type: other

jurisdiction: US

text: b"NATIONAL CREDIT UNION ADMINISTRATION\n\n OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL\n\n\n\n\n NCUA'S CONFERENCE\n RELATED ACTIVITIES AND\n EXPENSES\n\n Report #OIG-13-07\n May 29, 2013\n\n\n\n\n William A. DeSarno\n Inspector General\n\n\n\nReleased by: Auditor-in-Charge:\n\n\nJames Hagen Allison D. Washington\nDeputy Inspector General Senior Auditor\n\x0c TABLE OF CONTENTS\n\n\nSection Page\n\n\n\n\nACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS ii\n\n\nEXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1\n\n\nBACKGROUND 3\n\n\nOBJECTIVES, SCOPE, AND METHODOLOGY 5\n\n\nRESULTS IN DETAIL 6\n\n A. Conference Policy and Guidelines 6\n\n B. NCUA Conference Review 16\n\n\nAPPENDIX\n\n A. NCUA Management Response 21\n\x0c ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS\n\n\n\nCFR Code of Federal Regulations\nFAR Federal Acquisition Regulation\nFTR Federal Travel Regulation\nGSA General Services Administration\nGWACS Government-Wide Acquisition Contracts\nNCUA National Credit Union Administration\nOHR Office of Human Resources\nOIG Office of Inspector General\nOMB Office of Management and Budget\nRFP Request for Proposal\nSSP Senior Staff Position\n\n\n\n\n ii\n\x0cNCUA's Conference Related Activities and Expenses\nOIG-13-07\n\nEXECUTIVE SUMMARY\n\nThe National Credit Union Administration (NCUA) Office of Inspector General (OIG)\nconducted a self-initiated audit of NCUA\xe2\x80\x99s conference related activities and expenses.\nOn November 9, 2011, the President of the United States issued Executive Order\n13589 (the Order), Promoting Efficient Spending, and tasked the Office of Management\nand Budget (OMB) with agency oversight. As an independent agency, NCUA is not\nrequired to follow the Order; however, NCUA indicated it would strive to comply with the\nintent of the Order. Accordingly, our objective for this review was to determine whether\nNCUA\xe2\x80\x99s conference related activities and expenses complied with the spirit of the OMB\nguidance. To accomplish this objective, we obtained and reviewed NCUA guidance,\npolicies, procedures, and other available information regarding conference activities and\nexpenses for comparison with OMB instructions and other Federal Government\nguidance. In addition, we interviewed NCUA Office of Human Resources (OHR)\nmanagement and staff. We also reviewed and analyzed procedures, expenses and\nother related information and activities for judgmentally selected NCUA conferences\nheld from January 2010 through January 2013.\n\nWe determined that NCUA conference policy and procedures generally conform with the\nintent of the Executive Order and the spirit of OMB guidance. For example, OMB\nMemorandum M-11-35, Eliminating Excess Conference Spending and Promoting\nEfficiency in Government, instructed all agencies to conduct a thorough review of the\npolicies and controls associated with conference related activities and expenses.\nConsequently, a NCUA Executive Director Memo addressed office and regional meeting\ncosts and provided ways to promote greater efficiency and help control costs.\nAdditionally, to help comply with the spirit of the Order, NCUA implemented Instruction\n1501, Conference Planning Policies, Procedures, and Approval Requirements. This\ninstruction defines small and large conferences and assigns responsibly accordingly. For\ninstance, the agency event planner assumes responsibility of large conferences, sends\nout and reviews bid proposals, and contracts with the approved conference site.\n\nWe also determined NCUA\xe2\x80\x99s conference policy and guidelines generally meet and in\nsome instances exceed federal policies and guidelines in regards to conference spending\nand cost controls. Specifically, OMB Memorandum M-12-12, Promoting Efficient\nSpending to Support Agency Operations, requires a senior level review of conferences\ncosting over $100,000; whereas, NCUA Instruction 1501 requires concurrence from the\nExecutive Director for all conferences over $50,000. Finally, we determined that NCUA\nconducted the conferences we reviewed in accordance with its policy and the NCUA\nconferences we reviewed held from May 2012 through January 2013, also complied with\nthe spirit of the Order and OMB guidance.\n\nHowever, we determined that an inconsistency exists between NCUA\xe2\x80\x99s Procurement\nManual and Instruction 1501 regarding the maximum allowed lodging rate. The\nProcurement Manual allows a lodging rate of up to a maximum of 150 percent over the\nGeneral Services Administration (GSA) rate; whereas Instruction 1501 requires the\nevent planner to obtain only the GSA rate. In addition, we also determined that\n\n 1\n\x0cNCUA's Conference Related Activities and Expenses\nOIG-13-07\n\nalthough NCUA immediately publicly disclosed the costs of its 2012 National Training\nConference on its website, NCUA did not disclose six off-site training sessions that\noccurred later in 2012, where the related expenses each exceeded $100,000. We\ndetermined these six training sessions met both the Federal Travel Regulation\xe2\x80\x99s\ndefinition of a conference and OMB\xe2\x80\x99s Memorandum M-12-12 public disclosure\nrequirement of posting to the agency\xe2\x80\x99s official website details of any conference where\ncosts exceed $100,000. Finally, we determined NCUA did not always track all\nconference expenditures such as including employee travel costs and daily meals and\nincidental expense allowances as part of its total conference expenses.\n\nAccordingly, this report makes four recommendations and one suggestion, which the OIG\nbelieves can help NCUA fully comply with the intent of the Order and the spirit of OMB\nguidance. NCUA management agreed with our findings and recommendations, and\nplans to take corrective action. We have included management\xe2\x80\x98s comments in their\nentirety in Appendix A.\n\nWe appreciate the courtesies and cooperation NCUA management and staff provided to\nus during this review.\n\n\n\n\n 2\n\x0cNCUA's Conference Related Activities and Expenses\nOIG-13-07\n\nBACKGROUND\n\nNCUA is an independent federal agency that regulates, charters, and supervises federal\ncredit unions. NCUA, which receives no appropriations for its operations, is funded by\ncredit union fees. A presidentially appointed Board governs NCUA, with its Office of the\nExecutive Director overseeing day-to-day operations. NCUA\xe2\x80\x99s Office of Human\nResources (OHR) coordinates employee training through its Division of Training and\nDevelopment.\n\nSeventy-five percent of NCUA field staff is geographically dispersed, making it important\nto bring staff together for training. Consequently, NCUA sponsors national and regional\nconferences for employees to provide information about emerging issues, divisional\npriorities and initiatives, group training, and networking opportunities. NCUA pre-plans\nand accounts for conferences and employee training costs in its annual budget, which\ninclude:\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2 The National Training Conference 1 \xe2\x80\x93 Held biennially during even numbered\n years, this conference brings all NCUA staff together to receive continuing\n job-related training and updates on critical changes within the industry and\n changes to agency policies. Because field staff works independently, this\n conference provides the opportunity for both field and regional staff to\n collaborate and work on strategic planning. This conference replaces one of\n two weeks of mandatory annual training for most examiners.\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2 The Senior Staff Position (SSP) Conference \xe2\x80\x93 Held annually, this conference\n brings senior executive staff together for strategic planning, training, and to\n help set the vision and direction for the upcoming year.