jurisdiction: EU

text:
 Avis juridique important
 |
 32000L0038
 Directive 2000/38/CE de la Commission du 5 juin 2000 modifiant le chapitre V bis (Pharmacovigilance) de la directive 75/319/CEE du Conseil concernant le rapprochement des dispositions législatives, réglementaires et administratives relatives aux spécialités pharmaceutiques (Texte présentant de l'intérêt pour l'EEE)
 Journal officiel n° L 139 du 10/06/2000 p. 0028 - 0030
 Directive 2000/38/CE de la Commissiondu 5 juin 2000modifiant le chapitre V bis (Pharmacovigilance) de la directive 75/319/CEE du Conseil concernant le rapprochement des dispositions législatives, réglementaires et administratives relatives aux spécialités pharmaceutiques(Texte présentant de l'intérêt pour l'EEE)LA COMMISSION DES COMMUNAUTÉS EUROPÉENNES,vu le traité instituant la Communauté européenne,vu la deuxième directive 75/319/CEE du Conseil du 20 mai 1975 concernant le rapprochement des dispositions législatives, réglementaires et administratives relatives aux spécialités pharmaceutiques(1), modifiée en dernier lieu par la directive 93/39/CEE(2), et notamment son article 29 decies;considérant ce qui suit:(1) Pour garantir la sécurité des médicaments après leur mise sur le marché, les systèmes de pharmacovigilance dans la Communauté doivent être adaptés constamment aux progrès scientifiques et techniques.(2) Il faut tenir compte des changements qui découlent de l'harmonisation internationale des définitions, de la terminologie et des progrès technologiques dans le domaine de la pharmacovigilance.(3) Le recours de plus en plus fréquent à la procédure de reconnaissance mutuelle instituée par la directive 75/319/CEE impose de modifier les procédures actuelles en matière de notification des effets indésirables présumés et de diffusion de l'information sur ces effets, de manière à assurer une meilleure coordination entre les États membres.(4) L'utilisation accrue des réseaux électroniques pour la transmission d'informations sur les effets indésirables des médicaments mis sur le marché dans la Communauté a pour but de permettre aux autorités compétentes d'assurer simultanément la mise en commun de ces informations.(5) Il est nécessaire de redéfinir les termes utilisés actuellement dans les systèmes de pharmacovigilance.(6) Il est de l'intérêt de la Communauté de veiller à la cohérence des systèmes de pharmacovigilance dont relèvent, d'une part, les médicaments ayant fait l'objet d'une procédure d'autorisation centralisée et, d'autre part, ceux qui ont fait l'objet d'une procédure d'un autre type.(7) Il faut, par ailleurs, que les titulaires d'autorisations de mise sur le marché assument, à l'égard des médicaments qu'ils mettent sur le marché, la responsabilité d'une pharmacovigilance continue et axée sur la prévention.(8) Les mesures qui font l'objet de la présente directive sont conformes à l'avis du comité permanent des médicaments à usage humain,A ARRÊTÉ LA PRÉSENTE DIRECTIVE:Article premierLe chapitre V bis (Pharmacovigilance) de la directive 75/319/CEE est modifié comme suit:1) À l'article 29 bis, le paragraphe 3 est remplacé par le texte suivant:"Ce système tient compte également de toute information sur les cas de mauvais usage et d'abus de médicaments pouvant avoir une incidence sur l'évaluation de leurs risques et bénéfices."2) L'article 29 ter est remplacé par le texte suivant:"Article 29 terAux fins de la présente directive, on entend par:a) 'effet indésirable': une réaction nocive et non voulue à un médicament, se produisant aux posologies normalement utilisées chez l'homme pour la prophylaxie, le diagnostic ou le traitement d'une maladie ou pour le rétablissement, la rectification ou la modification d'une fonction physiologique;b) 'effet indésirable grave': un effet indésirable qui entraîne la mort, met en danger la vie du patient, nécessite une hospitalisation ou la prolongation de l'hospitalisation, provoque un handicap ou une incapacité importants ou durables ou se traduit par une anomalie/malformation congénitale;c) 'effet indésirable inattendu': un effet indésirable dont la nature, la gravité ou l'effet ne concorde pas avec le résumé des caractéristiques du produit;d) 'rapports périodiques actualisés relatifs à la sécurité': les rapports périodiques contenant les informations enregistrées conformément à l'article 29 quinquies;e) 'études de sécurité post-autorisation': une étude pharmaco-épidémiologique ou un essai clinique effectués conformément aux dispositions de l'autorisation de mise sur le marché, dans le but d'identifier ou de quantifier un risque de sécurité relatif à un médicament autorisé;f) 'abus' de médicaments, un usage excessif intentionnel, persistant ou sporadique, de médicaments accompagné de réactions physiques ou psychologiques nocives.Pour l'interprétation des définitions et des principes énoncés dans le présent chapitre, le titulaire de l'autorisation de mise sur le marché et les autorités compétentes se réfèrent aux lignes directrices visées à l'article 29 octies."3) L'article 29 quater est modifié comme suit:a) au premier alinéa, les mots "la personne responsable de la mise sur le marché du médicament" sont remplacés par "le titulaire de l'autorisation de mise sur le marché";b) au deuxième alinéa, point a), les mots "en un endroit unique" sont remplacés par "de manière à être accessibles au minimum en un endroit précis";c) au deuxième alinéa, point b), les mots "lignes directrices communautaires ou nationales pertinentes" sont remplacés par "lignes directrices visées à l'article 29 octies";d) dans le deuxième alinéa, un point d) est inséré, rédigé comme suit:"d) fournir aux autorités compétentes toute autre information présentant un intérêt pour l'évaluation des risques et des bénéfices que présente un médicament, notamment les informations relatives aux études de sécurité post-autorisation."4) L'article 29 quinquies est remplacé par le texte suivant:"Article 29 quinquies1. Le titulaire de l'autorisation de mise sur le marché est tenu de conserver des rapports détaillés de tous les effets indésirables présumés survenus à l'intérieur de la Communauté ou dans un pays tiers.2. Le titulaire de l'autorisation de mise sur le marché est tenu d'enregistrer toute présomption d'effet indésirable grave ayant été portée à son attention par un professionnel de la santé et de la notifier aussitôt à l'autorité compétente de l'État membre sur le territoire duquel l'incident s'est produit, au plus tard dans les quinze jours civils suivant sa communication.3. Le titulaire de l'autorisation de mise sur le marché est tenu d'enregistrer tous les autres effets indésirables graves présumés qui répondent aux critères de notification, conformément aux lignes directrices visées dans l'article 29 octies, dont il est raisonnablement censé avoir connaissance, et de les notifier aussitôt à l'autorité compétente de l'État membre sur le territoire duquel l'incident s'est produit, au plus tard dans les quinze jours civils suivant leur communication.4. Le titulaire de l'autorisation de mise sur le marché doit assurer que tout effet indésirable grave et inattendu présumé, survenu sur le territoire d'un pays tiers et ayant été porté à son attention par un professionnel de la santé, est immédiatement notifié conformément aux lignes directrices visées à l'article 29 octies, de sorte que l'Agence et les autorités compétentes des États membres dans lesquels le médicament est autorisé en soient informées, au plus tard dans les quinze jours civils suivant sa communication.5. Dans le cas des médicaments relevant de la directive 87/22/CEE qui ont bénéficié de procédures de reconnaissance mutuelle au sens des articles 7 et 7 bis de la directive 65/65/CEE ou de l'article 9, paragraphe 4, de la présente directive, ou ayant fait l'objet de procédures prévues par les articles 13 et 14 de la présente directive, le titulaire de l'autorisation de mise sur le marché doit également garantir que tous les effets indésirables graves présumés, survenus dans la Communauté, sont notifiés dans un format et avec une périodicité à convenir avec l'État membre de référence ou une autorité compétente agissant en qualité d'État membre de référence, de manière à être accessibles pour l'État membre de référence.6. À moins que d'autres exigences n'aient été imposées comme conditions lors de l'octroi de l'autorisation de mise sur le marché ou par la suite, conformément aux lignes directrices définies à l'article 29 octies, les notifications de tout effet indésirable sont soumises à l'autorité compétente sous la forme d'un rapport périodique actualisé relatif à la sécurité, soit immédiatement sur demande soit à intervalles réguliers avec la périodicité suivante: tous les six mois durant les deux premières années suivant l'autorisation, annuellement pendant les deux années suivantes et une fois au moment du premier renouvellement. Ensuite, les rapports périodiques actualisés relatifs à la sécurité sont soumis à intervalle de cinq ans, en même temps que la demande de renouvellement de l'autorisation. Les rapports périodiques actualisés relatifs à la sécurité sont accompagnés d'une évaluation scientifique des bénéfices et des risques que présente le médicament.7. Après avoir bénéficié d'une autorisation de mise sur le marché, le titulaire de cette autorisation peut demander une modification de la périodicité visée dans le présent article conformément à la procédure fixée par le règlement (CE) no 541/95 de la Commission(3)."5) Dans l'article 29 sexies, deuxième alinéa, le mot "praticiens" est remplacé par "médecins et autres professionnels de la santé".6) L'article 29 septies est remplacé par le texte suivant:"Article 29 septies1. L'Agence met en place, en collaboration avec les États membres et la Commission, un réseau informatique en vue de faciliter l'échange d'informations sur la pharmacovigilance concernant les médicaments commercialisés dans la Communauté, destiné à permettre à toutes les autorités compétentes d'assurer simultanément la mise en commun des informations.2. À l'aide du réseau prévu au paragraphe 1, les États membres doivent assurer que les notifications d'effets indésirables graves présumés, survenus sur leur territoire, sont mises aussitôt à la disposition de l'Agence et des autres États membres, au plus tard dans les quinze jours suivant leur notification.3. Les États membres doivent assurer que les notifications d'effets indésirables graves présumés, survenus sur leur territoire, sont mises aussitôt à la disposition du titulaire de l'autorisation de mise sur le marché, au plus tard dans les quinze jours suivant leur notification."7) L'article 29 octies est remplacé par le texte suivant:"Article 29 octiesa) Pour faciliter l'échange d'informations sur la pharmacovigilance dans la Communauté, la Commission, après consultation de l'Agence, des États membres et des parties intéressées, élabore des lignes directrices sur la collecte, la vérification et la présentation des rapports sur les effets indésirables, y compris sur les exigences techniques en matière d'échange électronique d'informations sur la pharmacovigilance selon les modalités adoptées à l'échelon international, et publient une référence à une terminologie médicale acceptée à l'échelon international.b) Ces lignes directrices sont publiées dans le volume 9 de la réglementation des médicaments dans l'Union européenne et tiennent compte des travaux d'harmonisation internationale menés dans le domaine de la pharmacovigilance."8) L'article 29 nonies est remplacé par le texte suivant:"Article 29 noniesQuand, à la suite de l'évaluation de données sur la pharmacovigilance, un État membre considère qu'il faut suspendre, retirer ou modifier l'autorisation de mise sur le marché conformément aux lignes directrices visées à l'article 29 octies, il en informe immédiatement l'Agence, les autres États membres et le titulaire de l'autorisation de mise sur le marché.En cas d'urgence, l'État membre concerné peut suspendre l'autorisation de mise sur le marché d'un médicament, à condition que l'Agence, la Commission et les autres États membres en soient informés au plus tard le premier jour ouvrable suivant."Article 2Les États membres mettent en vigueur les dispositions législatives, réglementaires et administratives nécessaires pour se conformer à la présente directive au plus tard le 5 décembre 2001.Lorsque les États membres adoptent les dispositions visées au premier alinéa, celles-ci contiennent une référence à la présente directive ou sont accompagnées d'une telle référence lors de leur publication officielle. Les modalités de cette référence sont arrêtées par les États membres. Les États membres communiquent à la Commission le texte des dispositions de droit interne qu'ils adoptent dans le domaine régi par la présente directive.Article 3La présente directive entre en vigueur le vingtième jour suivant celui de sa publication au Journal officiel des Communautés européennes.Article 4Les États membres sont destinataires de la présente directive.Fait à Bruxelles, le 5 juin 2000.Par la CommissionErkki LiikanenMembre de la Commission(1) JO L 147 du 9.6.1975, p. 13.(2) JO L 214 du 24.8.1993, p. 22.(3) JO L 55 du 11.3.1995, p. 7.


