type: other

jurisdiction: US

text: b" Issue Date:\n January 4, 2010\n\n\n Audit Report Number\n 2010-AO-1002\n\n\n\n\nTO: Nelson Bregon, General Deputy Assistant Secretary, D\n\n\n\nFROM: Tracey Carney, Acting Regional Inspector General for Audit, Gulf Coast\n Region, GAH\n\n\nSUBJECT: State of Louisiana, Baton Rouge, LA, Did Not Always Ensure Compliance\n Under Its Recovery Workforce Training Program\n\n HIGHLIGHTS\n What We Audited and Why\n\n We performed an audit of the State of Louisiana, Office of Community\n Development (State), Recovery Workforce Training Program (Program)\n administered by the State\xe2\x80\x99s subrecipient, Louisiana Workforce Commission\n (LWC). We initiated the audit as part of the Office of Inspector General (OIG)\n Gulf Coast Region\xe2\x80\x99s audit plan and examination of relief efforts provided by the\n Federal Government in the aftermath of Hurricanes Katrina and Rita. Our audit\n objectives were to determine whether the LWC, as the State\xe2\x80\x99s subrecipient, (1)\n ensured that its subrecipients under agreement expended Program funds for\n eligible expenses and (2) adequately monitored its subrecipients under agreement.\n\n\n What We Found\n\n The LWC did not always ensure that its subrecipients under agreement expended\n Program funds for eligible and supported expenses. In addition, it did not\n maintain adequate internal controls over the Program\xe2\x80\x99s financial management.\n Specifically, the LWC did not (1) ensure that reimbursements were consistent\n with approved budgets before disbursing funds, (2) review its subrecipients\xe2\x80\x99\n\n 1\n\x0c reimbursements for compliance with agreement requirements or Federal\n regulations, or (3) maintain adequate records to support the eligibility of\n reimbursed costs. These conditions occurred because the State did not ensure that\n the LWC fully complied with the terms of its interagency agreement or applicable\n Federal requirements. As a result, the State misspent $147,681 for ineligible and\n unsupported costs.\n\n Although the State generally provided technical assistance, the LWC did not\n always adequately monitor its subrecipients under agreement. In addition, the\n LWC did not submit quarterly reports to the State that included all required\n performance data. These conditions occurred because the State did not (1) ensure\n that the LWC had adequate staff to conduct on-site monitoring visits before June\n 2008, (2) ensure that the LWC prioritized on-site monitoring after July 2008, (3)\n clearly convey its expectations to the LWC regarding the frequency of on-site\n monitoring, and (4) ensure that the LWC complied with the terms of its\n interagency agreement. Without this monitoring and compliance assurance, the\n State could not (1) effectively monitor the Program\xe2\x80\x99s progress and (2) ensure that\n Program goals were met and deliverables were provided as required.\n\nWhat We Recommend\n\n\n We recommend that HUD\xe2\x80\x99s General Deputy Assistant Secretary for Community\n Planning and Development require the State to repay ineligible costs totaling\n $2,289 and support or repay unsupported costs totaling $145,392. In addition, the\n State must ensure that the LWC (1) completes its subrecipient agreement\n amendments in a timely manner; (2) ensures that its subrecipients comply with the\n approved budgets; (3) receives periodic reviews to ensure that it maintains\n documentation that accurately and adequately identifies and accounts for all\n Program funds disbursed; (4) implements adequate internal controls to ensure that\n sufficient reimbursement reviews are conducted; and (5) implements procedures\n to ensure that its subrecipients comply with laws, regulations, and agreement\n terms. Further, the State must (1) ensure the LWC conducts and maintains\n documentation of on-site monitoring for all subrecipients; (2) ensure the LWC\n maintains adequate staffing levels to ensure that sufficient on-site monitoring\n visits are conducted; (3) clearly convey and document its expectations to the\n LWC pertaining to on-site monitoring; and (4) ensure the LWC submit quarterly\n report data required by the interagency agreement or formally amend the\n reporting requirements.\n\n For each recommendation without a management decision, please respond and\n provide status reports in accordance with HUD Handbook 2000.06, REV-3.\n Please furnish us copies of any correspondence or directives issued because of the\n audit.\n\n\n\n\n 2\n\x0cAuditee\xe2\x80\x99s Response\n\n\n During the audit, we provided the results of our review to the State\xe2\x80\x99s management\n staff and HUD. We conducted an exit conference with the State and HUD on\n November 23, 2009.\n\n We asked the State to provide comments on our draft report by November 30,\n 2009. We gave the State an extension until December 11, 2009, to respond, and it\n provided written comments on that day. The State generally agreed with our\n results and recommendations. The complete text of the auditee\xe2\x80\x99s written\n response, along with our evaluation of that response, can be found in appendix B\n of this report.\n\n\n\n\n 3\n\x0c TABLE OF CONTENTS\n\nBackground and Objectives 5\n\nResults of Audit\n Finding 1: The LWC, As the State\xe2\x80\x99s Subrecipient, Did Not Always Ensure That 6\n Funds Were Spent for Eligible and Supported Expenses\n\n Finding 2: The LWC Did Not Always Adequately Monitor Its Subrecipients and 10\n Submit Its Quarterly Reports As Required\n\n\nScope and Methodology 15\n\nInternal Controls 16\n\n\nAppendixes\n A. Schedule of Questioned Costs 18\n B. Auditee Comments and OIG\xe2\x80\x99s Evaluation 19\n C. Reimbursement Results From Sample Review\n 21\n\n\n\n\n 4\n\x0c BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES\n\nThe Recovery Workforce Training Program (Program), a $38 million economic development\nprogram, was established by the Louisiana Recovery Authority, in conjunction with the State of\nLouisiana, Office of Community Development (State), and the Louisiana Workforce\nCommission (LWC). Through collaborative efforts, the Program provides workforce\nrecruitment, training, and retention strategies for sectors identified as having key roles in the\nphysical and economic recovery of the State and the hurricane-affected parishes in particular.\nThose sectors include (1) construction, (2) healthcare, (3) transportation, (4) advanced\nmanufacturing, (5) oil and gas, and (6) cultural. The Program addresses the loss of jobs and the\nreemployment of the State\xe2\x80\x99s workforce as a top priority in the recovery of the hurricane-\nimpacted areas.\n\nThe State and LWC, which operated under the office of Louisiana\xe2\x80\x99s governor, entered into an\ninteragency agreement in October 2006 to administer the Program. The State terminated that\nagreement, effective June 30, 2008.1 The State then entered into an interagency agreement2 with\nthe new LWC, formerly known as the Department of Labor, to administer the Program.3 The\nLWC\xe2\x80\x99s mission is to lead the development of the system that delivers the workforce that\nLouisiana\xe2\x80\x99s current and future employers need.\n\nThe LWC\xe2\x80\x99s funding for the Program is provided solely through Community Development Block\nGrant (CDBG) disaster recovery funds administered by the State. The interagency agreement\nallowed the LWC to execute subrecipient agreements to aid in implementing the Program.\nTherefore, it executed 18 subrecipient agreements which were divided among the six sectors.\nThe interagency agreement required the LWC to (1) monitor its subrecipient performance\nmeasures; (2) monitor and track its subrecipient agreements via budget projections; (3) review\nand approve budget amendments; and (4) perform site visits to monitor its subrecipient\nexpenditures, invoices, progress, completion of services, etc.\n\nAs of December 31, 2008, the State had allocated $38 million to the LWC for Program related\nexpenses incurred by the 18 subrecipients. Of this amount, the LWC had paid more than $13.1\nmillion to the subrecipients. Our audit objectives were to determine whether the LWC, as the\nState\xe2\x80\x99s subrecipient, (1) ensured that its subrecipients under agreement expended Program funds\nfor eligible expenses and (2) adequately monitored its subrecipients under agreement.\n\n\n\n\n1\n The agreement was terminated due to Act 743 of the 2008 Regular Session of the Louisiana Legislature, transferring the administration of the\nProgram from the LWC (under the office of the Louisiana governor) to a new LWC (formerly known as the Department of Labor).\n2\n Effective July 1, 2008.\n3\n Therefore, any references concerning activities before July 1, 2008, refer to the former LWC, and any references to the LWC after July 1, 2008,\nrefer to the newly named LWC.\n\n\n\n 5\n\x0c RESULTS OF AUDIT\n\nFinding 1: The LWC, As the State\xe2\x80\x99s Subrecipient, Did Not Always\nEnsure That Funds Were Spent for Eligible and Supported Expenses\n\nThe LWC did not always ensure that its subrecipients under agreement expended Program funds\nfor eligible and supported expenses. In addition, it did not maintain adequate internal controls\nover the Program\xe2\x80\x99s financial management. Specifically, the LWC did not (1) ensure that\nreimbursements were consistent with approved budgets before disbursing funds, (2) review its\nsubrecipients\xe2\x80\x99 reimbursements for compliance with agreement requirements or Federal\nregulations, or (3) maintain adequate records to support the eligibility of reimbursed costs.\nThese conditions occurred because the State did not ensure that the LWC fully complied with the\nterms of its interagency agreement or applicable Federal requirements. As a result, the State\nmisspent $147,681 for ineligible and unsupported costs.\n\n\n\n State Requirements\n\n\n As HUD\xe2\x80\x99s grantee, the State is responsible for administering and monitoring its CDBG\n disaster-related programs. To aid in its efforts, the State executed an interagency\n agreement with the LWC. According to the interagency agreement, the State required the\n LWC to\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Comply with 24 CFR (Code of Federal Regulations) 84.25 and follow accounting\n principles and procedures, use adequate internal controls, and maintain necessary\n source documentation for all costs incurred;\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Administer the Program in conformance with Office of Management and Budget\n (OMB) Circulars A-21, A-87, or A-122 as applicable;\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Review and analyze its subrecipients\xe2\x80\x99 cost reports and other documentation to\n ensure that (1) reimbursements were consistent with approved budgets, (2) the\n agreements were complied with, (3) costs were eligible and reasonable, and (4)\n requested funds did not exceed immediate need; and\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Maintain accounts and project records, including financial records, adequate to\n identify and account for all costs pertaining to the agreement and such other\n records deemed necessary by the State.