jurisdiction: US

text: b'OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL\n\n\nAUDIT OF USAID\xe2\x80\x99S\nIMPLEMENTATION OF\nSELECTED HOMELAND\nSECURITY PRESIDENTIAL\nDIRECTIVE 12\nREQUIREMENTS FOR\nPERSONAL IDENTITY\nVERIFICATION OF FEDERAL\nEMPLOYEES AND\nCONTRACTORS\nAUDIT REPORT NO. A-000-08-004-P\nFebruary 06, 2008\n\n\nWASHINGTON, DC\n\x0cOffice of Inspector General\n\n\nFebruary 06, 2008\n\nMEMORANDUM\n\nTO: CIO/M, Chief Information Officer, David C. Anewalt\n\nFROM: IG/A/ITSA, Director, Melinda G. Dempsey /s/\n\nSUBJECT: Audit of USAID\xe2\x80\x99s Implementation of Selected Homeland Security Presidential\n Directive 12 (HSPD-12) Requirements for Personal Identity Verification of Federal\n Employees and Contractors (Audit Report No. A-000-08-004-P)\n\nThis memorandum transmits the Office of Inspector General\xe2\x80\x99s final report on the subject audit. In\nfinalizing the report, we considered your written comments on our draft report and included those\ncomments in their entirety in Appendix II of this report.\n\nThe report contains one recommendation. Based on your response to our draft report, we have\nreached a management decision on the recommendation. Please notify the Bureau for\nManagement\xe2\x80\x99s Audit, Performance and Compliance Division when final action is completed.\n\nI appreciate the cooperation and courtesies extended to my staff during this audit.\n\n\n\ncc: Office of Security, Randy Streufert\n\n\n\n\nU.S. Agency for International Development\n1300 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW\nWashington, DC 20523\nwww.usaid.gov\n\x0cCONTENTS\nSummary of Results ......................................................................................................... 1\n\nBackground ....................................................................................................................... 3\n\nAudit Objective .................................................................................................................... 5\n\nAudit Finding ..................................................................................................................... 6\n\n Implementation Plan Is Needed for HSPD-12............................................................... 7\n\nEvaluation of Management Comments ........................................................................... 12\n\nAppendix I \xe2\x80\x93 Scope and Methodology ............................................................................ 13\n\nAppendix II \xe2\x80\x93 Management Comments ........................................................................... 15\n\x0cSUMMARY OF RESULTS\nHomeland Security Presidential Directive 12 (HSPD-12) requires the development and\nimplementation of a mandatory Governmentwide standard for secure and reliable forms of\nidentification of Federal employees and contractors to access federally controlled facilities\nand information systems. The Office of Inspector General, Information Technology and\nSpecial Audits Division, in Washington, DC, conducted an audit to determine whether\nUSAID addressed selected HSPD-12 requirements 1 from the Office of Management and\nBudget (OMB) and the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) in support\nof Personal Identity Verification (PIV) of Federal employees and contractors. The audit\nassessed USAID\xe2\x80\x99s progress on selected HSPD-12 requirements and milestones due in\ncalendar years 2007 and 2008 (see page 5).\n\nIn support of HSPD-12, OMB outlined the implementation schedule to executive agencies.\nSelected HSPD-12 requirements will be addressed in two phases that incorporate the use\nof various NIST technical requirements. PIV-I requires agencies to develop policies and\nprocedures to verify the personal identities of Federal employees and contractors,\nincluding identity verification for applicants, background checks, and employee\nregistration. PIV-II defines the technical requirements and functions that agencies must\nincorporate into a Federal identity credential. During PIV-II, agencies must demonstrate\ntheir ability to issue new identification cards to all employees and contractors. Employees\nand contractors who started Federal employment since October 2005 are required to\nfollow PIV-I requirements for identity verification. Employees and contractors who started\nFederal employment since October 2006 are required to meet PIV-I requirements and\nreceive identity credentials that conform to PIV-II requirements. Current employees and\ncontractors who started their employment prior to October 2005 are required to have\ncomplete background checks by October 2007 or October 2008, depending on their years\nof service (see page 4).\n\nUSAID\xe2\x80\x99s Office of Security had implemented policies and procedures before the HSPD-12\ninitiative to ensure that USAID employees, contractors, and other Government personnel\nhad adequate background checks or underwent personal security investigations and\nvetting. However, the audit found that USAID did not fully address selected HSPD-12\nrequirements from the Office of Management and Budget and National Institute of\nStandards and Technology in support of Personal Identity Verification. Specifically, USAID\ndid not fully comply with PIV-I requirements because USAID personnel could not identify\nor retrieve all of the identity proofing documents from the Department of State\xe2\x80\x99s (DoS)\nIdentity Management System. USAID also did not meet the OMB PIV-II target date to\nissue new Federal identity credentials to current employees and contractors in 2007, nor\nwill it meet OMB\xe2\x80\x99s 2008 target date based on prior rates of issuance (see page 6).\nSeveral factors contributed to USAID\xe2\x80\x99s inability to meet the PIV-I and PIV-II requirements:\n(1) USAID\xe2\x80\x99s lack of an implementation plan as required by OMB, (2) USAID\xe2\x80\x99s decision not\nto establish HSPD-12 as a higher-priority information technology (IT) investment,\n(3) USAID\xe2\x80\x99s dependence on DoS implementation of HSPD-12, (4) NIST\xe2\x80\x99s evolving\ntechnical requirements, and (5) OMB\xe2\x80\x99s funding constraint on Agency budget requests.\nSome of these factors were external to USAID and thus outside of USAID\xe2\x80\x99s control.\n\n1\n The requirements selected were based on OMB\xe2\x80\x99s HSPD-12 implementing instructions and are\nshown in table 1 on page 4 of this report.\n\n\n 1\n\x0cNonetheless, without a plan to implement HSPD-12 and Agency support to fund HSPD-12\nas a higher-priority IT investment, USAID\xe2\x80\x99s project managers are left with few or no details\nabout how they can best implement HSPD-12. As a result, project managers made ad hoc\ndecisions regarding funding, resources, and technical approaches that may not have been\nrealistic and ultimately may have delayed or prevented the Agency\xe2\x80\x99s implementation of\nthis Governmentwide mandate. If USAID does not implement PIV-I and PIV-II, it may not\nfully realize the critically needed security benefits of PIV, and interoperability among\nFederal agency PIV card programs (one of the major goals of HSPD-12) may not be\nachieved (see pages 7\xe2\x80\x9311).\n\nThis report makes one recommendation to improve USAID\xe2\x80\x99s implementation of HSPD-12\n(see page 11). In response to the draft report, USAID agreed with the audit\nrecommendation, outlined its plans to address the audit recommendation, and provided\nestimated dates when the final action would be completed. Based on an evaluation of the\nAgency\xe2\x80\x99s comments, a management decision has been reached on the recommendation\n(see page 12). USAID\xe2\x80\x99s comments are included in their entirety in appendix II of this report\n(see page 15).\n\n\n\n\n 2\n\x0cBACKGROUND\nIn response to terrorist attacks on the United States, the President issued a series of\ninitiatives to increase security across Government agencies. On August 27, 2004, the\nPresident signed Homeland Security Presidential Directive 12 (HSPD-12), which required\nthe development and implementation of a mandatory Governmentwide standard for\nsecure and reliable forms of identification to allow Federal employees and contractors to\ngain physical access to federally controlled facilities and logical access to federally\ncontrolled information systems. The goals of HSPD-12 emphasized security and\ninteroperability among Federal Government agencies and specified that identity\ncredentials would be\xe2\x80\x94\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Issued based on firm criteria to verify an employee\xe2\x80\x99s identity;\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Strongly resistant to identity fraud, tampering, counterfeiting, and terrorist\n exploitation;\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Rapidly authenticated electronically; and\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Issued only by providers whose reliability had been established.\n\nHSPD-12 assigns responsibility to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for\noverseeing executive agencies\xe2\x80\x99 implementation of HSPD-12 and to the National Institute\nof Standards and Technology (NIST) for issuing technical guidance. NIST issued Federal\nInformation Processing Standard (FIPS) 201, Personal Identity Verification (PIV) of\nFederal Employees and Contractors, and other supporting technical publications to help\nexecutive agencies implement HSPD-12\xe2\x80\x99s requirements.\n\nIn August 2005, OMB issued memorandum M-05-24, Implementation of Homeland\nSecurity Presidential Directive (HSPD) 12\xe2\x80\x94Policy for a Common Identification Standard\nfor Federal Employees and Contractors, to executive branch agencies with instructions\nand timeframes to implement selected HSPD-12 requirements. OMB and NIST defined\nHSPD-12\xe2\x80\x99s implementation in two phases: PIV part one (PIV-I) and PIV part two (PIV-II).\nTable 1 summarizes some selected key OMB requirements and timeframes to implement\nselected requirements under PIV-I and PIV-II.\n\n\n\n\n 3\n\x0cTable 1. HSPD-12 Selected Requirements and OMB Implementation Deadlines 2\n OMB\n Implementation\n HSPD-12 Selected Requirements Deadlines\n PIV-I\n 1. Initiate national agency check with inquiry (NACI) before\n 10/27/05\n credential issuance\n 2. Maintain and identify the two types of documents used\n 10/27/05\n for employee and contractor identity proofing\n 3. Complete background investigations for current\n employees and contractors with fewer than 15 years of 10/27/07\n service\n 4. Complete background investigations for current\n employees and contractors with more than 15 years of 10/27/08\n service\n PIV-II\n 5. Start issuance of identity credentials 10/27/06\n 6. Issue and require the use of identity credentials for\n current employees and contractors with fewer than 15 years 10/27/07\n of service\n 7. Issue and require the use of identity credentials for\n current employees and contractors with more than 15 10/27/08\n years of service\n 8. Use the credentials\xe2\x80\x99 electronic security features to\n authenticate identities to gain physical access to facilities *\n 9. Use the credentials\xe2\x80\x99 electronic security features to\n authenticate identities to gain electronic access to *\n information systems\n*According to OMB\xe2\x80\x99s HSPD-12 implementation guidance, agencies are not required to complete implementation of all\ncard capabilities on October 27, 2006. Thus, agencies are not expected to have their entire infrastructure installed to\nenable use of the cards at all facilities and systems. However, agencies are expected to make use of the cards using a\nrisk-based approach.\n\n\nPIV-I requires agencies to develop policies and perform specific procedures to ensure that\nthe personal identities of employees and contractors are verified and registered before\nissuing Federal identity credentials. During identity proofing, the applicant is required to\nprovide two forms of identity source documents in original form. The identity source\ndocuments must come from the list of acceptable documents included in Form I-9, OMB\nNo. 1115-0136, Employment Eligibility Verification, and at least one of the documents\nmust be a valid State or Federal government-issued picture identification. Additionally, the\nidentity source documents used for identity proofing must be recorded by the Agency. PIV-\nII provides guidance on technical interoperability requirements, implementation, issuance,\nand use of identity credentials. Current employees and contractors who started their\nemployment prior to October 27, 2005, were required to have complete background\nchecks by October 27, 2007, or October 27, 2008, depending on their years of service.