type: other

jurisdiction: US

text: b" Office of Inspector General\n\n\n\n\nAugust 8, 2005\n\nJOHN E. PLATT\nMANAGER, SAN DIEGO DISTRICT\n\nSUBJECT: Audit Report \xe2\x80\x93 City Letter Carrier Operations \xe2\x80\x93 San Diego District\n (Report Number DR-AR-05-014)\n\nThis report presents the results of our self-initiated audit of City Letter Carrier\nOperations in the San Diego District (Project Number 05YG005DR002). This is the\nsecond in a series of six reports on city letter carrier operations issued under the Value\nProposition Agreement with the vice president, Delivery and Retail, and the Office of\nInspector General\xe2\x80\x99s (OIG) Delivery and Retail directorate. The overall objective was to\nassess the management of city letter carrier operations.\n\nOpportunities exist to improve the management of city letter carrier operations in the\ndistrict. Specifically:\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Delivery facility supervisors and managers did not adequately match workhours\n with workload when approving Postal Service Forms 3996, Carrier \xe2\x80\x93 Auxiliary\n Control. We projected the sample results for a total of 53,835 unjustified hours\n over the five-month period May 1 through September 30, 2004. We agreed with\n headquarters and Pacific Area delivery management to unrecoverable costs of\n $1,423,935 and we will report it as such in our Semiannual Report to Congress.\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Delivery facility supervisors and managers did not timely view the Delivery\n Operations Information System (DOIS) Reports to manage daily operations.\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Delivery facility supervisors and managers did not consistently use the Managed\n Service Points (MSP) base information to monitor carrier performance.\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Delivery facility supervisors and managers did not always properly document\n letter carriers\xe2\x80\x99 unauthorized overtime occurrences and take appropriate\n corrective action.\n\nWe recommended the manager, San Diego District, direct delivery facility supervisors\nand managers to enforce the policy for carriers to properly complete required forms,\ninstruct supervisors to only authorize time that carriers request, and obtain and use\ncorrect time factors for approving and justifying requests for additional time. In addition,\nwe recommended the manager require supervisors and managers to use DOIS Reports\n\n 1735 N Lynn St\n Arlington, VA 22209-2020\n (703) 248-2100\n Fax: (703) 248-2256\n\x0cin a timely manner to manage daily operations. We also recommended the manager\nrequire supervisors and managers to use MSP more effectively and consistently\ndocument unauthorized overtime on required forms and take appropriate corrective\naction.\n\nManagement agreed with our findings and recommendations and has initiatives\ncompleted and planned addressing the issues in this report. Management\xe2\x80\x99s comments\nand our evaluation of these are included in this report.\n\nThe OIG considers recommendations 1 and 2 significant and requires OIG concurrence\nbefore closure. The OIG considers the support provided by management detailing\ncorrective actions taken to be sufficient to close these recommendations.\n\nWe appreciate the cooperation and courtesies provided by your staff during the audit. If\nyou have any questions or need additional information please contact Rita Oliver,\nDirector, Delivery and Retail, or me at (703) 248-2300.\n\n/s/ Mary W. Demory\n\nMary W. Demory\nDeputy Assistant Inspector General\n for Core Operations\n\nAttachments\n\ncc: William P. Galligan\n Ellis A. Burgoyne\n Michael S. Furey\n Alfred Iniguez\n Steven R. Phelps\n\x0cCity Letter Carrier Operations - DR-AR-05-014\n San Diego District\n\n\n\n\n TABLE OF CONTENTS\n\n Executive Summary i\n\n Part I\n\n Introduction 1\n\n Background 1\n Objectives, Scope, and Methodology 4\n Prior Audit Coverage 5\n\n Part II\n\n Audit Results 7\n\n City Letter Carrier Operations 7\n Workhours to Workload Not Adequately Matched 7\n Unjustified Time 8\n PS Form 3996, Carrier \xe2\x80\x93 Auxiliary Control 9\n Supervisors Authorized Additional Time 9\n Parcel Counts 10\n Recommendations 11\n Management\xe2\x80\x99s Comments 11\n Evaluation of Management\xe2\x80\x99s Comments 12\n\n Supervisors Did Not Timely View DOIS Reports 13\n Recommendations 14\n Management\xe2\x80\x99s Comments 14\n Evaluation of Management\xe2\x80\x99s Comments 15\n\n Managed Service Points Base Information 16\n Recommendations 16\n Management\xe2\x80\x99s Comments 17\n Evaluation of Management\xe2\x80\x99s Comments 17\n\n Unauthorized Time Not Properly Documented 18\n Recommendation 18\n Management\xe2\x80\x99s Comments 18\n Evaluation of Management\xe2\x80\x99s Comments 19\n\n Appendix A. Summary of 120 \xe2\x80\x9c3996 Audits\xe2\x80\x9d 20\n\n Appendix B. Projection of \xe2\x80\x9c3996 Audit\xe2\x80\x9d Results over Five-Month Period 24\n\x0cCity Letter Carrier Operations - DR-AR-05-014\n San Diego District\n\n\n\n\n Appendix C. Technical Documentation 25\n\n Appendix D. OIG Calculation of Unrecoverable Costs 26\n\n Appendix E. Management\xe2\x80\x99s Comments 27\n\x0cCity Letter Carrier Operations - DR-AR-05-014\n San Diego District\n\n\n EXECUTIVE SUMMARY\n Introduction This report presents the results of our self-initiated audit of\n city letter carrier operations in the San Diego District. The\n overall objective was to assess the management of city\n letter carrier operations.\n\n Results in Brief Opportunities exist to improve the management of city letter\n carrier operations in the San Diego District. Specifically:\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Delivery facility supervisors and managers did not\n effectively match workhours with workload. This\n occurred primarily because carriers did not always\n submit Postal Service (PS) Form 3996, Carrier \xe2\x80\x93\n Auxiliary Control, to document their requests for\n additional time. As a result, we projected the\n six delivery facilities had 10,094 unjustified hours that\n were not supported by volume or workload from\n May 1 through September 30, 2004. We projected\n the sample results to all 32 similarly sized delivery\n facilities in the district for a total of 53,835 unjustified\n hours. We agreed to unrecoverable costs of\n 50 percent1 of the total variance in the Web Enabled\n Enterprise Information System, which amounts to\n $1,423,935.\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Supervisors and managers did not always timely\n view the Delivery Operations Information System\n (DOIS) Reports such as the Workload Status,\n Route/Carrier Daily Performance, and Managed\n Service Points (MSP) Overview Reports to manage\n daily operations effectively. This occurred because\n supervisors relied on their personal experience and\n placed less emphasis on the DOIS Reports because\n the time variances were occurring with carriers\xe2\x80\x99 office\n activities and not with street delivery.\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Supervisors and managers did not consistently use\n the MSP base information in DOIS to monitor carrier\n performance effectively. This occurred because they\n were not using PS Form 3999, Inspection of Letter\n\n1\n Postal Service Headquarters and Pacific Area Delivery management stated that more than 50 percent of the\nvariance would be too high because managers cannot capture that much in a reasonable amount of time. However,\nPostal Service officials thought that 50 percent of the variance was a reasonable figure.\n\n\n\n i\n\x0cCity Letter Carrier Operations - DR-AR-05-014\n San Diego District\n\n\n\n Carrier Route, or another current form to update the\n route pivot plan.\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Supervisors and managers did not always properly\n document letter carriers\xe2\x80\x99 unauthorized overtime and\n take appropriate corrective action to assist in\n managing overtime issues. Supervisors said that\n documenting unauthorized overtime was a low\n priority.\n\n Summary of We recommended the manager, San Diego District, direct\n Recommendations delivery facility supervisors and managers to enforce the\n policy for carriers to submit a PS Form 3996 when workload\n or volume indicates the need for additional time and require\n them to properly document the reasons for the request. The\n manager should also instruct supervisors to only authorize\n time that carriers request and keep route base information\n readily available. In addition, the manager should direct\n supervisors and managers to use DOIS Reports timely to\n manage daily delivery operations and review MSP base\n information to monitor carrier performance.\n\n Finally, the manager, San Diego District, should require\n supervisors and managers to consistently document\n unauthorized overtime on required forms and take\n appropriate corrective action.\n\n Summary of Management agreed with our findings and\n Management\xe2\x80\x99s recommendations. Management provided support for\n Comments actions already taken, such as instituting management\n guidelines and providing training on the proper use of PS\n Form 3996 and DOIS. In addition, management has\n provided or scheduled MSP training for all DOIS offices in\n the San Diego District. Management issued a\n memorandum reiterating the current policies requiring\n supervisors to document unauthorized overtime.\n Management\xe2\x80\x99s comments, in their entirety, are included in\n Appendix E of this report.\n\n Overall Evaluation of Management\xe2\x80\x99s actions taken or planned are responsive to\n Management\xe2\x80\x99s our findings and recommendations and should correct the\n Comments issues identified in the findings.\n\n\n\n\n ii\n\x0cCity Letter Carrier Operations - DR-AR-05-014\n San Diego District\n\n\n INTRODUCTION\n Background The Postal Service delivered over 200 billion pieces of mail\n to more than 143 million addresses in fiscal year (FY) 2004\n and expects to deliver to an additional 1.6 million addresses\n in FY 2005. The Delivery Operations Information System\n (DOIS), deployed in FY 2002, provides operational data to\n the delivery facility supervisors and managers to assist them\n in managing daily carrier operations and reducing costs.\n This data includes mail volume, mail arrival and dispatch\n times, and projected office and street hours for routes.\n\n As shown in Figure 1, delivery operations constitute\n 45 percent of the workhours in the FY 2005 field operating\n budget, which is mainly attributable to office and street\n workhours. Salary and benefits for rural and city carriers\n totaled approximately $21 billion. Also, in the FY 2005 field\n budget, the Postal Service established a goal to reduce\n delivery workhours by 6.2 million. City delivery hours are\n budgeted as 73 percent of total delivery workhours.2\n\n Figure 1. FY 2005 Field Budget Workhours\n\n\n 45%\n\n\n\n\n 8%\n\n\n\n\n 23% 16%\n\n 3% 5%\n\n Support, Controller, Disability and Consolidated Function\n Mail Processing\n Delivery\n Vehicle Service and Plant Maintenance\n Customer Service\n Field Administration\n\n\n\n2\n Total delivery workhours for FY 2005 were budgeted at 631,731,535. Of the total delivery workhours, 458,064,595\n(or 73 percent) were charged to the city delivery function code (2B).\n\n\n\n 1\n\x0cCity Letter Carrier Operations - DR-AR-05-014\n San Diego District\n\n\n\n The Pacific Area consists of 753 delivery facilities3 in\n ten districts. The Pacific Area\xe2\x80\x99s FY 2005 budget\n performance goal is to reduce city delivery workhours by\n 721,889, representing a cost savings of $25,413,240.\n The San Diego District\xe2\x80\x93with 96 delivery facilities\xe2\x80\x93is the\n third largest district in the Pacific Area.\n\n Each delivery facility\xe2\x80\x99s mail volume, mail arrival and\n dispatch times, and office and street hours vary and are\n managed by the delivery facility supervisor or manager. In\n addition, routes in a city delivery facility have an established\n office and street time (usually eight hours) based on the last\n route inspection. One aspect of daily delivery facility\n operations is preparation and submission of Postal Service\n (PS) Form 3996, Carrier \xe2\x80\x93 Auxiliary Control, by city letter\n carriers requesting overtime or assistance on their routes.