\n\n\n\n\n 6\n\x0c$147,681 Paid for Ineligible and\nUnsupported Costs\n\n\n An expense eligibility review of 37 subrecipient reimbursement requests\n (reimbursements) determined that costs in 23 (62 percent) were ineligible or unsupported\n because the reimbursements\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Included costs that were not approved under the budget that was applicable at the\n time of reimbursement;\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Did not agree with the subrecipient-approved budget amounts;\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Included costs that were not allowable or reasonable according to OMB Circular\n requirements, such as costs related to entertainment and limousine services; and\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Were missing supporting documentation, such as receipts or invoices.\n\n As a result, as of December 31, 2008, the State had misspent $2,289 in ineligible and\n $145,392 in unsupported costs. The remaining 14 reimbursements were eligible and\n supported (appendix C).\n\n In addition, the LWC did not (1) ensure that reimbursements were consistent with\n approved budgets, (2) ensure that its subrecipients complied with the agreement\n requirements, and (3) maintain adequate financial records to identify and support the\n eligibility of the reimbursed costs. This condition displays an internal control weakness,\n as the State did not ensure that the LWC complied with the terms of the interagency\n agreement. The State must (1) ensure that the LWC, supports or repays the $147,681 in\n questioned costs; (2) ensure that subrecipients comply with their approved budgets; (3)\n maintain adequate records that will accurately account for the costs being charged on the\n reimbursements; and (4) implement adequate internal controls to ensure that sufficient\n reviews are conducted before disbursing funds for the reimbursements.\n\n\n Agreement Terms and\n Regulations Not Followed\n\n Although 14 of 37 reimbursements were eligible and supported, the LWC did not follow\n the terms of the interagency agreement for five (13.5 percent), resulting in various\n internal control weaknesses in its financial management of the Program. Specifically,\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2 The reimbursements contained support that inadequately accounted for the totals\n charged on the reimbursements. For example, supporting documentation for\n charges such as salaries or benefits conflicted with the reimbursement amount.\n Although the supported amount was greater than the charged amount, the\n reimbursements did not contain calculations, explanations, or timesheets to\n support how the charges were derived or how they pertained to the Program. As a\n result, the LWC did not adequately account for the reimbursements. However,\n\n 7\n\x0c the State\xe2\x80\x99s interagency agreement required that the LWC maintain accounts and\n project records, including adequate financial records, to identify and account for\n all costs pertaining to the agreement. (Appendix C)\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2 The reimbursements were not in accordance with the approved budget.\n Specifically, some costs were either not included in the approved budget or were\n included in the approved budget, but charged under the incorrect budget category.\n To correct the issue, the LWC executed retroactive budget revisions, making\n those costs eligible, as the costs were not eligible at the time of reimbursement.4\n In doing this, the LWC and its subrecipients violated the terms of their\n agreements, which required it to report deviations from budget and program\n plans, and request prior approvals for budget and program plan revisions, in\n accordance with Title 24 CFR Part 84.25.\n\n These issues display internal control weaknesses, as the State did not ensure that the\n LWC (1) properly safeguarded and accounted for Program funds and (2) complied with\n applicable rules and regulations. The State should conduct periodic reviews of the LWC\n to ensure that it maintains adequate documentation that accurately and adequately\n identifies and accounts for all funds disbursed. The State also must ensure that the LWC\n complies with the interagency agreement terms and Federal regulations.\n\n\n State and LWC Taking Action\n\n\n To address the issues, the LWC now requires its program managers to conduct a first-\n level review of the reimbursements. In doing so, program managers can request\n additional documentation and conduct recalculations of costs as deemed necessary. After\n the first-level review, program managers provide the reimbursement to the fiscal manager\n for second-level review and payment processing. In addition, as of August 20, 2009, the\n LWC planned to implement a revised reimbursement request form to alleviate accounting\n ambiguities. This form will require subrecipients to submit reimbursements according to\n each specific task, instead of expense category as previously required.\n\n Further, in an effort to provide additional clarifications and aid in developing additional\n reimbursement requirements, the LWC has coordinated with the State and begun\n amending subrecipient agreements. Specifically, the amendments were to include more\n specific budget requirements. As of August 21, 2009, of 18 agreements, the LWC had\n completed 10 amendments and was near the completion of six. The LWC had terminated\n the remaining two agreements for poor performance. We acknowledge the State\xe2\x80\x99s and\n the LWC's steps toward improving the Program\xe2\x80\x99s processes.\n\n\n\n\n4\n According to 24 CFR 570.480(c), the State has the authority to amend its agreements, requirements, policies, etc.,\nas deemed necessary.\n\n 8\n\x0cConclusion\n\n The LWC did not (1) ensure that reimbursements were consistent with approved budgets,\n (2) ensure compliance with agreement requirements or Federal regulations, and (3)\n maintain adequate records to support the eligibility of reimbursed costs. These\n conditions display various internal control weaknesses regarding the LWC\xe2\x80\x99s financial\n management and its expenditure of funds. Therefore, the State must repay or support\n $147,681 in ineligible and unsupported costs. The State must also ensure that the LWC\n implements adequate internal controls to ensure that sufficient reviews are conducted\n before disbursing funds and complies with applicable laws and regulations and the terms\n of the interagency agreements.\n\nRecommendations\n\n We recommend that HUD\xe2\x80\x99s General Deputy Assistant Secretary for Community\n Planning and Development require the State to\n\n 1A. Repay its Program $2,289 in ineligible costs.\n\n 1B. Support or repay its Program $145,392 in unsupported costs.\n\n 1C. Ensure that the LWC ensures that its subrecipients comply with the approved\n budgets and complete the subrecipient agreement amendments in a timely manner\n to ensure that the subrecipient budgets related to allowable expenditures are clear.\n\n 1D. Conduct periodic reviews of the LWC to ensure that it maintains adequate\n documentation to accurately and adequately identify and account for all funds\n disbursed pertaining to the Program.\n\n 1E. Ensure that the LWC implements adequate internal controls to ensure that\n sufficient reviews are conducted before disbursing funds for the reimbursement\n requests and that its subrecipients maintain compliance with laws, regulations,\n and terms prescribed in their respective agreements.\n\n\n\n\n 9\n\x0c RESULTS OF AUDIT\n\n Finding 2: The LWC Did Not Always Adequately Monitor Its\n Subrecipients and Submit Its Quarterly Reports As Required\n\n Although the State generally provided technical assistance, the LWC did not always adequately\n monitor its subrecipients. In addition, the LWC did not submit quarterly reports which included\n all required performance data. These conditions occurred because the State did not (1) ensure\n that the LWC had adequate staff to conduct on-site monitoring visits before June 2008, (2)\n ensure that the LWC prioritized on-site monitoring after July 2008, (3) clearly convey its\n expectations to the LWC regarding the frequency of on-site monitoring, and (4) ensure that the\n LWC complied with the terms of its interagency agreement. Without this monitoring and\n compliance assurance, the State could not (1) effectively monitor the Program\xe2\x80\x99s progress and (2)\n ensure that Program goals were met and deliverables were provided as required.\n\n\n\n State\xe2\x80\x99s Monitoring\n Requirements\n\n\n As part of the interagency agreement, the State also required the LWC to\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Provide technical assistance to its subrecipients.\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Schedule and conduct on-site monitoring visits of its subrecipients. After the\n visits, the State required the LWC to prepare written monitoring reports, receive\n written responses to monitoring letters from subrecipients, and ensure that\n subrecipients completed follow-up corrective actions in a timely manner.\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Prepare and submit quarterly progress reports for all subrecipient activities, which\n included eight performance measures.5\n\n\nTechnical Assistance Provided\nbut On-Site Monitoring Not\nConducted\n\n Although a review of 18 subrecipients determined that the State provided technical\n assistance to 14, it also identified that these 18 (100 percent) subrecipients received\n limited or no on-site monitoring from the LWC, as reflected in the table below.\n\n 5\n The performance measures were (1) percentage of participants entering training who completed training, (2) percentage of participants recruited\n that are placed in employment, (3) percentage of average earnings increase after job placement, (4) percentage of workers placed in jobs that\n retain employment after 6 months of placement, (5) percentage of participants who were displaced by the storm, (6) number of participants who\n completed training, (7) number of participants who were placed in employment, and (8) number of workers retained in jobs per quarter.