed on FSA (AS-2157 Keepseagle v.\n Schafer), which stipulates that FSA staff were not to shred or otherwise destroy any\n documents. The notice clearly states that all FSA employees and contractors (at\n county, State, and national offices) are covered by this litigation hold and shall, until\n further notice, not destroy written documents of any sort.\n\n 2. Determine when the applicants on the register visited the county office to discuss the\n ACRE contracts with the county office staff.\n\n Based on our review of the register, producers phoned or called the office on\n August 14, 2009, and requested to be placed on the ACRE signup register. Review of\n the register also disclosed that the producers were shown as being given an\n appointment date to complete their ACRE signup. However, there was no\n information available in the ACRE files to determine the exact date that producers\n initially met with county office staff or if they made their appointments to complete\n their ACRE signup. Further, we are unable to determine the accuracy of the register.\n For example, one producer listed on the register as calling at 7:30 am on August\n 14, 2009, did not remember calling on that day. Rather, in our interview, he claimed\n to have spoken with the program technician several days before the deadline, which\n the program technician supported in our interview with her.\n\n 3. Determine when the applicants on the register were provided information and by\n which program technician.\n\n According to the register and our interviews, the program technician was the\n sole point of contact for producers. As noted on the register, producers had\n appointments from August 17 until August 28, 2009. However, due to lack of\n documentation, we were unable to verify whether each producer met with her on the\n designated date and what, if any, information was provided. While the register\n documents appointment times for each producer, at least 8 of these appointments\n were not kept as 8 of the 12 producers we interviewed did not know they had been\n placed on the ACRE signup register nor did they remember receiving an appointment\n date.\n\x0c 4. Determine when and how the applicants got on the register.\n\n The program technician placed all producers on the register on August 14, 2009.\n However, we determined that at least two producers were informed about the ACRE\n signup register before the last day of ACRE signup by the program technician. 10\n Based on the register, of the 36 producers placed on the register, 22 producers\n telephoned the office and 14 producers made office visits on August 14, 2009.\n According to the register, the 36 producers were given an appointment date after\n August 14, 2009, to complete ACRE signup. Of the 12 producers on the register that\n we interviewed, 4 producers requested to be placed on the register. However, 8\n of the 12 producers did not know they had been placed on the register.\n\n 5. Determine the reason for each applicant being on the register.\n\n Notice DCP-220, \xe2\x80\x9cUsing Register for DCP Enrollment and ACRE Election and\n Enrollment,\xe2\x80\x9d dated July 27, 2009, states that a producer may request that a farm be\n placed on the register only when the county office cannot schedule an appointment to\n elect and/or enroll ACRE or DCP on or before August 14, 2009, due to workload,\n computer, or other county office-related issues. Additionally, in Montana State FSA\n Office Memo DCP-012, \xe2\x80\x9cDCP and ACRE Register,\xe2\x80\x9d dated May 12, 2009, the State\n office permitted the use of the register to allow producers more time to acquire\n signatures of landowners. According to the program technician and review of the\n ACRE signup register, the ACRE applicants were placed on the register because they\n needed additional signatures from land owners and had already expressed an interest\n in ACRE.\n\n 6. Determine the legitimacy of being on the register.\n\n While Notice DCP-220, \xe2\x80\x9cUsing Register for DCP Enrollment and ACRE Election\n and Enrollment,\xe2\x80\x9d dated July 27, 2009, states that use of the register to circumvent the\n deadline is not permitted, according to interviews with three producers, the program\n technician claimed that they could use the extended deadline to defer their decision\n on whether to enroll in ACRE. The program technician confirmed that she placed\n other producers on the register without their knowledge because she claimed they\n expressed an interest in obtaining signatures from landowners, but the producers had\n not completed the ACRE signup. However, 24 of the producers on the register either\n were landowners or had power of attorney for their farms. Further, in one instance,\n the program technician urged the producer not to have his landowner sign the\n contract in order to allow him more time to make a decision (see result VI).\n\n\n10\n During our email review, we discovered an email from a county producer, who is a key member of the Montana\nGrain Growers Association, which explained that the ACRE signup register was made available around August\n7, 2009, before August 14, the date the register was supposed to become available; therefore, producers who signed\nup before that date were not informed of the possibility of delaying completion of paperwork. The producer thus\nclaims that the program was \xe2\x80\x9cunevenly applied.\xe2\x80\x9d\n\x0c 7. Determine if any of the producers on the register had power of attorney for the\n landowners or were owner-operators and could have signed up for the program and\n were instead placed on the register.\n\n We determined that 14 producers were owner-operators for 19 farms. Further,\n 20 producers had power of attorney for 39 farms. Of the 36 producers on the\n register, 24 producers were either owner-operators or had power of attorney. 