\n The supervisor reviews each request and either approves\n the additional time, decreases the time, or denies the\n carrier\xe2\x80\x99s request. The supervisor bases this decision on the\n daily workload or mail volume received in the delivery\n facility.\n\n Unauthorized time is time worked that is not authorized by\n the supervisor/manager. For example, when a carrier\n requests 1 hour of additional time, but uses 1 hour and\n 30 minutes, the extra 30 minutes is unauthorized time.\n Unjustified time occurs when the workload or volume does\n not support the hours used. Using the above example, if\n the carrier worked 1 hour and 30 minutes of extra time, but\n the workload only supported 30 minutes, the extra 1 hour\n would be classified as unjustified time. A carrier can have\n both unauthorized and unjustified time, simultaneously.\n\n To determine the amount of unauthorized and unjustified\n overtime on routes, a \xe2\x80\x9c3996 audit\xe2\x80\x9d of a delivery facility\xe2\x80\x99s\n activities can be performed. Using the DOIS Workload\n Status Report,4 the PS Form 3996,5 Route/Carrier Daily\n\n\n3\n A delivery facility is a building with one or more delivery units. A delivery unit is a group of routes that usually belong\nto a ZIP Code. However, some ZIP Codes with a few routes can be combined to form one delivery unit and a ZIP\nCode with a large number of routes may be split into more than one delivery unit.\n4\n Workload Status Reports provide management with data such as volume, parcel, and delivery point sequenced mail\nto make effective decisions in matching workhours to workload.\n5\n Carriers complete a PS Form 3996 to request overtime or auxiliary assistance on their route for a day when they\nestimate the route will exceed eight hours because of workload and volume.\n\n\n\n 2\n\x0cCity Letter Carrier Operations - DR-AR-05-014\n San Diego District\n\n\n Performance Report,6 and Carrier Control Workload\n Sheets,7 several factors are reviewed:\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2 The amount of time the carrier requests for the\n route.\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2 The amount of time the supervisor approves for\n the route.\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2 The total time the carrier uses on the route.\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2 The justified and unjustified time.\n\n In addition to reviewing the PS Form 3996, an analysis of\n the completed PS Forms 1017-B, Unauthorized Overtime\n Record, can be conducted to determine if supervisors are\n correcting carrier performance issues.\n\n Managed Service Points (MSP) is a computerized tool\n designed to monitor consistency of delivery time and\n enhance street management using mobile data collection\n devices. Letter carriers scan barcodes placed at service\n points reflecting key elements of the employee workday.\n Seven basic scan points are required:\n\n 1. Hot Case8\n 2. Depart to Route\n 3. First Delivery\n 4. Last Delivery Before Lunch\n 5. First Delivery After Lunch\n 6. Last Delivery\n 7. Return to Office\n\n At the conclusion of each workday, the carrier downloads\n the MSP data collected into DOIS. Management compares\n this data to the MSP base information employees store in\n DOIS to generate reports supervisors can use to better\n understand the carrier\xe2\x80\x99s performance.\n\n\n6\n The Route/Carrier Daily Performance Report helps supervisors evaluate the performances of all routes within a\ndelivery unit for a single day.\n7\n The Carrier Workload Control Sheet contains the base statistics for a route such as volume, number of deliveries,\nstreet factors, and accountables as determined by the last route inspection.\n8\n A hot case is a location within the delivery facility where employees resort mail missent from the processing plant\nand give it to the assigned carrier.\n\n\n\n 3\n\x0cCity Letter Carrier Operations - DR-AR-05-014\n San Diego District\n\n\n\n\n Objectives, Scope, Our overall objective was to assess the management of city\n and Methodology letter carrier operations. Specifically, we determined\n whether delivery supervisors and managers adequately\n matched workhours with workload, used DOIS Reports in a\n timely manner to manage operations, and effectively used\n the MSP base information to monitor carrier performance.\n\n Additionally, we assessed whether delivery facility\n supervisors/managers properly tracked unauthorized time\n by documenting a letter carrier\xe2\x80\x99s unauthorized time and\n taking corrective action. Our audit scope reviewed city letter\n carrier operations for the five-month period May 1 through\n September 30, 2004.\n\n To accomplish our objectives, we randomly selected\n six delivery xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx\n San Diego District: xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx\n xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To determine whether\n delivery facility supervisors/managers adequately matched\n workhours with workload, we randomly selected 20 days\n from a 5-month scope period of May 1 through\n September 30, 2004, at each delivery facility and conducted\n \xe2\x80\x9c3996 audits\xe2\x80\x9d for each day to quantify the amount of\n unjustified time. We also observed the delivery facility\n supervisors\xe2\x80\x99 and station managers\xe2\x80\x99 morning activities of\n measuring and recording mail volume, reviewing Workload\n Status Reports, and approving overtime.\n\n To determine whether delivery facility supervisors and\n managers effectively used DOIS Reports in a timely\n manner, we analyzed required morning report data from the\n Workload Status, Route/Carrier Daily Performance, and\n MSP Overview Reports. Additionally, we reviewed the base\n MSP information for all routes at the six delivery facilities\n and reviewed the use of the log for PS Forms 1017-B.\n\n We conducted this audit from December 2004 through\n August 2005, in accordance with generally accepted\n government auditing standards and included such tests of\n internal controls as were considered necessary under the\n circumstances. We relied on data obtained from the Web\n Enabled Enterprise Information System (WebEIS) and\n DOIS. We did not directly audit these systems, but\n\n\n\n 4\n\x0cCity Letter Carrier Operations - DR-AR-05-014\n San Diego District\n\n\n performed a limited data integrity review to support our data\n reliance. We discussed our observations and conclusions\n with appropriate management officials and included their\n comments where appropriate.\n\n Prior Audit Coverage The Office of Inspector General (OIG) has issued\n three audits related to our objectives.\n\n City Letter Carrier Operations \xe2\x80\x93 Rio Grande District (Report\n Number DR-AR-05-009, December 2, 2004). The report\n outlined opportunities to improve the management of city\n letter carrier operations in the Rio Grande District. Delivery\n facility supervisors and managers did not adequately match\n workhours with workload. We projected the three delivery\n facilities had 5,318 unjustified hours (at an estimated cost of\n $193,947) not supported by volume or workload over the\n five-month period October 1, 2003, through February 29,\n 2004. We reported 2,543 of the unjustified hours\xe2\x80\x93or\n $92,762\xe2\x80\x93as unrecoverable costs. We also noted that\n supervisors/managers did not effectively use DOIS to\n manage daily operations and delivery unit supervisors and\n managers did not consistently perform street management\n or effectively use MSP to monitor city letter carriers\xe2\x80\x99 street\n time to correct negative trends.\n\n City Letter Carrier Office Preparation in the Dallas District\n (Report Number DR-AR-04-005, July 26, 2004). The report\n stated that opportunities exist to improve Dallas District city\n letter carrier office preparation operations. Specifically,\n impediments existed that adversely impacted delivery\n facility supervisors\xe2\x80\x99/managers\xe2\x80\x99 ability to adequately match\n workhours with workload. In addition, city letter carriers\xe2\x80\x99\n work activities did not always ensure they departed the\n delivery facility as scheduled and supervisors/managers did\n not use the DOIS to assist in managing office activities.\n\n City Carrier Productivity \xe2\x80\x93 Letter Carrier Delays in the\n Baltimore District (Report Number TD-AR-03-011, July 28,\n 2003). The report stated that early reporting wasted\n carriers\xe2\x80\x99 morning time and exposed the Baltimore District to\n potential unnecessary evening overtime costs. It was noted\n\n\n\n\n 5\n\x0cCity Letter Carrier Operations - DR-AR-05-014\n San Diego District\n\n\n\n supervisors/managers were not using DOIS to manage\n carrier schedules and, consequently, could not use the\n system to evaluate carrier scheduling or take corrective\n action.\n\n\n\n\n 6\n\x0cCity Letter Carrier Operations - DR-AR-05-014\n San Diego District\n\n\n\n AUDIT RESULTS\n City Letter Carrier Opportunities exist to improve the management of city letter\n Operations carrier operations in the San Diego District. Specifically:\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Delivery facility supervisors and managers did not\n effectively match workhours with workload. As a\n result, we projected the six delivery facilities had\n 10,094 unjustified hours that were not supported by\n volume or workload from May 1 through\n September 30, 2004. We projected the sample\n results to all 32 similarly sized delivery facilities in the\n district for a total of 53,835 unjustified hours. We\n agreed to unrecoverable costs of 50 percent of the\n total variance within WebEIS, which amounts to\n $1,423,935. (See Appendix D.)\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Supervisors and managers did not timely use DOIS\n Reports such as the Workload Status, Route/Carrier\n Daily Performance and MSP Overview Reports to\n effectively manage daily operations.\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Supervisors and managers did not consistently use\n MSP base information to effectively monitor carrier\n performance.\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Supervisors and managers did not always properly\n document letter carriers\xe2\x80\x99 unauthorized overtime\n occurrences and take appropriate corrective action.\n\n Workhours to Delivery facility supervisors and managers did not\n Workload Not adequately match workhours with workload. We projected\n Adequately Matched the sample results in the 32 similarly sized delivery facilities\n in the district for a total of 53,835 unjustified hours with\n unrecoverable costs of $1,423,935 over the five-month\n period, May 1 through September 30, 2004. The unjustified\n hours occurred primarily because carriers did not always\n properly complete and submit PS Form 3996 to document\n their requests for additional time. In addition, supervisors/\n managers authorized time not requested by carriers, did not\n take action on PS Forms 3996 and/or did not keep route\n base delivery facility supervisors information readily\n available. Further, supervisors/managers did not\n\n\n\n\n 7\n\x0cCity Letter Carrier Operations - DR-AR-05-014\n San Diego District\n\n\n always ensure parcels were counted to properly match\n workhours with workload.\n\n Postal Service Handbook M-41, City Delivery Carrier Duties\n and Responsibilities, Section 131.41 (updated with Postal\n Bulletin revisions through April 2001) states that it is the\n carrier\xe2\x80\x99s responsibility to complete items on PS Form 3996 if\n overtime or auxiliary assistance is authorized for the office or\n the street.\n\n Management Instruction, PO-610-2000-1, Piece Count\n Recording System, dated December 2000, states that\n effective day-to-day management of a delivery facility\n requires evaluation of the facility\xe2\x80\x99s daily mail volume. The\n Postal Service uses volume data on a daily basis to assess\n the workhours needed for any given day.