\n\n\n\n 10\n\x0c Number of Monitored Technical Comment\n subrecipients (yes/no) assistance\n (yes/no)\n 1 Yes No This subrecipient received limited on-site monitoring in\n (limited) November 2007. The State explained that this was the\n only on-site monitoring conducted for this subrecipient,\n and at that time, the LWC staff did not have the\n capacity to conduct on-site monitoring. Therefore, the\n monitoring for this subrecipient was limited, as it had\n not been monitored for more than a year.\n 1 No No This subrecipient had not received on-site monitoring\n since its March 2007 agreement execution. The State\n explained that the LWC, at that time, would not allow\n monitoring of this subrecipient. As of August 2009,\n this subrecipient had not received on-site monitoring.\n 1 No No This subrecipient appeared to have been monitored by\n HUD but not the LWC.\n 1 No No For this subrecipient, the State indicated that\n monitoring was conducted but could not provide\n supporting documentation.\n 14 No Yes The State provided technical assistance documentation\n for these 14 subrecipients. The purpose of the\n technical assistance was not to monitor but to obtain an\n update on the status of the Program.\n\n According to the State and the LWC, monitoring was limited because the LWC, which\n had administered the Program from its inception6 to June 2008, did not have the staff to\n perform such reviews. As a result, on-site monitoring was not performed. The State\n eventually coordinated with the LWC to initiate subrecipient on-site monitoring in June\n 2008. However, effective June 30, 2008, the Louisiana governor\xe2\x80\x99s office terminated the\n State\xe2\x80\x99s agreement with the LWC and continued the Program with a new LWC, effective\n July 1, 2008. Therefore, on-site monitoring was further delayed.\n\n In addition, the new LWC staff prioritized disbursing funds for backlogged invoices and\n amending subrecipient agreements, instead of monitoring. The lack of on-site monitoring\n continued, and monitoring visits were not scheduled to commence until late April 2009.\n Therefore, the State had not ensured that the LWC adequately monitored all subrecipients\n as required by the interagency agreement. The State must ensure that the LWC (1)\n conducts and maintains documentation of on-site monitoring for all 18 subrecipients and\n (2) maintains adequate staffing levels to ensure that it conducts sufficient subrecipient\n monitoring.\n\n\n\n\n6\n October 2006.\n\n 11\n\x0c State\xe2\x80\x99s Expectations Not\n Specific\n\n Although the interagency agreement between the State and the LWC required the LWC\n to conduct on-site monitoring of its subrecipients, it did not specifically define the\n expectations or requirements related to the frequency of those visits. Specifically, the\n interagency agreement lacked clarity regarding the number of expected on-site\n monitoring visits throughout the duration of the Program. Therefore, the State must\n amend the interagency agreement to ensure that it clearly conveys and documents the\n LWC\xe2\x80\x99s expectations related to the frequency of on-site monitoring.\n\n\n Reporting Not in Compliance\n with Agreement\n\n The State did not ensure that the LWC\xe2\x80\x99s quarterly reports included all of the data\n required by the interagency agreement. Between October 2006 and December 31, 2008,\n the LWC submitted seven quarterly reports to the State.7 However, a review of the seven\n reports determined that three did not include a significant amount of data required by the\n interagency agreement.\n\n Regarding the required data, the interagency agreement required the LWC to include\n eight performance measures in its reports. However, on May 15, 2008, the State\n instructed the LWC to amend the reports to include only three of the performance\n measures. When asked, the State indicated that it did not provide a revised policy or\n amendments to the interagency agreement that documented that the data were no longer\n required and stated that the reporting was a \xe2\x80\x9cmoving target\xe2\x80\x9d and continued to change.\n Since there was no formal written documentation approving the changes, the LWC\n should have provided the reports in accordance with the interagency agreement.\n\n According to the State, the reports were one of the tools used to aid in monitoring the\n LWC's compliance with the Program. Therefore, the State must ensure that the LWC\n submits reports, including all required data, or amend its reporting requirements in the\n agreements to ensure that all 18 subrecipients (1) follow the scope of work and establish\n timetables, (2) accurately report levels of accomplishment, and (3) collect and correlate\n all data.\n\nThe State\xe2\x80\x99s and LWC\xe2\x80\x99s\nProgress\n\n\n As of April 30, 2009, the State and the LWC had made progress and commenced on-site\n monitoring. As of August 24, 2009, of 18 subrecipients, the LWC had completed on-site\n monitoring visits for 15, with 3 remaining. For the 15 completed on-site monitoring\n\n7\n Quarters 2-4 for year 2007 and quarters 1-4 for year 2008.\n\n 12\n\x0c visits, seven were conducted between April 30 and July 29, 2009, and the LWC had\n completed the monitoring reports. For the remaining eight, the LWC was in the process\n of drafting the monitoring reports.\n\n Overall, the monitoring reports included concerns related to file management, financial\n management, fiscal compliance, questioned costs, and procurement. The LWC's\n recommendations included but were not limited to subrecipients (1) conducting steps to\n resolve questioned costs, using a cost-price detail form and additional support\n documentation, and (2) establishing cost reasonableness and deliverable information for\n procured services, etc. Generally, it appeared that the LWC had determined that the\n subrecipient files and financial data (e.g., general ledgers, payroll journals) were\n adequately maintained and the internal controls over financial information complied with\n applicable CDBG laws and regulation.\n\nConclusion\n\n\n The State, through the LWC, did not always ensure that it adequately monitored\n subrecipients under agreement or submitted quarterly reports in compliance with the\n interagency agreement. Specifically, although technical assistance was provided to 14 of\n 18 subrecipients, a review determined that all 18 received limited or no monitoring as\n required by the interagency agreement. Further, three of seven quarterly reports that\n LWC submitted to the State did not contain all performance measure data required by the\n interagency agreement. These conditions occurred because the State did not (1) ensure\n that the LWC had adequate staff to conduct on-site monitoring visits before June 2008,\n (2) ensure that the LWC prioritized on-site monitoring after July 2008, (3) clearly convey\n its expectations to the LWC regarding the frequency of the on-site monitoring, and (4)\n ensure that the LWC complied with the terms of its interagency agreement. Without this\n monitoring and compliance assurance, the State could not (1) effectively monitor the\n Program\xe2\x80\x99s progress and (2) ensure that Program goals were met and deliverables were\n provided as required.\n\n The State must ensure that the LWC consistently conducts and maintains documentation\n of on-site monitoring for all subrecipients, maintains adequate staffing levels to ensure\n that sufficient subrecipient monitoring will be conducted, and submits the quarterly\n reports with all required performance measures or formally amend the reporting\n requirements to reflect the change. The State must also ensure that it clearly conveys and\n documents the LWC\xe2\x80\x99s expectations pertaining to the frequency of on-site monitoring.\n\nRecommendations\n\n\n\n We recommend that HUD\xe2\x80\x99s General Deputy Assistant Secretary for Community\n Planning and Development require the State to\n\n\n\n 13\n\x0c2A. Ensure that the LWC conducts and maintains documentation of on-site\n monitoring for all subrecipients.\n\n2B. Ensure that the LWC maintains adequate staffing levels to ensure that sufficient\n subrecipient on-site monitoring will be conducted.\n\n2C. Clearly convey and document the LWC\xe2\x80\x99s expectations pertaining to the frequency\n of monitoring (e.g., number of visits to be conducted, frequency of those visits).\n\n2D. Submit the quarterly reports with data required in the interagency agreement or\n formally amend the reporting requirements to reflect the change.\n\n\n\n\n 14\n\x0c SCOPE AND METHODOLOGY\n\nWe conducted our audit at the State\xe2\x80\x99s and the LWC\xe2\x80\x99s office in Baton Rouge, LA, and the HUD\nOffice of Inspector General (OIG) office in New Orleans, LA. We performed our audit work\nbetween March and October 15, 2009.\n\nTo accomplish our objective related to expense eligibility, we used the LWC\xe2\x80\x99s disbursement data\nfor 18 subrecipients as of December 31, 2008. Through file reviews, we determined that the\nreimbursement data were generally reliable. Between June 26, 2007, and December 05, 2008,8\nthe reimbursement data contained a universe of 329 reimbursements. We conducted a\npreliminary nonstatistical sample review of six invoices, based upon highest and average dollar\namount. Due to the results of the preliminary sample, we expanded our review to include a\nstratified proportional statistical sample of 31 invoices pertaining to all 18 subrecipients,9 which\nwere randomly selected. Therefore, the reimbursements reviewed totaled 37 reimbursements.\nWe reviewed the hard-copy files, as well as additional documentation provided by the State and\nLWC, for the 37 reimbursements to evaluate whether the reimbursement expenses were eligible\nand supported according to the executed agreements and Federal regulations.\n\nTo accomplish our objective related to monitoring, we selected a 100 percent sample of the 18\nsubrecipients. We reviewed monitoring reports, technical assistance notes, and quarterly reports\nto evaluate whether the State ensured that the LWC monitored the subrecipients through on-site\nmonitoring and submitted quarterly reports as required.