\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2 The Leadership Conference \xe2\x80\x93 Held biennially during odd numbered years,\n this conference allows NCUA managers and supervisors to collaborate and\n focus on critical issues and strategic planning for the agency. Attendees also\n receive training on the agency's latest polices.\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Off-Site Conferences \xe2\x80\x93 Held on a regularly scheduled basis for either\n business or training purposes, these conferences provide staff with\n information or training that relates directly to NCUA\xe2\x80\x99s mission. Many off-site\n conferences involve core and/or required training and include topics such as\n residential mortgage lending, consumer protection, problem resolution, exam\n issues forum, capital markets, and more. Additionally, regional offices hold\n regular staff meetings that result in employee travel. 2\n\nIn recent years, other OIGs have found instances of excessive and wasteful conference\nspending. For example, during the last quarter of 2011 the Department of Justice OIG\n1\n The National Training Conference was formerly known as the Regional Conference.\n2\n For the purpose of this review, off-site conferences are training classes and staff meetings requiring employee\ntravel.\n\n 3\n\x0cNCUA's Conference Related Activities and Expenses\nOIG-13-07\n\nreported excessive conference expenses at multiple federal agencies. 3 Subsequently,\nOMB issued instructions that addressed policies and controls associated with\nconference-related activities and expenses. Specifically, OMB Memorandum M-11-35,\nEliminating Excess Conference Spending and Promoting Efficiency in Government, 4\ninstructed all agencies and departments to conduct a thorough review of the policies\nand controls associated with conference-related activities and expenses. Moreover, the\nPresident of the United States issued Executive Order 13589, Promoting Efficient\nSpending, which required executive departments and agencies to establish a plan for\nreducing the combined costs associated with travel, employee information technology\ndevices, printing, executive fleet efficiencies, and extraneous promotional items. The\nPresident tasked OMB with monitoring the implementation of these plans.\n\nDuring April 2012, the GSA OIG reported 5 that for the GSA Public Building Services\xe2\x80\x99\n2010 Western Regions Conference, many expenses were excessive and wasteful; and\nthat in many instances GSA did not follow federal procurement laws or GSA policy for\nconference spending. Following the GSA OIG report, OMB issued Memorandum\nM-12-12, Promoting Efficient Spending to Support Agency Operations, 6 requiring a\nsenior-level review of all planned and future conferences exceeding $100,000; a waiver\nfor any conference exceeding $500,000 in expenses; agencies to publicly report on all\nconference expenses in excess of $100,000; and the posting of the agency head's\nwaiver that identified the exceptional circumstances that necessitated exceeding\n$500,000.\n\nAs previously mentioned, as an independent agency, NCUA is not required to comply\nwith Executive Order 13589 or the ensuing OMB guidance. However, on January 23,\n2013, NCUA issued NCUA Instruction 1501, Conference Planning Policies, Procedures,\nand Approval Requirements, which consolidated conference policy guidance into a\nsingle authoritative source with the intent to follow the spirit of Executive Order 13589\nand OMB guidance issued through memorandums M-11-35 and M-12-12.\n\nThe Federal Travel Regulation (FTR) defines a conference as a meeting, retreat,\nseminar, symposium, or event that involves attendee travel. 7 In addition, the Code of\nFederal Regulations (5 CFR 410.404) states that agencies may sponsor an employee's\nattendance at a conference as a developmental assignment under section 4110 of title\n5, United States Code, when\xe2\x80\x94\n\n a) The announced purpose of the conference is educational or instructional,\n b) The organized exchange of information between presenters and audience is\n more than half of the time scheduled and meets the definition of training in\n section 4101 of title 5, United States Code,\n3\n United States Department of Justice OIG, Audit of Department of Justice Conference Planning and Food and\nBeverage Costs, audit report number 11-43, originally issued September 2011 and revised October 2011.\n4\n OMB issued M-11-35 on September 21, 2011.\n5\n GSA OIG, 2010 Western Regions Conference, Management Deficiency Report, dated April 2, 2012.\n6\n OMB issued M-12-12 on May 11, 2012.\n7\n Federal Travel Regulation, Chapter 301, \xe2\x80\x9cTemporary Duty (TDY) Travel Allowances,\xe2\x80\x9d Appendix E to Chapter 301,\n\xe2\x80\x9cSuggested Guidance for Conference Planning.\xe2\x80\x9d\n\n 4\n\x0cNCUA's Conference Related Activities and Expenses\nOIG-13-07\n\n c) The content of the conference is germane to improving individual and/or\n organizational performance, and\n d) The employee will derive developmental benefits through attendance.\n\nOBJECTIVE, SCOPE AND METHODOLOGY\n\nThe objective of this audit was to determine whether NCUA\xe2\x80\x99s conference related\nactivities and expenses complied with the spirit of the OMB instructions. To accomplish\nour objective, we interviewed NCUA OHR management and staff. We obtained and\nreviewed NCUA guidance, policies, procedures, and other available information\nregarding conference activities and expenses for comparison with OMB instructions and\nother Federal Government guidance. We also reviewed and analyzed procedures,\nexpenses, and other related information and activities for judgmentally selected NCUA\nsponsored employee conferences occurring from January 2010 through January 2013.\n\nWe conducted this performance audit from January 2013 through May 2013 in\naccordance with generally accepted government auditing standards and included such\ntests of internal controls as we considered necessary under the circumstances. Those\nstandards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain sufficient, appropriate\nevidence to provide a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based on our\naudit objectives. We believe that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for\nour findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. Furthermore, we provided\nNCUA management officials a discussion draft of this report and included their\ncomments where appropriate.\n\nPRIOR AUDIT COVERAGE\n\nNCUA OIG has not conducted any prior audits of NCUA\xe2\x80\x99s conference related activities\nand expenses.\n\n\n\n\n 5\n\x0cNCUA's Conference Related Activities and Expenses\nOIG-13-07\n\nRESULTS IN DETAIL\n\nAs an independent agency, NCUA is not required to comply with Executive Order 13589\nor ensuing OMB guidance. However, the results of our review concluded: (1) NCUA\nhas generally implemented conference policy and procedures that conform with the\nintent of Executive Order 13589 and the spirit of OMB guidance; (2) NCUA\xe2\x80\x99s conference\npolicy and guidelines generally meet and in some instances exceed federal policies and\nguidelines in regards to conference spending and cost controls; and (3) NCUA could\nimprove agency transparency by publically reporting costs for all conferences exceeding\n$100,000.\n\nA. Conference Policy and Guidelines\n\n NCUA Conference Policy We determined NCUA\xe2\x80\x99s conference policy generally\n Generally Conforms conforms with the intent of Executive Order 13589 and\n With Federal Guidelines the spirit of OMB guidance. Specifically, we\n determined NCUA addressed both the intent and the\n spirit of Executive Order 13589 and OMB\nMemorandums M-11-35 and M-12-12 with NCUA Instruction 1501, Conference\nPlanning Policies, Procedures, and Approval Requirements, which consolidated\nconference policy guidance into a single authoritative source. As a result, we believe\nNCUA is adequately following the intent and spirit of Federal conference guidelines,\ndespite no official requirement to comply.\n\nTable 1 (below) summarizes how NCUA\xe2\x80\x99s conference policy and other memorandums\ncomply with the intent and spirit of Executive Order 13589, OMB Memorandums M-11-35\nand M-12-12, as well as other Federal Government guidelines.