\n\n Unjustified Time We analyzed delivery facility information9 and conducted\n \xe2\x80\x9c3996 audits\xe2\x80\x9d for 12010 days at six randomly sampled\n delivery facilities from May 1 through September 30, 2004.\n The \xe2\x80\x9c3996 audits\xe2\x80\x9d identified 1,591 unjustified hours (or\n 97 percent) of the total 1,640 hours that were expended on\n routes with time used over 8 hours. We projected the\n sample results to all 32 similarly sized delivery facilities in\n the district for a total of 53,835 unjustified hours at a\n projected cost of over $1.9 million.11\n\n The \xe2\x80\x9c3996 audit\xe2\x80\x9d process assesses individual route times\n used over eight hours. The process cannot differentiate\n between time that is truly unjustified and time that is not\n supported by documentation. The Total Variance Factor in\n the Postal Service\xe2\x80\x99s WebEIS shows the difference between\n projected workhours for the workload identified in DOIS and\n the actual workhours used by the carriers. Pacific Area\n delivery management and the OIG agreed to 50 percent of\n the WebEIS variance from May 1 through September 30,\n 2004, as unrecoverable costs, which amounts to\n $1,423,935.12 (See Appendix D.)\n\n9\n DOIS Workload Status Reports, PS Forms 3996, and Router/Carrier Daily Performance Reports.\n10\n We randomly selected 20 days from the 5-month period, May 1 through September 30, 2004, for six randomly\nsampled delivery facilities (6 x 20 days = 120 days).\n11\n Postal Service Finance memorandum dated March 5, 2004, shows the national average labor rate for city letter\ncarriers in FY 2004. The 53,835 hours multiplied by $36.47 equals $1,963,362.\n12\n The WebEIS shows the total variance between the projected workhours for the workload identified in DOIS and the\nactual workhours used by the carriers. The total variance for the 32 similarly sized delivery facilities is $2,847,869 for\nMay 1 through September 30, 2004.\n\n\n\n 8\n\x0cCity Letter Carrier Operations - DR-AR-05-014\n San Diego District\n\n\n\n PS Form 3996 \xe2\x80\x93 Carriers did not always submit PS Forms 3996 to request\n Carrier \xe2\x80\x93 Auxiliary additional time on routes. Of the 120 days we reviewed,\n Control 84 percent (1,331 of 1,591) of the total unjustified hours\n were the result of no documentation. This occurred because\n delivery facility management did not emphasize to carriers\n the importance of using the form. Further, supervisors often\n verbally approved overtime with carriers.\n\n When carriers submitted PS Forms 3996, they did not\n always properly document their request for additional time.\n For example, carriers requested time with no reasons listed,\n or listed reasons with no corresponding amount of time.\n\n Postal Service Handbook M-41, City Delivery Carrier Duties\n and Responsibilities, Chapter 2, Section 28, (updated with\n Postal Bulletin revisions through April 2001) states that the\n carrier must show the reason for requesting assistance on\n his/her route in detail on PS Form 3996.\n\n Supervisors Authorized Supervisors authorized time that was not requested by the\n Additional Time carrier on PS Form 3996. In addition, supervisors did not\n always take action on submitted PS Forms 3996 because\n Postal Service managers relied on their experience to\n determine route needs. Also, delivery facility management\n did not establish expectations that directed delivery facility\n supervisors to approve only time requested by the carrier\n and justified by the workload.\n\n The sampled delivery facilities did not keep route information\n readily available for parcels, accountables,13 and full\n coverage times.14 This data is critical because the volume\n for these items may increase or decrease each day on a\n carrier\xe2\x80\x99s\xe2\x80\x99 route. Without this information, supervisors do not\n have objective data to approve overtime requests. We also\n noted that carriers combined their requests for multiple\n factors instead of separating each factor with the specific\n amount of additional time needed on PS Form 3996.\n Therefore, it was not obvious how much time the carriers\n specifically requested for volume, meeting time, and full\n coverage. Supervisors also approved time with combined\n\n13\n Accountable mailpieces include Express Mail and certified mail packages the carrier must deliver, and usually\nrequire the customer\xe2\x80\x99s signature.\n14\n Full coverage is the additional time granted to a city letter carrier to deliver mail on a particular day to all possible\ndelivery points on a route.\n\n\n\n 9\n\x0cCity Letter Carrier Operations - DR-AR-05-014\n San Diego District\n\n\n factors and did not make any notes about how much they\n approved for each factor. This also made it difficult to\n objectively justify time.\n\n The delivery facilities incurred unjustified workhours as a\n result of carriers not submitting PS Forms 3996 or\n submitting incomplete documentation and supervisors/\n managers approving time that was not justified by the\n workload.\n\n We noted significant improvement in the submission of PS\n Forms 3996 by carriers after our audit scope period. We\n judgmentally sampled 12 days from November 2004 through\n February 2005, and found delivery facility supervisors and\n managers were directing carriers to complete PS Forms\n 3996 when requesting additional time on a route.\n\n Parcel Counts Supervisors did not ensure carriers counted parcels properly\n to match workhours with workload in two of the six delivery\n facilities reviewed. For example, carriers counted parcels\n that were used in daily volume. In addition, delivery facility\n management counted parcels for as little as four routes, took\n an average of the parcels on the four routes, and then used\n this average for the remaining routes within the delivery\n facility. This occurred because supervisors felt\n overwhelmed with responsibilities and did not have time to\n count parcels for each route.\n\n Postal Service Handbook M-39, Management of Delivery\n Services, Section 111.2 (updated with Postal Bulletin\n revisions through March 2004) states that it is the delivery\n service manager\xe2\x80\x99s responsibility to \xe2\x80\x9crecord on the\n appropriate form(s) the daily workload for each route.\xe2\x80\x9d\n\n Management Instruction PO-610-2000-1 states that effective\n day-to-day management of a delivery facility requires\n evaluation of the facility daily mail volume. The Postal\n Service uses volume data on a daily basis to assess the\n workhours needed for any given day.\n\n As a result of not counting parcels, delivery facility\n supervisors/managers could not adequately match\n workhours with workload.\n\n\n\n\n 10\n\x0cCity Letter Carrier Operations - DR-AR-05-014\n San Diego District\n\n\n\n\n Recommendations We recommend the manager, San Diego District:\n\n 1. Direct station managers and supervisors to enforce\n the policy for carriers to complete a Postal Service\n Form 3996, Carrier \xe2\x80\x93 Auxiliary Control, when\n workload or volume indicates the carrier will need\n additional time for the route and require carriers to\n properly document reasons for their request of\n additional time.\n\n 2. Instruct station managers and delivery facility\n supervisors to only authorize time requested by\n carriers and justified by the workload.\n\n Management\xe2\x80\x99s Management agreed with our finding, unrecoverable costs,\n Comments and recommendations 1 and 2. Management sent a\n directive to all district delivery management instructing that a\n properly completed PS Form 3996 is required for any\n instance of overtime usage by a carrier. In addition,\n management conducted training during April and June 2005\n on the proper use of PS Form 3996 and DOIS.\n\n Recommendations 3. Require station managers and delivery facility\n supervisors to keep route base information readily\n available that shows base parcels, accountables, and\n full coverage times.\n\n 4. Have station managers require delivery facility\n supervisors/managers to count or validate parcels for\n each route in order to adequately match workhours to\n workload.\n\n Management\xe2\x80\x99s Management stated that, although they could not find a\n Comments reference requirement for recommendation 3, they found\n merit in having base route information readily available.\n Management established a matrix for each office to use that\n identifies each route\xe2\x80\x99s base parcels, accountables, and full\n coverage street time. Management agreed with\n recommendation 4 and stated that volume recording is an\n item validated on audits conducted by district personnel.\n\n\n\n\n 11\n\x0cCity Letter Carrier Operations - DR-AR-05-014\n San Diego District\n\n\n\n\n Evaluation of Management\xe2\x80\x99s comments are responsive to our finding and\n Management\xe2\x80\x99s recommendations 1, 2, 3, and 4. Management\xe2\x80\x99s actions\n Comments taken or planned should correct the issues identified in the\n finding.\n\n\n\n\n 12\n\x0cCity Letter Carrier Operations - DR-AR-05-014\n San Diego District\n\n\n Supervisors Did Not Supervisors and managers did not timely view DOIS\n Timely View DOIS operational reports to assist in managing carrier activities in\n Reports all six sampled delivery facilities. This occurred because\n supervisors relied on their delivery experience to make\n decisions. According to the Delivery Operations Information\n System Quality Assessment, September 9, 2002, it is critical\n that supervisors use DOIS to manage daily facility\n operations.\n\n Supervisors and managers did not always review the\n Workload Status, Route/Carrier Daily Performance, and\n MSP Overview Reports at the appropriate time. As\n illustrated in Table 1, supervisors were not using the\n operational delivery data available to manage their delivery\n facility.\n\n Table 1. Supervisors\xe2\x80\x99 DOIS Activity\n May 1 Through September 30, 2004\n (127 days)\n Days\n Route/Carrier\n Days Daily\n Six Randomly Workload Performance Days MSP\n Sampled Status Report Report NOT Overview\n Delivery NOT Viewed Viewed Before Report NOT\n Facilities Before 8 a.m. 8 a.m. Viewed\n Xxxxx xxxxxx 37 14 15\n xxxxxx 45 27 6\n Xxxxx xxxxx 53 57 50\n xxxxxxxx 125 126 126\n xxxxxx 4 8 21\n Xxxxx xxxxx 17 13 6\n TOTAL 281 245 224\n\n The Workload Status and Route Carrier Daily Performance\n Reports were not always viewed by 8:00 a.m. as required.\n In the San Diego District, the Workload Status Report\n was viewed after 8:00 a.m. in 281 of 76215 instances (or\n 37 percent of the time) and the Route/Carrier Daily\n Performance Report was either not viewed at all or viewed\n after 8:00 a.m. in 245 of 762 instances (or 32 percent of the\n time). The MSP Overview Report was not viewed in 224 of\n 762 (or 29 percent) instances required at facilities sampled\n in the San Diego District from May 1 through September 30,\n\n15\n 127 workdays times 6 delivery facilities equals 762.\n\n\n\n 13\n\x0cCity Letter Carrier Operations - DR-AR-05-014\n San Diego District\n\n\n 2004. Supervisors/managers did not review DOIS Reports\n in a timely manner because they relied more on their\n delivery experience than on the reports and placed less\n emphasis on the DOIS Reports because the time variances\n were occurring with carriers\xe2\x80\x99 office activities and not with\n street delivery.\n\n Delivery Operations Information System Quality\n Assessment, September 9, 2002, and the Pacific Area AM\n Standard Operating Procedures (AM SOP), October 29,\n 2004, states it is critical that supervisors use DOIS to\n manage daily facility operations and review reports timely.\n\n As a result, supervisors/managers who do not retrieve and\n review Workload Status, Route/Carrier Daily Performance,\n and MSP Overview Reports timely may not be making\n effective decisions in matching workhours to workload and\n addressing carrier performance issues.