\n\nIn addition to the reviews, we\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Reviewed the HUD-approved action plan, HUD and State grant agreements, State and the\n LWC interagency agreement and amendments, the LWC and 18 subrecipient agreements\n and budgets, State and the LWC written policies and procedures, the Code of Federal\n Regulations, public laws, and other legal authorities relevant to the CDBG disaster\n recovery grant;\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Reviewed reports issued by HUD and the Louisiana legislative auditor\xe2\x80\x99s office; and\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Interviewed key HUD, State, and LWC staff.\n\nOur audit period covered October 1, 2006, through December 31, 2008. We conducted the audit\nin accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. Those standards require\nthat we plan and perform the audit to obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a\nreasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe that\nthe evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based on our\naudit objective.\n\n\n\n\n8\n Dates were based on the dates the draw requests were sent to the State.\n9\n For the stratification sample, we used 18 strata related to the 18 subrecipients.\n\n\n\n 15\n\x0c INTERNAL CONTROLS\n\nInternal control is an integral component of an organization\xe2\x80\x99s management that provides\nreasonable assurance that the following objectives are achieved:\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Program operations,\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Relevance and reliability of information,\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Compliance with applicable laws and regulations, and\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Safeguarding of assets and resources.\n\nInternal controls relate to management\xe2\x80\x99s plans, methods, and procedures used to meet its\nmission, goals, and objectives. Internal controls include the processes and procedures for\nplanning, organizing, directing, and controlling program operations as well as the systems for\nmeasuring, reporting, and monitoring program performance.\n\n\n\n Relevant Internal Controls\n\n We determined that the following internal controls were relevant to our audit\n objective:\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Program operations - Policies and/or procedures that management has\n implemented to reasonably ensure that subrecipients comply with the\n monitoring and expense eligibility requirements.\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Validity and reliability of data - Policies and/or procedures that\n management has implemented to reasonably ensure that data regarding\n expensed invoices are valid and reliable.\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Compliance with laws and regulations - Policies and procedures that\n management has implemented to reasonably ensure that CDBG disaster\n fund use is consistent with HUD\xe2\x80\x99s laws and regulations.\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Safeguarding resources - Policies and procedures that management has\n implemented to reasonably ensure that CDBG disaster funds are\n safeguarded against waste, loss, and misuse.\n\n We assessed the relevant controls identified above.\n\n A significant weakness exists if internal controls do not provide reasonable\n assurance that the process for planning, organizing, directing, and controlling\n program operations will meet the organization\xe2\x80\x99s objectives.\n\n\n\n 16\n\x0cSignificant Weakness\n\n\n Based on our review, we believe that the following items are significant\n weaknesses:\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2 The State did not ensure that the LWC (1) ensured that reimbursements\n were consistent with approved budgets before disbursing funds, (2)\n reviewed the subrecipients\xe2\x80\x99 reimbursements for compliance with\n agreement requirements or Federal regulations, and (3) maintained\n adequate records to identify and/or account for reimbursed funds (see\n finding 1).\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2 The State did not always ensure that the LWC monitored its subrecipients\n (see finding 2).\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2 The State did not always ensure that the Louisiana Workforce\n Commission complied with the terms of the interagency agreement (see\n findings 1 and 2).\n\n\n\n\n 17\n\x0c APPENDIXES\n\nAppendix A\n\n SCHEDULE OF QUESTIONED COSTS\n\n Recommendation Ineligible 1/ Unsupported\n number 2/\n 1A $2,289\n\n 1B $145,392\n\n1/ Ineligible costs are costs charged to a HUD-financed or HUD-insured program or activity\n that the auditor believes are not allowable by law; contract; or Federal, State, or local\n policies or regulations.\n\n2/ Unsupported costs are those costs charged to a HUD-financed or HUD-insured program\n or activity when we cannot determine eligibility at the time of the audit. Unsupported\n costs require a decision by HUD program officials. This decision, in addition to\n obtaining supporting documentation, might involve a legal interpretation or clarification\n of departmental policies and procedures.\n\n\n\n\n 18\n\x0cAppendix B\n\n AUDITEE COMMENTS AND OIG\xe2\x80\x99S EVALUATION\n\n\nRef to OIG Evaluation Auditee Comments\n\n\n\n\nComment 1\n\n\n\n\n 19\n\x0cComment 2\n\n\n\n\nComment 3\n\n\n\n\n 20\n\x0cComment 4\n\n\n\n\nComment 5\n\n\n\n\n 21\n\x0cComment 6\n\n\n\n\n 22\n\x0cComment 7\n\n\n\n\nComment 8\n\n\n\n\nComment 9\n\n\n\n\n 23\n\x0cComment 10\n\n\n\n\nComment 11\n\n\n\n\n 24\n\x0c25\n\x0c OIG Evaluation of Auditee Comments\n\nComment 1 The State and LWC concurred that the Program's processes and controls did not\n always ensure that all funds were spent for eligible and supported expenses during\n the HUD OIG's audit period. The State asserted that it had been working together\n with the LWC to improve and correct the Program's processes and controls.\n\n We acknowledge the State's actions to improve the Program\xe2\x80\x99s processes and\n controls.\n\nComment 2 In response to recommendation 1A, the State asserted that it and the LWC\n reviewed the $4,041 in ineligible costs and would supply the HUD OIG with a\n spreadsheet and documentation to support or justify all but $652 of the costs.\n\n We reviewed the documentation provided by the State and agreed that $3,389 of\n the ineligible costs were eligible and adequately supported. However, $652 of the\n costs remained ineligible. In addition, based upon our review of supporting\n documentation, provided by the State for disbursements deemed unsupported, we\n determined that an additional $1,637 was ineligible. Specifically, the costs were\n ineligible because the costs were either (1) not allowable under the subrecipient\n agreements, (2) duplicate payments, or (3) overpayments. As such, we amended\n our recommendation and Finding 1 to reflect $2,289 in ineligible costs.\n\nComment 3 In response to recommendation 1B, the State asserted that it and the LWC\n reviewed the $248,500 in unsupported costs and would supply HUD OIG with a\n spreadsheet and documentation to support all but $18,726 of these costs.\n\n We reviewed the documentation provided by the State and agreed that $103,108\n of the $248,500 of unsupported costs were eligible and adequately supported.\n However, we determined that the remaining $145,392 of costs were still\n unsupported. Specifically, the costs were unsupported because either (1) the State\n referenced a budget revision to support the costs, but did not provide the approved\n budget revision, or (2) costs could not be corroborated to the budget using the\n additional supporting documentation. As such, we amended our recommendation\n and Finding 1, to reflect $145,392 in unsupported costs.\n\nComment 4 In response to recommendation 1C, the State asserted it has been taking internal\n measures to ensure subrecipient agreement amendments are completed in a timely\n manner. In addition, the State stated that it monitored the LWC's amendment\n process and was satisfied with the timeliness and effectiveness of this process.\n Further, the State stated that as of February 2009, the Program staff had amended\n all active agreements and all agreements were approved by the Division of\n Administration, Office of Contractual Review. The State also indicated that\n Program staff developed an internal policy to approve only reimbursements for\n costs that are allowable under current and approved budgets.\n\n\n\n 26\n\x0c We acknowledge the State's proactive measures in ensuring that (1) the\n subrecipient agreements were amended and (2) the Program staff developed an\n internal policy to approve only reimbursements allowable under current and\n approved budgets.\n\nComment 5 In response to recommendation 1D, the State asserted that it monitored\n subrecipients in conjunction with the LWC between April and September 2009.\n The State stated that at that time, it provided technical assistance to ensure the\n LWC either monitored or received enough documentation from subrecipients to\n ensure funds were reimbursed for eligible and supported costs. The State asserted\n that as a result, the LWC changed its internal approval process and the new\n process is monitored continually by the State through draw requests.\n\n We acknowledge the State's approach to ensuring that the LWC monitor and\n receive enough documentation from subrecipients to ensure funds are reimbursed\n for eligible and supported costs.\n\nComment 6 In response to recommendation 1E, the State recognized that additional controls\n were needed. The State asserted that the staff structure for the Program was\n redesigned to provide adequate internal controls and increase the amount of\n technical assistance offered to subrecipients at each stage of the reimbursement\n process. The State commented that this redesign adds assurance that only\n allowable costs are reimbursed.\n\n We acknowledge the State's approach to implementing adequate internal controls.\n\nComment 7 The State concurred that the LWC did not adequately monitor its subrecipients\n and did not submit quarterly reports as required during the HUD OIG's audit\n period. The State asserted that it developed responses to the recommendations in\n which it believed would resolve the findings.\n\n We acknowledge the State's proactive measures in resolving the findings.\n\nComment 8 In response to recommendation 2A, the State asserted that it (1) requested that the\n LWC coordinate a series of on-site visits during April and September 2009, (2)\n received copies of the reports and correspondence generated from the on-site\n visits, and (3) monitored the LWC to ensure that the LWC is maintaining records\n of the monitoring documents and responses in the files. Further, the State stated\n that the LWC planned to conduct another series of on-site visits in 2010, since the\n Program was extended another year.