\nHowever, new employees and contractors who started employment since October 27,\n2005, were immediately subject to PIV-I background check requirements for identity\nverification. New employees and contractors who started employment since October 27,\n2006, were immediately subject to both PIV-I and PIV-II requirements.\n2\n Source: Office of Management and Budget, Memorandum M-05-24, dated August 5, 2005.\n\n\n 4\n\x0cWhen PIV-II is fully implemented Governmentwide, the holder of an identity credential card\nfrom one agency can be electronically authorized by another agency to access its facilities\nand systems. The identity credentials store encoded data on a credit card\xe2\x80\x93sized card that\nverifies the identity of each cardholder through a card reader. For example, a cardholder\npresents the credential to a card reader at a physical entrance to request access to a\nFederal Government facility. Once the data are read, the card reader sends the\ninformation to an access control system that will either grant or deny access to the\ncardholder. Similarly, when a cardholder presents the credential to a card reader for\nnetwork access at a login screen, the logical access control system validates the\ncardholder\xe2\x80\x99s credential and authenticates the identity of the cardholder before granting\naccess to an information technology (IT) system.\n\nUSAID\xe2\x80\x99s implementation of HSPD-12 is led by personnel within USAID\xe2\x80\x99s Office of the\nChief Information Officer (CIO) and Office of Security (SEC). USAID\xe2\x80\x99s Acting CIO was\ntasked to design, develop, implement, and maintain security access systems, including\nsecurity identification and credentialing for USAID employees and contractors. Under\nUSAID\xe2\x80\x99s Office of the CIO, the Chief Information Security Office was responsible for\nregistering the enrollment of personnel into the identity management system used to issue\ncredentials. USAID\xe2\x80\x99s SEC was responsible for ensuring that USAID employees,\ncontractors, and other Government personnel had or followed appropriate personal\nsecurity background checks. SEC was responsible for credential issuance, maintenance,\nand security for physical access to USAID headquarters.\n\nTo support the HSPD-12 project, USAID\xe2\x80\x99s SEC entered into a 5-year memorandum of\nunderstanding with the Bureau of Diplomatic Security within the Department of State\n(DoS). This interagency agreement enrolled USAID in the DoS Identity Management\nSystem (IDMS), which enabled USAID to issue and renew credentials based on DoS PIV-\nII cards.\n\nDoS is responsible for issuing credentials to USAID employees and contractors assigned\nto overseas posts. As of May 2007, approximately two-thirds of USAID\xe2\x80\x99s total workforce\nwas assigned to overseas posts, with the remaining third located at U.S. headquarters.\n\nAs of April 2007, USAID\xe2\x80\x99s HSPD-12 project team had obligated about $251,000 for the\npurchase of equipment and contractor support to implement HSPD-12. 3\n\nAUDIT OBJECTIVE\nThe Office of Inspector General, Information Technology and Special Audits Division,\nincluded this audit in its fiscal year 2007 audit plan to answer the following question:\n\n Did USAID address selected requirements from the Office of\n Management and Budget and the National Institute of Standards and\n Technology in support of Homeland Security Presidential Directive 12 for\n Personal Identity Verification of Federal Employees and Contractors?\n\nAppendix I contains a discussion of the audit\xe2\x80\x99s scope and methodology.\n3\n The Office of the CIO and the Office of Security provided approximately $110,000 and $141,000,\nrespectively.\n\n\n 5\n\x0cAUDIT FINDING\nAs shown in table 2 below, USAID did not fully address selected HSPD-12 requirements\nfrom the Office of Management and Budget and National Institute of Standards and\nTechnology in support of Personal Identity Verification.\n\nTable 2. HSPD-12 Selected Requirements, OMB Deadlines and Status of USAID\xe2\x80\x99s\nPlanned Completion Dates (as of May 31, 2007)\n USAID\xe2\x80\x99s\n OMB Completion Has USAID Met\n Selected HSPD-12 Requirements Deadline Date Requirement?\n 4\n Compliance with PIV-I\n 1. Initiate national agency check with 10/27/05 10/26/05 Yes\n inquiry (NACI) investigations prior to\n credential issuance or alternate check\n 2. Maintain and identify the two types of 10/27/05 To Be No*\n documents used for employee and Determined\n contractor identity proofing (TBD)\n 3. Complete background investigations for 10/27/07 10/26/05 Yes\n current employees and contractors with\n fewer than 15 years of service\n 4. Complete background investigations for 10/27/08 10/26/05 Yes\n current employees with more than 15\n years of service\n Compliance with PIV-II\n 5. Start issuance of identity credentials 10/27/06 10/27/06 Yes\n 6. Issue and require the use of identity 10/27/07 TBD No\n credentials for current employees and (Estimate ~ 2011\n contractors with fewer than 15 years of or later)\n service\n 7. Issue and require the use of identity 10/27/08 TBD No\n credentials for current employees and (Estimate ~2011\n contractors employed with more than 15 or later)\n years of service\n 8. Use the credentials\xe2\x80\x99 electronic security ** TBD No***\n features to authenticate identities to gain\n physical access to facilities\n\n\n\n\n4\n As required, USAID recognized federally awarded clearances performed by other U.S.\nGovernment agencies.\n\n\n 6\n\x0c(Table 2 \xe2\x80\x93 continued from previous page)\n9. Use the credentials\xe2\x80\x99 electronic security ** TBD No***\nfeatures to authenticate identities to gain\nelectronic access to information systems\n* USAID could neither identify nor retrieve from the Identity Management System the two forms of identification used to\nvet an individual\xe2\x80\x99s identity that were issued a Federal identity credential as required by NIST 201 for 9 out of 20 sampled\nemployees.\n** According to OMB\xe2\x80\x99s HSPD-12 implementation guidance, agencies are not required to complete implementation of all\ncard capabilities on October 27, 2006. Thus, agencies are not expected to have their entire infrastructure installed to\nenable use of the cards at all facilities and systems. However, agencies are expected to make use of the cards using a\nrisk-based approach.\n*** USAID did not develop an implementation plan that included estimated due dates for meeting these requirements.\n\n\n\n\nImplementation Plan Is Needed for HSPD-12\n Summary: USAID did not fully comply with PIV-I requirements because USAID\n personnel could not identify or retrieve all of the identity proofing documents from the\n Department of State\xe2\x80\x99s (DoS) Identity Management System. USAID also did not meet the\n OMB PIV-II target date to issue new Federal identity credentials to current employees\n and contractors in 2007, nor will it meet OMB\xe2\x80\x99s 2008 target date based on prior rates of\n issuance. USAID did not meet the above-noted requirements in OMB Memorandum\n M-05-24 and supporting documents, in part because it did not (1) develop an\n implementation plan in support of HSPD-12 or (2) establish HSPD-12 as a higher-\n priority IT investment. As a result, USAID project managers who are responsible for\n issuing and meeting OMB Federal identity credential deadlines and the requirement to\n use the Federal identity credential to access Federal facilities and information systems\n had few or no details as to how they could best implement these requirements in\n concert with DoS. This led to project managers having to make ad hoc decisions\n regarding funding, resources, and technical approaches that may not have been realistic\n and ultimately may have delayed or prevented the Agency\xe2\x80\x99s implementation of this\n Governmentwide mandate. Therefore, USAID may not fully realize the critically needed\n security benefits of PIV, and more important, interoperability among Federal agency PIV\n card programs (one of the major goals of HSPD-12) may not be achieved.\n\nAs shown in table 2, USAID did not fully comply with PIV-I requirements for credentials\nissued under PIV-II. OMB memorandum M-05-24 directs that PIV-I identity proofing and\nregistration processes must be consistent with NIST guidance and applied to all new\nidentity credentials. This includes the PIV-I requirement to identify or retrieve the two\nsource documents presented for identity proofing of employees and contractors. The two\ndocuments must come from the list of acceptable documents included in Form I-9, OMB\nNo. 1115-0136, Employment Eligibility Verification.\n\nNeither Department of State nor USAID could identify or retrieve from the identity\nmanagement system used by USAID and maintained by the Department of State the two\nidentity source documents used for 9 out of 20 sampled employees. Nor did USAID have\nany other records to provide this information to the OIG when requested. Consequently,\nUSAID could not demonstrate its compliance with the PIV-I requirement. When USAID\xe2\x80\x99s\nproject manager was made aware of this problem, the project manager promptly\ncommunicated it to USAID\xe2\x80\x99s Office of Security and Department of State for resolution.\nBecause USAID is taking steps to address this issue, the Office of Inspector General is not\nmaking a formal recommendation to address this problem at this time.\n\n\n 7\n\x0cUSAID also did not meet OMB\xe2\x80\x99s 2007 PIV-II target date to issue and use identity\ncredentials for employees and contractors with fewer than 15 years of service, and will not\nmeet OMB\xe2\x80\x99s 2008 target date to issue new identity credentials to current employees and\ncontractors with more than 15 years, based on prior rates of issuance. USAID began\nissuing PIV-II credentials in October 2006. From October 2006 through May 2007, USAID\nissued 497 credentials to its approximately 3,100 employees and contractors at\nheadquarters. This equates to roughly 60 credentials per month. At this rate of issuance,\nUSAID would need more than 3 years to issue credentials for the approximately 2,600\nremaining employees and contractors at headquarters. Consequently, USAID did not meet\nOMB\xe2\x80\x99s October 2007 and based on these rates of issuance will not meet OMB\xe2\x80\x99s 2008\ntarget dates. USAID\xe2\x80\x99s HSPD-12 project team members indicated that resource constraints\nlimited the number of credentials that could be issued.\n\nFurther, USAID officials from the Office of the CIO and the SEC acknowledged that they\ncould not meet OMB\xe2\x80\x99s PIV-II target dates of October 2007 and 2008 for issuance and to\nstart using the credentials\xe2\x80\x99 electronic features to authenticate cardholder identities to\naccess facilities and information systems.\n\nMore important, USAID will not meet the PIV-II requirements because it did not develop an\nimplementation plan. An implementation plan would serve as the Agency\xe2\x80\x99s road map to\nprovide action-oriented direction in defining key milestones, processes, and specifications\nto implement the logical and physical access requirements of HSPD-12. Additionally, it\nwould provide a concept of operation and identify the resources required to support the\nimplementation of HSPD-12\xe2\x80\x99s PIV-II requirements. According to OMB\xe2\x80\x99s instructions for\nimplementing HSPD-12, agencies were required to submit their implementation plans to\nOMB by June 27, 2005.\n\nAlthough USAID did not prepare an implementation plan for OMB that described a\ncomprehensive strategy, the HSPD-12 project team has tried to develop an approach to\nimplement PIV-II and has modified its approach several times since the beginning of the\nHSPD-12 initiative.\n\nThe Agency\xe2\x80\x99s initial approach started with the development of a business case 5 in the fall\nof 2005 for funding in the FY 2007 budget cycle. The project team estimated that about\n$17 million would be required to implement HSPD-12 at headquarters and at 60 overseas\nmissions worldwide. The business case\xe2\x80\x99s acquisition plans presumed that USAID would\npurchase its own Identity Management System (IDMS). In this approach, the acquisition\nplans assumed no DoS participation. USAID officials indicated that this initial approach\nwas changed due to funding limitations in the spring of 2006, when the Agency sought to\nenter into an interagency service agreement with DoS. Under this agreement, DoS would\nbe responsible for producing and issuing identity credentials for USAID employees and\ncontractors. This draft agreement was never formalized and subsequently changed.