11\n\n 8. Determine whether any county or State office employees or committee members are\n on the register, and if so why.\n\n No county or State office employees or committee members were on the ACRE signup\n register. However, a county committee member informed us that the program\n technician asked him if he would like to be placed on the ACRE signup register\n before the ACRE signup deadline of August 14, 2009.\n\n Determine whether there was any documented followup by the county office to get\n producers to the office to sign contracts.\n\n While the program technician claimed that a reminder notice was mailed out to each\n producer listed on the register, there was no documentation in the ACRE files that\n disclosed that reminder cards were mailed out to producers. Further, there was no\n documentation of any followup by the county office. Moreover, the fact that the\n program technician destroyed documentation in ACRE producer files limited our\n review.\n\n Determine which program technician processed their applications.\n\n The program technician assigned to ACRE processed all ACRE applications.\n\nV. Email Reviews \xe2\x80\x93 Review all State office email messages to the county office and county\n office email messages or other available documented communications between the county\n office and any producers with signed contracts or the extension agent, as well to other third\n parties conveying information on ACRE as to the apparent misinformation on the ACRE\n contract. (That is, email messages dated January 1, 2009, to date.) Determine whether there\n appears to be any apparent coordination, communication, and possible collusion/conspiracy\n between the State office, the Sheridan County FSA Office program technician (or any other\n county office employee), and/or the extension agent.\n\n We obtained and reviewed State office staff, district director, and the Sheridan County FSA\n Office staff emails dating from January 1, 2009, through March 18, 2010. Specifically,\n review of the emails disclosed that the Sheridan County program technician assigned to\n ACRE drafted an appeal letter and forwarded the letter to her brother (a program technician\n for another program in the Sheridan County FSA Office). The email advised her brother of\n\n 11\n Ten producers were both owner-operator and had power of attorney.\n\x0c the major points that producers would want to discuss with the county committee concerning\n misinformation and withdrawing from ACRE to receive LDPs. The email specifically\n referenced two producers. Our review disclosed that one of the producers mentioned in the\n email had submitted to the Sheridan County FSA Committee a verbatim copy of an appeal\n letter that the program technician had provided. This producer provided a sworn statement\n confirming that he received the letter from the program technician and that, despite the\n letter\xe2\x80\x99s claims to the contrary, he had not been misinformed about the LDP rate being\n reduced by 30 percent at the time of enrollment or at any informational meeting. During our\n interview with the program technician, she admitted that she had provided this sample\n appeal letter to additional producers in the county office. 12\n\n The program technician also admitted to providing the extension agent (who is also a\n producer appealing his ACRE signup) with an appeal letter in addition to the appeal letter\n she circulated to producers in the office. Further, the program technician and the county\n extension agent confirmed that they corresponded via email. During our interviews, the\n program technician stated that she wanted to keep the county extension agent informed about\n what was happening with the ACRE situation. We also discovered an email chain between\n the program technician and the county extension agent in which the program technician\n thanked the county extension agent, stating, \xe2\x80\x9c[\xe2\x80\xa6] looks like we got some action in DC\n already cuz I am having to work up numbers. So, maybe tomorrow morning will work on the\n LDP requests ok.\xe2\x80\x9d During our interview with the county extension agent, we noticed that he\n had a stack of emails from the program technician. However, our review of official emails\n between the program technician and county extension agent only disclosed one email\n exchange. We determined that the program technician was communicating with the county\n extension agent via her personal email account. We asked the county extension agent to\n forward us any emails that the program technician sent him concerning the ACRE situation.\n However, the email correspondence that the extension agent forwarded consisted of only two\n emails which appeared altered. The email chain did not disclose who sent and received the\n email and the second email was missing the subject line.\n\nVI. Interviews \xe2\x80\x93 Interview a sample of producers on the register that did not sign up for ACRE to\n determine what information they did or did not get, when, from whom, and the circumstances\n that prevented them from a timely signup for ACRE.\n\n Of the 12 producers interviewed from the register, 8 did not know they were placed on the\n register. Of these 12 producers interviewed, we determined that 6 producers listed on the\n register had enrolled in ACRE: 3 producers had enrolled some of their farm units on or\n prior to the August 14 deadline, but had additional farm units to possibly enroll. The other\n\n 12\n In the course of our interview, after being presented with the producers\xe2\x80\x99 statements that they had not been\n misinformed, the program technician recanted her claim in her letter to the county committee in which she alleged\n that she had misinformed all producers. She rather estimated that she may have misinformed approximately\n 20 percent of the producers that were claiming misinformation. However, only two of the producers which she\n specified by name were among the five producers maintaining their claims of misinformation. The program\n technician had written an appeal letter for one producer and had directed the other producer to the State office for\n more information (see result VII).