\n\n We acknowledge the State's efforts to ensure subrecipients are monitored and\n documentation is maintained.\n\nComment 9 In response to recommendation 2B, the State asserted that as of February 2009,\n the LWC had reached its staffing goal and was able to conduct sufficient\n\n 27\n\x0c monitoring, reviews, and provide sufficient technical assistance to its\n subrecipients. The State noted, however, that the Program Director resigned as of\n September 2009 and the LWC was operating with one less staff member. Finally,\n the State agreed to recommend to the LWC the necessity to increase the Program\n staff and noted that the LWC asked for additional funds to incorporate the LWC's\n agency monitoring team to conduct frequent on-site monitoring visits of the\n subrecipients.\n\n We acknowledge the State's proactive measures for ensuring that the LWC\n maintains adequate staffing levels.\n\nComment 10 In response to recommendation 2C, the State asserted that it will require the LWC\n to submit a monitoring plan for its review and approval. In addition, the State\n stated that it contracted with Reznick to create a comprehensive monitoring plan\n for its Disaster CDBG activities. Further, the State stated that each CDBG\n program received its own program specific monitoring plan that includes a risk\n assessment, which will be used as a guide when the State determines the\n frequency of monitoring visits. The State asserted that it will also use this for\n assessing the LWC's monitoring plan.\n\n We acknowledge the State's approach to ensuring that the frequency of on-site\n monitoring visits is clearly conveyed to the LWC.\n\nComment 11 In response to recommendation 2D, the State asserted that the original agreement\n for the Program had quarterly data deadlines that were two weeks later than the\n required HUD deadline. The State also asserted that the amended agreements\n require submissions by the tenth day of the month, thereby allowing the LWC\n staff ample time to compile and submit data required in the interagency agreement\n by the set deadline.\n\n We acknowledge the State's actions regarding amending the quarterly report\n submission deadlines. However, the State must ensure that either the LWC\n submits quarterly reports that include the eight required performance measures; or\n that it amend its reporting requirements by revising its policy or amending the\n interagency agreement between it and the LWC.\n\n\n\n\n 28\n\x0cAppendix C\n\n RESULTS FROM REIMBURSEMENT SAMPLE REVIEW\n\n Sample Grant # Request Paid amount OIG-identified OIG-identified OIG-identified\n number eligible costs ineligible costs unsupported\n costs\n\n\n 1 649069 8 $139,799 $139,799 $0 $0\n 2 649662 1 668,345 668,345 0 0\n 3 649661 39 8,670 8,596 0 74\n 4 649006 10 130,263 130,263 0 0\n 5 649668 4 49,231 48,376 0 855\n 6 649668 5 511,425 511,425 0 0\n 7 649066 6 34,540 23,302 0 11,238\n 8 649067 9 7,846 3,249 0 4,597\n 9 649068 2 73,639 26,243 142 47,253\n 10 649069 12 28,869 28,869 0 0\n 11 649069 19 97,597 97,598 0 0\n 12 649070 8 107,221 104,150 0 3,071\n 13 649103 10 819 819 0 0\n 14 649103 11 21,262 21,262 0 0\n 15 649203 3 61,647 61,026 621 0\n 16 649661 21 3,346 1,847 857 642\n 17 649661 7 13,370 0 0 13,370\n 18 649661 31 5,503 5,503 0 0\n 19 649661 15 3,820 3,779 41 0\n 20 649662 21 33,207 33,207 0 0\n 21 649662 12 65,077 50,282 0 14,795\n 22 649663 14 93,889 93,889 0 0\n 23 649664 6 110,988 99,498 0 11,490\n 24 649664 16 19,835 16,962 0 2,873\n 25 649665 10 155,553 155,553 0 0\n 26 649667 5 27,302 17,210 0 10,092\n 27 649668 1 5,781 5,781 0 0\n 28 649669 6 5,513 272 0 5,241\n 29 649669 1 6,441 293 0 6,148\n 30 649670 2 13,714 10,643 0 3,071\n 31 649671 4 7,383 7,383 0 0\n 32 649671 12 10,895 10,057 31 807\n 33 649672 13 6,580 4,497 0 2,083\n 34 649672 38 7,880 6,838 0 1,042\n 35 649672 2 28,528 24,405 597 3,526\n 36 649672 16 7,754 5,671 0 2,083\n 37 649672 30 1,791 750 0 1,041\n Totals $2,575,323 $2,427,642 $2,289 $145, 392\n\n\n\n\n 29\n\x0c"


type: legislation

jurisdiction: EU

text:
 7.12.2011
 RO
 Jurnalul Oficial al Uniunii Europene
 L 324/9
 REGULAMENTUL DE PUNERE ÎN APLICARE (UE) NR. 1267/2011 AL COMISIEI
 din 6 decembrie 2011
 de modificare a Regulamentului (CE) nr. 1235/2008 de stabilire a normelor de aplicare a Regulamentului (CE) nr. 834/2007 al Consiliului în ceea ce privește regimul de import al produselor ecologice din țări terțe
 COMISIA EUROPEANĂ,
 având în vedere Tratatul privind funcționarea Uniunii Europene,
 având în vedere Regulamentul (CE) nr. 834/2007 al Consiliului din 28 iunie 2007 privind producția ecologică și etichetarea produselor ecologice, precum și de abrogare a Regulamentului (CEE) nr. 2092/91 (1), în special articolul 33 alineatul (3) și articolul 38 litera (d),
 întrucât:
 (1)
 În conformitate cu articolul 10 din Regulamentul (CE) nr. 1235/2008 (2) al Comisiei, Comisia trebuie să întocmească o listă a organismelor de control și a autorităților de control care au competența de a efectua controale și de a emite certificate în țări terțe în scopul echivalenței și să publice această listă în anexa IV la regulament.
 (2)
 Comisia a analizat cererile de înscriere pe lista respectivă, primite până la 31 octombrie 2009, și a luat în considerare numai cererile complete. Pentru a permite Comisiei să verifice dacă organismele de control și autoritățile de control în cauză au îndeplinit sau nu cerințele articolului 11 din Regulamentul (CE) nr. 1235/2008, li s-a solicitat acestora să transmită informații suplimentare în termen de două luni. Trebuie incluse în anexa IV la Regulamentul (CE) nr. 1235/2008 doar acele organisme de control și acele autorități de control care, în urma analizei tuturor informațiilor primite, au demonstrat că îndeplinesc cerințele respective.
 (3)
 Din cauza numărului mare de cereri din partea organismelor de control și a autorităților de control cărora le-au fost solicitate informații suplimentare, evaluarea cererilor și întocmirea primei liste au durat mai mult decât fusese prevăzut. În lumina experienței, trebuie să li se permită statelor membre să continue să acorde autorizații de import, însă aceste autorizații trebuie să aibă o durată maximă de valabilitate, iar statele membre trebuie să aibă la dispoziție o perioadă mai mare pe parcursul căreia să poată continua să acorde autorizațiile respective.
 (4)
 Pe durata evaluării cererilor pot apărea dificultăți în ceea ce privește înțelegerea circumstanțelor în care un organism sau o autoritate de control poate fi eliminat(ă) de pe listă în temeiul alineatului (2) al articolului 12 din Regulamentul (CE) nr. 1235/2008. În vederea evitării unor noi dificultăți, aceste circumstanțe trebuie clarificate. Totuși, aceste clarificări nu trebuie să impună noi obligații organismelor și autorităților de control.
 (5)
 Experiența a arătat că pot apărea dificultăți la interpretarea consecințelor neregulilor sau încălcărilor care afectează statutul ecologic al unui produs. Pentru a evita alte dificultăți și pentru a clarifica legătura dintre Regulamentul (CE) nr. 1235/2008 modificat de prezentul regulament și celelalte prevederi în vigoare în ceea ce privește importurile de produse ecologice din țări terțe, rezultă așadar necesitatea de a reaminti obligațiile organismelor sau ale autorităților de control din statele membre cu privire la produsele neconforme importate în conformitate cu articolul 33 alineatul (3) din Regulamentul (CE) nr. 834/2007. Totuși, această clarificare nu trebuie să impună noi obligații organismelor sau autorităților de control și statelor membre.
 (6)
 Pentru a facilita tranziția de la sistemul autorizațiilor naționale la lista organismelor de control și a autorităților de control care au competența de a efectua controale și de a emite certificate în țări terțe în scopul echivalenței, prezentul regulament se aplică de la 1 iulie 2012.
 (7)
 Prin urmare, Regulamentul (CE) nr. 1235/2008 trebuie modificat în consecință.
 (8)
 Măsurile prevăzute de prezentul regulament sunt conforme cu avizul Comitetului de reglementare pentru producția ecologică,
 ADOPTĂ PREZENTUL REGULAMENT:
 Articolul 1
 Regulamentul (CE) nr. 1235/2008 se modifică după cum urmează:
 1.
 La articolul 12, alineatul (2) se înlocuiește cu următorul text:
 „(2) În conformitate cu procedura menționată la articolul 37 alineatul (2) din Regulamentul (CE) nr. 834/2007, un organism sau o autoritate de control sau o trimitere la o anumită categorie de produse sau la o anumită țară terță în legătură cu organismul sau autoritatea de control respective pot fi retrase din lista menționată la articolul 10 din prezentul regulament în următoarele cazuri:
 (a)
 dacă raportul anual menționat la alineatul (1) litera (b) nu a fost primit de Comisie până la 31 martie;
 (b)
 dacă nu notifică la timp Comisiei modificările apărute în dosarul tehnic;
 (c)
 dacă nu transmite informații Comisiei cu ocazia examinării unei nereguli;
 (d)
 dacă nu ia măsuri corective adecvate împotriva neregulilor și încălcărilor constatate;
 (e)
 dacă nu aprobă examinarea la fața locului cerută de Comisie sau dacă o examinare la fața locului conduce la un rezultat negativ din cauza disfuncționalității sistematice a măsurilor de control;
 (f)
 în orice altă situație care presupune riscul inducerii în eroare a consumatorilor în legătură cu adevărata natură a produselor certificate de organismul sau autoritatea de control.
 Dacă un organism sau o autoritate de control nu întreprinde la timp acțiuni de remediere adecvate în urma solicitării Comisiei, într-un interval pe care îl stabilește Comisia în funcție de gravitatea problemei și care, de regulă, nu poate fi mai scurt de 30 de zile, Comisia retrage neîntârziat organismul sau autoritatea respective din listă, în conformitate cu procedura menționată la articolul 37 alineatul (2) din Regulamentul (CE) nr. 834/2007. Decizia de retragere se publică în Jurnalul Oficial al Uniunii Europene. Comisia pune lista modificată la dispoziția publicului cât mai repede posibil, prin orice mijloace tehnice adecvate, inclusiv publicarea pe un site web.”
 2.
 Articolul 15 se înlocuiește cu următorul text:
 „Articolul 15
 Produse care nu sunt conforme
 (1) Fără a aduce atingere măsurilor sau acțiunilor realizate în conformitate cu articolul 30 din Regulamentul (CE) nr. 834/2007 și/sau Regulamentul (CE) nr. 889/2008, punerea în liberă circulație în Uniune a produselor care nu sunt conforme cu cerințele din Regulamentul (CE) nr. 834/2007 este condiționată de eliminarea oricăror trimiteri la producția ecologică de pe etichetă, din reclamele publicitare și din documentele care le însoțesc.