\n\n The AM SOP procedures are currently being instituted in all\n delivery facilities with a reemphasis on the use of DOIS\n Reports. We reviewed the use of DOIS Reports again after\n our audit scope period and found facilities were improving\n their timely use of operational data.\n\n Recommendations We recommend the manager, San Diego District:\n\n 5. Direct station managers and supervisors to review\n Workload Status and Route Carrier Daily\n Performance Reports by 8:00 a.m. so they can\n accurately match workload to workhours and address\n carrier performance issues.\n\n 6. Direct station supervisors and managers to comply\n with the Pacific Area\xe2\x80\x99s AM Standard Operating\n Procedures, which requires daily review of the\n Managed Service Points Overview Report.\n\n Management\xe2\x80\x99s Management agreed with the finding and recommendations\n Comments 5 and 6. Station supervisors and managers now complete\n workload status summaries daily to track the effectiveness\n of reviewing the report before 8:00 a.m. In addition, the\n San Diego District has implemented a daily review of a new\n MSP Overview Report.\n\n\n\n\n 14\n\x0cCity Letter Carrier Operations - DR-AR-05-014\n San Diego District\n\n\n\n\n Evaluation of Management\xe2\x80\x99s comments are responsive to the finding and\n Management\xe2\x80\x99s recommendations 5 and 6. Management\xe2\x80\x99s actions taken or\n Comments planned should correct the issues identified in the finding.\n\n\n\n\n 15\n\x0cCity Letter Carrier Operations - DR-AR-05-014\n San Diego District\n\n\n\n\n Managed Service Delivery facility managers did not consistently use MSP\n Points Base base information in DOIS to effectively monitor carrier\n Information performance. We reviewed the base MSP information for\n all routes at the six randomly sampled delivery facilities and\n identified 158 of 229 (69 percent) routes where office and\n street times were out-of-sequence.16\n\n Examples of out-of-sequence conditions included:\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Return to office time before the last delivery.\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Delivery times are defaulted to 12:00 a.m.\n\n \xe2\x80\xa2 Different streets have the same scan time.\n\n The out-of-sequence times were the result of supervisors\n not having a current PS Form 399917 or not using a current\n form to update the route pivot plan. The route pivot plan is\n a detailed description of the route that the city delivery\n carrier should follow while delivering mail on the street.\n District officials said there is a need for training on updating\n pivot plans. Delivery facilities without a recent route\n adjustment will likely need the training.\n\n As a result of not reviewing the MSP Overview Report on a\n daily basis (as illustrated in Table 1), supervisors and\n managers were unable to determine variances between the\n actual and scheduled times of MSP scan points that could\n identify carrier performance issues or identify inaccurate\n MSP base information.\n\n Recommendations We recommend the manager, San Diego District:\n\n 7. Provide additional training to station supervisors and\n managers in using Managed Service Points more\n effectively.\n\n\n\n\n16\n Out-of-sequence times occur when the scheduled times for the route do not occur in chronological order.\n17\n PS Form 3999, Inspection of Letter Carrier Route, records all pertinent information concerning a carrier's office and\nstreet time, including line of travel details, listing office leave time, first delivery time, lunch time, and last delivery\ntime.\n\n\n\n\n 16\n\x0cCity Letter Carrier Operations - DR-AR-05-014\n San Diego District\n\n\n\n We recommend the manager, San Diego District:\n\n 8. Require employees to update Managed Service\n Points base information when any changes are made\n to a route.\n\n Management\xe2\x80\x99s Management agreed with the finding and recommendations\n Comments 7 and 8. Management provided additional MSP training and\n scheduled training for all DOIS offices in the San Diego\n District. In addition, management established standard\n operating procedures to ensure that any time they change a\n route, the office will recreate the pivot plan which will, in\n turn, update the MSP base information.\n\n Evaluation of Management\xe2\x80\x99s comments are responsive to our finding and\n Management\xe2\x80\x99s recommendations 7 and 8. Management\xe2\x80\x99s actions taken\n Comments and planned should correct the issues identified in the\n finding.\n\n\n\n\n 17\n\x0cCity Letter Carrier Operations - DR-AR-05-014\n San Diego District\n\n\n\n\n Unauthorized Time Supervisors/managers did not consistently document letter\n Not Properly carriers\xe2\x80\x99 unauthorized overtime occurrences using PS\n Documented Form 1017-B. In the San Diego District there were only\n 16 entries recorded for any of the 120 sample days for the\n five-month period May 1 through September 30, 2004.\n Two facilities had no entries recorded for the entire\n five-month period and four remaining facilities only had a\n combined 61 entries, 43 of which were from one facility.\n Another facility had one entry in the PS Form 1017-B log for\n the five-month period. Supervisors/managers stated that\n completing a PS Form 1017-B was a lower priority and they\n informally discussed unauthorized overtime occurrences\n with carriers.\n\n The supervisor should have documented the discussion\n with the carrier regarding the reasons for unauthorized\n overtime after returning from the route in the remarks\n section of PS Form 1017-B.\n\n Handbook F-401, Supervisor\xe2\x80\x99s Guide to Scheduling and\n Premium Pay, Chapter, 5, Section F, August 2000, states,\n \xe2\x80\x9cemployees are responsible for adhering to their assigned\n work schedules. A variance from the assigned work\n schedule will result in unauthorized overtime. Supervisors\n must document these occurrences on PS Form 1017-B and\n take appropriate corrective action.\xe2\x80\x9d\n\n As a result of not documenting unauthorized overtime,\n supervisors were not able to effectively consult and correct\n carrier performance issues to assist in managing overtime\n hours.\n\n Recommendation We recommend the manager, San Diego District:\n\n 9. Reinforce the policy in Handbook F-401, Supervisor\xe2\x80\x99s\n Guide to Scheduling and Premium Pay, to properly\n complete PS Form 1017- B, Unauthorized Overtime\n Record, to document unauthorized overtime and take\n appropriate corrective action.\n\n Management\xe2\x80\x99s Management agreed with the finding and recommendation.\n Comments Management issued a memorandum to managers\n reiterating current policies related to the documentation of\n\n\n\n 18\n\x0cCity Letter Carrier Operations - DR-AR-05-014\n San Diego District\n\n\n\n unauthorized overtime. Additionally, district management\n conducted overtime control audits of its delivery units to\n ensure internal controls are in place and that employees\n strictly follow guidelines.\n\n Evaluation of Management\xe2\x80\x99s comments are responsive to the finding and\n Management\xe2\x80\x99s recommendation. Actions taken should correct the issue\n Comments identified in the finding.\n\n\n\n\n 19\n\x0c City Letter Carrier Operations - DR-AR-05-014\n San Diego District\n\n\n APPENDIX A. SUMMARY OF 120 \xe2\x80\x9c3996 AUDITS\xe2\x80\x9d\n\n\n\n\n Total Time Used Greater Than\n\n\n\n\n Total Routes Greater Than\n Total Unjustified Percent\n Eight Hours in Minutes\n\n\n\n Total Unjustified Time\n\n\n\n\n No PS Form 3996 but\n Route Greater Than\n Delivery Facility\n\n\n\n\n Day of Week\n\n\n\n\n Eight Hours\n\n\n\n\n Eight Hours\n in Minutes\nNumber\n\n\n\n\n Date\n\n\n\n 1 xxxxxxxxxxx 05/10/04 M 2,059 2,004 97% 30 27\n 2 xxxxxxxxxxx 05/12/04 W 1,741 1,741 100% 23 23\n 3 xxxxxxxxxxx 06/03/04 Th 625 625 100% 15 15\n 4 xxxxxxxxxxx 06/05/04 S 675 675 100% 10 10\n 5 xxxxxxxxxxx 06/07/04 M 1,346 1,346 100% 26 24\n 6 xxxxxxxxxxx 06/17/04 Th 884 884 100% 15 14\n 7 xxxxxxxxxxx 07/09/04 F 1,400 1,400 100% 19 18\n 8 xxxxxxxxxxx 07/10/04 S 1,495 1,495 100% 12 12\n 9 xxxxxxxxxxx 07/29/04 Th 1,194 1,194 100% 18 17\n 10 xxxxxxxxxxx 07/31/04 S 237 237 100% 6 6\n 11 xxxxxxxxxxx 08/04/04 W 1,643 1,643 100% 29 28\n 12 xxxxxxxxxxx 08/06/04 F 1,249 1,249 100% 13 13\n 13 xxxxxxxxxxx 08/21/04 S 1,404 1,404 100% 15 14\n 14 xxxxxxxxxxx 08/24/04 T 1,184 1,184 100% 19 17\n 15 xxxxxxxxxxx 08/31/04 T 1,970 1,970 100% 25 24\n 16 xxxxxxxxxxx 09/01/04 W 1,580 1,580 100% 21 21\n 17 xxxxxxxxxxx 09/10/04 F 1,388 1,388 100% 19 19\n 18 xxxxxxxxxxx 09/11/04 S 1,001 1,001 100% 17 17\n 19 xxxxxxxxxxx 09/18/04 S 1,681 1,681 100% 19 18\n 20 xxxxxxxxxxx 09/21/04 T 2,226 2,226 100% 29 28\n 21 xxxxxxx 05/03/04 M 1,074 963 90% 18 9\n 22 xxxxxxx 05/06/04 Th 936 795 85% 18 7\n 23 xxxxxxx 05/27/04 Th 1,114 1,114 100% 4 1\n 24 xxxxxxx 06/16/04 W 1,301 1,095 84% 20 6\n 25 xxxxxxx 06/17/04 Th 684 625 91% 8 7\n 26 xxxxxxx 06/26/04 S 350 251 72% 6 2\n 27 xxxxxxx 07/03/04 S 369 334 91% 11 7\n 28 xxxxxxx 07/16/04 F 391 617 92% 13 6\n 29 xxxxxxx 07/20/04 T 174 134 77% 7 5\n 30 xxxxxxx 07/24/04 S 367 290 79% 5 3\n\n\n\n\n 20\n\x0c City Letter Carrier Operations - DR-AR-05-014\n San Diego District\n\n\n\n\n Total Time Used Greater Than\n\n\n\n\n Total Routes Greater Than\n Total Unjustified Percent\n Eight Hours in Minutes\n\n\n\n Total Unjustified Time\n\n\n\n\n No PS Form 3996 but\n Route Greater Than\n Delivery Facility\n\n\n\n\n Day of Week\n\n\n\n\n Eight Hours\n\n\n\n\n Eight Hours\n in Minutes\nNumber\n\n\n\n\n Date\n\n 31 xxxxxxx 08/02/04 M 1,322 1,296 98% 15 9\n 32 xxxxxxx 08/11/04 W 1,153 975 85% 16 9\n 33 xxxxxxx 08/12/04 Th 81 81 100% 6 4\n 34 xxxxxxx 08/18/04 W 897 880 98% 22 12\n 35 xxxxxxx 08/21/04 S 162 129 80% 4 2\n 36 xxxxxxx 08/27/04 F 357 324 91% 11 7\n 37 xxxxxxx 09/03/04 F 669 628 94% 13 9\n 38 xxxxxxx 09/16/04 Th 809 762 94% 15 7\n 39 xxxxxxx 09/18/04 S 364 274 75% 8 5\n 40 xxxxxxx 09/24/04 F 386 383 99% 10 8\n 41 xxxxxxxxxxxx 05/01/04 S 160 160 100% 4 4\n 42 xxxxxxxxxxxx 05/06/04 Th 103 103 100% 4 4\n 43 xxxxxxxxxxxx 05/14/04 F 164 164 100% 4 4\n 44 xxxxxxxxxxxx 05/19/04 W 213 213 100% 9 5\n 45 xxxxxxxxxxxx 05/26/04 W 102 102 100% 3 2\n 46 xxxxxxxxxxxx 06/03/04 Th 0 0 0% 0 0\n 47 xxxxxxxxxxxx 06/05/04 S 55 55 100% 2 2\n 48 xxxxxxxxxxxx 06/21/04 M 147 147 100% 3 1\n 49 xxxxxxxxxxxx 07/16/04 F 42 42 100% 2 2\n 50 xxxxxxxxxxxx 07/24/04 S 75 75 100% 4 4\n 51 xxxxxxxxxxxx 08/03/04 T 268 268 100% 6 6\n 52 xxxxxxxxxxxx 08/06/04 F 3 3 100% 2 2\n 53 xxxxxxxxxxxx 08/10/04 T 145 145 100% 6 4\n 54 xxxxxxxxxxxx 08/17/04 T 93 79 85% 6 5\n 55 xxxxxxxxxxxx 08/20/04 F 171 171 100% 4 4\n 56 xxxxxxxxxxxx 08/25/04 W 194 194 100% 3 3\n 57 xxxxxxxxxxxx 09/01/04 W 1,046 1,046 100% 15 14\n 58 xxxxxxxxxxxx 09/07/04 T 1,488 1,488 100% 26 23\n 59 xxxxxxxxxxxx 09/20/04 M 210 210 100% 8 7\n 60 xxxxxxxxxxxx 09/24/04 F 453 453 100% 6 5\n\n\n\n\n 21\n\x0c City Letter Carrier Operations - DR-AR-05-014\n San Diego District\n\n\n\n\n Total Time Used Greater Than\n\n\n\n\n Total Routes Greater Than\n Total Unjustified Percent\n Eight Hours in Minutes\n\n\n\n Total Unjustified Time\n\n\n\n\n No PS Form 3996 but\n Route Greater Than\n Delivery Facility\n\n\n\n\n Day of Week\n\n\n\n\n Eight Hours\n\n\n\n\n Eight Hours\n in Minutes\nNumber\n\n\n\n\n Date\n 61 xxxxxxxxx 05/01/04 S 198 198 100% 4 4\n 62 xxxxxxxxx 05/13/04 Th 655 655 100% 10 10\n 63 xxxxxxxxx 05/19/04 W 387 387 100% 13 13\n 64 xxxxxxxxx 05/21/04 F 260 260 100% 8 8\n 65 xxxxxxxxx 05/29/04 S 309 309 100% 3 3\n 66 xxxxxxxxx 06/12/04 S 1,809 1,809 100% 26 26\n 67 xxxxxxxxx 06/26/04 S 239 239 100% 6 6\n 68 xxxxxxxxx 07/06/04 T 1,317 1,317 100% 26 26\n 69 xxxxxxxxx 07/08/04 Th 299 299 100% 10 10\n 70 xxxxxxxxx 07/20/04 T 1,154 1,154 100% 12 12\n 71 xxxxxxxxx 08/03/04 T 1,141 1,141 100% 27 27\n 72 xxxxxxxxx 08/18/04 W 897 897 100% 16 16\n 73 xxxxxxxxx 08/21/04 S 242 242 100% 5 5\n 74 xxxxxxxxx 09/01/04 W 1,528 1,528 100% 20 20\n 75 xxxxxxxxx 09/04/04 S 579 579 100% 8 8\n 76 xxxxxxxxx 09/10/04 F 663 663 100% 14 13\n 77 xxxxxxxxx 09/14/04 T 1,259 1,259 100% 25 25\n 78 xxxxxxxxx 09/15/04 W 991 991 100% 20 19\n 79 xxxxxxxxx 09/17/04 F 781 781 100% 14 14\n 80 xxxxxxxxx 09/29/04 W 1,304 1,304 100% 26 23\n 81 xxxxxx 05/08/04 