\n\x0c three producers subsequently utilized the register to enroll after the August 14 deadline; two\n of these producers did not know that they were placed on the register.\n Nine of the 12 producers that we interviewed and were listed on the register did not utilize\n the register to sign up for ACRE. (These nine producers included the six producers who\n were on the register but did not enroll, and the three producers that had enrolled some of\n their farm units on or prior to the August 14 deadline.) According to our interview with the\n program technician, the program technician informed them that they could use the additional\n time to decide whether to enroll in ACRE\n\n The six producers who elected not to enroll farms into ACRE using the register were\n unaware that they were even placed on the register. And two of these six producers stated\n that they did not complete their enrollment because the LDPs had been triggered, resulting\n in larger LDPs from FSA.\n\n Our review disclosed that one of the six producers who elected not to enroll farms into ACRE\n using the register was informed about the existence of an ACRE signup register before the\n deadline by the program technician. Additionally, in an email to the county executive\n director, this producer stated that he called into the county office a couple of days before the\n deadline to inform the program technician that he would be in on August 14 to make his\n decision on signing up for ACRE. During our interview, this producer claimed that the\n program technician informed him that she could place his name on the register because she\n knew that he was busy with harvest and he could come into the county office to sign up for\n ACRE when it rained. The producer further stated in another email to the county executive\n director that the program technician informed him that if he left one signature off on the\n ACRE paperwork that he could have until September 30 to finalize the paperwork and make\n his final decision on ACRE; it was his understanding that producers who signed ACRE\n contracts before August 7, 2009, were not informed of this option.\n\n Another producer (from this group of six producers) stated that the program technician\n claimed that, if placed on the register, he could consider whether or not to enroll in ACRE.\n The program technician also informed this producer to ensure that the owners did not sign\n the ACRE contracts and send them into the county office, or the farm would be enrolled in\n ACRE.\n\n A third producer (from this group of six producers) informed us that he was at a local\n restaurant and producers were talking about the ACRE signup register. The producers at\n the restaurant advised this producer to get on the register in order to have more time to\n decide. This producer stated that he had no intention of enrolling in ACRE but followed the\n producers\xe2\x80\x99 advice to get on the register. The producer also informed us that when he\n stopped by the county office, he spoke with the program technician to ensure that placing\n himself on the register was not equivalent to enrolling in ACRE. The program technician\n informed this producer that he had until September 30, 2009, to get signatures and decide\n whether or not to enroll in ACRE.\n\nVII. Interview a sample of producers with approved ACRE contracts to determine what\n information, and from whom, was provided as to the basis of reduction of LDP versus loan\n\x0c rate. When these producers signed the contract were they aware that they also certified that\n they understood and agreed with the conditions and terms of the CCC-509 Appendix? (This\n sampling should be structured to include contracts processed by all county employees and\n should include at least the following: the former State committee member and extension\n agent, both of whom allege misinformation and are requesting relief from their ACRE\n contracts.)\n\n We interviewed a total of 21 producers with approved ACRE contracts, including the\n extension agent and a former State committee member. Our interviews disclosed that 16 of\n the 21 producers interviewed stated that they were not misinformed by the program\n technician assigned to ACRE prior to or at the time they signed their ACRE contracts.\n However, five of the ACRE producers that we interviewed claimed that they were\n misinformed at or sometime before signup. Two of these five producers included a former\n State committee member and the extension agent who, from experience, would have known\n who to contact to retrieve the correct information. A third producer claimed that the\n program technician had written out how to calculate an LDP and provided the form appeal\n letter as proof of the misinformation provided by the program technician. The program\n technician also admitted to writing an appeal letter for the fourth of the five producers. The\n fifth producer has withdrawn his request for relief from his ACRE contract.\n\n Though in our interviews, producers claimed that they did not receive the Appendix at the\n time of enrollment, all contracts required the producers to sign that they had (1) received\n Appendix CCC-509, (2) agreed to abide by the terms therein, (3) agreed to comply with the\n regulations governing the applicable program and payment eligibility and limitation\n provisions, (4) acknowledged and agreed that DCP and ACRE and benefits under DCP and\n ACRE were subject to changes based upon change in applicable statute, and (5) certified to\n the accuracy of the information set out in this form. Because no producers contested that\n they had signed the contract, thus certifying their agreement to and awareness of these\n conditions, we did not take further steps to determine whether they were aware of the\n conditions.