\n\nNonetheless, USAID entered into a signed agreement to use the DoS IDMS. USAID would\nobtain PIV-II cards from DoS and issue the PIV-II cards as Federal identity credentials to\nUSAID headquarters\xe2\x80\x99 employees and contractors. However, the project team officials\nindicated that DoS would not allow USAID\xe2\x80\x99s facility and IT systems to be connected to its\n\n5\n A business case is a formal document used to evaluate and justify IT project investment requests\nfrom either the capital investment or operating expense funds.\n\n\n 8\n\x0cIDMS. Therefore, the agreement with DoS alone will not address the technical\nrequirements and functions to access facilities and IT systems that USAID must\nincorporate to use the Federal identity credential.\n\nUnder the current approach, three functional components operate independently:\n(1) IDMS, the DoS system that USAID is using to issue and renew PIV identity credentials;\n(2) a system that assigns access privileges for employees and contractors to access\nUSAID\xe2\x80\x99s facilities; and (3) systems that authenticate access privileges for employees and\ncontractors to specific information systems. Even though OMB\xe2\x80\x99s implementation guidance\ndirects agencies to phase in the use of the Federal identity credential capabilities at\nfacilities and systems, USAID\xe2\x80\x99s project team has not addressed how the use of the\nFederal identity credentials will be phased in to integrate these functional components into\na single credential. Specifically, USAID did not develop an implementation plan that\naddressed the integration of these functional components.\n\nAdditionally, USAID\xe2\x80\x99s HSPD-12 project team members indicated that USAID will not meet\nthe PIV-II requirements because of funding constraints. Project managers for HSPD-12\nindicated that the Agency did not restructure its major IT investments to provide additional\nresources to support this Governmentwide initiative because of other competing Agency\nprojects that needed funding.\n\nDespite the lack of total funding for HSPD-12, as of April 2007 the project team had\nobtained $251,000 from the offices of the Chief Information Officer and Office of Security\nto support the HSPD-12 project, which included the service agreement with DoS,\ncontractor support, and equipment purchases used to enroll applicants and issue\ncredentials. Subsequent to the OIG\xe2\x80\x99s fieldwork, the Agency provided additional funds for\nfiscal years 2008 and 2009. Therefore, the Office of Inspector General is not making a\nrecommendation regarding the project\xe2\x80\x99s funding.\n\nDuring the audit, three external factors were also identified as reasons USAID had not met\nthe PIV-II requirements. First, USAID\xe2\x80\x99s employees and contractors working in overseas\nposts rely on DoS regional security officers for identity credentials; however, PIV-II identity\ncredentials cannot be issued until DoS deploys its new credentials to its overseas posts.\nAs of May 2007, DoS estimated that deployment of its new credentials will not be\ncompleted until 2011 or later\xe2\x80\x94at a minimum, more than 3 years past OMB\xe2\x80\x99s schedule.\nSecond, NIST continued to issue various technical requirements after OMB issued its\nimplementing instructions to executive agencies. For example, several months before and\nafter agencies were to start compliance with PIV-II in October 2006, key publications\nneeded to implement the technical requirement provisions of FIPS 201 were revised and\nreissued. Thus, agencies did not have sufficient time to test and acquire compliant\nproducts within OMB required timeframes. Figure 1 on the next page illustrates when\nNIST issued FIPS 201 and subsequent technical publications and guidance in relation to\nthe signing of HSPD-12 and OMB\xe2\x80\x99s instructions to agencies.\n\n\n\n\n 9\n\x0cFigure 1. Time Line of FIPS 201 and Related Activities (as of August 2007)\n OMB implementation guidance\n 800-79 Certification and Accreditation\n NIST designated labs to conduct\n of PIV Issuing Organizations\n PIV conformance testing 800-96 PIV Card/Reader\n Agencies submitted\n Begin PIV II compliance\n Implementation plans to OMB\n 800-85B PIV Data Mode\n 800-76-1 Biometric Data\n 800-78 Cryptographic Algorithms\n and Key Sizes for PIV 800-85A PIV Application 800-87 Codes for\n and Middleware Identification\n 800-73 issued guidance\n 800-104\n On Interfaces for PIV 800-73-1 Interface\n PIV Topography\n for PIV\n FIPS 201-1 issued\n 800-78-1\n FIPS 201 issued Cryptographic\n Begin PIV I Key Sizes\n HSPD-12 signed compliance for PIV\n\n J FM AM J J A S O N D J FM AM J J A S O N D J FM AM J J A S O N D J FM AM J J A S O N D\n 2004 2005 2006 2007\n\n\nThird, OMB initially announced to agencies that no additional funding would be provided to\nimplement the requirements of HSPD-12. OMB expected agencies to fund HSPD-12\nthrough existing funds. OMB anticipated that agencies would restructure their major\ninvestments to pay for HSPD-12. Moreover, because all Federal agencies have existing\nbackground investigation, access control, and identification credential activities, OMB\nanticipated that these activities, and the funding used to support them, would be used to\nsupport HSPD-12 activities.\n\nAlthough these factors are external to USAID and important, the Office of Inspector\nGeneral is not making any recommendations to address them in this report.\n\n\nCONCLUSION\n\nAlthough some challenges and dependencies remain outside USAID\xe2\x80\x99s control and prevent\nit from addressing and obtaining full compliance with PIV-I and PIV-II requirements within\nOMB\xe2\x80\x99s stipulated completion target dates, USAID can make improvements, such as\ndeveloping a plan, to advance the implementation of HSPD-12. Without an implementation\nplan, project managers who are responsible for implementing the physical and logical\naccess requirements mandated in PIV-II are left with few or no details about how they can\nbest implement these requirements in concert with the DoS IDMS system. This situation\nleads project managers to make ad hoc decisions regarding funding, resources, and\ntechnical approaches that may not be realistic and may delay or prevent the Agency\xe2\x80\x99s\nimplementation of this Governmentwide mandate. Furthermore, the critical security\nbenefits of PIV may not be fully realized, and more important, interoperability among\nFederal agency PIV card programs (one of the major goals of HSPD-12) may not be\nachieved. Consequently, USAID needs to define required resources and plan how it will\nimplement PIV-II, including issuance of credentials to support physical and logical access\nto USAID facilities and systems.\n\nTherefore, the Office of Inspector General is making one recommendation to assist the\nAgency\xe2\x80\x99s implementation of HSPD-12:\n\n\n\n 10\n\x0cRecommendation No. 1: We recommend that USAID\xe2\x80\x99s Chief Information\nOfficer develop and document an implementation plan for Personal Identity\nVerification Part II, and submit the plan to the Office of Management and\nBudget.\n\n\n\n\n 11\n\x0cEVALUATION OF\nMANAGEMENT COMMENTS\nIn its response to the draft report, USAID agreed with the audit finding and the one\nrecommendation made in the report. The Agency outlined its plans to address the audit\nrecommendation and provided corrective action plans and target completion dates. As a\nresult, management decisions have been reached for recommendation no. 1.\n\nUSAID provided additional comments that were considered when finalizing this audit\nreport. To clarify the information in tables 1 and 2 from the draft report, item numbers 2\nand 4 were added (i.e., \xe2\x80\x9cIdentify and maintain the two types of documents\xe2\x80\xa6\xe2\x80\x9d and \xe2\x80\x9cStart\nissuance of identity credentials\xe2\x80\x9d). In addition, the recommendation was modified by\ndeleting the following second sentence: \xe2\x80\x9cIn developing this plan, consideration should be\ngiven to explore other options to implement Homeland Security Presidential Directive\n12.\xe2\x80\x9d\n\nUSAID\xe2\x80\x99s consolidated comments, which incorporate comments from the Office of the\nChief Information Officer and the Office of Security, are included in appendix II.\n\n\n\n\n 12\n\x0c APPENDIX I\n\n\n\nSCOPE AND METHODOLOGY\nScope\nThis audit was performed in accordance with generally accepted Government auditing\nstandards. The Office of Inspector General, Information Technology and Special Audits\nDivision performed this audit to determine whether USAID addressed selected\nrequirements of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and the National Institute of\nStandards and Technology (NIST) in implementing Homeland Security Presidential\nDirective 12 (HSPD-12) for Personal Identity Verification (PIV) of Federal employees and\ncontractors.\n\nAudit fieldwork was conducted between January and August 2007, primarily at USAID\nheadquarters in Washington, DC, and in Northern Virginia. The audit team met with\nDepartment of State (DoS) Diplomatic Security personnel and visited their data processing\nfacility in Northern Virginia, which supports the IDMS system that USAID uses.\n\nIn support of the audit objective, the audit team evaluated internal controls related to the\nimplementation of PIV-I and PIV-II requirements. The scope of work focused on USAID\nheadquarters employees and contractors, and covered the following areas:\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Personal identity proofing processes\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Memorandum of understanding between DoS and USAID for access and\n use of IDMS assets\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Federal identity credential issuance processes\n \xe2\x80\xa2 HSPD-12 implementation planning\n \xe2\x80\xa2 HSPD-12 information technology project prioritization and budgeting\n\nThe audit team evaluated whether the HSPD-12 project team had documented plans to\nphase in the use of Federal identity credentials to access Federal facilities and information\nsystems to meet selected OMB and NIST requirements and deadlines for selected HSPD-\n12 requirements (see methodology section below).\n\nAs of April 2007, USAID\xe2\x80\x99s HSPD-12 project team had obligated nearly $251,000 for the\npurchase of equipment and contractor support to implement HSPD-12.\n\nMethodology\nAs the framework for designing this audit, the audit team identified requirements primarily\nfrom HSPD-12, OMB\xe2\x80\x99s HSPD-12 implementation instructions issued in August 2005, 6 and\nNIST\xe2\x80\x99s Federal Information Processing Standards (FIPS) 201. From these documents, the\nteam judgmentally selected nine key requirements as a basis for evaluating USAID\xe2\x80\x99s\nprogress for implementing HSPD-12. They included four requirements within PIV-I and\nfive requirements within PIV-II. PIV-I selected requirements were (1) initiate national\nagency check with inquiry (NACI) investigations before credential issuance or alternate\ncheck, (2) maintain and identify the two types of documents used for employee and\n\n6\n OMB Memorandum, M-05-24.\n\n\n 13\n\x0ccontractor identity proofing, (3) complete background investigations for all current\nemployees and contractors with fewer than 15 years of service, and (4) complete\nbackground investigations for current employees and contractors with more than 15 years\nof service. PIV-II selected requirements were (1) issue identity credentials, (2) issue and\nrequire the use of identity credentials for all current employees and contractors with fewer\nthan 15 years of service, (3) issue and require the use of identity credentials for all current\nemployees and contractors with more than 15 years of service, (4) use the credentials\xe2\x80\x99\nelectronic security features to authenticate identities to gain physical access to facilities,\nand (5) use the credentials\xe2\x80\x99 electronic security features to authenticate identities to gain\nelectronic access to information systems.\n\nThe audit team evaluated whether each of the nine selected requirements was met on the\nbasis of HSPD-12, OMB, and NIST completion target dates and requirements.\nAdditionally, for requirements for which the completion target dates have not yet passed\nand which are likely not to be met, the team evaluated whether documentation (such as\nimplementation plans and rates of credential issuance) existed to determine whether\nrequirements could be completed by the target date. In reviewing the rates of credential\nissuance, the team assumed a constant rate based on historic rates of issuance and\nprojected that rate to future periods to determine whether the target could be met.