\n\n\n\n\n 6\n\x0cNCUA's Conference Related Activities and Expenses\nOIG-13-07\n\nTable 1\n\n Conference Policies and Guidelines\n Federal Directives NCUA Instruction 1501 and Guidelines\n Consider using technology such as video\n conferencing and teleconferencing to\n Devise strategic alternatives to\n reduce travel and lodging costs.\n Government travel, including local or\n technological alternatives.\n Holding conferences in close proximity\n (Executive Order)\n of the largest concentration of\n attendees to minimize costs.\n\n Executive Director Memorandum\n addressed office and regional\n Seize every opportunity to improve meetings costs and provided ways to\n Government performance and promote greater efficiency and help\n management to save money and deliver a control costs.\n higher quality of service to the American\n people. (M-11-35) Management meetings that included all\n staff members require concurrence from\n the Deputy Executive Director.\n\n Implement a senior level review of all Executive Director must approve any\n planned conferences that exceed conference with total projected costs\n $100,000. (M-12-12) exceeding $50,000.\n\n Procurement activities comply with the\n FAR.\n Ensure conference expenses and activities\n comply with the FTR, executive branch\n Hosting offices must use the agency\n policies on conferences and the FAR.\n event planner for off-site meetings with\n (M-12-12)\n over 25 participants and costs\n exceeding $50,000.\n\n Allows a conference lodging rate of 125 Event planner must obtain the GSA\n percent of the GSA per diem rate. (FTR) lodging rate.\n\n NCUA National Conference was\n Obtain a waiver from the agency head for\n preplanned and included in the annual\n a single conference costing over $500,000.\n agency budget, which was approved by\n (M-12-12)\n the NCUA Board.\n\n\n\n\n 7\n\x0cNCUA's Conference Related Activities and Expenses\nOIG-13-07\n\n We determined NCUA\xe2\x80\x99s conference policy and\n NCUA Conference guidelines generally meet, and in some instances,\n Spending Guidance exceed federal policies and guidelines in regards to\n Generally Meets Federal conference spending and cost controls. However,\n Guidelines we identified one inconsistency between NCUA\xe2\x80\x99s\n Procurement Manual and Instruction 1501 regarding\nthe maximum allowable rate for sleeping accommodations. We also found that NCUA\ndid not publically disclose all conferences occurring in 2012 where the conference\nexpenses exceeded $100,000.\n\nReducing Conference Spending\n\nBased on our review of NCUA conference guidance, we determined the policy and\nstrategies NCUA implemented should help reduce conference spending. OMB\nMemorandum M-11-35 reminded the heads of Executive Departments and Agencies that\nthey must seize every opportunity to improve Government performance and management\nto save money and deliver a higher quality of service to the American people. The\nmemorandum instructed all agencies to conduct a thorough review of the policies and\ncontrols associated with conference-related activities and expenses. In addition, until\nsuch time as the Deputy Secretary (or equivalent) could certify that the appropriate\npolicies and controls were in place to mitigate the risk of inappropriate spending practices\nwith regard to conferences, approval of conference-related activities and expenses were\nto be cleared through the Deputy Secretary (or equivalent).\n\nConsequently, NCUA\xe2\x80\x99s Executive Director issued a memorandum to all directors in\nDecember 2011, which addressed office and regional meeting costs and provided ways\nto promote greater efficiency to help control costs. For example, the memorandum\nstated that management meetings that included all staff members required concurrence\nfrom the Deputy Executive Director. To minimize travel time and costs, the\nmemorandum required NCUA directors\xe2\x80\x99 to consider the following when planning a\nmeeting:\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Choose locations close to major airport hubs to reduce the cost of airfare, the\n need for connecting flights, and to minimize travel time.\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Take advantage of lodging and per diem rates towards the lower end when\n compared to alternative locations.\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Centralize the conference location to reduce employee travel time.\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Obtain lodging within walking distance of restaurants to minimize taxi and rental\n car expenses.\n\nIn addition, NCUA Instruction 1501 established the policies, procedures, and approval\nrequirements for planning and conducting conferences and meetings, or similar. It\ncombined and revised policy guidance on the use of NCUA funds to purchase food and\n\n 8\n\x0cNCUA's Conference Related Activities and Expenses\nOIG-13-07\n\nbeverages; consolidated the applicable policy guidance into a single authoritative\nsource; and formalized the processes and methods to both minimize total cost and\noptimize the business benefits to participants. Instruction 1501 also includes\nconference cost controls that apply to all conferences regardless of the size. For\nexample, conference organizers should:\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Consider using technology, i.e. video conferencing and teleconferencing, to\n reduce travel and lodging costs.\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Limit meals, receptions, outside speakers and promotional items to only those\n with a specific business need.\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Maximize the use of direct billing to NCUA, thereby taking advantage of tax\n exemption.\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Hold conferences in locations that minimize total costs and travel time.\n\nAccordingly, it required that conferences be for business or training purposes and have\na direct relation to NCUA\xe2\x80\x99s mission.\n\nConference Spending and Cost Control Guidelines\n\nNCUA\xe2\x80\x99s conference policy and guidelines generally meet, and in some instances,\nexceed federal policies and guidelines in regards to conference spending and cost\ncontrols. However, NCUA needs to ensure consistency exists among its policies\nrelated to procuring sleeping accommodations.\n\nOMB Memorandum M-12-12, section 2, entitled \xe2\x80\x9cConferences,\xe2\x80\x9d outlines a series of new\npolicies and practices for conference sponsorship, hosting, and attendance, to ensure\nfederal agencies use their funds appropriately on these activities, and that they continue\nto reduce spending on conferences where practicable. This memorandum requires\nagencies to conduct a senior level review of all planned conferences that exceed\n$100,000. Additionally, agencies must ensure conference expenses and activities\ncomply with the FTR, executive branch policies on conferences, and the Federal\nAcquisition Regulation (FAR). Further, agencies can not incur any new conference\nobligations until the reviews are completed.\n\nIn comparison, NCUA\xe2\x80\x99s procurement activities comply with the FAR and NCUA uses the\nGSA schedule and GSA\xe2\x80\x99s Government-wide Acquisition Contracts (GWACs) 8 as its\npreferred methods for fulfilling procurements. NCUA\xe2\x80\x99s hotel procurement process 9 varies\nbased on the cost and number of sleeping rooms needed. For example, NCUA does not\nhave to use competitive bidding for lodging and meeting space of 200 or fewer sleeping\nrooms per night costing $150,000 or less, in the aggregate, for the entire stay. However,\n\n8\n NCUA Procurement Manual, Chapter I, page 1.\n9\n NCUA Procurement Manual, Chapter II, page 4.