 (2) Fără a aduce atingere eventualelor măsuri sau acțiuni care urmează să fie întreprinse în conformitate cu articolul 30 din Regulamentul (CE) nr. 834/2007, în cazul în care se suspectează încălcări și nereguli în ceea ce privește respectarea de către produsele importate în conformitate cu articolul 33 alineatul (3) din Regulamentul (CE) nr. 834/2007 a cerințelor stabilite în regulamentul respectiv, importatorul ia toate măsurile necesare în conformitate cu articolul 91 alineatul (1) din Regulamentul (CE) nr. 889/2008.
 Importatorul și autoritatea sau organismul de control care au emis certificatul de inspecție menționat la articolul 13 al prezentului regulament informează imediat organismele de control, autoritățile de control și autoritățile competente ale statelor membre în cauză și ale țărilor terțe implicate în producția ecologică a produselor în cauză și, dacă este cazul, Comisia. Autoritatea de control sau organismul de control pot solicita ca produsul să nu poată fi introdus pe piață însoțit de mențiuni referitoare la metoda de producție ecologică până când nu se stabilește, pe baza informațiilor primite de la operator sau din alte surse, că orice dubiu a fost înlăturat.
 (3) Fără a aduce atingere eventualelor măsuri sau acțiuni care urmează să fie întreprinse în conformitate cu articolul 30 din Regulamentul (CE) nr. 834/2007, în cazul în care există o bănuială întemeiată privind o încălcare sau nereguli în ceea ce privește respectarea de către produsele importate în conformitate cu articolul 33 alineatul (3) din Regulamentul (CE) nr. 834/2007 a cerințelor stabilite în regulamentul respectiv, autoritatea sau organismul de control ale unui stat membru sau ale unei țări terțe iau toate măsurile necesare în conformitate cu articolul 91 alineatul (2) din Regulamentul (CE) nr. 889/2008 și informează imediat organismele de control, autoritățile de control și autoritățile competente ale statelor membre în cauză și ale țărilor terțe implicate în producția ecologică a produselor în cauză și, dacă este cazul, Comisia.”
 3.
 Articolul 19 se modifică după cum urmează:
 (a)
 la alineatul (1), al treilea paragraf se înlocuiește cu următorul text:
 „Autorizațiile expiră cel târziu după 12 luni de la data acordării, cu excepția autorizațiilor care au fost deja acordate pentru o perioadă mai mare înainte de 1 iulie 2012.”;
 (b)
 alineatul (4) se înlocuiește cu următorul text:
 „(4) Începând cu data de 1 iulie 2013, statele membre nu mai acordă autorizațiile menționate la alineatul (1) din prezentul articol, cu excepția cazului în care:
 —
 produsele importate respective sunt mărfuri pentru care producția ecologică în țara terță a fost controlată de un organism de control sau de o autoritate de control care nu se regăsește în lista întocmită în conformitate cu articolul 10; sau
 —
 produsele importate respective sunt mărfuri pentru care producția ecologică în țara terță a fost controlată de un organism de control sau de o autoritate de control care se regăsește pe lista întocmită în conformitate cu articolul 10, dar care nu se încadrează în niciuna dintre categoriile de produse, enumerate în anexa IV, care fac obiectul controlului de către organismul de control sau de autoritatea de control pentru respectiva țară terță.”;
 (c)
 la alineatul (5), data de „1 ianuarie 2013” se înlocuiește cu „1 iulie 2014”.
 4.
 Anexa IV se înlocuiește cu textul din anexa la prezentul regulament.
 Articolul 2
 Prezentul regulament intră în vigoare în a șaptea zi de la data publicării în Jurnalul Oficial al Uniunii Europene.
 Prezentul regulament aplică începând cu 1 iulie 2012.
 Prezentul regulament este obligatoriu în toate elementele sale și se aplică direct în toate statele membre.
 Adoptat la Bruxelles, 6 decembrie 2011.
 Pentru Comisie
 Președintele
 José Manuel BARROSO
 (1) JO L 189, 20.7.2007, p. 1.
 (2) JO L 334, 12.12.2008, p. 25.
 ANEXĂ
 „ANEXA IV
 LISTA ORGANISMELOR DE CONTROL ȘI A AUTORITĂȚILOR DE CONTROL DESEMNATE ÎN SCOPUL ECHIVALENȚEI ȘI CAIETUL DE SARCINI AFERENT PREVĂZUT LA ARTICOLUL 10
 În scopurile prezentei anexe, categoriile de produse sunt desemnate prin codurile următoare:
 A
 :
 Produse vegetale neprelucrate
 B
 :
 Animale vii sau produse animale neprelucrate
 C
 :
 Produse de acvacultură
 D
 :
 Produse agricole prelucrate pentru a fi utilizate ca alimente (1)
 E
 :
 Produse agricole prelucrate pentru a fi utilizate ca hrană pentru animale (1)
 F
 :
 Semințe și material săditor
 În conformitate cu articolul 10 alineatul (2) litera (e), site-ul web unde poate fi consultată lista operatorilor supuși sistemului de control, precum și punctul de contact cu informații ușor accesibile privind stadiul certificării acestora, categoriile de produse vizate, precum și operatorii și produsele pentru care se suspendă sau se retrag certificatele, se găsește la adresa de web menționată la punctul 2 pentru fiecare organism de control sau autoritate de control, cu excepția cazului în care se prevede altfel.
 «Organska Kontrola»
 1.
 Adresa: Hamdije Čemerlića 2/10, 71000 Sarajevo, Bosnia și Herțegovina
 2.
 Adresa web: http://www.organskakontrola.ba
 3.
 Țări terțe, numere de cod și categorii de produse vizate:
 Țara terță
 Număr de cod
 Categoria de produse
 A
 B
 C
 D
 E
 F
 BA
 BA-BIO-101
 x
 —
 —
 x
 —
 —
 4.
 Excepții: produse în conversie
 5.
 Perioada de includere în listă: până la 30 iunie 2015
 «CCPB Srl»
 1.
 Adresa: Via Jacopo Barozzi N.8, 40126 Bologna, Italia
 2.
 Adresa web: http://www.ccpb.it
 3.
 Țări terțe, numere de cod și categorii de produse vizate:
 Țara terță
 Număr de cod
 Categoria de produse
 A
 B
 C
 D
 E
 F
 HR
 HR-BIO-102
 —
 —
 —
 x
 —
 —
 4.
 Excepții: produse în conversie
 5.
 Perioada de includere în listă: până la 30 iunie 2015
 «Organic Food Development Center»
 1.
 Adresa: 8 Jiang-Wang-Miao St., Nanjing 210042, China
 2.
 Adresa web: http://www.ofdc.org.cn
 3.
 Țări terțe, numere de cod și categorii de produse vizate:
 Țara terță
 Număr de cod
 Categoria de produse
 A
 B
 C
 D
 E
 F
 CN
 CN-BIO-103
 x
 —
 —
 x
 —
 —
 4.
 Excepții: produse în conversie
 5.
 Perioada de includere în listă: până la 30 iunie 2015
 «Certificadora Mexicana de productos y procesos ecológicos S.C.»
 1.
 Adresa: Calle 16 de septiembre N° 204, Ejido Guadalupe Victoria, Oaxaca, Mexic, C.P. 68026
 2.
 Adresa web: http://www.certimexsc.com
 3.
 Țări terțe, numere de cod și categorii de produse vizate:
 Țara terță
 Număr de cod
 Categoria de produse
 A
 B
 C
 D
 E
 F
 MX
 MX-BIO-104
 x
 —
 —
 x
 —
 —
 4.
 Excepții: produse în conversie
 5.
 Perioadă de includere în listă: până la 30 iunie 2015
 «California Certified Organic Farmers»
 1.
 Adresa: 2155 Delaware Avenue, Suite 150, Santa Cruz, CA 95060, SUA
 2.
 Adresa web: http://www.ccof.org
 3.
 Țări terțe, numere de cod și categorii de produse vizate:
 Țara terță
 Număr de cod
 Categoria de produse
 A
 B
 C
 D
 E
 F
 MX
 MX-BIO-105
 x
 —
 —
 x
 —
 x
 US
 US-BIO-105
 x
 x
 —
 x
 x
 x
 4.
 Excepții: produse în conversie
 5.
 Perioada de includere în listă: până la 30 iunie 2015
 «Organic Certifiers»
 1.
 Adresa: 6500 Casitas Pass Road, Ventura, CA 93001, SUA
 2.
 Adresa web: http://www.organiccertifiers.com
 3.
 Țări terțe, numere de cod și categorii de produse vizate:
 Țara terță
 Număr de cod
 Categoria de produse
 A
 B
 C
 D
 E
 F
 KR
 KR-BIO-106
 x
 —
 —
 x
 —
 —
 MX
 MX-BIO-106
 x
 —
 —
 —
 —
 —
 PH
 PH-BIO-106
 x
 —
 —
 x
 —
 —
 US
 US-BIO-106
 x
 —
 —
 x
 —
 —
 4.
 Excepții: produse în conversie
 5.
 Perioada de includere în listă: până la 30 iunie 2015
 «Australian Certified Organic»
 1.
 Adresa: PO Box 530-766 Gympie Rd, Chermside QLD 4032, Australia
 2.
 Adresa web: http://www.australianorganic.com.au
 3.
 Țări terțe, numere de cod și categorii de produse vizate:
 Țara terță
 Număr de cod
 Categoria de produse
 A
 B
 C
 D
 E
 F
 CK
 CK-BIO-107
 x
 —
 —
 —
 —
 —
 FJ
 FJ-BIO-107
 x
 —
 —
 x
 —
 —
 FK
 FK-BIO-107
 —
 x
 —
 —
 —
 —
 HK
 HK-BIO-107
 x
 —
 —
 x
 —
 —
 KR
 KR-BIO-107
 —
 —
 —
 x
 —
 —
 MG
 MG-BIO-107
 x
 —
 —
 x
 —
 —
 PG
 PG-BIO-107
 x
 —
 —
 x
 —
 —
 TH
 TH-BIO-107
 x
 —
 —
 x
 —
 —
 4.