\n\nThe audit team reviewed a prior Government Accountability Office (GAO) audit report,\nAgencies Face Challenges in Implementing New Federal Employee Identification\nStandard (dated February 2006); the Federal Identity Credentialing Committee\xe2\x80\x99s Federal\nIdentity Management Handbook; and applicable USAID documentation relating to\nplanning, budgeting, and implementation of HSPD-12 requirements. The team met with\nUSAID project team members from the Office of the Chief Information Officer and the\nOffice of Security. The team conducted a walk-through of the DoS facility housing the\nIdentity Management System servers and met with DoS staff involved with server\nadministration as well as DoS contacts used by USAID for HSPD-12 support efforts.\n\nTo test whether PIV-I and PIV-II procedure requirements were implemented to meet\nOMB\xe2\x80\x99s and NIST\xe2\x80\x99s FIPS 201 requirements, the audit team judgmentally selected a total of\n20 direct hire and contractor staff working at headquarters 7 who were issued new identity\ncredentials between October 27, 2006, and January 24, 2007. The team tested four\nattributes to determine whether the following steps were completed:\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Two forms of ID were on file.\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Background investigations were completed (including adjudication).\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Federal Bureau of Investigation fingerprint check was completed and one\n fingerprint card was on file.\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Signed USAID form 500-1 (authorizing logical and physical access) was on\n file.\n\nIn addition, the audit team tested management control processes associated with the\nreceipt, issuance, and storage of PIV-II cards. Owing to the importance of the vetting\nprocess, our noncompliance materiality threshold was set to one.\n\n\n7\n Out of the 30 judgmentally selected direct hires and contractors, 20 were issued PIV cards and 10\nwere issued Facility Access Cards.\n\n\n\n 14\n\x0c APPENDIX II\n\n\n\nMANAGEMENT\nCOMMENTS\n\n\nDecember 10, 2007\n\n\nMEMORANDUM\n\nTO: IG/A/ITSA, Melinda G. Dempsey\n\nFROM: M/CIO, David Anewalt /s/\n\nSUBJECT: Audit of USAID\xe2\x80\x99s Implementation of Selected Homeland Security Presidential\nDirective 12 (HSPD-12) Requirements for Personal Identity Verification of Federal\nEmployees and Contractors (Audit Report No. A-000-08-00X-P)\n\nThank you for the opportunity to respond to the draft audit report. This memorandum\ncontains the management decision for the draft Audit of USAID\xe2\x80\x99s Implementation of\nSelected Homeland Security Presidential Directive 12 (HSPD-12) Requirements for\nPersonal Identity Verification of Federal Employees and Contractors (Audit Report No. A-\n000-08-00X-P).\n\nThe following are our management decision and corrective actions regarding the proposed\naudit recommendation:\n\nRecommendation No. 1: We recommend that USAID\xe2\x80\x99s Chief Information Officer\ndevelop and document an implementation plan for Personal Identity Verification Part II,\nand submit the plan to the Office of Management and Budget. In developing this plan,\nconsideration should be given to explore other options to implement Homeland Security\nPresidential Directive-12.\n\nThe Offices of the CIO and Security agree with the recommendation. We have prepared a\ndraft joint CIO and SEC HSPD-12 implementation plan and have summarized it below.\nWe plan to finalize this plan by June 2008. The successful implementation of HSPD-12 is\ndependent upon consistent and adequate funding, resource availability and top\nmanagement support. The HSPD Implementation plan will be flexible in order to respond\nto changing requirements, standards, guidelines and technology. The CIO will ensure that\nthe HSPD-12 requirements are met and will report our progress periodically to the OIG.\nWe plan to implement HSPD-12 requirements in four phases:\n\n\n\n\n 15\n\x0cPhase I (CIO)\n\nPhase I is Personal Identity Verification (PIV) I and II compliance with\nbackground checks, enrollment (sponsorship, two forms of identification,\ndigital photograph, biometrics) and issuance of a compliant Federal ID\ncard. The Agency is almost 100% compliant with the objectives for\nbackground checks, enrollment and card issuance for new employees.\nThe target completion date for enrollment and card issuance for all current\nemployees and contractors working in USAID/Washington is June 2009.\n\nTarget completion date: June 2009 for USAID/Washington; June 2012 for\noverseas employees (dependent on DoS implementation)\n\nPhase II (SEC)\n\nPhase II consists of physical security upgrades necessary to enable\nphysical access to USAID/Washington using the new PIV card. The first\npart will consist of an upgrade to software of the current access control\nsystem and replacement card readers in order to use the PIV card for basic\nphysical access. The second part is to design and engineer a replacement\nof the current aging access control system. We will initiate planning for this\nproject when: 1) the Agency has made a final decision on whether to use\nthe DoS IDMS, purchase an independent IDMS which replicates data to\nDoS, or seek another alternative; 2) when funding becomes available for\nplanning/design, engineering, procurement and implementation of this\nproject and 3) the appropriate MOUs and/or agreements are reached with\nDoS.\n\nTarget completion date: December 2010 - USAID/W; Overseas (not\napplicable)\n\nPhase III (may run concurrently with Phase IV) (CIO)\n\nPhase III will include desktop upgrades to use new PIV card with readers,\nbiometric data and encryption hardware to enable employees to use the\nnew credential for authentication and authorization (includes Public Key\nInfrastructure).\n\nTarget completion date: December 2013 - USAID/W; and December 2017\nUSAID Overseas\n\nPhase IV (CIO)\n\nPhase IV will address the feasibility of integrating the IDMS with related\nindependent systems (e.g., access control system for physical access,\nsystems used for logical access, HR system, personnel security databases,\netc.). The goal of this phase is to ensure that the IDMS (or other\ndesignated system) is the system of authority for data.\n\n\n\n\n 16\n\x0c Target completion date-: December 2013 USAID/W and December 2017\n USAID Overseas\n\nSince the field work was completed, USAID has issued 1036 credentials. We now have\ntwo operational enrollment and issuance stations which has doubled our capacity to\nissue credentials. For FY08, the HSPD-12 program is slated for $1.80 million in capital\ninvestment funds. We requested $2.0 million in funding for the HSPD-12 program for\nFY2009. We have initiated a weekly USAID HSPD-12 Implementation group to monitor\nprogress and ensure coordination with Agency stakeholders. We have partnered with\nDoS (with OMB concurrence) and believe the partnership has already paid dividends by\nallowing USAID to:\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Accelerate implementation timeframes;\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Reduce implementation costs for HSPD-12 requirements;\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Realize efficiencies in eliminating redundant infrastructure and;\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Enhance Interoperability \xe2\x80\x93 Much easier to ensure interoperability across a\n limited number of systems.\n\nIf you have questions or need additional information, please contract Shirl Hendley, M/CIO\nat 202-712-4704 or Lorrie Meehan, (SEC), 202-712-5338.\n\n\n\n\n 17\n\x0cU.S. Agency for International Development\n Office of Inspector General\n 1300 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW\n Washington, DC 20523\n Tel: (202) 712-1150\n Fax: (202) 216-3047\n www.usaid.gov/oig\n\x0c'


type: legislation

jurisdiction: EU

text:
 EUROPSKA KOMISIJA
 Bruxelles, 29.4.2022.
 COM(2022) 202 final
 2022/0144(NLE)
 Prijedlog
 ODLUKE VIJEĆA
 o stajalištu koje u ime Europske unije treba zauzeti u Odboru za nadzor države luke Pariškog memoranduma o suglasnosti o nadzoru države luke u pogledu članstva Ruske Federacije u organizaciji
 OBRAZLOŽENJE
 1.Kontekst prijedloga
 Sustav EU-a za nadzor države luke utvrđen je Direktivom 2009/16/EZ (kako je izmijenjena). Nadzor države luke u Uniji temelji se na strukturi Pariškog memoranduma o suglasnosti o nadzoru države luke (Pariški memorandum), koji postoji od 1982. U Direktivu 2009/16/EZ (kako je izmijenjena) uključeni su svi postupci i alati Pariškog memoranduma. Sve pomorske države članice EU-a te Island, Kanada, Norveška, Ruska Federacija i Ujedinjena Kraljevina sudjeluju u Memorandumu o suglasnosti. Europska unija nije članica Pariškog memoranduma.
 Kako bi u Uniji funkcionirao nadzor države luke, svake se godine u okviru Pariškog memoranduma mora donijeti određeni broj odluka. Te odluke donose se konsenzusom na godišnjim sjednicama Odbora za nadzor države luke, koji se sastaje u svibnju svake godine. Na temelju Direktive 2009/16/EZ odluke koje donese odgovarajuće nadležno tijelo Pariškog memoranduma postaju obvezujuće za države članice EU-a.
 U skladu s člankom 218. stavkom 9. Ugovora o funkcioniranju Europske unije, stajalište koje treba zauzeti u ime Unije u međunarodnim organizacijama kao što je Pariški memorandum, kada su pozvane donositi akte koji proizvode pravne učinke, mora se donijeti odlukom Vijeća na prijedlog Komisije.
 Nakon invazije Ruske Federacije na Ukrajinu, tajništvo Pariškog memoranduma primilo je 14. ožujka 2022. dopis ukrajinskog ministra infrastrukture Oleksandra Kubrakova. U tom se dopisu od Pariškog memoranduma traži da se i. brodovi koji plove pod zastavom Ukrajine ne zadržavaju bez razloga nakon inspekcijskih pregleda u nadzoru države luke, ii. da se Ruska Federacija isključi iz Pariškog memoranduma i iii. da se ne priznaju svjedodžbe izdane u ime Pomorske uprave Ruske Federacije.
 U pogledu prvog zahtjeva da se ukrajinska plovila ne zadržavaju bez razloga, Pariški memorandum objavio je 2. ožujka 2022. okružnicu PSCircular 101 (Smjernice o repatrijaciji pomoraca zbog situacije u Ukrajini) kojom se rješava to pitanje. U toj se okružnici tijela članica obavješćuje da je u trenutačnim okolnostima nužna fleksibilnost, među ostalim u pogledu repatrijacije pomoraca, Konvencije o radu pomoraca iz 2006., svjedodžbi izdanih na temelju Međunarodne konvencije o standardima za obuku, izdavanje svjedodžbi i držanje straže pomoraca iz 1978. te zdravstvenih svjedodžbi. Pariški memorandum može prema potrebi razmotriti daljnje prilagodbe okružnice PSCircular 101.
 U vezi sa zahtjevom koji se odnosi na članstvo Ruske Federacije u Pariškom memorandumu, treba napomenuti da su Ruskoj Federaciji onemogućeni pristup i uporaba alata za ciljanu provjeru i baze podataka inspekcijskih pregleda THETIS iz članka 24. Direktive 2009/16/EZ. To znači da je sudjelovanje Ruske Federacije u radu Pariškog memoranduma već u velikoj mjeri ograničeno te bez pristupa toj bazi podataka Ruska Federacija u osnovi ne može ispuniti svoje obveze iz Pariškog memoranduma ili pridonijeti njegovu radu.
 Iako postoji konsenzus među državama članicama EU-a da bi trebalo poduzeti mjere protiv Ruske Federacije, ni Memorandum ni bilo koja od političkih uputa ne sadržavaju postupak ili mehanizam za izbacivanje članova iz Pariškog memoranduma. Osim isključenja, članice koje su izrazile mišljenje izrazile su sklonost suspenziji članstva do daljnjega. Iako bi neposredni pravni učinak bio sličan isključenju, radi se o manje trajnom rješenju. Suspenzijom bi se otvorila mogućnost za daljnje razmatranje potrebe za potpunim isključenjem iz Pariškog memoranduma i mogućnost njezina eventualnog poništenja u slučaju promjene okolnosti. Međutim, Memorandumom se ne predviđa ni suspenzija članstva.
 Predsjednik Pariškog memoranduma predložio je provedbu pisanog postupka Pariškog memoranduma kako bi se odluka o suspenziji članstva Ruske Federacije donijela prije godišnjeg sastanka Odbora za nadzor države luke (PSCC55) koji bi se trebao održati od 16. do 20. svibnja 2022. Time se nastoji izbjeći da to osjetljivo pitanje zasjeni sastanak PSCC55.
 2.Stajalište koje treba zauzeti u ime Unije
 S obzirom na ozbiljnost situacije, primjereno je: i. složiti se s pristupom utvrđenim u stavku 5. dokumenta PSCC55/11.1 da se brodovi koji plove pod zastavom Ukrajine nakon inspekcijskih pregleda u nadzoru države luke ne zadržavaju bez razloga, ii. u skladu s člankom 62. stavkom 3. Bečke konvencije o pravu međunarodnih ugovora suspendirati članstvo Ruske Federacije u Pariškom memorandumu kao odgovor na rusku ničim izazvanu i neopravdanu invaziju na Ukrajinu; iii. složiti se s pristupom utvrđenim u stavku 7. dokumenta PSCC55/11.1 u pogledu prestanka priznavanja statutarnih svjedodžbi koje je izdala Ruska Federacija.