\n\n 9\n\x0cNCUA's Conference Related Activities and Expenses\nOIG-13-07\n\nthe cost of lodging per night cannot exceed 150 percent of that permitted by the NCUA\nTravel Manual 10 for the city where the hotel is located. In addition, when lodging and\nmeeting space exceeds 200 sleeping rooms per night, but costs less than $150,000,\nNCUA may obtain a reasonable number of bids 11 and select the lowest bid or follow the\nformal purchase method. 12 Finally, for lodging and meeting space exceeding 200\nsleeping rooms per night and costing over $150,000, NCUA must follow the formal\npurchase method when making the final site selection. Under this method, NCUA may\ntake into consideration other factors such as location, quality of facilities, meeting space,\ncity services, transportation, and safety.\n\nIn May 2012, the NCUA Executive Director issued a memorandum requiring the use of\nthe agency event planner for central and regional office off-site meetings with over 25\nparticipants as a means to leverage the event planner\xe2\x80\x99s expertise, which should result in\nthe agency obtaining the most cost effective arrangements. According to the\nmemorandum, the event planner duties included sending out the Request for Proposal\n(RFP), reviewing the proposals, and providing the top two RFPs to the hosting office for\nfinal selection. After the hosting office selects the location, the event planner handles\nthe negotiation and contracting duties for the hotel accommodations and meeting\nspace.\n\nNCUA Instruction 1501 requires concurrence by the Executive Director for all\nconferences where the total projected cost will exceed $50,000 and/or when lodging\ncosts will exceed the GSA allowance. 13 In addition, this instruction defines a large\nconference as one having over 25 people and a total projected cost over $50,000,\nincluding all related travel and per diem. Once the hosting office obtains concurrence\nfrom the Executive Director for hosting a large conference, the event planner then\nassumes responsibility for the RFP process. For small conferences, the hosting office\nassumes responsibility for all facets of the event. Although the FTR allows a\nconference lodging rate of 25 percent over the established lodging per diem rate, we\nbelieve NCUA Instruction 1501, which requires the event planner to obtain the GSA\nlodging rate, helps control costs.\n\nDuring our review, we identified an inconsistency between NCUA guidelines when\nprocuring sleeping accommodations. Specifically, NCUA Instruction 1501 requires the\nevent planner to obtain the GSA rate when securing sleeping rooms; however, we found\nthat NCUA\xe2\x80\x99s Procurement Manual had a maximum allowance of 150 percent of the\nGSA lodging rate when less than 200 rooms were required and the event costs less\nthan $150,000. In addition, although NCUA Instruction 1501 requires concurrence of\nthe Executive Director for lodging costs exceeding the GSA allowance, NCUA\xe2\x80\x99s\nProcurement Manual does not. Because both documents cover similar types of events,\n\n\n10\n NCUA\xe2\x80\x99s Travel Manual lodging rate was the same as the GSA lodging rate.\n11\n NCUA must obtain no less than three bids.\n12\n The formal purchase method includes procurement planning; solicitation preparation and distribution (such as a\nrequest for proposal), proposal evaluation; contract award; OIG access to contract information; and notification to\nunsuccessful offerors [sic] and debriefings.\n13\n Total projected costs include all projected travel, per diem, lodging, and conference expenses.\n\n 10\n\x0cNCUA's Conference Related Activities and Expenses\nOIG-13-07\n\nwe believe the language in both documents should be consistent. Therefore, we are\nmaking the following recommendation to management:\n\nRecommendation\n\nWe recommend NCUA management:\n\n 1. Revise the language regarding the maximum allowable lodging rate in NCUA\xe2\x80\x99s\n Procurement Manual and Instruction 1501 to ensure both documents are\n consistent.\n\nManagement Response\n\nManagement agreed and NCUA\xe2\x80\x99s Office of the Chief Financial Officer plans to revise\nthe overall Procurement Manual in late 2013.\n\nOIG Response\n\nWe concur with management\xe2\x80\x99s planned actions.\n\nConference Expense Waiver\n\nWe determined that NCUA\xe2\x80\x99s Board appropriately approved the 2012 National\nConference. We also determined that this approval was consistent with the spirit of\nOMB Memorandum M-12-12, which became effective after NCUA held the 2012\nNational Training Conference.\n\nAlthough OMB Memorandum M-12-12 prohibits spending over $500,000 on a single\nconference, an agency head may grant a waiver under exceptional circumstances such\nas the conference being the most cost-effective option to achieve a compelling purpose.\nThe agency head must document, in writing, the reason for any such waiver and include\nit on the agency\xe2\x80\x99s website when posting the conference\xe2\x80\x99s costs and the related\nactivities.\n\nAlthough the 2012 National Training Conference occurred prior to OMB issuing the\nguidance, we learned NCUA management had preplanned this conference, which was\nincluded in NCUA\xe2\x80\x99s 2012 Board approved budget. Therefore, this conference had the\nconcurrence of the agency head. For transparency reasons, we believe that if a similar\nsituation were to occur in the future, NCUA management may want to consider posting\nthe approved waiver on its official website; therefore, we are making the following\nsuggestion:\n\n\n\n\n 11\n\x0cNCUA's Conference Related Activities and Expenses\nOIG-13-07\n\nSuggestion\n\nWe suggest NCUA management:\n\n 1. Consider implementing a written waiver requirement process for any single\n conference exceeding $500,000 where the granted waiver is documented, in\n writing, and posted on the agency\xe2\x80\x99s official website at the same time the agency\n posts the conference details and costs.\n\nManagement Response\n\nManagement agreed to consider implementing a written waiver requirement process for\nany single conference exceeding $500,000.\n\nOIG Response\n\nWe concur with management\xe2\x80\x99s response.\n\n\nPublic Disclosure\n\nWe determined that NCUA could improve transparency by publically disclosing\nindividual conferences with expenses exceeding $100,000, which would comply with the\npublic disclosure intent of OMB Memorandum M-12-12. Although we determined NCUA\nimmediately posted the costs of its 2012 National Training Conference to its official\nwebsite, NCUA did not post six additional conferences occurring in 2012 where\nexpenses for each exceeded $100,000. As a result, NCUA did not meet the intent or\nspirit of the OMB guidance for public disclosure of an individual conference with\nexpenses over $100,000.\n\nBeginning January 31, 2013, OMB Memorandum M-12-12 required agencies to report\nany agency-sponsored conference from the previous fiscal year 14 that exceeded\n$100,000 in net expenses on their official agency website by January 31 of each year.\nThe memorandum stated that an agency\xe2\x80\x99s website posting should include:\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2 The total conference expenses incurred by the agency for the conference;\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2 The location of the conference;\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2 The date of the conference;\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2 A brief explanation regarding how the conference advanced the mission of the\n agency; and\n\n14\n The Federal Government fiscal year begins on October 1 and ends on September 30 of the following year.\nHowever, NCUA operates on a calendar year basis, from January 1 through December 31.\n\n 12\n\x0cNCUA's Conference Related Activities and Expenses\nOIG-13-07\n\n\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2 The total number of individuals for which the agency paid travel or other\n conference expenses.\n\nWe determined NCUA exceeded this requirement by issuing and posting to its official\nwebsite a media release 15 regarding the 2012 National Training Conference expenses\non May 10, 2012, in advance of OMB Memorandum M-12-12 and well before the\nrequired due date. This media release stated that NCUA held the 2012 Regional\nConference from April 16-27, 2012, at the Buena Vista Palace in Orlando, Florida. 