 Excepții: produse în conversie
 5.
 Perioada de includere în listă: până la 30 iunie 2015
 «Organic Standard»
 1.
 Adresa: 51-B, Bohdana Khmelnytskoho str., Kyiv, 01030, Ucraina
 2.
 Adresa web: http://www.organicstandard.com.ua
 3.
 Țări terțe, numere de cod și categorii de produse vizate:
 Țara terță
 Număr de cod
 Categoria de produse
 A
 B
 C
 D
 E
 F
 UA
 UA-BIO-108
 x
 x
 —
 x
 —
 —
 4.
 Excepții: produse în conversie
 5.
 Perioada de includere în listă: până la 30 iunie 2015
 «Ekolojik Tarim Kontrol Organizasyonu»
 1.
 Adresa: 160 Sok. 13/7 Bornova, 35040 Izmir, Turcia
 2.
 Adresa web: http://www.etko.org
 3.
 Țări terțe, numere de cod și categorii de produse vizate:
 Țara terță
 Număr de cod
 Categoria de produse
 A
 B
 C
 D
 E
 F
 AZ
 AZ-BIO-109
 x
 —
 —
 x
 —
 —
 GE
 GE-BIO-109
 x
 —
 —
 —
 —
 —
 KZ
 KZ-BIO-109
 x
 —
 —
 x
 —
 —
 RU
 RU-BIO-109
 x
 —
 —
 x
 —
 —
 RS
 RS-BIO-109
 x
 —
 —
 x
 —
 —
 TR
 TR-BIO-109
 x
 x
 —
 x
 —
 —
 UA
 UA-BIO-109
 x
 —
 —
 x
 —
 —
 4.
 Excepții: produse în conversie
 5.
 Perioada de includere în listă: până la 30 iunie 2015
 «Organización Internacional Agropecuaria»
 1.
 Adresa: Av. Santa Fe 830 – (B1641ABN) – Acassuso, Buenos Aires, Argentina
 2.
 Adresa web: http://oia.com.ar
 3.
 Țări terțe, numere de cod și categorii de produse vizate:
 Țara terță
 Număr de cod
 Categoria de produse
 A
 B
 C
 D
 E
 F
 UY
 UY-BIO-110
 —
 x
 —
 —
 —
 —
 BR
 BR-BIO-110
 —
 x
 —
 —
 —
 —
 4.
 Excepții: produse în conversie
 5.
 Perioada de includere în listă: până la 30 iunie 2015
 «International Certification Services, Inc.»
 1.
 Adresa: 301 5th Ave SE Medina, ND 58467, SUA
 2.
 Adresa web: http://www.ics-intl.com
 3.
 Țări terțe, numere de cod și categorii de produse vizate:
 Țara terță
 Număr de cod
 Categoria de produse
 A
 B
 C
 D
 E
 F
 MX
 MX-BIO-111
 —
 —
 —
 x
 —
 —
 PF
 PF-BIO-111
 —
 —
 —
 x
 —
 —
 US
 US-BIO-111
 x
 —
 —
 x
 —
 —
 4.
 Excepții: produse în conversie
 5.
 Perioada de includere în listă: până la 30 iunie 2015
 «Ecoglobe»
 1.
 Adresa: 1, A. Khachaturyan Str., apt. 66, 0033 Yerevan, Armenia
 2.
 Adresa web: http://www.ecoglobe.am
 3.
 Țări terțe, numere de cod și categorii de produse vizate:
 Țara terță
 Număr de cod
 Categoria de produse
 A
 B
 C
 D
 E
 F
 AM
 AM-BIO-112
 x
 —
 —
 x
 —
 —
 RU
 RU-BIO-112
 x
 —
 —
 x
 —
 —
 4.
 Excepții: produse în conversie
 5.
 Perioada de includere în listă: până la 30 iunie 2015
 «Quality Assurance International»
 1.
 Adresa: 9191 Town Centre Road, Suite 200, San Diego, CA 92122, SUA
 2.
 Adresa web: http://www.qai-inc.com
 3.
 Țări terțe, numere de cod și categorii de produse vizate:
 Țara terță
 Număr de cod
 Categoria de produse
 A
 B
 C
 D
 E
 F
 MX
 MX-BIO-113
 x
 —
 —
 x
 —
 —
 PY
 PY-BIO-113
 x
 —
 —
 x
 —
 —
 US
 US-BIO-113
 x
 —
 —
 x
 —
 —
 4.
 Excepții: produse în conversie
 5.
 Perioada de includere în listă: până la 30 iunie 2015
 «LibanCert»
 1.
 Adresa: Chiah-Boulevard Kamil Chamoun – Baaklini Center – 4th floor, Beirut, Liban
 2.
 Adresa web: http://www.libancert.org
 3.
 Țări terțe, numere de cod și categorii de produse vizate:
 Țara terță
 Număr de cod
 Categoria de produse
 A
 B
 C
 D
 E
 F
 JO
 JO-BIO-114
 x
 —
 —
 x
 —
 —
 LB
 LB-BIO-114
 x
 —
 —
 x
 —
 —
 SY
 SY-BIO-114
 x
 —
 —
 —
 —
 —
 4.
 Excepții: produse în conversie
 5.
 Perioada de includere în listă: până la 30 iunie 2015
 «Istituto Certificazione Etica e Ambientale»
 1.
 Adresa: Via Nazario Sauro 2, 40121 Bologna, Italia
 2.
 Adresa web: http://www.icea.info
 3.
 Țări terțe, numere de cod și categorii de produse vizate:
 Țara terță
 Număr de cod
 Categoria de produse
 A
 B
 C
 D
 E
 F
 AE
 AE-BIO-115
 x
 —
 —
 x
 —
 —
 AL
 AL-BIO-115
 x
 —
 —
 x
 —
 —
 LA
 LA-BIO-115
 —
 —
 —
 x
 —
 —
 LB
 LB-BIO-115
 —
 —
 —
 x
 —
 —
 MD
 MD-BIO-115
 x
 —
 —
 x
 —
 —
 MG
 MG-BIO-115
 x
 —
 —
 x
 —
 —
 MX
 MX-BIO-115
 x
 —
 —
 x
 —
 —
 MY
 MY-BIO-115
 —
 —
 —
 x
 —
 —
 SN
 SN-BIO-115
 x
 —
 —
 —
 —
 —
 SY
 SY-BIO-115
 x
 —
 —
 x
 —
 —
 TH
 TH-BIO-115
 —
 —
 —
 x
 —
 —
 TR
 TR-BIO-115
 x
 —
 —
 x
 —
 —
 UY
 UY-BIO-115
 x
 —
 —
 x
 —
 —
 VN
 VN-BIO-115
 —
 —
 —
 x
 —
 —
 4.
 Excepții: produse în conversie
 5.
 Perioada de includere în listă: până la 30 iunie 2015
 «Oregon Tilth»
 1.
 Adresa: 260 SW Madison Ave, Ste 106, Corvallis, OR 97333, SUA
 2.
 Adresa web: http://tilth.org
 3.
 Țări terțe, numere de cod și categorii de produse vizate:
 Țara terță
 Număr de cod
 Categoria de produse
 A
 B
 C
 D
 E
 F
 US
 US-BIO-116
 x
 —
 —
 x
 —
 x
 4.
 Excepții: produse în conversie
 5.
 Perioada de includere în listă: până la 30 iunie 2015
 «Caucacert Ltd»
 1.
 Adresa: 2, Marshal Gelovani Street, 5th floor, Suite 410, Tbilisi 0159, Georgia
 2.
 Adresa web: http://www.caucascert.ge
 3.
 Țări terțe, numere de cod și categorii de produse vizate:
 Țara terță
 Număr de cod
 Categoria de produse
 A
 B
 C
 D
 E
 F
 GE
 GE-BIO-117
 x
 —
 —
 —
 —
 —
 4.
 Excepții: produse în conversie
 5.
 Perioada de includere în listă: până la 30 iunie 2015
 «Bio Latina Certificadora»
 1.
 Adresa: Av. Alfredo Benavides 330, Ofic. 203, Miraflores, Lima 18, Peru
 2.
 Adresa web: http://www.biolatina.com
 3.
 Țări terțe, numere de cod și categorii de produse vizate:
 Țara terță
 Număr de cod
 Categoria de produse
 A
 B
 C
 D
 E
 F
 PE
 PE-BIO-118
 x
 —
 —
 —
 —
 —
 BO
 BO-BIO-118
 x
 —
 —
 —
 —
 —
 NI
 NI-BIO-118
 x
 —
 —
 —
 —
 —
 HN
 HN-BIO-118
 x
 —
 —
 —
 —
 —
 CO
 CO-BIO-118
 x
 —
 —
 —
 —
 —
 GT
 GT-BIO-118
 x
 —
 —
 —
 —
 —
 PA
 PA-BIO-118
 x
 —
 —
 —
 —
 —
 MX
 MX-BIO-118
 x
 —
 —
 —
 —
 —
 VE
 VE-BIO-118
 x
 —
 —
 —
 —
 —
 SV
 SV-BIO-118
 x
 —
 —
 —
 —
 —
 4.
 Excepții: produse în conversie
 5.
 Perioada de includere în listă: până la 30 iunie 2015
 «The national association for sustainable agriculture, Australia»
 1.