 Priloženi tekst prijedlog je stajališta Unije na temelju članka 218. stavka 9. UFEU-a koji zatim mora donijeti Vijeće. U njemu se izražava slaganje sa smjerom djelovanja navedenim u dokumentu PSCC55/11.1 Pariškog memoranduma. Pojedinosti stajališta EU-a priložene su nacrtu odluke Vijeća u Prilogu 1.
 Direktivom 2009/16/EZ postupci, alati i aktivnosti u okviru Pariškog memoranduma učinkovito se uključuju u područje primjene prava Unije. Stoga je Pariški memorandum u isključivoj vanjskoj nadležnosti Unije na temelju posljednjeg dijela članka 3. stavka 2. UFEU-a.
 3.Pravna osnova
 Sljedeća odluka temelji se na Ugovoru o funkcioniranju Europske unije, a posebno članku 100. stavku 2. u vezi s člankom 218. stavkom 9., kojim se predviđa da Vijeće na prijedlog Komisije donosi odluku o utvrđivanju stajališta koja u ime Unije treba donijeti tijelo osnovano na temelju sporazuma kada je to tijelo pozvano donositi akte koji proizvode pravne učinke. To se primjenjuje na stajalište koje države članice trebaju donijeti djelujući zajednički u interesu Unije, u kontekstu Pariškog memoranduma.
 Direktiva 2009/16/EZ Europskog parlamenta i Vijeća od 23. travnja 2009. o nadzoru države luke (kako je izmijenjena) pravna je osnova kojom se utvrđuju načela kojih se države članice moraju pridržavati u okviru Odbora za nadzor države luke Pariškog memoranduma.
 Akti koje treba donijeti u kontekstu Pariškog memoranduma akti su koji proizvode pravne učinke. Predviđeni akti proizvode pravne učinke jer mogu presudno utjecati na sadržaj zakonodavstva EU-a, odnosno na Direktivu 2009/16/EZ. Razlog je tome to što se Direktivom 2009/16/EZ postupci, alati i aktivnosti u okviru Pariškog memoranduma učinkovito uključuju u područje primjene prava Unije. Osim toga, suspenzija članstva Ruske Federacije u Pariškom memorandumu organizacijske je prirode i utječe na način donošenja odluka u okviru Pariškog memoranduma.
 Predviđenim aktima ne dopunjuje se niti mijenja institucionalni okvir sporazuma. Stoga je postupovna pravna osnova za predloženu odluku članak 218. stavak 9. UFEU-a.
 2022/0144 (NLE)
 Prijedlog
 ODLUKE VIJEĆA
 o stajalištu koje u ime Europske unije treba zauzeti u Odboru za nadzor države luke Pariškog memoranduma o suglasnosti o nadzoru države luke u pogledu članstva Ruske Federacije u organizaciji
 VIJEĆE EUROPSKE UNIJE,
 uzimajući u obzir Ugovor o funkcioniranju Europske unije (UFEU), a posebno njegov članak 100. stavak 2. u vezi s člankom 218. stavkom 9.,
 uzimajući u obzir prijedlog Europske komisije,
 budući da:
 (1)Memorandum o suglasnosti o nadzoru države luke („Pariški memorandum”) potpisan je u Parizu 26. siječnja 1982. i stupio je na snagu 1. srpnja 1982. Pariški memorandum ima 27 pomorskih uprava članica (Belgija, Bugarska, Cipar, Danska, Estonija, Finska, Francuska, Grčka, Hrvatska, Island, Irska, Italija, Kanada, Latvija, Litva, Malta, Nizozemska, Norveška, Njemačka, Poljska, Portugal, Rumunjska, Ruska Federacija, Slovenija, Španjolska, Švedska i Ujedinjena Kraljevina). Unija nije članica Pariškog memoranduma.
 (2)Direktivom 2009/16/EZ Europskog parlamenta i Vijeća
 1
 utvrđen je pravni sustav Unije za nadzor države luke tako što je preoblikovano i ojačano prijašnje zakonodavstvo Unije koje je u tom području bilo na snazi od 1995. Pravni sustav Unije temelji se na Pariškom memorandumu.
 (3)U pogledu država članica Unije, Direktivom 2009/16/EZ postupci, alati i aktivnosti Pariškog memoranduma o suglasnosti uvode se u područje primjene prava Unije. Na temelju te direktive određene odluke koje donese odgovarajuće nadležno tijelo Pariškog memoranduma o suglasnosti obvezujuće su za države članice Unije.
 (4)Primjereno je utvrditi stajalište koje treba zauzeti u ime Unije u okviru Pariškog memoranduma jer će predviđeni akti moći presudno utjecati na sadržaj prava Unije, konkretno na Direktivu 2009/16/EZ. U skladu s člankom 218. stavkom 9. UFEU-a stajalište koje treba zauzeti u ime Unije u tijelu osnovanom na temelju sporazuma kada je to tijelo pozvano donositi akte koji proizvode pravne učinke mora se donijeti odlukom Vijeća na prijedlog Komisije.
 (5)U svojim zaključcima od 24. veljače 2022. Europsko vijeće najoštrije je osudilo ničim izazvanu i neopravdanu vojnu agresiju Ruske Federacije na Ukrajinu. Na sastanku 24. i 25. ožujka 2022. Europsko vijeće utvrdilo je da se ruskom ratnom agresijom na Ukrajinu grubo krši međunarodno pravo i ponovilo zahtjev da Rusija odmah zaustavi svoju vojnu agresiju na državnom području Ukrajine.
 (6)U kontekstu te invazije, tajništvo Pariškog memoranduma 14. ožujka 2022. primilo je dopis ukrajinskog ministra infrastrukture. U tom je dopisu od Pariškog memoranduma zatraženo da se nakon inspekcijskih pregleda u nadzoru države luke plovila koja plove pod zastavom Ukrajine ne zadržava bez razloga, da se Rusku Federaciju isključi iz Pariškog memoranduma i da se ne priznaju svjedodžbe izdane u ime Pomorske uprave Ruske Federacije.
 (7)U pogledu prvog zahtjeva da se ukrajinska plovila ne zadržavaju bez razloga, Pariški memorandum objavio je 2. ožujka 2022. okružnicu PSCircular 101 (Smjernice o repatrijaciji pomoraca zbog situacije u Ukrajini) kojom se rješava to pitanje. U toj se okružnici tijela članica obavješćuje da je u trenutačnim okolnostima nužna fleksibilnost, među ostalim u pogledu repatrijacije pomoraca, Konvencije o radu pomoraca iz 2006., svjedodžbi izdanih na temelju Međunarodne konvencije o standardima za obuku, izdavanje svjedodžbi i držanje straže pomoraca iz 1978. te zdravstvenih svjedodžbi. Pariški memorandum može prema potrebi razmotriti daljnje prilagodbe okružnice PSCircular 101. O tom stajalištu trebalo bi obavijestiti ukrajinska tijela.
 (8)U pogledu zahtjeva u vezi s članstvom Ruske Federacije treba napomenuti da su Ruskoj Federaciji onemogućeni pristup i uporaba alata za ciljanu provjeru i baze podataka inspekcijskih pregleda THETIS iz članka 24. Direktive 2009/16/EZ. To znači da je sudjelovanje Ruske Federacije u radu Pariškog memoranduma već u velikoj mjeri ograničeno te bez pristupa toj bazi podataka Ruska Federacija u osnovi ne može ispuniti svoje obveze iz Pariškog memoranduma.
 (9)Ni Memorandum ni bilo koja uputa o politici ne sadržavaju nikakav postupak ili mehanizam za izbacivanje članova iz Pariškog memoranduma. Osim isključenja iz Pariškog memoranduma, postoji mogućnost suspenzije članstva do daljnjega. Iako bi neposredni učinak bio sličan isključenju, radi se o manje trajnom rješenju. Međutim, Memorandum ne sadržava ni odredbe o suspenziji. Suspenzija bi omogućila daljnje razmatranje potrebe za potpunim isključenjem iz Pariškog memoranduma i može se poništiti ako se okolnosti promijene.
 (10)Kao globalni akter Europska unija u središtu je nastojanja UN-a
 2
 i drugih multilateralnih foruma i procesa da se Rusku Federaciju pozove na odgovornost za ničim izazvanu i neopravdanu invaziju na Ukrajinu, da se invazija zaustavi i da se osigura ponovno potpuno poštovanje suvereniteta, neovisnosti i teritorijalne cjelovitosti Ukrajine unutar njezinih međunarodno priznatih granica. Ničim izazvani i neopravdani čin agresije Rusije na Ukrajinu ozbiljno je kršenje članka 2. stavka 4. Povelje UN-a, kojim se zabranjuje prijetnja ili uporaba sile protiv teritorijalne cjelovitosti ili političke neovisnosti bilo koje države.
 (11)S obzirom na prethodno navedeno, s obzirom na ozbiljnost situacije i sve dok Ruska Federacija ne poštuje načela Povelje UN-a i svoje međunarodne obveze, primjereno je suspendirati članstvo Ruske Federacije u Pariškom memorandumu o suglasnosti u skladu s člankom 62. stavkom 3. Bečke konvencije o pravu međunarodnih ugovora, kao odgovor na rusku ničim izazvanu i neopravdanu invaziju na Ukrajinu.
 (12)U pogledu trećeg zahtjeva za nepriznavanjem svjedodžbi koje je izdala Pomorska uprava Ruske Federacije, te se svjedodžbe izdaju u skladu s međunarodnim konvencijama, a Ruska Federacija i dalje je članica Međunarodne pomorske organizacije te Pariški memorandum nema ovlasti za prestanak priznavanja tih svjedodžbi. O tom stajalištu trebalo bi obavijestiti ukrajinska tijela.
 (13)Unija nije ugovorna stranka Pariškog memoranduma o suglasnosti. Stajalište Unije trebaju, djelujući zajednički, izraziti države članice Unije koje su članice Pariškog memoranduma.
 (14)Stoga je potrebno ovlastiti države članice da djeluju u skladu sa stajalištem koje treba zauzeti u ime Unije.
 (15)Suradnja s ostalim trećim zemljama članicama Pariškog memoranduma (Island, Kanada, Norveška i Ujedinjena Kraljevina) u okviru Odbora za nadzor države luke ključna je za donošenje odluke o suspenziji članstva Ruske Federacije u Pariškom memorandumu.
 DONIJELO JE OVU ODLUKU:
 Članak 1.
 Stajalište koje treba zauzeti u ime Unije u kontekstu Pariškog memoranduma o suglasnosti o nadzoru države luke („Pariški memorandum”) u vezi s članstvom Ruske Federacije u Pariškom memorandumu utvrđeno je u Prilogu I. ovoj Odluci.
 Članak 2.
 Stajalište iz članka 1. izražavaju, djelujući zajednički, države članice Unije koje su članice Pariškog memoranduma.
 Članak 3.
 Ova je Odluka upućena državama članicama.
 Sastavljeno u Bruxellesu,
 Za Vijeće
 Predsjednik
 (1)
 Direktiva 2009/16/EZ Europskog parlamenta i Vijeća od 23. travnja 2009. o nadzoru države luke (SL L 131, 28.5.2009., str. 57.).
 (2)
 Vidjeti Rezoluciju ES-11/1 Opće skupštine Ujedinjenih naroda naslovljenu „Agresija protiv Ukrajine” donesenu na 11. izvanrednom zasjedanju Opće skupštine Ujedinjenih naroda od 2. ožujka 2022. i Rezoluciju 49/1 Vijeća Ujedinjenih naroda za ljudska prava od 7. ožujka 2022.
 ---documentbreak---
 EUROPSKA KOMISIJA
 Bruxelles, 29.4.2022.