16\nAdditionally, the media release highlighted the focus of the conference, which was on\nimplementing greater exam consistency and included mandatory employee training.\n\nThe conference costs totaled $2.4 million, or an average cost of $2,037 per person for\nNCUA's staff of 1,190. The costs included vendor fees, lodging, food and beverage,\naudio visual, supplies, and miscellaneous costs, in addition to employee travel and per\ndiem expenses.\n\nAlthough OMB Memorandum M-12-12 requires agencies to publically report all\nconference costs greater than $100,000 on its website, our review disclosed NCUA did\nnot publically report by January 31, 2013, six subsequent 2012 off-site training\nsessions, each exceeding the $100,000 threshold. Consequently, for these six\nconferences, NCUA did not follow the intent or the spirit of OMB guidelines.\n\nThe FTR defines a conference as a meeting, retreat, seminar, symposium, or event that\ninvolves attendee travel. NCUA sponsored six off-site training sessions from May\nthrough December 2012, which met the FTR\xe2\x80\x99s definition of a conference. 17 Table 2\n(below) shows the location, dates, number of attendees, and costs for these six off-site\ntraining conferences.\n\n\n\n\n15\n NCUA, NCUA Implements New Supervision Manual and Consistent Exam Standards: National Training\nConference Invests in Workforce, Comes in Below Budget, May 10, 2012,\nhttp://www.ncua.gov/News/Press/NW20120510NatlConference.pdf.\n16\n NCUA divided the conference into two separate one-week sessions to accommodate NCUA\xe2\x80\x99s staff of 1,190.\n17\n The conference costs included expenses for lodging, consulting, refreshments, audio, video and printing/copies.\n\n 13\n\x0cNCUA's Conference Related Activities and Expenses\nOIG-13-07\n\nTable 2\n\n NCUA 2012 Off-Site Training Conferences\n Average\n 18 Number of\n Location Date Cost Cost Per\n Attendees\n Person\n Gaylord Hotel\n 1 May 15-17, 2012 $135,730 192 $707\n Nashville, TN\n Adolphus Hotel\n 2 June 19-21, 2012 $126,734 225 $563\n Dallas, TX\n St Louis at the\n 3 Ballpark Hotel July 16-20, 2012 $129,538 228 $568\n St Louis, MO\n Intercontinental\n Dallas Hotel September 11-13,\n 4 $172,975 283 $611\n 2012\n Dallas TX\n Intercontinental\n 5 Dallas Hotel October 16-18, 2012 $160,630 264 $609\n Dallas TX\n The Seelbach\n 6 Hilton Hotel December 4-6, 2012 $114,718 266 $431\n Louisville, KY\n\n\nWe determined the above listed conferences, which NCUA held in various locations,\ninvolved employee travel, averaged over 200 individuals per event, and included\nmultiple training classes covering various topics such as residential mortgage lending,\nmember business lending, fraud detection, consumer protection, capital markets and\nproblem resolution. Consequently, we believe these conferences related directly to\nNCUA\xe2\x80\x99s mission and therefore were a necessary and prudent expense. In keeping with\nthe spirit of OMB guidance, we believe NCUA should have posted the details and costs\nof each of these conferences on its official website.\n\nAlthough OMB guidance indicates that the use of the term conference hinges on\nwhether there is attendee travel, NCUA management believes that travel should not be\na determining factor as to whether an NCUA sponsored event is a conference.\n\nWe learned during our review that NCUA management interprets the term \xe2\x80\x98conference\xe2\x80\x99\nto be an event where the purpose is for agency planning or a formal meeting, or there is\na strategic direction element, but not when the sole purpose and actual activities are\nstrictly limited to training. In addition, NCUA management indicated that the very nature\nof its business model, where field staff work independently based out of their homes,\nmakes travel unavoidable for events such as training classes, conferences, or even\nregular work assignments. Although we agree that NCUA\xe2\x80\x99s business model makes\n\n18\n These costs did not include employee travel expenses or daily meals and incidental expense allowances.\n\n 14\n\x0cNCUA's Conference Related Activities and Expenses\nOIG-13-07\n\ntravel unavoidable, Instruction 1501 makes no mention of its business model as it\nrelates to travel for training.\n\nWe determined NCUA\xe2\x80\x99s current conference policy states conferences must be for a\nbusiness or training purpose, but does not exclude events that are either part of NCUA\xe2\x80\x99s\nregular training program or events that are limited solely to training; therefore, we are\nmaking the following recommendations to management:\n\nRecommendations\n\nWe recommend NCUA management:\n\n 2. Revise NCUA Instruction 1501 to include a definition of a conference which takes\n into account NCUA\xe2\x80\x99s rationale for not including any event requiring employee\n travel which is designated solely as training, as a conference.\n\n 3. Ensure that by January 31 of each year, all conferences held during the\n preceding fiscal year where costs, including travel and per diem expenses,\n exceed $100,000 are posted on NCUA\xe2\x80\x99s official website.\n\nManagement Response\n\nManagement agreed with the recommendations and plans to include a definition of a\nconference in NCUA Instruction 1501 which will exclude events that are part of NCUA's\nregular training program. In addition, management will not consider travel as a defining\nfactor for a conference since NCUA\xe2\x80\x99s business model makes travel unavoidable for\nmost events. Furthermore, NCUA management will report any conferences that meet\nthe $100,000 threshold on the external website by January 31 of each year.\n\nOIG Response\n\nWe concur with management\xe2\x80\x99s planned actions.\n\n\n\n\n 15\n\x0cNCUA's Conference Related Activities and Expenses\nOIG-13-07\n\nB. NCUA Conference Review\n\n We determined NCUA conducted conferences in\n NCUA Conferences accordance with its conference policy or federal conference\n Complied With guidelines. Specifically, we judgmentally selected and\n Federal Government reviewed five national and management conferences\n Policy sponsored by NCUA from January 2010 through January\n 2013 and we performed a limited review of off-site\nconferences conducted from 2010 through 2012. We determined that NCUA conducted\nthese conferences in accordance with established policy on spending and cost controls.\nHowever, our review also disclosed NCUA did not always include all conference\nexpenditures such as employee transportation costs and daily meals and incidental\nexpense allowances (per diem) when disclosing the total cost of each conference. As a\nresult, neither NCUA management nor the public, through its official website, has an\naccurate accounting of the costs of the conferences sponsored by NCUA.\n\n2010 Regional Conference\n\nNCUA held the 2010 Regional Conference from April 12-23, 2010, at the Buena Vista\nPalace in Orlando, Florida. NCUA divided the conference into two one-week segments\nwith approximately half the agency\xe2\x80\x99s employees attending the first week and the other\nhalf attending the second week. The conference cost NCUA $1.1 million, which\nincluded the hotel and meeting facility, facilitators, supplies, and miscellaneous items.\nHowever, this amount did not include employee travel cost such as airfare, ground\ntransportation, or per diem. We determined the purpose of this conference was\nmandatory employee training, and given NCUA\xe2\x80\x99s organizational structure, was the most\nprudent and cost effective method to ensure all employees received consistent training\nrelated directly to NCUA\xe2\x80\x99s mission.