S 650 586 90% 16 10\n 82 xxxxxx 05/24/04 M 32 32 100% 2 2\n 83 xxxxxx 05/28/04 F 491 477 97% 6 3\n 84 xxxxxx 06/21/04 M 75 75 100% 7 3\n 85 xxxxxx 06/24/04 T 191 191 100% 7 3\n 86 xxxxxx 06/28/04 M 323 268 82% 11 5\n 87 xxxxxx 06/29/04 T 289 269 93% 9 6\n 88 xxxxxx 07/03/04 S 33 33 100% 3 0\n 89 xxxxxx 07/09/04 F 25 25 100% 2 1\n 90 xxxxxx 07/16/04 F 118 118 100% 8 5\n 91 xxxxxx 07/19/04 M 272 272 100% 8 6\n\n\n\n\n 22\n\x0c City Letter Carrier Operations - DR-AR-05-014\n San Diego District\n\n\n\n\n Total Time Used Greater Than\n\n\n\n\n Total Routes Greater Than\n Total Unjustified Percent\n Eight Hours in Minutes\n\n\n\n Total Unjustified Time\n\n\n\n\n No PS Form 3996 but\n Route Greater Than\n Delivery Facility\n\n\n\n\n Day of Week\n\n\n\n\n Eight Hours\n\n\n\n\n Eight Hours\n in Minutes\nNumber\n\n\n\n\n Date\n 92 xxxxxx 07/23/04 F 630 601 95% 12 6\n 93 xxxxxx 08/19/04 Th 154 154 100% 5 5\n 94 xxxxxx 08/24/04 T 40 40 100% 5 4\n 95 xxxxxx 08/25/04 W 140 75 54% 10 5\n 96 xxxxxx 08/30/04 M 232 181 78% 11 4\n 97 xxxxxx 08/31/04 T 110 110 100% 5 4\n 98 xxxxxx 09/08/04 W 208 208 100% 9 8\n 99 xxxxxx 09/10/04 F 228 228 100% 10 7\n100 xxxxxx 09/11/04 S 152 147 97% 8 3\n101 xxxxxxxxxxx 05/05/04 W 1,366 1,290 94% 27 24\n102 xxxxxxxxxxx 05/25/04 T 1,820 1,707 94% 32 25\n103 xxxxxxxxxxx 06/01/04 T 4,108 3,988 97% 43 33\n104 xxxxxxxxxxx 06/03/04 Th 501 484 97% 14 12\n105 xxxxxxxxxxx 06/05/04 S 2,072 2,032 98% 23 21\n106 xxxxxxxxxxx 06/07/04 M 1,664 1,620 97% 29 25\n107 xxxxxxxxxxx 06/25/04 F 873 873 100% 17 15\n108 xxxxxxxxxxx 06/26/04 S 548 434 79% 11 7\n109 xxxxxxxxxxx 07/08/04 Th 1,279 1,230 96% 11 11\n110 xxxxxxxxxxx 07/13/04 T 1,141 1,113 97% 22 21\n111 xxxxxxxxxxx 07/14/04 W 842 768 91% 15 11\n112 xxxxxxxxxxx 07/16/04 F 303 303 100% 11 10\n113 xxxxxxxxxxx 07/27/04 T 1,020 965 95% 17 13\n114 xxxxxxxxxxx 08/06/04 F 1,859 1,747 94% 19 15\n115 xxxxxxxxxxx 08/18/04 W 1,095 1,070 98% 19 16\n116 xxxxxxxxxxx 09/03/04 F 2,659 2,493 94% 35 31\n117 xxxxxxxxxxx 09/13/04 M 3,319 2,934 88% 33 26\n118 xxxxxxxxxxx 09/15/04 W 1,419 1,380 97% 30 26\n119 xxxxxxxxxxx 09/18/04 S 2,263 2,162 96% 34 28\n120 xxxxxxxxxxx 09/21/04 T 2,767 2,745 99% 40 32\n TOTALS 98,397 95,435 1,656 1,371\n\n\n\n\n 23\n\x0cCity Letter Carrier Operations - DR-AR-05-014\n San Diego District\n\n\n\n APPENDIX B\n\n PROJECTION OF \xe2\x80\x9c3996 AUDIT\xe2\x80\x9d RESULTS OVER\n FIVE-MONTH PERIOD\n Projected Hours\n 95 Percent 95 Percent Not Justified by\n Projection of Confidence Confidence Workload in\n Unjustified Interval Interval Five-Month\n Time (Point Lower Upper Period (May\n Estimate) Bound in Bound in Relative Through\n Location in Minutes Minutes Minutes Precision Sept. 2004)\nxxxxxxxxxx 170,498 141,062 199,933 17.3% 2,842\n\nxxxxxxx 75,495 53,523 97,467 29.1% 1,258\n\n\nxxxxxxxxxxxx 32,499 10,662 54,337 67.2% 542\n\n\nxxxxxxxxx 101,676 72,433 130,919 28.8% 1,695\n\nxxxxxxx 26,105 15,824 36,385 39.4% 435\n\n\nxxxxxxxxxxx 199,371 143,673 255,069 27.9% 3,323\n\n Overall\nSan Diego: 3,230,100 1,060,518 5,399,684 67% 53,835\nxxxxxxxxxxxx\n\n\n\n\n 24\n\x0cCity Letter Carrier Operations - DR-AR-05-014\n San Diego District\n\n\n APPENDIX C. TECHNICAL DOCUMENTATION\n\nSampling\n\nAn objective of the audit was to quantify the amount of unjustified time in the San Diego\nDistrict in the Pacific Area. In support of this objective, the audit team employed a\ntwo-stage sample of carrier time, selecting delivery units and delivery days randomly.\nThe sample design allows statistical projection of the minutes of unjustified time total,\nunjustified office time, unjustified street time, and unexplained unjustified time.\n\nAudit Universe\n\nThe team judgmentally selected the San Diego District, which had xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx\nxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx The audit universe consisted of 127 working days from May 1\nthrough September 30, 2004.\n\nSample Design and Modifications\n\nWe chose a two-stage sample design, with simple random selection of delivery units at\nthe first stage and a simple random sample of delivery days at the second stage. We\nexamined all delivery routes on the days selected. We had no information regarding the\nvariability we might see between delivery units. To size the sample, we considered\neach delivery unit and delivery day combination as a universe element (a total of\n4,064 unit days). We selected a desired confidence level of 95 percent and, for sample\nsize calculation purposes, a desired relative precision for a variable estimate of\n20 percent. We considered coefficient of variation (CV) values of 100 percent and\n125 percent. With application of the finite population correction, these CVs generated\nsample sizes of 95 to 145, respectively. We chose to use a total of 120 delivery unit\ndays, randomly selecting six delivery units at the first stage and then randomly selecting\n20 delivery days at each of the units.\n\nResults\n\nThe value assigned to each delivery unit day is the total number of unjustified minutes in\na particular category. Using the total time value as the variable, we applied the\nequations for the projection of a variable in a two-stage sample using the equations\nfrom Chapter 9 of Scheaffer, Mendenhall, and Ott, Elementary Survey Sampling,\nc. 1996. The results for total unjustified time are summarized in Appendix B.\n\n\n\n\n 25\n\x0cCity Letter Carrier Operations - DR-AR-05-014\n San Diego District\n\n\n APPENDIX D\n\n OIG CALCULATION OF UNRECOVERABLE COSTS\nAs shown in the table below, the OIG identified $1,963,36218 in unjustified\n(unrecoverable) costs. The OIG calculated the unjustified costs through a random\nsample analysis of PS Form 3996. The \xe2\x80\x9c3996 audit\xe2\x80\x9d process is an assessment of\nindividual route time greater than eight hours. The audit process cannot differentiate\nbetween time that is truly unjustified and time that is simply not supported by\ndocumentation. The Total Variance Factor in the Postal Service\xe2\x80\x99s WebEIS shows the\ndifference between projected workhours for the workload identified in DOIS and the\nactual workhours used by the carriers. Pacific Area Delivery management and the OIG\nagreed to 50 percent of the WebEIS variance from May 1 through September 30, 2004,\nas the unrecoverable costs, which amounts to $1,423,935.19\n\n\n Workhours Labor Rate Cost\n Unjustified workhours 53,835 $36.47 $1,963,362\n identified by the OIG\n from May 1 through\n September 30, 2004,\n for 32 delivery facilities\n with 30-50 routes\n Workhours using 78,088 $36.47 $2,847,869\n Total Variance\n Factor in WebEIS for\n May 1 through\n September 30, 2004,\n for 32 delivery facilities\n with 30-50 routes\n Unrecoverable 39,044 $36.47 $1,423,935\n workhours identified by\n using 50 percent of\n WebEIS variance\n\n\n\n\n18\n Postal Service Finance memorandum dated March 5, 2004, shows the national average labor rate for city letter\ncarriers in FY 2004 was $36.47. The 53,835 hours multiplied by $36.47 equals $1,963,362.\n19\n Postal Service Finance memorandum dated March 5, 2004, shows the national average labor rate for city letter\ncarriers in FY 2004 was $36.47. The 39,044 hours multiplied by $36.47 equals $1,423,935.\n\n\n\n 26\n\x0cCity Letter Carrier Operations - DR-AR-05-014\n San Diego District\n\n\n APPENDIX E. MANAGEMENT\xe2\x80\x99S COMMENTS\n\n\n\n\n 27\n\x0cCity Letter Carrier Operations - DR-AR-05-014\n San Diego District\n\n\n\n\n 28\n\x0cCity Letter Carrier Operations - DR-AR-05-014\n San Diego District\n\n\n\n\n 29\n\x0cCity Letter Carrier Operations - DR-AR-05-014\n San Diego District\n\n\n\n\n 30\n\x0cCity Letter Carrier Operations - DR-AR-05-014\n San Diego District\n\n\n\n\n 31\n\x0cCity Letter Carrier Operations - DR-AR-05-014\n San Diego District\n\n\n\n\n 32\n\x0c"


text:
Normativa e leggi cookie e privacy per siti internet - Reseweb Srl Web Agency Siti internet professionali Catanzaro
 Normativa e leggi cookie e privacy per siti internet
 Ecco quali sono le norme e le leggi per i siti web
 Hai un sito web o devi creare un sito per la tua attività?
 allora devi sapere che ci sono norme e leggi sulla tutela della privacy e la gestione dei cookie che anche il tuo sito deve rispettare
 Di seguito alcune cose importanti che devi sapere per mantenere il tuo sito a norma di legge e che cercheremo di spiegarti brevemente
 Se sei titolare di una partita iva ed hai un sito internet per legge devi indicare sul tuo sito codice fiscale e partita IVA
 (art. 35, comma 1, D.P.R. n. 633/72 e art. 2199)
 Se hai una Società per azioni,una Società a responsabilità limitata o una Società in accomandita per azioni
 Devi per legge indicare sul sito:
 (dell'art. 42 della legge 7 luglio 2009, n. 88)
 In entrambi i casi le imprese e i liberi professionisti hanno l'obbligo di avere un indirizzo di Posta Elettronica Certificata da rendere pubblico mediante comunicazione al Registro delle Imprese, anche se non è obbligatorio inserirlo nel sito.
 Privacy e trattamento dei dati personali sito internet
 Se anche tu, come nella maggior parte dei casi, hai sul tuo sito una newsletter o un modulo contatti
 Devi sapere che hai l'obbligo di informare gli utenti del tuo sito sul trattamento dei dati personali per la Privacy,
 Il trattamento dei dati personali è obbligatorio per legge dal 2003
 quasi tutti i siti hanno una pagina per essere contattati ma non tutti sono a norma di legge, se anche il tuo sito non è a norma di legge devi inserire una pagina o un testo che informi l'utente su scopi e modalità del trattamento cui sono destinati i dati e altro.
 Questo comporta un intervento tecnico sul sito per la creazione di una pagina appropiata sulla Privacy, se non sai come farlo puoi contattarci per altre informazioni gratuite.
 (art. 161, D.Lgs. 196/2003)
 Gestione dei Cookie di un sito internet obbligatoria per legge
 Quasi tutti i siti internet utilizzano i Cookie per diverse funzioni forse anche nel tuo sito sono presenti dei cookie e non lo sai,
 ma devi sapere che dal 2014 devi notificare per legge agli utenti del tuo sito l'uso di eventuali cookie che memorizzano i dati di navigazione.
 i cookie sono file di informazioni che i siti web memorizzano sul computer dell'utente durante la navigazione, specialmente allo scopo di identificare chi ha già visitato il sito in precedenza
 solo i cookie detti "tecnici" sono parzialmente esclusi dalla normativa che ne regola la gestione.
 Gli altri cookie, come ad esempio quelli di Google Analytics e altri, raccolgono dati sull'utente che naviga e questi dati potrebbero essere usati per finalità di profilazione e marketing quindi è obbligatorio per il titolare del sito web informare gli utenti della presenza di questi cookie.
 Molti siti e forse anche il tuo utilizzano questo tipo di cookie quindi se non lo hai ancora fatto affrettati a rendere a norma di legge il tuo sito
 di seguito ecco come fare
 Per gestire i cookie a norma di legge devi far si che sul tuo sito appaia, ben in evidenza, un banner o una sezione che informi gli utenti della presenza dei cookie in modo che gli utenti possano darne esplicito consenso.
 Questo comporta un intervento tecnico sul sito web per la creazione e gestione del modulo di informativa cookie, se non sai come farlo puoi contattarci per altre informazioni gratuite.
 (D.Lgs. 28.5.2012, n. 69 e D.Lgs. 28.5.2012, n. 70. e Registro dei provvedimenti n. 229 dell'8 maggio 2014)
 Multe fino a 120.000€ per siti web non aggiornati
 Come accade per le norme che regolano tutte le attività economiche anche per i siti web ci sono delle normative e vanno rispettate.
 In caso contrario, se non si rispetta la legge, ci sono delle sanzioni e in questo caso possono arrivare fino a 120 mila euro!
 Se non ti sei ancora adeguato alle normative potresti incorrere in sanzioni e non è proprio il caso di correre questo rischio dato che stiamo parlando di cifre tutt'altro che irrisorie.
 Per altre informazioni visita il sito del Garante sulla Privacy che trovi cliccando qui
 A quanto ammontano le sanzioni per chi non si adegua alla legge sui Cookie?
 Le sanzioni sono salatissime:
 Nel caso di omessa informativa o di informativa inidonea: €6.000-€36.000 (art. 161 del Codice)