 COM(2022) 202 final
 PRILOG
 Prijedlogu odluke Vijeća
 o stajalištu koje u ime Europske unije treba zauzeti u Odboru za nadzor države luke Pariškog memoranduma o suglasnosti o nadzoru države luke u pogledu članstva Ruske Federacije u organizaciji
 PRILOG
 U vezi s dokumentom PSCC55 PSCC55/11.1
 Stajalište Unije je kako slijedi:
 (1)slaže se s pristupom utvrđenim u stavku 5. dokumenta PSCC55/11.1 u pogledu zadržavanja plovila koja plove pod zastavom Ukrajine u lukama Pariškog memoranduma;
 (2)aktivno podupire prijedlog da se Rusku Federaciju suspendira iz Pariškog memoranduma zbog ničim izazvane i neopravdane vojne agresije na Ukrajinu;
 (3)nastoji postići konsenzus među članicama Pariškog memoranduma koje nisu Ruska Federacija o suspenziji članstva Ruske Federacije u Pariškom memorandumu do daljnjega;
 (4)slaže se s pristupom utvrđenim u stavku 7. dokumenta PSCC55/11.1 u pogledu prestanka priznavanja statutarnih svjedodžbi koje je izdala Ruska Federacija.


type: caselaw

text:
 26.5.2007
 BG
 Официален вестник на Европейския съюз
 C 117/24
 Иск, предявен на 14 март 2007 г. — Kliq (в несъстоятелност)/Комисия
 (Дело T-82/07)
 (2007/C 117/38)
 Език на производството: нидерландски
 Страни
 Ищец: г-н Jan Rudolf Maas и г-н Cornelis Van den Bergh в качеството си на синдици на дружеството Kliq B. V. (Apeldoorn, Нидерландия)[представители: G. van der Wal и T. Boesman, адвокати]
 Ответник: Комисия на Европейските общности
 Искания на ищеца
 —
 да се отмени Решение на Комисията от 19 юли 2006 г. по дело С-30/2005,
 —
 да се осъди Комисията да заплати съдебните разноски.
 Правни основания и основни доводи
 Ищецът оспорва Решение 2006/939/ЕО на Комисията от 19 юли 2006 г. относно помощта за KG Holding NV (1), за която Нидерландия е отправила уведомление.
 Предоставената помощ е помощ за преструктуриране, която Нидерландия е възнамерявала да предостави на KG Holding NV като превърне в собствен капитал на дружеството вече предоставения спасителен заем заедно с дължимите по него лихви. В оспорваното решение Комисията обявява помощта за преструктуриране за несъвместима с единния пазар.
 Комисията e решила също така, че Нидерландия следва да поиска от KG Holding NV и Kliq BV да върнат частта от помощта, предоставена като спасителен заем от страна на KG Holding NV на дъщерното му дружество Kliq BV и превърната в собствен капитал на дружеството, и че Нидерландия в качеството си на кредитор в производството по несъстоятелност следва да впише вземането си срещу KG Holding NV и/или Kliq Reïntegratie при синдика.
 В подкрепа на иска си ищецът посочва на първо място, че Комисията неправилно взела отношение по изплащането на дяловете на KG Holding в Kliq BV чрез прихващане на задължението за изплащане на дяловете с вземането на KG Holding от Kliq BV по договора за заем. Този въпрос не бил предмет на решението от 5 август 2005 г. (2), с което е започнато производството. Комисията е злоупотребила с правомощията си и е нарушила правото на защита и правото на ответника да бъде изслушан. На второ място Комисията неправилно е приела, че Kliq BV следва да се разглежда като бенефициер на държавна помощ в размер на 9,25 милиона EUR. При преценката си Комисията неправилно не е взела предвид обстоятелството, че Нидерландия по никакъв начин не може да носи отговорност за „превръщането на спасителния заем в собствен капитал“, до което се отнасят точки 43-46 от оспорваното решение, и поради това то не може да се разглежда като държавна помощ по смисъла на член 87, параграф 1 ЕО. Комисията е допуснала грешки при преценката на фактическите обстоятелства. Поради това оспорваното решение е неправилно от правна и/или фактическа страна, най-малкото е неразбираемо и/или с неправилни или непълни мотиви и е в нарушение на член 87 ЕО и/или член 253 ЕО.
 На трето място, Комисията неправилно е пропуснала да установи, че въпросната помощ би могла да засегне конкуренцията и търговията между държавите-членки или поне съображенията й по този въпрос са недостатъчно обосновани.
 На четвърто място, Комисията неправилно определила, че Нидерландия трябва да поиска KG Holding NV и Kliq BV да върнат твърдяната помощ в размер на 9,25 милиона EUR. Поради несъстоятелността на KG Holding NV, Kliq BV и Kliq Reïntegratie събирането на сумите по помощта е трайно невъзможно и във всички случаи е станало безсмислено, доколкото събирането чрез вписване в производството по несъстоятелност на посочените дружества не е необходимо и дори напълно излишно с оглед прекратяването на нарушаването на конкуренцията.
 На пето място, Комисията неправилно е решила, че сумата, която KG Holding NV и Kliq BV следва да възстановят, включва и лихвите от момента, към който специалните части от тази сума са предоставени на разположение на бенефициерите до момента на действителното възстановяване. Това изискване нарушава вътрешното право в областта на несъстоятелността.
 (1) ОВ L 366, стр. 40.
 (2) Държавна помощ No С-30/2005 (ех N-78/2004) — Помощ за преструктуриране за KG Holding NV — Уведомление за представяне на мнение [становище] съгласно член 88, параграф 2 от Договора за ЕО (ОВ 2005 г., C 280, стр. 2).


type: contracts

text:
 Avis juridique important
 |
 21977A0712(01)
 Overeenkomst tussen de Europese Economische Gemeenschap, de Zwitserse Bondsstaat en de Republiek Oostenrijk over de uitbreiding van het toepassingsgebied van de voorschriften inzake communautair douanevervoer
 Publicatieblad Nr. L 142 van 09/06/1977 blz. 0003 - 0004 Bijzondere uitgave in het Grieks: Hoofdstuk 11 Deel 9 blz. 0051 Bijzondere uitgave in het Spaans: Hoofdstuk 02 Deel 3 blz. 0193 Bijzondere uitgave in het Portugees: Hoofdstuk 02 Deel 3 blz. 0193
 OVEREENKOMST tussen de Europese Economische Gemeenschap, de Zwitserse Bondsstaat en de Republiek Oostenrijk over de uitbreiding van het toepassingsgebied van de voorschriften inzake communautair douanevervoer DE EUROPESE ECONOMISCHE GEMEENSCHAP, DE ZWITSERSE BONDSSTAAT, en DE REPUBLIEK OOSTENRIJK, WENSENDE de douaneformaliteiten te verlichten die bij het overschrijden van de grenzen dienen te worden vervuld voor goederenvervoer dat zowel over Zwitsers als over Oostenrijks grondgebied plaatsvindt, OVERWEGENDE dat het derhalve dienstig is het toepassingsgebied van de tussen de Europese Economische Gemeenschap enerzijds, en de Zwitserse Bondsstaat en de Republiek Oostenrijk anderzijds, gesloten Overeenkomsten inzake douanevervoer uit te breiden tot dit vervoer, ZIJN HET VOLGENDE OVEREENGEKOMEN: Artikel 1 In de zin van de onderhavige Overeenkomst wordt verstaan onder: a) "Overeenkomst inzake douanevervoer EEG-Zwitserland": de op 23 november 1972 ondertekende Overeenkomst tussen de Europese Economische Gemeenschap en de Zwitserse Bondsstaat over de toepassing van de voorschriften inzake communautair douanevervoer, met inbegrip van de wijzigingen die reeds werden of nog zullen worden aangebracht; b) "Overeenkomst inzake douanevervoer EEG-Oostenrijk": de op 30 november 1972 ondertekende Overeenkomst tussen de Europese Economische Gemeenschap en de Republiek Oostenrijk over de toepassing van de voorschriften inzake communautair douanevervoer, met inbegrip van de wijzigingen die reeds werden of nog zullen worden aangebracht; c) "Gemeenschap": de Europese Economische Gemeenschap; d) "Lid-Staat": een Lid-Staat van de Gemeenschap. Artikel 2 De toepassing van het bepaalde in de Overeenkomsten inzake douanevervoer EEG-Zwitserland en EEG-Oostenrijk wordt uitgebreid tot het goederenvervoer tussen twee in de Gemeenschap gelegen plaatsen, dat zowel over Zwitsers als over Oostenrijks grondgebied plaatsvindt. Deze voorschriften kunnen eveneens worden toegepast op elk ander goederenvervoer dat zowel over Zwitsers als over Oostenrijks grondgebied plaatsvindt. Artikel 3 1. Binnen de grenzen van artikel 2 van deze Overeenkomst en onverminderd het bepaalde in artikel 13, lid 1, van de Overeenkomsten inzake douanevervoer EEG-Zwitserland en EEG-Oostenrijk: - heeft de Zwitserse Bondsstaat dezelfde rechten en dezelfde verplichtingen als een Lid-Staat ten opzichte van de Republiek Oostenrijk, - heeft de Republiek Oostenrijk dezelfde rechten en dezelfde verplichtingen als een Lid-Staat ten opzichte van de Zwitserse Bondsstaat. 2. Voor de toepassing van deze Overeenkomst dienen de akten van borgtocht, opgesteld overeenkomstig het model dat is gehecht aan de Overeenkomsten, inzake douanevervoer EEG-Zwitserland en EEG-Oostenrijk, dienovereenkomstig te worden aangevuld. 3. In de betrekkingen tussen de Zwitserse Bondsstaat en de Republiek Oostenrijk zijn de volgende, niet in de Overeenkomst inzake douanevervoer EEG-Oostenrijk opgenomen bepalingen, eveneens van toepassing: a) Wanneer op grond van de leden 1 en 2 van artikel 4 van de Overeenkomsten inzake douanevervoer EEG-Zwitserland en EEG-Oostenrijk een strafrechtelijk onderzoek noodzakelijk blijkt, vindt zulks in ieder land plaats overeenkomstig de nationale wettelijke bepalingen betreffende de vervolging van strafbare feiten op douanegebied. b) In de gevallen als bedoeld in artikel 4 van de Overeenkomsten inzake douanevervoer EEG-Zwitserland en EEG-Oostenrijk verstrekt de douane-administratie van de Zwitserse Bondsstaat of die van de Republiek Oostenrijk, eventueel na een op verzoek van de douane-administratie van de Republiek Oostenrijk of die van de Zwitserse Bondsstaat ingesteld onderzoek, alle inlichtingen waarover zij beschikt en die betrekking hebben op de goederen zelf en op de personen, waarvan bewezen is of vermoed wordt dat zij de bepalingen inzake communautair douanevervoer hebben overtreden. Voor personen van wie niet bewezen is, noch vermoed wordt dat zij bepalingen inzake communautair douanevervoer hebben overtreden, kan de administratieve bijstand als bedoeld in genoemd artikel 4, gezien de nationale wettelijke bepalingen die de bescherming van een fabrieks-, handels- of beroepsgeheim waarborgen, echter worden beperkt tot de inlichtingen die geen afbreuk doen aan deze bescherming c) Voor goederen welke na opslag in een particulier entrepôt in de zin van de Zwitserse douanewet opnieuw vanuit Zwitserland worden verzonden, mogen geen documenten voor intern communautair douanevervoer worden afgegeven. Artikel 4 Deze Overeenkomst is van toepassing op het Vorstendom Liechtenstein zolang dit met de Zwitserse Bondsstaat door een douane-unieverdrag is verbonden. Artikel 5 Deze Overeenkomst treedt in werking op de eerste dag van de tweede maand volgende op die tijdens welke de Overeenkomstsluitende Partijen elkaar in kennis hebben gesteld van de voltooiing van de daartoe noodzakelijke procedures. Artikel 6 Elke Overeenkomstsluitende Partij kan deze Overeenkomst met een opzegtermijn van zes maanden opzeggen. Artikel 7 Deze Overeenkomst is opgesteld in drie exemplaren in de Deense, de Duitse, de Engelse, de Franse, de Italiaanse en de Nederlandse taal, zijnde elk van deze teksten gelijkelijk authentiek.