\n\nThe 2010 Regional Conference required over 200 sleeping rooms per week, and in\naccordance with NCUA's Procurement Manual, the agency event planner sent an RFP\nto sales representatives for all national hotel chains, convention visitor bureaus, and\nthird party hotel representatives of properties in the 48 contiguous states. The RFP\noutlined the conference facility needs, which included sleeping rooms, meeting space,\nand food and beverage requirements; as well as the contract award process, and\nNCUA's cancellation policy. We determined the event planner conducted the required\nevaluation after receiving the proposals and recommended the top two bids. NCUA\nselected the conference site based on the lodging and per diem rates, location, date of\navailability, convenience of restaurants, transportation accessibility, per person break\npackage, 19 complimentary meeting space, Internet access and hardwire Internet\nequipment, and discounted audio visual equipment, all of which, according to OHR\npersonnel, represented the overall best value to NCUA.\n\n\n\n\n19\n The daily break package included continental breakfast, and morning and afternoon refreshments.\n\n 16\n\x0cNCUA's Conference Related Activities and Expenses\nOIG-13-07\n\n2012 National Training Conference\n\nNCUA held the 2012 National Training Conference, formerly known as the Regional\nConference, from April 16-27, 2012, at the Buena Vista Palace in Orlando, Florida.\nAgain, NCUA divided the conference into two one-week segments with approximately\nhalf of the agency\xe2\x80\x99s employees attending the first week and the other half attending the\nsecond week. The conference cost NCUA $2.4 million. This amount included vendor\nfees, lodging, food and beverage, audio visual, supplies, and miscellaneous costs, in\naddition to employee travel and per diem expenses. Again, we determined the purpose\nof this conference was mandatory employee training, and given NCUA\xe2\x80\x99s organizational\nstructure, was the most prudent and cost effective method to ensure all employees\nreceived consistent training related directly to NCUA\xe2\x80\x99s mission.\n\nThe 2012 National Training Conference required over 200 sleeping rooms per week,\nand in accordance with NCUA's Procurement Manual, the agency event planner sent an\nRFP to national hotel chains and third party representatives in Orlando and Tampa,\nFlorida; San Diego, California, and Denver, Colorado. The RFP outlined the conference\nfacility needs, which included lodging needs; meeting space, and food and beverage\nrequirements, as well as the contract award process, and NCUA's cancellation policy.\nWe determined the event planner conducted a proposal evaluation after receiving the\nproposals and NCUA selected the eventual conference site based on the date of\navailability, lodging rate, location, transportation accessibility, convenience of\nrestaurants, and discounted miscellaneous costs, which according to OHR staff,\nrepresented the overall best value to NCUA.\n\n2011 SSP Conference\n\nNCUA held the 2011 SSP Conference from January 31 to February 3, 2011, at the\nHotel Monaco Baltimore 20 in Baltimore, Maryland. The conference cost the NCUA\n$53,549, which included various expenses such as lodging, refreshments, audio visual\nrental, conference facilitator, and supplies. Conference costs did not include employee\ntravel cost such as airfare, ground transportation, or per diem. We determined the 2011\nSSP Conference met a business and training need because it brought senior staff\ntogether for strategic planning discussion, training, and helped set the vision and\ndirection for the agency going forward.\n\nDue to the conference size, NCUA's Procurement Manual did not require a full\ncompetitive bidding process. Nonetheless, the agency event planner sent an RFP to\nmajor hotel chains and third party vendors in Baltimore, Maryland and Philadelphia,\nPennsylvania. The RFP outlined conference facility needs, which included the\nanticipated event dates; sleeping rooms, meeting space, and food and beverage\nrequirements, as well as the contract award process, and NCUA's cancellation policy.\nNCUA received fourteen proposals from various hotels and the agency event planner\nrecommended the two best proposals to the NCUA Board for selection. The NCUA\n\n20\n NCUA held the SSP Conferences from 2011 through 2013 at the Hotel Monaco in Baltimore, Maryland.\n\n 17\n\x0cNCUA's Conference Related Activities and Expenses\nOIG-13-07\n\nBoard Chairman approved the use of Hotel Monaco Baltimore for the 2011 SSP\nConference because Hotel Monaco was located in Baltimore, which meant any\nconference attendee could easily travel to NCUA Headquarters in Alexandria, Virginia\nshould a situation arise in need of attention.\n\n2013 SSP Conference\n\nNCUA again selected the Hotel Monaco Baltimore for the 2013 SSP Conference, held\nfrom January 28-31, 2013, not only because of its proximity to NCUA Headquarters, but\nalso because of the hotel's familiarity with NCUA's needs. In addition, the hotel agreed\nto the same terms and pricing from the 2012 SSP Conference contract for lodging, food\nand beverages, audio visual needs, and the complimentary meeting space. Because\nNCUA required fewer than 200 sleeping rooms for this conference, agency policy did\nnot require a full competitive bidding process. However, NCUA did initially select the\nhotel for the 2011 SSP Conference through a bid proposal process. The conference\ncost the NCUA $62,399, excluding employee transportation and per diem expenses. As\nwith the 2011 SSP Conference, we determined this conference also met a business and\ntraining need and had a direct relation to NCUA\xe2\x80\x99s mission.\n\n2011 Leadership Conference\n\nNCUA held its 2011 Leadership Conference at the Westin Hotel in San Diego, California\nfrom April 4-7, 2011. For this conference, NCUA needed less than 150 sleeping rooms;\ntherefore, a full competitive bidding process was not required. However, the agency\nevent planner sent an RFP to national hotel chains and third party vendors in\nCharleston, South Carolina; Savannah, Georgia; Tampa, Florida, and San Diego,\nCalifornia. The RFP outlined conference facility needs, which included the anticipated\nevent dates; sleeping rooms, meeting space, and food and beverage requirements; the\ncontract award process, and NCUA's cancellation policy. OHR staff concluded the\nWestin Hotel provided the best overall value to NCUA based on several factors such as\nthe facility availability, complimentary meeting space, direct flight accessibility, proximity\nof restaurants, and discounted rates for Internet access, audio visual equipment, and\nfood and beverages. In addition, this conference brought all NCUA managers and\nsupervisors together to collaborate and focus on critical issues and strategic planning\nfor the agency, and to receive training on the agency's latest polices; thereby providing\nagency leadership with the skills necessary to perform their jobs. Consequently, we\ndetermined the 2011 Leadership Conference met a business and training need by\nhaving a direct relation to NCUA\xe2\x80\x99s mission. The conference costs totaled $297,854,\nwhich did not include employee travel and per diem expenses.\n\n2010-2012 Off-Site Conferences\n\nAccording to the FTR, a conference is a meeting, retreat, seminar, symposium, or event\nthat involves attendee travel. In addition, staff training is an essential element of\nNCUA's supervisory program and with 75 percent of NCUA staff geographically\ndispersed, most of NCUA training classes and staff meetings necessitate employee\n\n 18\n\x0cNCUA's Conference Related Activities and Expenses\nOIG-13-07\n\ntravel. Therefore, we performed a limited review of the training classes conducted from\n2010 through 2012. We determined that off-site conferences were for business or\ntraining purposes and had a direct relation to NCUA's mission. According to NCUA\nstaff, all off-site conference attendance and expenses were limited to only the staffing\nlevel required to carry out the mission of the conference. We found that to minimize\ncosts, NCUA held off-site conferences in close proximity of the largest concentration of\nattendees.