 Adresa: Unit 7/3 Mount Barker Road, Stirling SA 5152, Australia
 2.
 Adresa web: http://www.nasaa.com.au
 3.
 Țări terțe, numere de cod și categorii de produse vizate:
 Țara terță
 Număr de cod
 Categoria de produse
 A
 B
 C
 D
 E
 F
 ID
 ID-BIO-119
 —
 —
 —
 x
 —
 —
 LK
 LK-BIO-119
 —
 —
 —
 x
 —
 —
 NP
 NP-BIO-119
 —
 —
 —
 x
 —
 —
 PG
 PG-BIO-119
 —
 —
 —
 x
 —
 —
 SB
 SB-BIO-119
 —
 —
 —
 x
 —
 —
 TL
 TL-BIO-119
 —
 —
 —
 x
 —
 —
 WS
 WS-BIO-119
 —
 —
 —
 x
 —
 —
 4.
 Excepții: produse în conversie
 5.
 Perioada de includere în listă: până la 30 iunie 2015
 «Organic crop improvement association»
 1.
 Adresa: 1340 North Cotner Boulevard, Lincoln, NE 68505-1838, SUA
 2.
 Adresa web: http://www.ocia.org
 3.
 Țări terțe, numere de cod și categorii de produse vizate:
 Țara terță
 Număr de cod
 Categoria de produse
 A
 B
 C
 D
 E
 F
 GT
 GT-BIO-120
 x
 —
 —
 x
 —
 —
 MX
 MX-BIO-120
 x
 —
 —
 x
 —
 —
 NI
 NI-BIO-120
 x
 —
 —
 x
 —
 —
 PE
 PE-BIO-120
 x
 —
 —
 x
 —
 —
 SV
 SV-BIO-120
 x
 —
 —
 x
 —
 —
 US
 US-BIO-120
 x
 —
 —
 x
 —
 —
 4.
 Excepții: produse în conversie
 5.
 Perioada de includere în listă: până la 30 iunie 2015
 «Organic agriculture certification Thailand»
 1.
 Adresa: 619/43 Kiatngamwong Building, Ngamwongwan Rd., Tambon Bangkhen, Muang District, Nonthaburi 11000, Thailanda
 2.
 Adresa web: http://www.actorganic-cert.or.th
 3.
 Țări terțe, numere de cod și categorii de produse vizate:
 Țara terță
 Număr de cod
 Categoria de produse
 A
 B
 C
 D
 E
 F
 ID
 ID-BIO-121
 x
 —
 —
 x
 —
 —
 LA
 LA-BIO-121
 x
 —
 —
 x
 —
 —
 TH
 TH-BIO-121
 x
 —
 —
 x
 —
 —
 VN
 VN-BIO-121
 x
 —
 —
 x
 —
 —
 4.
 Excepții: produse în conversie
 5.
 Perioada de includere în listă: până la 30 iunie 2015
 «Instituto Biodinamico Certificações»
 1.
 Adresa: Rua Dr. Costa Leite, 1351, 18 602 110, Botucatu SP, Brazilia
 2.
 Adresa web: http://www.ibd.com.br
 3.
 Țări terțe, numere de cod și categorii de produse vizate:
 Țara terță
 Număr de cod
 Categoria de produse
 A
 B
 C
 D
 E
 F
 BR
 BR-BIO-122
 x
 x
 —
 x
 x
 —
 CN
 CN-BIO-122
 x
 —
 —
 x
 —
 —
 MX
 MX-BIO-122
 —
 x
 —
 x
 —
 —
 4.
 Excepții: produse în conversie
 5.
 Perioada de includere în listă: până la 30 iunie 2015
 «IMO Control Latinoamérica Ltda.»
 1.
 Adresa: Calle Pasoskanki 2134, Cochabamba, Bolivia
 2.
 Adresa web: http://www.imo.ch
 3.
 Țări terțe, numere de cod și categorii de produse vizate:
 Țara terță
 Număr de cod
 Categoria de produse
 A
 B
 C
 D
 E
 F
 BO
 BO-BIO-123
 x
 —
 —
 x
 —
 —
 DO
 DO-BIO-123
 x
 —
 —
 —
 —
 —
 GT
 GT-BIO-123
 x
 —
 —
 —
 —
 —
 MX
 MX-BIO-123
 x
 —
 —
 x
 —
 —
 NI
 NI-BIO-123
 x
 —
 —
 —
 —
 —
 PE
 PE-BIO-123
 x
 —
 —
 x
 —
 —
 PY
 PY-BIO-123
 x
 —
 —
 x
 —
 —
 SV
 SV-BIO-123
 x
 —
 —
 —
 —
 —
 VE
 VE-BIO-123
 x
 —
 —
 x
 —
 —
 4.
 Excepții: produse în conversie
 5.
 Perioada de includere în listă: până la 30 iunie 2015
 «Uganda Organic Certification Ltd.»
 1.
 Adresa: P.O. Box 33743, Kampala, Uganda
 2.
 Adresa web: http://www.ugocert.org
 3.
 Țări terțe, numere de cod și categorii de produse vizate:
 Țara terță
 Număr de cod
 Categoria de produse
 A
 B
 C
 D
 E
 F
 UG
 UG-BIO-124
 x
 —
 —
 x
 —
 —
 4.
 Excepții: produse în conversie
 5.
 Perioada de includere în listă: până la 30 iunie 2015
 «Center of Organic Agriculture in Egypt»
 1.
 Adresa: 14 Ibrahim Shawarby St. New Nozha, P.O.Box 1535 Alf Maskan 11777, Cairo, Egipt
 2.
 Adresa web: http://www.coae-eg.com
 3.
 Țări terțe, numere de cod și categorii de produse vizate:
 Țara terță
 Număr de cod
 Categoria de produse
 A
 B
 C
 D
 E
 F
 EG
 EG-BIO-125
 x
 —
 —
 x
 —
 x
 SA
 SA-BIO-125
 x
 —
 —
 —
 —
 —
 4.
 Excepții: produse în conversie
 5.
 Perioada de includere în listă: până la 30 iunie 2015
 «Bolicert Ltd.»
 1.
 Adresa: Street Colon 756, floor 2, office 2A, Edif. Valdivia Casilla 13030, La Paz, Bolivia
 2.
 Adresa web: http://www.bolicert.org
 3.
 Țări terțe, numere de cod și categorii de produse vizate:
 Țara terță
 Număr de cod
 Categoria de produse
 A
 B
 C
 D
 E
 F
 BO
 BO-BIO-126
 x
 —
 —
 x
 —
 —
 4.
 Excepții: produse în conversie
 5.
 Perioada de includere în listă: până la 30 iunie 2015
 «Washington State Department of Agriculture»
 1.
 Adresa: 1111 Washington Street, PO Box 42560 Olympia WA 98504-2560, SUA
 2.
 Adresa web: http://agr.wa.gov
 3.
 Țări terțe, numere de cod și categorii de produse vizate:
 Țara terță
 Număr de cod
 Categoria de produse
 A
 B
 C
 D
 E
 F
 US
 US-BIO-127
 x
 —
 —
 —
 —
 —
 4.
 Excepții: produse în conversie
 5.
 Perioada de includere în listă: până la 30 iunie 2015
 «Certisys»
 1.
 Adresa: Rue Joseph Bouché 57/3, 5310 Bolinne, Belgia
 2.
 Adresa web: http://www.certisys.eu
 3.
 Țări terțe, numere de cod și categorii de produse vizate:
 Țara terță
 Număr de cod
 Categoria de produse
 A
 B
 C
 D
 E
 F
 BF
 BF-BIO-128
 x
 —
 —
 x
 —
 —
 GH
 GH-BIO-128
 x
 —
 —
 x
 —
 —
 ML
 ML-BIO-128
 x
 —
 —
 x
 —
 —
 SN
 SN-BIO-128
 x
 —
 —
 x
 —
 —
 VN
 VN-BIO-128
 —
 —
 —
 x
 —
 —
 4.
 Excepții: produse în conversie
 5.
 Perioada de includere în listă: până la 30 iunie 2015
 «Doalnara Certified Organic Korea, LLC»
 1.
 Adresa: 192-3 Jangyang-ri, Socho-myeon, Wonju-si, Gangwon, Coreea de Sud
 2.
 Adresa web: http://dcok.systemdcok.or.kr
 3.
 Țări terțe, numere de cod și categorii de produse vizate:
 Țara terță
 Număr de cod
 Categoria de produse
 A
 B
 C
 D
 E
 F
 KR
 KR-BIO-129
 x
 —
 —
 x
 —
 —
 4.
 Excepții: produse în conversie
 5.
 Perioada de includere în listă: până la 30 iunie 2015
 «BioGro New Zealand Limited»
 1.
 Adresa: PO Box 9693 Marion Square, Wellington 6141, Noua Zeelandă
 2.
 Adresa web: http://www.biogro.co.nz
 3.
 Țări terțe, numere de cod și categorii de produse vizate:
 Țara terță
 Număr de cod
 Categoria de produse
 A
 B
 C
 D
 E
 F
 VU
 VU-BIO-130
 x
 —
 —
 —
 —
 —
 4.
 Excepții: produse în conversie
 5.
 Perioada de includere în listă: până la 30 iunie 2015”
 (1) Ingredientele trebuie certificate de un organism de control sau de o autoritate de control recunoscute în conformitate cu articolul 33 alineatul (3) sau produse și certificate pe teritoriul unei țări terțe recunoscute în conformitate cu articolul 33 alineatul (2) din Regulamentul (CE) nr. 834/2007, sau produse și certificate în Uniune în conformitate cu Regulamentul (CE) nr. 834/2007.