text:
 Avis juridique important
 |
 21995A0620(01)
 Acuerdo en forma de canje de notas entre la Comunidad Europea y Estados Unidos de América sobre contratación pública
 Diario Oficial n° L 134 de 20/06/1995 p. 0026 - 0036
 ACUERDO en forma de Canje de Notas, entre la Comunidad Europea y Estados Unidos de América sobre contratación públicaSir Leon BrittanMiembro de la ComisiónComisión de las Comunidades EuropeasRue de la Loi, 200B-1049 BruselasWashington, 30 de mayo de 1995Señor Comisario:Con referencia a las negociaciones celebradas entre representantes del Gobierno de Estados Unidos de América (en lo sucesivo, EE UU) y de la Comunidad Europea (en lo sucesivo, la CE) sobre la contratación pública, tengo el honor de confirmarle cuanto sigue.1) EE UU y la CE acuerdan modificar sus respectivos Apéndice I del Acuerdo sobre Contratación Pública firmado en Marraquech el 15 de abril de 1994, según se expone en los documentos adjuntos a la presente nota.2) EE UU dispensará a los proveedores comunitarios de bienes y servicios, incluidos los servicios de construcción, un trato no menos favorable que el dispensado a los proveedores de otros Estados por la Massachusetts Port Authority y los Estados de Virginia Occidental y Dakota del Norte, así como por el Estado de Illinois en lo que respecta a los contratos no contemplados en el Acuerdo sobre Contratación Pública, y a los proveedores de otras ciudades por las ciudades de Boston, Chicago, Dallas, Detroit, Indianápolis, Nashville y San Antonio.3) EE UU y la CE acuerdan cooperar y adoptar todas las medidas necesarias para aumentar sustancialmente la transparencia de los anuncios de licitación con el fin de que puedan reconocerse claramente los contratos a los que se aplica el Acuerdo sobre Contratación Pública.4) EE UU y la CE convienen prorrogar el Memorándum de Acuerdo entre EE UU y la CE sobre contratación pública, de 25 de mayo de 1993, hasta la fecha de entrada en vigor del Acuerdo sobre Contratación Pública firmado en Marraquech el 15 de abril de 1994.5) EE UU cumplirá sus obligaciones relativas a la Rural Electrification Administration, que figuran en el Anexo 3 del Apéndice I adjunto a la presente Nota, lo antes posible a partir de la entrada en vigor del presente acuerdo, y en cualquier caso antes de la entrada en vigor del acuerdo constitutivo de la Organización Mundial del Comercio.Le agradecería, señor Comisario, tuviera a bien confirmar que la presente nota y los documentos adjuntos expresan debidamente el acuerdo alcanzado entre nosotros.Le propongo que, si la CE está de acuerdo, la presente nota y los documentos adjuntos, así como su confirmación, constituyan conjuntamente un Acuerdo entre la CE y el Gobierno de EE UU, que entrará en vigor en la fecha de la presente nota, con excepción del punto 2, que se hará efectivo en la fecha de entrada en vigor del Acuerdo sobre Contratación Pública firmado en Marraquech el 15 de abril de 1994.Le ruego acepte, señor Comisario, el testimonio de mi mayor consideración.Atentamente,>REFERENCIA A UN FILM>Michael KANTORDocumentos adjuntos: Textos modificados de los Anexos 2 y 3 y de las Notas Generales del Apéndice I de Estados Unidos.Notas Generales modificadas y excepciones de las disposiciones del artículo III del Apéndice I de la CE.Excmo. Sr. Michael KantorRepresentante comercial de Estados UnidosOficina ejecutiva del PresidenteWashington DC 20506Estados UnidosBruselas, 30 de mayo de 1995Señor Embajador:Tengo el honor de acusar recibo de su Nota del día de hoy, redactada en los siguientes términos:« Señor Comisario:Con referencia a las negociaciones celebradas entre representantes del Gobierno de Estados Unidos de América (en lo sucesivo, EE UU) y de la Comunidad Europea (en lo sucesivo, la CE) sobre la contratación pública, tengo el honor de confirmarle cuanto sigue.1) EE UU y la CE acuerdan modificar sus respectivos Apéndice I del Acuerdo sobre Contratación Pública firmado en Marraquech el 15 de abril de 1994, según se expone en los documentos adjuntos a la presente nota.2) EE UU dispensará a los proveedores comunitarios de bienes y servicios, incluidos los servicios de construcción, un trato no menos favorable que el dispensado a los proveedores de otros Estados por la Massachusetts Port Authority y los Estados de Virginia Occidental y Dakota del Norte, así como por el Estado de Illinois en lo que respecta a los contratos no contemplados en el Acuerdo sobre Contratación Pública, y a los proveedores de otras ciudades por las ciudades de Boston, Chicago, Dallas, Detroit, Indianápolis, Nashville y San Antonio.3) EE UU y la CE acuerdan cooperar y adoptar todas las medidas necesarias para aumentar sustancialmente la transparencia de los anuncios de licitación con el fin de que puedan reconocerse claramente los contratos a los que se aplica el Acuerdo sobre Contratación Pública.4) EE UU y la CE convienen prorrogar el Memorándum de Acuerdo entre EE UU y la CE sobre contratación pública, de 25 de mayo de 1993, hasta la fecha de entrada en vigor del Acuerdo sobre Contratación Pública firmado en Marraquech el 15 de abril de 1994.5) EE UU cumplirá sus obligaciones relativas a la Rural Electrification Administration, que figuran en el Anexo 3 del Apéndice I adjunto a la presente Nota, lo antes posible a partir de la entrada en vigor del presente acuerdo, y en cualquier caso antes de la entrada en vigor del acuerdo constitutivo de la Organización Mundial del Comercio.Le agradecería, señor Comisario, tuviera a bien confirmar que la presente nota y los documentos adjuntos expresan debidamente el acuerdo alcanzado entre nosotros.Le propongo que, si la CE está de acuerdo, la presente nota y los documentos adjuntos, así como su confirmación, constituyan conjuntamente un Acuerdo entre la CE y el Gobierno de EE UU, que entrará en vigor en la fecha de la presente nota, con excepción del punto 2, que se hará efectivo en la fecha de entrada en vigor del Acuerdo sobre Contratación Pública firmado en Marraquech el 15 de abril de 1994.Le ruego acepte, señor Comisario, el testimonio de mi mayor consideración.Atentamente,Michael KANTORDocumentos adjuntos: Textos modificados de los Anexos 2 y 3 y de las Notas Generales del Apéndice I de los Estados Unidos.Notas Generales modificadas y excepciones de las disposiciones del Artículo III del Apéndice I de la CE. ».Tengo el honor de confirmarle que la CE acepta el acuerdo común expuesto en su Nota y en los documentos adjuntos y que su Nota, la presente confirmación y los documentos adjuntos constituyen un Acuerdo entre la CE y el Gobierno de EE UU.Le ruego acepte, señor Embajador, el testimonio de mi mayor consideración.Atentamente,>REFERENCIA A UN FILM>Leon BRITTANANEXO 2 ENTES PÚBLICOS SUBCENTRALES QUE CONTRATAN DE ACUERDO CON LAS DISPOSICIONES DEL PRESENTE ACUERDO Límites mínimos: 355 000 DEG para suministros y servicios5 millones de DEG para obrasLISTA DE ENTIDADES ArizonaExecutive branch agenciesArkansasExecutive branch agencies, including universities but excluding the Office of Fish and Game and construction servicesCaliforniaExecutive branch agenciesColoradoExecutive branch agenciesConnecticutDepartment of Administrative ServicesConnecticut Department of TransportationConnecticut Department of Public WorksConstituent Units of Higher EducationDelaware (*)Administrative Services (Central Procurement Agency)State UniversitiesState CollegesFlorida (*)Executive branch agenciesHawaiiDepartment of Accounting and General Services (with the exception of procurements of software developed in the state and construction)IdahoCentral Procurement Agency (including all colleges and universities subject to central purchasing oversight)Illinois (*)Department of Central Management ServicesIowa (*)Department of General ServicesDepartment of TransportationBoard of Regents' Institutions (universities)KansasExecutive branch agencies, excluding construction services, automobiles and aircraftKentuckyDivision of Purchases, Finance and Administration Cabinet, excluding construction projectsLouisianaExecutive branch agenciesMaine (*)Department of Administrative and Financial ServicesBureau of General Services (covering state government agencies and school construction)Maine Department of TransportationMaryland (*)Office of the TreasuryDepartment of the EnvironmentDepartment of General ServicesDepartment of Housing and Community DevelopmentDepartment of Human ResourcesDepartment of Licensing and RegulationDepartment of Natural ResourcesDepartment of Public Safety and Correctional ServicesDepartment of PersonnelDepartment of TransportationMassachusettsExecutive Office for Administration and FinanceExecutive Office of Communities and DevelopmentExecutive Office of Consumer AffairsExecutive Office of Economic AffairsExecutive Office of EducationExecutive Office of Elder AffairsExecutive Office of Environmental AffairsExecutive Office of Health and Human ServiceExecutive Office of LaborExecutive Office of Public SafetyExecutive Office of Transportation and ConstructionMichigan (*)Department of Management and BudgetMinnesotaExecutive branch agenciesMississippiDepartment of Finance and Administration (does not include services)MissouriOffice of AdministrationDivision of Purchasing and Materials ManagementMontanaExecutive branch agencies (only for services and construction)New York (*)State agenciesState university systemPublic authorities and public benefit corporations, with the exception of those entities with multi-state mandatesIn addition to the exceptions noted at the end of this Annex, transit cars, buses and related equipment are not coveredNebraskaCentral Procurement AgencyNew Hampshire (*)Central Procurement AgencyOklahoma (*)Office of Public Affairs and all state agencies and departments subject to the Oklahoma Central Purchasing Act, excluding construction servicesOregonDepartment of Administrative ServicesPennsylvania (*)Executive branch agencies, including:Governor's OfficeDepartment of the Auditor GeneralTreasury DepartmentDepartment of AgricultureDepartment of BankingPennsylvania Securities CommissionDepartment of HealthDepartment of TransportationInsurance DepartmentDepartment of AgingDepartment of CorrectionDepartment of Labor and IndustryDepartment of Military AffairsOffice of Attorney GeneralDepartment of General ServicesDepartment of EducationPublic Utility CommissionDepartment of RevenueDepartment of StatePennsylvania State PoliceDepartment of Public WelfareFish CommissionGame CommissionDepartment of CommerceBoard of Probation and ParoleLiquor Control BoardMilk Marketing BoardLieutenant Governor's OfficeDepartment of Community AffairsPennsylvania Historical and Museum CommissionPennsylvania Emergency Management AgencyState Civil Service CommissionPennsylvania Public Television NetworkDepartment of Environmental ResourcesState Tax Equalization BoardDepartment of Public WelfareState Employees' Retirement SystemPennsylvania Municipal Retirement BoardPublic School Employees' Retirement SystemPennsylvania Crime CommissionExecutive OfficesRhode IslandExecutive branch agencies, excluding boats, automobiles, buses and related equipmentSouth DakotaCentral Procuring Agency (including universities and penal institutions)In addition to the exceptions noted at the end of this Annex, procurements of beef are not coveredTennesseeExecutive branch agencies (excluding services and construction)TexasGeneral Services CommissionUtahExecutive branch agenciesVermontExecutive branch agenciesWashingtonWashington State executive branch agencies, including:General AdministrationDepartment of TransportationState UniversitiesIn addition to the exceptions noted at the end of this Annex, procurements of fuel, paper products, boats, ships and vessels are not coveredWisconsinExecutive branch agencies, including:Department of AdministrationState Correctional InstitutionsDepartment of DevelopmentEducational Communications BoardDepartment of Employment