\n\nFrom 2010 through 2012, NCUA held off-site training conferences in Anaheim and Long\nBeach, California; Denver, Colorado; Jacksonville, Florida; Louisville, Kentucky;\nChicago, Illinois; Indianapolis, Indiana; Kansas City and St Louis, Missouri; Nashville,\nTennessee; Charlotte, North Carolina; and Dallas and San Antonio, Texas. These\nsessions included regularly scheduled continuing professional training for NCUA\nexaminers and included such subjects as residential mortgage lending, consumer\ncompliance, fraud detection, problem resolution, consumer lending, as well as other\ntopics. NCUA offered these subjects at various locations throughout the country and on\na recurring basis.\n\nWe performed a limited review of NCUA off-site conferences held during 2010. We\ndetermined that because each of these off-site conferences required fewer than 200\nsleeping rooms, NCUA could have selected a hotel without using the competitive\nbidding process. However, to minimize costs and attendee travel time, NCUA staff sent\nRFPs to sales representatives for national hotel chains and third party hotel\nrepresentatives in Denver, Colorado; Jacksonville, Florida; Chicago, Illinois and Kansas\nCity and St. Louis, Missouri. We determined that these off-site conferences related\ndirectly to NCUA\xe2\x80\x99s mission.\n\nFinally, because NCUA policy was consistent with federal policies for conference\nspending and cost controls, we determined that the conferences held from 2012 through\nJanuary 2013 also complied with the spirit of Executive Order 13589 and OMB\nMemorandum M-11-35. However, NCUA only included employee travel and per diem\nexpenses for the 2012 National Training Conference. In keeping with the spirit of OMB\nMemorandum M-12-12, NCUA should capture all conference expenses such as\nemployee travel and per diem costs and include those costs as part of its total\nconference expenses. Accordingly, we are making the following recommendation:\n\nRecommendation\n\nWe recommend that NCUA management:\n 4. Identify all expenditures associated with any conference, including employee\n travel and daily per diem expenses, for inclusion in the total conference cost, and\n ensure those conferences exceeding $100,000 are posted on NCUA\xe2\x80\x99s official\n website as noted in Recommendation 3.\n\n\n\n\n 19\n\x0cNCUA's Conference Related Activities and Expenses\nOIG-13-07\n\nManagement Response\n\nManagement agreed to collect and report conference costs annually and to report\nconferences exceeding $100,000 on the external website by January 31 of each year.\n\nOIG Response\n\nWe concur with management\xe2\x80\x99s planned actions.\n\n\n\n\n 20\n\x0cNCUA's Conference Related Activities and Expenses\nOIG-13-07\n\nAppendix A: NCUA Management Response\n\n\n\n\n 21\n\x0cNCUA's Conference Related Activities and Expenses\nOIG-13-07\n\n\n\n\n 22\n\x0c"


type: legislation

jurisdiction: EU

text:
 13.3.2015
 RO
 Jurnalul Oficial al Uniunii Europene
 L 68/28
 REGULAMENTUL DE PUNERE ÎN APLICARE (UE) 2015/415 AL COMISIEI
 din 12 martie 2015
 de modificare a Regulamentului de punere în aplicare (UE) nr. 540/2011 în ceea ce privește prelungirea perioadei de autorizare a substanțelor active etefon și fenamifos
 (Text cu relevanță pentru SEE)
 COMISIA EUROPEANĂ,
 având în vedere Tratatul privind funcționarea Uniunii Europene,
 având în vedere Regulamentul (CE) nr. 1107/2009 al Parlamentului European și al Consiliului din 21 octombrie 2009 privind introducerea pe piață a produselor fitosanitare și de abrogare a Directivelor 79/117/CEE și 91/414/CEE ale Consiliului (1), în special articolul 17 primul paragraf,
 întrucât:
 (1)
 În partea A din anexa la Regulamentul de punere în aplicare (UE) nr. 540/2011 al Comisiei (2) figurează substanțele active considerate a fi fost autorizate în temeiul Regulamentului (CE) nr. 1107/2009.
 (2)
 Autorizările substanțelor active etefon și fenamifos vor expira la 31 iulie 2017. Au fost depuse cereri pentru reînnoirea autorizării substanțelor active respective. Dat fiind că substanțelor active menționate li se aplică cerințele prevăzute în Regulamentul de punere în aplicare (UE) nr. 844/2012 al Comisiei (3), este necesar să se acorde suficient timp pentru încheierea procedurii de reînnoire în conformitate cu regulamentul respectiv. În consecință, este probabil că autorizările respectivelor substanțe active vor expira înainte de adoptarea unei decizii privind reînnoirea acestora. Prin urmare, este necesar să se prelungească perioadele lor de autorizare.
 (3)
 Prin urmare, Regulamentul de punere în aplicare (UE) nr. 540/2011 ar trebui modificat în consecință.
 (4)
 Având în vedere scopul articolului 17 primul paragraf din Regulamentul (CE) nr. 1107/2009, în ceea ce privește cazurile în care nu se depune un dosar suplimentar în conformitate cu dispozițiile Regulamentului de punere în aplicare (UE) nr. 844/2012 cel târziu cu 30 de luni înainte de data de expirare stabilită în anexa la prezentul regulament, Comisia va stabili data de expirare ca fiind data prevăzută înainte de intrarea în vigoare a prezentului regulament sau cea mai apropiată dată ulterioară acesteia.
 (5)
 Având în vedere scopul articolului 17 primul paragraf din Regulamentul (CE) nr. 1107/2009, în cazul în care Comisia va adopta un regulament care prevede că autorizarea unei substanțe active menționate în anexa la prezentul regulament nu este reînnoită deoarece nu sunt îndeplinite criteriile de aprobare, Comisia va stabili data de expirare ca fiind data prevăzută înainte de prezentul regulament sau data intrării în vigoare a regulamentului care prevede că autorizarea substanței active nu este reînnoită, în cazul în care această dată este ulterioară.
 (6)
 Măsurile prevăzute în prezentul regulament sunt conforme cu avizul Comitetului permanent pentru plante, animale, produse alimentare și hrană pentru animale,
 ADOPTĂ PREZENTUL REGULAMENT:
 Articolul 1
 Partea A din anexa la Regulamentul de punere în aplicare (UE) nr. 540/2011 se modifică în conformitate cu anexa la prezentul regulament.
 Articolul 2
 Prezentul regulament intră în vigoare în a douăzecea zi de la data publicării în Jurnalul Oficial al Uniunii Europene.
 Prezentul regulament este obligatoriu în toate elementele sale și se aplică direct în toate statele membre.
 Adoptat la Bruxelles, 12 martie 2015.
 Pentru Comisie
 Președintele
 Jean-Claude JUNCKER
 (1) JO L 309, 24.11.2009, p. 1.
 (2) Regulamentul de punere în aplicare (UE) nr. 540/2011 al Comisiei din 25 mai 2011 de punere în aplicare a Regulamentului (CE) nr. 1107/2009 al Parlamentului European și al Consiliului în ceea ce privește lista substanțelor active autorizate (JO L 153, 11.6.2011, p. 1).
 (3) Regulamentul de punere în aplicare (UE) nr. 844/2012 al Comisiei din 18 septembrie 2012 de stabilire a dispozițiilor necesare pentru punerea în aplicare a procedurii de reînnoire pentru substanțele active, prevăzută în Regulamentul (CE) nr. 1107/2009 al Parlamentului European și al Consiliului privind introducerea pe piață a produselor fitosanitare (JO L 252, 19.9.2012, p. 26).
 ANEXĂ
 Partea A din anexa la Regulamentul de punere în aplicare (UE) nr. 540/2011 se modifică după cum urmează:
 1.
 În a șasea coloană, expirarea autorizării, în rândul 141, fenamifos, data de „31 iulie 2017” se înlocuiește cu data de „31 iulie 2018”.
 2.
 În a șasea coloană, expirarea autorizării, în rândul 142, etefon, data de „31 iulie 2017” se înlocuiește cu data de „31 iulie 2018”.


type: wikipedia

text:
De Slag bij Westrozebeke werd op 27 november 1382 op de Goudberg bij Westrozebeke geleverd tussen een voetmilities van opstandige Vlaamse steden onder leiding van de Gentenaar Filips van Artevelde en een Frans ridderleger geleid door de minderjarige koning Karel VI en gecommandeerd door Olivier de Clisson. Ook Lodewijk van Male, graaf van Vlaanderen, vocht mee tegen het opstandige gemeen. De troepen onder Filips van Artevelde werden verslagen en hun leider sneuvelde, wat echter niet het einde betekende van de Gentse Opstand. In het Frans, en bijgevolg ook in het Engels, staat deze veldslag gekend als de slag bij Roosebeke.