 Nel caso di installazione di cookie sui terminali degli utenti in assenza del preventivo consenso degli stessi: €10.000-€120.000 (art. 162, comma 2-bis, del Codice)
 Nel caso di omessa o incompleta notificazione al Garante: €20.000-€120.000 (art. 163 del Codice)
 Vuoi adeguarti alla normativa?
 Puoi contattarci cliccando qui per ricevere maggiori informazioni per rendere il tuo sito internet sia a norma di legge
 Oppure scopri il nostro servizio All in One per avere un sito professionale con gestione SEO dei contentuti e sempre a norma di legge
 Con il servizio All in One ti manterremo aggiornato ed implementeremo le modifiche necessarie in modo che il tuo sito sia sempre a norma di legge.


type: legislation

text:
 Avis juridique important
 |
 52000PC0111
 Ehdotus: Euroopan parlamentin ja neuvoston asetus jalkaväkimiinojen vastaisesta toiminnasta
 Virallinen lehti nro C 248 E , 29/08/2000 s. 0115 - 0118
 Ehdotus: EUROOPAN PARLAMENTIN JA NEUVOSTON ASETUS JALKAVÄKIMIINOJEN VASTAISESTA TOIMINNASTA(komission esittämä)EUROOPAN UNIONIN NEUVOSTO, jokaottaa huomioon Euroopan yhteisön perustamissopimuksen ja erityisesti sen 179 artiklan,ottaa huomioon komission ehdotuksen [1],[1] EYVL Lnoudattaa perustamissopimuksen 251 artiklassa määrättyä menettelyä,sekä katsoo seuraavaa:(1) Euroopan yhteisö on huolestunut sellaisilla alueilla sijaitsevista jalkaväkimiinoista ja muista räjähtämättömistä taisteluvälineistä, joiden siviiliväestö yrittää toipua siellä käydyistä aseellisista selkkauksista.(2) Jalkaväkimiinat synnyttävät kärsimystä ja uhreja erityisesti maailman köyhimmissä osissa. Ne haittaavat merkittävästi talouden kehittymistä ja ovat este pakolaisten ja asuinsijoiltaan siirtymään joutuneiden henkilöiden paluulle sekä humanitaariselle avustustoiminnalle, jälleenrakennukselle, kunnostukselle ja normaalien yhteiskuntaolojen palautumiselle.(3) Euroopan yhteisö on sitoutunut tavoitteeseen hävittää jalkaväkimiinat täysin koko maailmasta tulevina vuosina.(4) Euroopan yhteisö ja sen jäsenvaltiot osallistuvat kaikkein eniten kansainvälisiin pyrkimyksiin jalkaväkimiinojen aiheuttamien kärsimysten voittamiseksi.(5) Tämä asetus on välitön vastaus jalkaväkimiinojen käytön, varastoinnin, tuotannon ja siirtojen kiellosta ja niiden tuhoamisesta tehtyyn sopimukseen (Ottawan sopimus).(6) Näin ollen rahoitusapua olisi annettava ensisijaisesti niille yhteisön ulkopuolisille maille, jotka ovat sitoutuneet jalkaväkimiinojen vastaiseen toimintaan ja ovat Ottawan sopimuksen sopimuspuolia.(7) Tällainen lähestymistapa ei saa olla esteenä yhteisön toimille missä tahansa syntyvissä humanitaarisissa hätätilanteissa.(8) Yhteisön miinojen vastainen toiminta on usein erottamaton osa humanitaarisen avun hankkeita taikka kunnostamis-, jälleenrakennus- tai kehittämishankkeita, mutta se on samalla erillistä ja erikoistunutta toimintaa, jolla on omat ensisijaiset tavoitteensa, toimintavaatimukset ja poliittiset periaatteet.(9) Tällaisten hankkeiden osana, samoin kuin miinanraivausteknologian tutkimuksen ja kehittämisen puiteohjelmissa, uusia ja käynnissä olevia toimia rahoitetaan jatkossakin erityisistä budjettikohdista, ja niitä tuetaan, täydennetään ja koordinoidaan tarpeen mukaan tämän asetuksen nojalla.(10) Tämän asetuksen tarkoituksena on vahvistaa perusta yhtenäiselle ja tehokkaalle lähestymistavalle yhteisön miinojen vastaisessa toiminnassa ehdottamalla integroivaa strategiaa, jota koordinoitaisiin tiiviisti komission, jäsenvaltioiden ja kansainvälisen yhteisön kesken kaikissa miinojen vastaisen toiminnan vaiheissa.(11) On tarpeen varmistaa näiden toimien yhtenäisyys Euroopan unionin ulkopolitiikan, myös yhteisen ulko- ja turvallisuuspolitiikan kanssa.(12) Koska tämän asetuksen täytäntöönpanon edellyttämät toimenpiteet ovat menettelystä komissiolle siirrettyä täytäntöönpanovaltaa käytettäessä 28 päivänä kesäkuuta 1999 tehdyn neuvoston päätöksen 1999/468/EY [2] 2 artiklassa tarkoitettuja hallintotoimenpiteitä, ne olisi hyväksyttävä kyseisen päätöksen 4 artiklassa säädetyn hallintomenettelyn mukaisesti.[2] EYVL L 194, 17.7.1999, s. 23.(13) Koska jalkaväkimiinat ovat hengenvaarallisia ja ongelma maailmanlaajuinen, sen ratkaisu edellyttää tehokkaita, joustavia ja tarvittaessa nopeita päätöksentekomenettelyjä yhteisön toimen rahoittamiseksi.(14) Euroopan parlamentin, neuvoston ja komission 6 päivänä maaliskuuta 1995 antaman julistuksen 2 kohdassa tarkoitettu ohjeellinen rahoitusmäärä sisältyy tähän asetukseen ilman, että sillä on vaikutusta perustamissopimuksessa määriteltyihin budjettivallan käyttäjän valtuuksiin.(15) Yhteisön olisi varmistettava mahdollisimman suuri avoimuus rahoitusavun täytäntöönpanossa ja tiukka valvonta määrärahojen käytössä.(16) Yhteisön taloudellisten etujen suojelu sekä petosten ja väärinkäytösten torjunta ovat erottamaton osa tätä asetusta,ON ANTANUT TÄMÄN ASETUKSEN:1 artikla1. Tämän asetuksen tarkoituksena on vahvistaa menettelyt yhteisön toimien täytäntöönpanemiseksi sekä edistää johdonmukaista ja yhtenäistä, humanitaarista miinanraivausta koskevaa strategiaa yhteisössä ja kansainvälisellä tasolla vastauksena jalkaväkimiinojen käytön, varastoinnin, tuotannon ja siirtojen kiellosta ja niiden tuhoamisesta tehtyyn sopimukseen, jäljempänä 'Ottawan sopimus'.2. Tässä asetuksessa tarkoitettuja toimia toteutetaan yhteisön ulkopuolisten maiden alueella, tai ne liittyvät suoraan yhteisön ulkopuolisissa maissa, erityisesti kaikkein haavoittuvimmissa maissa ja ensisijaisesti kehitysmaissa syntyviin tilanteisiin.2 artikla1. Yhteisön miinojen vastaisen toiminnan päätavoitteena on:(a) tukea humanitaarista miinanraivausta koskevan strategian laatimista, seurantaa ja täytäntöönpanoa,(b) tukea miinoista kärsiviä maita Ottawan sopimuksesta niille johtuvien velvoitteiden täytäntöönpanossa,(c) luoda ja pitää yllä kansallisia rakenteita ja paikallisia toimintaedellytyksiä miinoista kärsivissä maissa miinojen vastaisen toiminnan toteuttamiseksi mahdollisimman tehokkaasti,(d) vastata humanitaarisiin hätätilanteisiin, estää onnettomuuksien syntyminen ja tukea miinojen uhrien kuntoutusta, ja(e) tukea miinojen vastaiseen toimintaan soveltuvien laitteiden ja tekniikoiden kokeilua ja käyttöönottoa asianomaisissa maissa.2. Tämän asetuksen nojalla voidaan rahoittaa mitä tahansa miinojen vastaista toimintaa, muun muassa(a) miinoista tiedottamista,(b) asiantuntijoiden koulutusta,(c) epäilyksenalaisten alueiden kartoittamista ja merkitsemistä,(d) maamiinojen paikantamista ja tunnistamista,(e) (humanitaaristen standardien mukaista) miinanraivausta ja maamiinojen tuhoamista,(f) uhrien tukemista ja kuntoutusta,(g) tiedonhallintaa (myös maantieteellisiä tietojärjestelmiä), sekä(h) muita toimia, jotka osaltaan vähentävät jalkaväkimiinojen ja muiden vaarallisten sodankäyntijätteiden ihmisiin, talouteen ja ympäristöön kohdistuvia vaikutuksia.3. Edellä 2 kohdassa tarkoitetussa toiminnassa etusijalla ovat toimet, joilla vastataan välittömiin ja ennalta arvaamattomiin olosuhteisiin, joita syntyy taistelujen puhjetessa, suurten ihmisryhmien siirtyessä miinoitetuille alueille sekä muissa vastaavissa tilanteissa, kuten rauhansopimusten täytäntöönpanemiseksi annettavan hätäavun yhteydessä. Etusijalle asetetaan myös toimet miinoista eniten kärsivissä maissa, joissa jalkaväkimiinat ja muut räjähtämättömät taisteluvälineet aiheuttavat monia siviiliuhreja tai joissa näiden välineiden esiintyminen tai epäily siitä haittaa merkittävällä tavalla taloudellisen ja yhteiskunnallisen toiminnan elpymistä tai muuta kehitystä. Tällaiset toimet edellyttävät erityistä pitkän aikavälin sitoutumista, jollaista ei sisälly humanitaariseen hätäapuun tai jälleenrakennusapuun.4. Yhtenäisyyden, täydentävyyden ja synergian varmistamiseksi alueellisissa yhteistyöohjelmissa, humanitaarisen avun hankkeissa sekä kunnostus-, jälleenrakennus- ja kehittämishankkeissa sellaisia miinojen vastaisia toimia, joita voidaan rahoittaa osana kyseisiä ohjelmia tai hankkeita, rahoitetaan jatkossakin siitä budjettikohdasta, josta pääasiallista toimintaa rahoitetaan. Tarvittaessa toimintaa voidaan täydentää tai tukea tämän asetuksen nojalla rahoitettavilla miinojen vastaisilla toimilla.3 artiklaTämän asetuksen nojalla rahoitettavia toimia toteutetaan pääasiassa niissä maissa, jotka ovat Ottawan sopimuksen sopimuspuolia. Poikkeuksia voidaan tehdä humanitaaristen hätätilanteiden, miinojen uhreille annettavan tuen ja sellaisten toimien osalta, jotka suoraan tukevat haavoittuvia väestöryhmiä, kuten pakolaisia ja asuinsijoiltaan siirtymään joutuneita ihmisiä, tai tilanteessa, jossa kansallinen hallinto ei toimi kunnolla.4 artikla1. Tämän asetuksen mukaista rahoitustukea voivat saada alueelliset ja kansainväliset organisaatiot ja elimet, valtiosta riippumattomat järjestöt, kansalliset, alueelliset ja paikalliset hallintoelimet, laitokset sekä julkiset ja yksityiset toimijat, joilla on asianmukaista erikoisasiantuntemusta ja kokemusta.2. Tarjouskilpailuihin ja hankintasopimuksiin voivat yhtäläisin ehdoin osallistua jäsenvaltioiden ja edunsaajamaan luonnolliset henkilöt ja oikeushenkilöt. Asianmukaisesti perustelluissa poikkeustapauksissa osallistumisoikeus voidaan laajentaa koskemaan kolmansia maita.5 artikla1. Tämän asetuksen nojalla annettavaa yhteisön apua voidaan käyttää teknisen avun, koulutuksen, henkilöstön tai muiden miinojen vastaiseen toimintaan liittyvien palvelujen rahoittamiseen, laitteiston ja tekniikan kokeiluun, logistiikkaan ja miinojen vastaisten toimien täytäntöönpanossa tarvittavien laitteiden, tarvikkeiden ja töiden hankintaan, toimitukseen ja varastointiin, tutkimuksiin, konferensseihin ja toimenpiteisiin miinojen vastaisen toiminnan kansainvälisen koordinoinnin lisäämiseksi, arviointi- ja seurantakäynteihin, yleisen tietoisuuden lisäämiseen sekä yhteisön avusta tiedottamiseen.2. Tämän asetuksen mukaista yhteisön rahoitusta annetaan avustuksina.3. Tämän asetuksen soveltamisalaan kuuluvista toimista ei peritä veroja, tulleja eikä muita maksuja.6 artikla1. Komissiota avustaa asianomainen maantieteellinen komitea, joka muodostuu jäsenvaltioiden edustajista ja jonka puheenjohtajana toimii komission edustaja.2. Tämän kohdan osalta sovelletaan päätöksen 1999/468/EY 4 artiklassa säädettyä hallintomenettelyä kyseisen päätöksen 7 artiklan 3 kohdan ja 8 artiklan mukaisesti.3. Päätöksen 1999/468/EY 4 artiklan 3 kohdassa säädetty määräaika on kolme kuukautta.7 artikla1. Komissio huolehtii vastavuoroisen ja säännöllisen, myös paikalla tapahtuvan tietojenvaihdon pohjalta yhteisön ja yksittäisten jäsenvaltioiden toteuttamien avunantotoimien tehokkaasta koordinoinnista ohjelmien yhtenäisyyden ja täydentävyyden parantamiseksi.2. Komissio voi selvittää yhteisrahoitusmahdollisuuksia muiden rahoittajien, erityisesti jäsenvaltioiden kanssa.3. Komissio edistää koordinointia ja yhteistyötä muiden kansainvälisten, erityisesti Yhdistyneiden Kansakuntien toimintaan osallistuvien rahoittajien kanssa.4. Yhteisön rahoitusosuuden tunnetuksi tekemiseksi toteutetaan tarvittavia toimenpiteitä.8 artikla1. Komissio huolehtii tämän asetuksen soveltamisalaan kuuluvien toimien arvioinnista, niihin liittyvästä päätöksenteosta ja hallinnoinnista noudattaen talousarviota koskevia ja muita voimassa olevia, erityisesti Euroopan yhteisöjen yleiseen talousarvioon sovellettavan varainhoitoasetuksen 116 ja 118 artiklassa säädettyjä menettelyjä.2. Yli kolmen miljoonan euron suuruiset rahoituspäätökset tehdään 6 artiklan 2 kohdassa säädettyä menettelyä noudattaen lukuun ottamatta 9 artiklan mukaisia hätätoimia.3. Komissio ilmoittaa 6 artiklassa tarkoitetulle komitealle lyhyesti kaikista alle kolmen miljoonan euron suuruisista rahoituspäätöksistä. Tiedot on toimitettava viimeistään kahden kuukauden kuluessa rahoituspäätöksen tekemisestä.4. Komissio voi muuttaa 6 artiklan 2 kohdassa säädetyn menettelyn mukaisesti tehtyjä rahoituspäätöksiä edellyttäen, että päätös ei muutu merkittävästi ja että mahdollisesti myönnettävä lisärahoitus on enintään 20 prosenttia alkuperäisestä maksusitoumuksesta.9 artikla1. Komissio päättää enintään viiden miljoonan euron suuruisista hätätoimista.2. Hätätoimiksi katsotaan toimet, joilla pyritään vastaamaan äkillisten luonnonkatastrofien tai ihmisen toiminnallaan