RelationsState Historical SocietyDepartment of Health and Social ServicesInsurance CommissionerDepartment of JusticeLottery BoardDepartment of Natural ResourcesAdministration for Public InstructionRacing BoardDepartment of RevenueState Fair Park BoardDepartment of TransportationState University SystemWyoming (*)Procurement Services DivisionWyoming Department of TransportationUniversity of WyomingNotas del Anexo 2 Además de las condiciones especificadas en las Notas Generales, se establecen las condiciones siguientes:1) En Estados señalados con un asterisco, en los que se mantienen las restricciones anteriores, el Acuerdo no se aplicará a los contratos de suministro de acero para la construcción (incluidos los requisitos relativos a los subcontratos), vehículos de motor y carbón.2) El Acuerdo no se aplicará a las preferencias o restricciones relativas a programas de desarrollo de zonas deprimidas ni a las empresas pertenecientes a minorías, mutilados de guerra y mujeres.3) Ninguna de las disposiciones del presente Anexo podrá interpretarse de manera que se impida a cualquier ente estatal aplicar restricciones que promuevan la calidad medioambiental general de ese Estado, siempre que esas restricciones no constituyan obstáculos encubiertos al comercio internacional.4) El Acuerdo no se aplicará a los contratos adjudicados por una entidad incluida en la lista en nombre de entidades no incluidas en un nivel administrativo distinto.5) El Acuerdo no se aplicará a las restricciones relativas a los fondos federales para proyectos de transporte público y carreteras.ANEXO 3 TODAS LAS DEMÁS ENTIDADES QUE CONTRATAN DE ACUERDO CON LAS DISPOSICIONES DEL PRESENTE ACUERDO Límite mínimo: 400 000 DEG para suministros y servicios (excepto los que se especifican a continuación)5 millones de DEG para obrasLISTA DE ENTIDADES The following entities at the SDR equivalent of $ 250 000 for supplies and services:Tennessee Valley AuthorityPower Marketing Administrations of the Department of Energy- Bonneville Power Administration- Western Area Power Administration- Southeastern Power Administration- Southwestern Power Administration- Alaska Power AdministrationSt Lawrence Seaway Development CorporationThe following entities at 400 000 SDRs for supplies and services:The Port Authority of New York and New Jersey with the following exceptions:- maintenance, repair and operating materials and supplies (e.g. hardware, tools, lamps/lighting, plumbing);- in exceptional cases, individual procurements may require certain regional production of goods if authorized by the Board of Directors;- procurements pursuant to multi-jurisdictional agreement (i.e. for contracts which have initially been awarded by other jurisdictions).The Port of Baltimore (subject to the conditions specified for the state of Maryland in Annex 2)The New York Power Authority (subject to the conditions specified for the state of New York in Annex 2)Rural Electrification Administration Financing:1. waiver of Buy American restrictions on financing for all power generation projects (restrictions on financing for telecommunication projects are excluded from the Agreement);2. application of Code-equivalent procurement procedures and national treatment to funded projects exceeding the thresholds specified above.Notas del Anexo 3 1. Por lo que respecta a estas entidades, el Acuerdo no se aplicará a las restricciones relativas a los fondos federales para proyectos aeroportuarios.2. Son de aplicación al presente anexo las condiciones especificadas en las Notas Generales.Notas Generales 1. No obstante lo anteriormente dispuesto, el presente Acuerdo no se aplicará a las tierras retiradas de la producción en beneficio de pequeñas empresas y empresas pertenecientes a minorías.2. Excepto disposición en contrario en el presente Apéndice, están excluidos de los contratos en EE UU los acuerdos no contractuales o cualquier forma de ayuda pública, incluidos los acuerdos de cooperación, las subvenciones, los préstamos, las participaciones accionariales, las garantías, los incentivos fiscales y el suministro estatal de bienes y servicios a personas u organismos públicos no especificados en los anexos estadounidenses del presente Acuerdo.3. La contratación no incluye la adquisición de servicios de agencia tributaria o depositarios, servicios de liquidación y gestión de entidades financieras reguladas y servicios de distribución y venta de deuda pública.4. Cuando contrato que vaya a ser adjudicado por una entidad no esté incluido en el presente Acuerdo, éste no se interpretará de manera que ampare cualquier bien o servicio integrante de ese contrato.5. Por lo que respecta a los bienes y servicios (incluidas las obras) de los países siguientes y a los proveedores de esos bienes y servicios, el presente Acuerdo no se aplicará a los contratos adjudicados por las entidades que figuran en las listas de los Anexos 2 y 3 ni a la exención especificada en el Anexo 3:CanadáSuizaNoruegaJapónEstados Unidos está dispuesto a modificar la presente nota en el momento en que pueda resolverse la inclusión de cualquiera de las Partes citadas en el ámbito de aplicación de estos Anexos.6. En cuanto a los servicios de construcción de la República de Corea y a los proveedores de estos servicios, el presente Acuerdo se aplicará únicamente a los contratos adjudicados por las entidades que figuran en las listas de los Anexos 2 y 3 cuyo importe sea superior a 15 millones de DEG.7. Por lo que se refiere a los bienes y servicios (incluidas las obras) de Japón y a los proveedores de esos bienes y servicios, el presente Acuerdo no se aplicará a los contratos adjudicados por el Ente Aeronáutico Nacional y por la Administración Espacial.8. Los servicios que se mencionan en el Anexo 4 sólo estarán cubiertos para una Parte cuando ésta los haya incluido en su Anexo 4.NOTAS GENERALES MODIFICADAS Y EXCEPCIONES DE LAS DISPOSICIONES DEL ARTÍCULO III DEL APÉNDICE I DE LA CE Notas generales y excepciones de las disposiciones del artículo III 1. La CE no aplicará el presente Acuerdo a:- los contratos adjudicados por las entidades que figuran en el Anexo 2 a los proveedores de bienes y servicios de Canadá;- los contratos adjudicados, excluidos los contratos de suministros, que figuran en el Anexo 2 a los proveedores de bienes y servicios de EE UU;- los contratos adjudicados por las entidades que figuran en el Anexo 3:a) (agua), a los proveedores de bienes y servicios de Canadá y de EE UU;b) (electricidad), a los proveedores de bienes y servicios de Canadá, Hong Kong y Japón;c) (aeropuertos), a los proveedores de bienes y servicios de Canadá, Corea y EE UU;d) (puertos), a los proveedores de bienes y servicios de Canadá;e) (transporte urbano), a los proveedores de bienes y servicios de Canadá, Israel, Japón, Corea y EE UU,hasta que no haya constatado que las Partes interesadas ofrecen a las empresas comunitarias un acceso efectivo y comparable a sus mercados respectivos;- a los proveedores de servicios de las Partes que no incluyen en su propio ámbito de aplicación los contratos de servicios de las entidades que figuran en los Anexos 1 a 3 ni la categoría de servicios correspondiente en los Anexos 4 y 5.2. Las disposiciones del artículo XX no se aplicarán a los proveedores de bienes y servicios de:- Israel, Japón, Corea y Suiza que impugnen la adjudicación de contratos por parte de las entidades que figuran en el apartado 2 del Anexo 2, hasta que la Comunidad no haya constatado que estos países han incluido todas las entidades subcentrales en el ámbito de aplicación del acuerdo;- Japón, Corea y EE UU que impugnen la adjudicación de contratos a proveedores de bienes o servicios de Partes no mencionadas y que sean empresas pequeñas o medianas según la legislación comunitaria pertinente, hasta que la CE no haya constatado que no se aplican medidas discriminatorias en favor de determinadas empresas nacionales pequeñas y pertenecientes a minorías;- Israel, Japón y Corea que impugnen la adjudicación de contratos por parte de entidades comunitarias cuyo importe sea inferior al límite mínimo aplicado a la misma categoría de contratos adjudicados por estas Partes.3. Hasta que la CE no haya constatado que las Partes interesadas dan acceso a los proveedores de bienes y servicios comunitarios a sus propios mercados, la CE no aplicará las disposiciones del presente Acuerdo a los proveedores de bienes y servicios de:- Canadá, por lo que respecta a los contratos de suministro correspondientes a las partidas FSC números 36, 70 y 74 (maquinaria industrial especial, equipos de proceso automático de datos de uso general, programas informáticos y suministros y equipos de apoyo, excluidas las configuraciones de equipos de proceso automático de datos de la partida 7010; máquinas de oficina, equipos registradores con soporte visible y equipos de proceso automático de datos);- Canadá, por lo que respecta a los contratos de suministro correspondientes a la partida FSG número 58 (equipos de comunicación, de protección y radiación coherente), y EE UU, por lo que respecta a los contratos de suministro de equipos de control aéreo;- Corea e Israel, por lo que respecta a los contratos de suministro adjudicados por las entidades que figuran en el apartado b) del Anexo 3 correspondientes a las partidas del SA números 8504, 8535, 8537 y 8544 (transformadores eléctricos, enchufes, interruptores y cables aislados), e Israel, por lo que respecta a los contratos de suministro correspondientes a las partidas del SA números 8501, 8536 y 902830;- EE UU, por lo que respecta a los contratos adjudicados por las entidades enumeradas en el apartado d) del Anexo para la prestación de servicios de dragado y en el sector de la construcción naval;- Canadá y EE UU, por lo que respecta a los suministros o prestaciones de servicios que formen parte de contratos que, aun habiendo sido adjudicados por entidades que figuran en el presente Acuerdo, no estén incluidos en su ámbito de aplicación.4. El Acuerdo no se aplicará a los contratos adjudicados en virtud de:- un acuerdo internacional y para la ejecución o gestión conjunta de un proyecto por parte de los Estados signatarios;- un acuerdo internacional relativo al estacionamiento de tropas;- los procedimientos particulares de una organización internacional.5. El Acuerdo no se aplicará a los contratos de suministro de productos agrícolas para programas de ayuda a la agricultura y programas de ayuda alimentaria.6. No se incluyen los contratos adjudicados por las entidades que figuran en los Anexos 1 y 2 en relación con actividades en los sectores del agua potable, la energía, los transportes o las telecomunicaciones.7. El presente Acuerdo no se aplicará a los contratos adjudicados por las entidades que figuran en el Anexo 3:- para la adquisición de agua y el suministro de energía o combustibles para la producción de energía;- para fines distintos de la realización de sus actividades, descritas en el presente Anexo, o para la realización de esas actividades en un país no miembro;- para la reventa o el arrendamiento a terceras Partes, siempre que la entidad contratante no disfrute del derecho especial o exclusivo de venta o arrendamiento del objeto de esos contratos y las demás entidades puedan venderlo o arrendarlo en las mismas condiciones que la entidad contratante.8. El presente Acuerdo no se aplicará a los contratos:- de adquisición o arrendamiento de tierras, edificios u otros bienes inmuebles o relativos a los derechos sobre éstos;- de adquisición, realización, producción o coproducción de materiales para programas adjudicados por sociedades de radiodifusión y a los contratos de tiempo de emisión.9. El presente Acuerdo no se aplicará a los contratos adjudicados por las entidades españolas que figuran en el Anexo 3 antes del 1 de enero de 1997, ni a los contratos adjudicados por las entidades griegas y portuguesas que figuran en el Anexo 3 antes del 1 de enero de 1998.