 Voorbeschouwing
 Na drie jaar Vlaamse opstand, geleid door de Gentse wevers, was Lodewijk van Male in mei 1382 de controle over zijn graafschap verloren door de Slag op het Beverhoutsveld. Vernederd moest hij hulp vragen aan zijn leenheer, koning Karel VI. Een Franse tussenkomst was niet vanzelfsprekend. Lodewijk kon echter rekenen op de steun van de Bourgondische hertog Filips de Stoute, die gehuwd was met Lodewijks enige dochter en erfgename Margaretha van Male. Hij had er dus belang bij de rust te herstellen in zijn toekomstige graafschap en bovendien had hij ook de mogelijkheden daartoe, want sinds 1380 bepaalde hij het beleid in de regentschapsraad die het bestuur over Frankrijk uitoefende tijdens de minderjarigheid van Karel VI, die een neef van hem was. Ongetwijfeld zal de hertog hebben gewezen op de dwingende politieke redenen die een optreden noodzakelijk maakten. In het Westers Schisma stonden de Vlaamse steden immers aan de kant van de Urbanisten, en dus tegen de Clementijnen. Bovendien werkte de sociale rebellie van de Gentenaars aanstekelijk op het gemeen in Parijs, Rouen en Amiens, waar revolte broeide. Er waren dus redenen om in te grijpen, maar het was al laat in het seizoen. Toch werd de zaak niet uitgesteld, wat misschien mee was ingegeven door de bekommernis om de Engelsen geen kans te geven steun te sturen.
 Manoeuvres
 De Fransen verzamelden een sterk leger bij Atrecht en zetten zich op 12 november met 10.000 man in beweging. Bij Rijsel trok Lodewijk van Male een kleiner leger samen gerekruteerd uit de Waals-Vlaamse kasselrijen en bij enkele bondgenoten. Het Vlaamse militieleger, dat kon rekenen op verschillende tienduizenden manschappen, brak het beleg van Oudenaarde op, dat werd verdedigd door een garnizoen onder Daniël Halewijn. Door te blijven had Artevelde waarschijnlijk de winter kunnen doorkomen in afwachting van Engelse steun, maar hij trok de Fransen tegemoet. De Vlamingen hadden alle bruggen over de Leie vernield, behalve die van Komen en Waasten, bewaakt door 900 soldaten onder Pieter van den Bossche en Pieter De Winter (twee Gentenaars die door Van Artevelde waren aangesteld als kapiteins van Brugge). Ook Frans Ackerman nam deel aan de schermutselingen tussen Brugge en Gent. De Fransen, die waren opgerukt via Lens, Seclin en Rijsel, wilden het zo snel mogelijk tot een treffen laten komen en besloten geen omweg te maken. Enkele honderden strijders lieten zich overzetten en verjoegen de bewakingsmacht. Ze namen Ieper in, dat zich op 23 november onderwierp. Het Vlaamse militieleger nam ondertussen positie in op een heuvel, de Goudberg, tussen Oostnieuwkerke en Passendale. De Franse troepen lagen aan de voet van de heuvel achter een beek. Voor het eerst sinds de Slag bij Poitiers (1356) voerden ze de Oriflamme, want het was een heilige strijd tegen schismatici. In het Vlaamse kamp verordonneerde Van Artevelde geen kwartier te geven aan de Fransen, behalve aan de koning, want die was nog jong en konden ze meenemen naar Gent om Vlaams te leren.
 De slag
 In de morgen van 27 november wilde Van Artevelde van de dichte mist gebruikmaken om aan te vallen. Na een salvo van de Vlaamse artillerie beval hij overmoedig zijn in een vierkant opgestelde mannen hun gunstige positie te verlaten en arm in arm op te rukken. Zelf liep hij in de voorste gelederen tussen de Witte Kaproenen. De stormloop drong diep door in de Franse gelederen.
 De Franse bevelhebber, Olivier de Clisson, strafte dit af door de onverdedigde flanken van de Vlamingen met zijn zware ruiterij aan te vallen. Dat veroorzaakte paniek in de Vlaamse achterhoede, die haar wapens weggooide en op de vlucht sloeg. Daardoor bleef de Vlaamse hoofdmacht niets anders over dan zich in een cirkel op te stellen. Ze werden achteruit gedrongen en poogden aan de bron van de Mandel hun gelederen te herstellen. Een aparte troep bestookte hen vanaf de Tiendenberg, waardoor een groot deel van de Vlaamse troepen op de vlucht sloeg in de richting van Staden. Alleen een groep Gentenaars hield stand en bleef fanatiek verder vechten. Ze werden echter zo dicht bij elkaar gedrongen dat ze hun wapens niet meer konden gebruiken. Een groot deel van hen kwam om door verstikking, waaronder Filips van Artevelde.
 De Vlaamse aanvoerder was aan het hoofd geraakt en door zijn eigen mensen vertrapt. Na afloop werd zijn lijk gevonden tussen de talloze andere (Froissart sprak van 26.000). Meewarig stelden ze vast dat hij bont droeg onder zijn wapenuitrusting. Karel VI schopte tegen de dode als tegen een lijfeigene en liet hem ontkleed aan een boom hangen. Het overwinningslied van Eustache Deschamps benadrukte hoe kort de strijd had geduurd.
 Plunderingen in Kortrijk
 Na de slag trokken de Fransen naar Kortrijk om er plunderingen en moordpartijen aan te richten. Ze staken de stad in brand en namen de sporen terug die na de Guldensporenslag als trofee waren opgehangen in de Onze-Lieve-Vrouwekerk. Die kregen een nieuw onderkomen in de Sint-Denijsbasiliek te Parijs. De vernuftige belfortklok liet Filips de Stoute meenemen om ze aan zijn hoofdstad Dijon te schenken. Hij noemde ze een van de mooiste die er zijn aan deze of gene zijde van de zee (“l'un des plus biaux que on seuist dechà ni delà la mer”). Ze werd er bekend als Le Jacquemart, wat uitgroeide tot de algemene benaming voor een klok met mechanische poppen.
 Nabeschouwing
 Filips de Stoute kon de overwinning niet te gelde maken. Hij was eind januari 1384 graaf van Vlaanderen geworden en had de economische kracht van Gent nodig. De rebellie duurde tot 8 december 1385, wanneer de Vrede van Doornik werd gesloten tussen een diplomatieke graaf en een uitgeputte stad.
 Het belang dat Filips aan de slag hechtte, blijkt niettemin uit het enorme wandtapijt dat hij ervan liet maken (5x41m). Hij bestelde het in 1384 bij Michel Bernard, een koopman uit Atrecht. Het werk - nu verloren - kostte niet minder dan 3600 goudfranken en mocht tot de belangrijkste politieke kunst uit de middeleeuwen worden gerekend.
 Galerij
 Oude bronnen
 Kroniek van Froissart, boek III
 Manuel d'histoire van Filips VI van Frankrijk
 La chronique du bon duc Loys de Bourbon
 Cronica van Buonaccorso Pitti
 Nicolaas Despars, Chronycke van den Lande ende Graefscepe van Vlaanderen
 Eustache Deschamps
 Westr
 Geschiedenis van Vlaanderen
 Westr
 Staden
 1380-1389
 Westrozebeke
 Westrozebeke