\n\nVIII. Interview the extension agent as to the origin of the apparent misinformation provided to the\n ACRE contract producers and whether he had any contacts with the county office program\n technician (or any other county office employee) as to the apparent misinformation. Review\n documents the extension agent had used, and made available to others on ACRE and the\n source(s) of that information.\n\n The county extension agent stated that misinformation was provided to ACRE contract\n producers at the three public meetings that were conducted on February 26 and 27, and also\n on March 2, 2009. The extension agent claimed that he asked FSA staff if the 30-percent\n reduction included the LDP at all three meetings and the FSA staff responded affirmatively.\n\n However, while the county executive director claimed in our interview that she was asked in\n the first meeting if LDP payments would be reduced like direct payments and loan rates, she\n claimed to have answered that she did not believe so but would check with the State office for\n clarification. After emailing the State office, she received the response: \xe2\x80\x9cThe loan rate for\n\x0c the farm is reduced by 30% so that would affect the LDP rate.\xe2\x80\x9d This message was then\n forwarded to all county office staff, including the program technician. Therefore the\n program technician and all county office staff who presented at the informational meetings\n had access to the correct information. We have confirmed this through email review. For\n subsequent meetings, the county executive director, district director, county committee\n members, and Montana State University (MSU) professors present do not remember a\n question or response explaining how LDPs would be affected for ACRE enrolled producers\n (see result X).\n\n The county extension agent also claimed to have been misinformed by the Sheridan County\n program technician assigned to ACRE, explaining that he met with her sometime in April\n and also in late July 2009. The county extension agent further claimed that during his\n meetings with the program technician, she confirmed that the producers would only lose 30\n percent of the LDP rate if he enrolled in ACRE. However, in the program technician\xe2\x80\x99s letter\n to the county committee she explains that she met with the county extension agent in late July\n 2009 in order to gain a better understanding of ACRE and that at that time, he reiterated his\n understanding of a 20-percent reduction in direct payments and 30-percent reduction in loan\n rates and 30-percent reduction in the LDP rate. During these meetings, the county extension\n agent claimed they went over payment scenarios using the ACRE calculator and discussed\n the basic triggers for ACRE. The county extension agent shared ACRE worksheets that\n provided examples of how ACRE would work with various commodities. He further claimed\n to have gone over the documents discussed and provided at the March meeting put on by the\n MSU extension professors, which included the PowerPoint used by the professors. The two\n also shared other basic ACRE information, including informational packets on ACRE from\n FSA fact sheets and a news article that promoted ACRE. There are no existing FSA\n documents which contain inaccurate information. Further, these documents do not directly\n address LDP calculation, but rather ACRE triggers.\n\nIX. Interview the county office employees (including the program technician and the county\n executive director) as to the origin of the apparent misinformation provided to the ACRE\n contract producers. Determine if they went over the CCC-509 Appendix explicitly with each\n producer before the producer signed the contract. Did the producers raise any concerns prior\n to signing the ACRE contracts? Determine the information the county office employees may\n have shared with the extension agent on ACRE.\n\n The program technician claimed that she neither discussed nor provided the amended\n CCC-509 Appendix, dated April 29, 2009, to ACRE enrollees at the time of enrollment. 13 We\n determined that in early February 2009, Sheridan County producers were mass-mailed an\n earlier version of the CCC-509 Appendix, dated November 14, 2009, with a cover letter\n indicating their responsibilities and a DCP contract. The program technician claimed that\n she did not believe that the CCC-509 Appendix, dated April 29, 2009, needed to be provided\n to ACRE producers at the time of enrollment because they had already received an earlier\n 13\n However, our review of the ACRE files disclosed that two producers initialed and dated the CCC-509 Appendix,\n dated April 29, 2009, on the same day that they enrolled in ACRE. When presented with this evidence, the program\n technician modified her statement, claiming that she did not provide all producers with the Appendix on the day of\n enrollment.\n\x0c version of the appendix earlier in the year. However, the CCC-509 Appendix, dated April\n 29, 2009, was amended to include information on ACRE and thus contained information\n specific to ACRE that the earlier CCC-509 Appendix, dated November 14, 2008, did not.\n The Appendix explained that producers would receive a 20-percent reduction in their DCP\n payments, a 30-percent reduction in their marketing assistance loan rate, and no\n counter-cyclical payments. Further, the Appendix included other ACRE-related provisions,\n including an explanation of ACRE-specific terminologies. She told the county committee that\n most of the ACRE enrollees wanted the information mailed to them later, when the office had\n time to provide copies of their ACRE contracts, which she intended to do once things slowed\n down in the office. Based on our interviews with producers and statement made by the\n program technician, it appears that producers received a copy of the Appendix either at the\n time of enrollment or afterwards in the mail.\n\n The district director discussed the CCC-509 Appendix, dated April 29, 2009, with the\n Sheridan County FSA Office staff to determine if producers enrolled in ACRE received a\n copy of the appendix. Interviews with the district director disclosed that the program\n technician claimed that no producer enrolled in ACRE received a copy of the amended\n CCC-509 Appendix, dated April 29, 2009, at the time of enrollment. We determined that\n another program technician made copies of the amended CCC-509 Appendix, dated April\n 29, 2009, and provided them to the program technician in charge of ACRE for her use.\n When the district director met with the program technician in charge of ACRE, she did not\n have the provided copies of the CCC-509 Appendix, dated April 29, 2009. When asked what\n had been done with them, she replied that the copies must have been discarded.\n\n Only two producers expressed concern about how to calculate the LDP rates before time of\n enrollment. Through interviewing the program technician, we were able to support one\n producer\xe2\x80\x99s claim that he asked the program technician repeatedly about how ACRE would\n impact LDPs. However, the program technician stated in our interview that she referred this\n producer to the Montana State FSA Office for answers to his specific questions. This\n producer no longer seeks to withdraw from ACRE. Another producer asked her if the LDPs\n would be reduced by 30 percent. As a producer in both Montana and North Dakota, he had\n spoken with county offices in both States to determine which State would be used for his\n triggers. The program technician stated in her interview that she asked the producer if he\n had spoken to a North Dakota county office regarding LDP calculation. The producer stated\n that he forgot to inquire but enrolled in ACRE regardless. This producer seeks to withdraw\n from ACRE.\n\n Regarding information that the county office may have provided the county extension agent\n on ACRE, please see results VIII and X.\n\nX. Interview MSU extension agents and clarify their role in providing information on ACRE.\n Also, since MSU extension agents were at the meeting where misinformation was allegedly\n provided, ascertain what information was provided and by whom.\n\n The MSU Extension Service is involved in producer education and outreach regarding farm\n programs. Our interviews disclosed that the MSU Extension Service discussed the idea of\n\x0c developing an educational program with FSA to inform producers about ACRE. However,\n the MSU Extension Service does not have a formal agreement or memorandum of\n understanding with FSA. The MSU Extension Service had complete control over developing\n an ACRE calculator that was provided to the general public in order for producers to use in\n making their decision on enrolling in ACRE. Our review of the ACRE calculator disclosed\n that the decision tool correctly calculated the LDP for a producer enrolled in ACRE by\n reducing the loan rate by 30 percent before subtracting the posted county price.\n\n The MSU Extension Service conducted an ACRE informational meeting on March 2, 2009 in\n Sheridan County. Approximately 50 to 60 producers were in attendance. The Sheridan\n County county executive director and other FSA staff were also in attendance. The MSU\n professors informed us that they did not provide an example of how an LDP would be\n affected by ACRE nor did they remember any discussions concerning the LDP at the\n informational meeting. We determined that during the presentation, the professors discussed\n basic information on ACRE, the Supplemental Revenue Assistance Payments Program, and\n other new items detailed in the new Farm Bill. They also presented a demonstration of the\n ACRE software calculator. We also determined that the professors provided the producers\n with the ACRE fact sheets which state that there would be a 30-percent reduction in the loan\n rate. The MSU Extension Service professors informed us that they did not answer any policy\n questions and further stated that if a question had been asked about how an LDP would be\n affected by ACRE, the professors would have forwarded the question to the FSA employees\n in attendance.\n\nXI. Interview the county committee members since the program technician stated that she made\n presentations to the CED and COC with the incorrect information, but neither the county\n committee members nor the county executive director corrected her.\n\n Our interviews with all four county committee members disclosed that they remember the\n program technician making a presentation to the county executive director and county\n committee concerning ACRE sometime in August 2009. The county committee members\n informed us that the program technician went over ACRE worksheets and handouts\n explaining the triggers and yields but they could not remember the program technician ever\n stating that an ACRE producer would receive a 30-percent reduction in the LDP rate. One\n of the county committee members stated that the program technician read the ACRE\n provisions from handouts and worksheets and remembered it being stated that a producer\n enrolled in ACRE would receive a 30-percent reduction in the loan rate and a 20-percent\n reduction in the direct payment but there were no discussion on how to calculate an LDP for\n an ACRE producer.\n\x0c'