aiheuttaman tuhon, kuten tulvien, nälänhädän ja suurten ihmisryhmien siirtymisen miinoitetuille alueille, äkillisten rauhansopimusten ja vastaavien tilanteiden synnyttämiin välittömiin ja ennalta arvaamattomiin vaateisiin, samoin kuin rauhansopimusten täytäntöönpanoon liittyvä hätäapu.3. Jos toimet täyttävät nämä edellytykset ja ovat arvoltaan yli kolme miljoonaa euroa, tehtyään asiassa päätöksen komissio (a) ilmoittaa asiasta jäsenvaltioille kirjallisesti kahden työpäivän kuluessa ja (b) antaa asianomaisen komitean seuraavassa kokouksessa perustelut päätökselle sekä erityisesti sille, miksi se on soveltanut kiireellistä menettelyä.10 artikla1. Hankkeet pannaan tärkeysjärjestykseen ja arvioidaan niiden merkityksen ja kustannusvaikuttavuuden perusteella sekä tarvittaessa liitetään osaksi kyseisen maan tai alueen laajempaa kehitys- tai jälleenrakennustyötä.2. Hankkeet on mahdollisuuksien mukaan vietävä selvästi osaksi kansallista jalkaväkimiinaohjelmaa, jota koordinoi edunsaajamaan hallitus tai siihen valtuutettu kansainvälinen elin. Tarkoituksena on, että ajan mittaan edunsaajamaan hallitus ottaa hankkeen omalle vastuulleen paikallisten toimintaedellytysten vahvistamiseksi ja hankkeen jatkuvuuden varmistamiseksi.11 artikla Kaikissa tämän asetuksen nojalla tehdyissä rahoitussopimuksissa ja muissa sopimuksissa määrätään, että komissio ja tilintarkastustuomioistuin voivat suorittaa paikalla tarkastuksia komission voimassa olevien sääntöjen ja erityisesti Euroopan yhteisöjen yleiseen talousarvioon sovellettavan varainhoitoasetuksen sääntöjen perusteella vahvistamien tavanomaisten menettelyjen mukaisesti. [3][3] EYVL L 356, 31.12.1977, s. 1. Lisäksi komissio voi asetuksen N:o 2185/96 [4] mukaisesti suorittaa paikalla tarkastuksia ja todentamisia. Komission toteuttamilla toimenpiteillä varmistetaan Euroopan yhteisön taloudellisten etujen riittävä suoja asetuksen N:o 2988/95 [5] mukaisesti.[4] EYVL L 292, 15.11.1996, s. 2.[5] EYVL L 312, 23.12.1995, s. 1.12 artiklaMonivuotisen miinojen vastaisen toiminnan koordinoinnin ja suunnittelun helpottamiseksi asianomaisille komiteoille toimitetaan säännöllisesti keskustelua varten jalkaväkimiinoja koskeva strategiaesitys, joka sisältää yhteisön miinojen vastaisen toiminnan laaja-alaiset suuntaviivat ja ensisijaiset tavoitteet sekä välitavoitteet näiden saavuttamiseksi. Siinä käsitellään muun muassa monivuotisia maa-ohjelmia sekä olemassa olevia miinojen vastaisia toimintaohjelmia maittain ja alueittain, muiden avunantajien, myös jäsenvaltioiden rahoitusosuuksia, sekä muista budjettikohdista rahoitettavaa yhteisön miinojen vastaista toimintaa.13 artikla1. Komissio arvioi säännöllisesti yhteisön rahoittamaa miinojen vastaista toimintaa sen määrittelemiseksi, onko toiminnan tavoitteet saavutettu, ja suuntaviivojen antamiseksi siitä, miten tulevaa toimintaa voidaan tehostaa.2. Komissio tiedottaa Euroopan parlamentille ja neuvostolle säännöllisesti miinojen vastaisen toimintansa edistymisestä. Se toimittaa Euroopan parlamentille ja neuvostolle yhteenvetokertomuksen yhteisön edellisvuonna toteuttamasta miinojen vastaisesta toiminnasta kunkin vuoden 30 päivään huhtikuuta mennessä ja esittää arvion tämän asetuksen täytäntöönpanosta.14 artiklaKomissio antaa kolmen vuoden kuluttua tämän asetuksen voimaantulosta Euroopan parlamentille ja neuvostolle yleisarvion yhteisön tämän asetuksen nojalla rahoittamista toimista sekä asetuksen jatkoa ja tarvittaessa sen muuttamista koskevia ehdotuksia.15 artiklaTämä asetus tulee voimaan kolmantena päivänä sen jälkeen, kun se on julkaistu Euroopan yhteisöjen virallisessa lehdessä.Tämä asetus on kaikilta osiltaan velvoittava, ja sitä sovelletaan sellaisenaan kaikissa jäsenvaltioissa.Tehty BrysselissäEuroopan parlamentin puolesta Neuvoston puolestaPuhemies PuheenjohtajaRAHOITUSSELVITYS1. Toimenpiteen nimiJalkaväkimiinat2. BudjettikohtaB7-6613. OikeusperustaLiitteenä oleva ehdotusluonnos budjettikohtaa B7-661 koskevaksi uudeksi Euroopan parlamentin ja neuvoston erityisasetukseksi, johon on koottu yhteen miinojen vastaista toimintaa koskevat yhteisön eri vaatimukset.Miinojen vastaisen toiminnan oikeusperustan muodostavat humanitaarisesta avusta 20 päivänä kesäkuuta 1996 annettu neuvoston asetus (EY) N:o 1257/96 (EYVL L 163, 2.7.1996), kehitysmaissa toteutettavista kunnostamis- ja jälleenrakennustoimista 22 päivänä marraskuuta 1996 annettu neuvoston asetus (EY) N:o 2258/96, Bosnialle ja Hertsegovinalle, Kroatialle, Jugoslavian liittotasavallalle ja entiselle Jugoslavian tasavallalle Makedonialle annettavasta avusta 25 päivänä heinäkuuta 1996 annettu neuvoston asetus (EY) N:o 1628/96, siirtymään joutuneiden väestöryhmien avustamista Aasian ja Latinalaisen Amerikan kehitysmaissa koskevista toimista 3 päivänä maaliskuuta 1997 annettu neuvoston asetus (EY) N:o 443/97 ja 1 päivänä lokakuuta 1996 hyväksytty yhteinen toiminta jalkaväkimiinoista (EYVL L 260, 12.10.1996), joka koskee yhteisen ulko- ja turvallisuuspolitiikan mukaisille aseistariisuntatoimille varattuja varoja.4. Toimenpiteen kuvaus4.1 Toimenpiteen yleistavoiteJalkaväkimiinat aiheuttavat hirvittäviä tapaturmia monissa maailman köyhimmissä osissa ja vaikeuttavat useiden yhteisön ohjelmien täytäntöönpanoa. Siksi yhteisö osoitti vuosina 1992-1998 yli 180 miljoonaa euroa ympäri maailmaa toteutettavaan miinojen vastaiseen toimintaan, kuten miinanraivausohjelmiin, miinojen uhreille annettavaan tukeen sekä tutkimukseen ja teknologiseen kehittämiseen. Tämä on muodostanut merkittävän osan kansainvälisen yhteisön maailmanlaajuisista ponnisteluista, mutta työsarkaa on vielä riittämiin.Nykyisenä tavoitteena on jatkaa ohjelmia maamiinaongelman ratkaisemiseksi tietyssä määräajassa eli seuraavien 10-15 vuoden kuluessa ja siten helpottaa monien muiden avustusohjelmien täytäntöönpanoa ja edistää tämän valtavan inhimillisen tragedian ratkaisua.Kaiken kaikkiaan yhteisön toimien rahoituksen pitäisi olla vähintään samaa tasoa kuin tähänkin asti.4.2 Toimenpiteen kesto ja sen uusimista koskevat järjestelyt- Toimi: Jalkaväkimiinat- Soveltamisjakso: 2000-2008Asetuksen 12 artiklan mukaisesti komissio antaa Euroopan parlamentille ja neuvostolle viimeistään kesäkuussa 2007 yleisarvion yhteisön tämän asetuksen nojalla rahoittamista toimista ja arvioi muun muassa toimien merkitystä, kustannusvaikuttavuutta ja vaikutuksia. Tällä perusteella päätetään asetuksen soveltamisen jatkamisesta.5. Menojen ja tulojen luokitus5.1 Ei-pakolliset menot5.2 Jaksotetut määrärahat5.3 Ei tuloja6. Meno-/tulolaji- tuen osuus 100 %, toiminnan yhteisrahoitus mahdollista- yhteisrahoitus julkisen ja/tai yksityisen sektorin muiden tulolähteiden kanssa- muu7. RahoitusvaikutuksetYhden ainoan monivuotisen budjettikohdan (B7-661) avulla ja sen määrärahojen lisäämisellä yhteisön miinojen vastainen toiminta voidaan kohdistaa entistä paremmin. On ehdotettu, että ajanjaksolla 2000-2006 yhteisön toiminnan rahoituksen olisi oltava vähintään samantasoista kuin tähänkin asti (180 miljoonaa euroa ajanjaksolla 1992-1998). Sellaisten miinojen vastaisten toimien painoarvoa on lisättävä, joilla vastataan Ottawan sopimuksen sitoumuksiin. Tämä voisi nostaa budjettikohdasta B7-661 myönnettävän rahoituksen määrää.7.1 Toimenpiteen kokonaiskustannusten laskutapa (yksittäisten ja yhteenlaskettujen kustannusten välinen suhde)Budjettivallan käyttäjä myöntää vuosittaiset määrärahat rahoitusnäkymien rajoissa.7.2 Kustannusten jakautuminen eri tekijöiden keskenMaksusitoumusmäärärahat miljoonaa euroa (3 desimaalin tarkkuudella)>TAULUKON PAIKKA>7.3 Yleisen talousarvion B osaan sisältyvät tutkimuksista, asiantuntijatapaamisista jne. aiheutuvat toimintamenot7.4 Maksusitoumusmäärärahojen/maksumäärärahojen aikataulu8. PetostentorjuntatoimetKaikissa rahoitussopimuksissa ja muissa sopimuksissa määrätään, että komissio ja tilintarkastustuomioistuin voivat suorittaa paikalla tarkastuksia komission voimassa olevia sääntöjä ja erityisesti Euroopan yhteisöjen yleiseen talousarvioon sovellettavan varainhoitoasetuksen sääntöjä noudattaen vahvistamien tavanomaisten menettelyjen mukaisesti. Lisäksi komissio voi asetuksen N:o 2185/96 mukaisesti suorittaa paikalla tarkastuksia ja todentamisia. Komission 5 artiklassa tarkoitetun menettelyn mukaisesti toteuttamilla toimenpiteillä varmistetaan Euroopan yhteisön taloudellisten etujen riittävä suoja asetuksen N:o 2988/95 mukaisesti. 9. Kustannusvaikuttavuusanalyysi9.1 Määrälliset erityistavoitteet ja kohderyhmäYhteisön miinojen vastaisen toiminnan päätavoitteena on:a. tukea yhtenäisen ja johdonmukaisen, humanitaarista miinanraivausta koskevan strategian laatimista, seurantaa ja käytännön täytäntöönpanoa niin komission, EU:n kuin kansainväliselläkin tasolla,b. tukea miinoista eniten kärsiviä valtioita jalkaväkimiinojen käytön, varastoinnin, tuotannon ja siirtojen kiellosta ja niiden tuhoamisesta tehdystä sopimuksesta niille johtuvien velvoitteiden täytäntöönpanossa,c. luoda ja pitää yllä kansallisia rakenteita ja paikallisia edellytyksiä miinoista kärsivissä maissa miinojen vastaisten toimien toteuttamiseksi mahdollisimman tehokkaasti,d. vastata välittömissä ja ennalta arvaamattomissa olosuhteissa humanitaarisiin hätätilanteisiin, estää onnettomuuksien syntyminen ja auttaa miinojen uhrien kuntoutuksessa, jae. tukea miinojen vastaiseen toimintaan soveltuvien laitteiden ja tekniikoiden kokeilua ja käyttöönottoa asianomaisissa maissa.Näihin tavoitteisiin pyritään yleishyödyllisten hankkeiden avulla miinoista eniten kärsivissä maissa, jotka on ryhmitelty maantieteellisen sijaintinsa mukaan. Mahdollisia kohteita ovat:- yleishyödylliset hankkeet (esim. jalkaväkimiinoja koskevan strategiaesityksen laatiminen, tuki YK:lle, GICHD:lle, ICRC:lle ja miinojen vastaisen toiminnan keskusyksikölle, miinojen vastaiseen toimintaan tarkoitettujen laitteiden ja tekniikoiden kokeilu ja käyttöönotto asianomaisissa maissa sekä asiantuntija-apu),- Afrikka (esim. Angola, Mosambik, Somalia, Zimbabwe ja SADC),- Aasia (esim. Afganistan, Kamboda ja Laos),- uudet itsenäiset valtiot (esim. Tadikistan),- Lähi-itä (esim. Irakin pohjoisosat),- Eurooppa (esim. Bosnia ja Hertsegovina, Kroatia ja Kosovo), ja- Latinalainen Amerikka (esim. Nicaragua ja El Salvador).9.2 Toimenpiteen perustelutTämän asetuksen nojalla voidaan rahoittaa mitä tahansa miinojen vastaista toimintaa, muun muassa miinoista tiedottamista, epäilyksenalaisten alueiden kartoittamista ja merkitsemistä, maamiinojen paikantamista ja tunnistamista, asiantuntijoiden koulutusta, (humanitaaristen standardien mukaista) miinanraivausta ja maamiinojen tuhoamista sekä uhrien auttamista ja kuntoutusta, tietopalveluja (myös maantieteellisiä tietojärjestelmiä) ja muita toimia, jotka osaltaan vähentävät jalkaväkimiinojen ja muiden vaarallisten sodankäyntijätteiden ihmisiin, talouteen ja ympäristöön kohdistuvia vaikutuksia.Hankkeiden on oltava monivuotisia. Hankkeiden kesto riippuu niiden luonteesta ja on yleensä enintään kolme vuotta.9.3 Toimenpiteen seuranta ja arviointiKomissio arvioi säännöllisesti yhteisön rahoittamaa miinojen vastaista toimintaa sen määrittelemiseksi, onko toiminnan tavoitteet saavutettu, ja suuntaviivojen antamiseksi siitä, miten tulevaa toimintaa voidaan tehostaa. Komissio tiedottaa Euroopan parlamentille ja neuvostolle miinojen vastaisen toimintansa edistymisestä. Se toimittaa Euroopan parlamentille ja neuvostolle yhteenvetokertomuksen yhteisön edellisvuonna toteuttamasta miinojen vastaisesta toiminnasta kunkin vuoden 30 päivään huhtikuuta mennessä.10. Hallintomenot (yleisen talousarvion pääluokan iii osa A)Tarvittavat hallintomäärärahat saadaan varsinaisesti käyttöön vasta, kun komissio on tehnyt voimavarojen jakoa koskevan vuosittaisen päätöksensä, jossa otetaan huomioon budjettivallan käyttäjän vahvistamat lisämäärärahat ja lisähenkilöstön määrä.10.1 Vaikutus toimien määrään>TAULUKON PAIKKA>Tämän asetuksen tarkoituksena on nykyisten toimien yhdistäminen yhtenäisen, miinojen vastaista toimintaa koskevan EU-politiikan luomiseksi. Lyhyellä aikavälillä tarvitsisi myöntää ainoastaan kolme virkaa (kaksi vakinaista virkaa ja yksi kansallinen asiantuntija). Vakinaiset virat voidaan täyttää uudelleenjärjestelyin. 10.2 Lisähenkilöstön käytön taloudellinen kokonaisvaikutus(euroa)>TAULUKON PAIKKA>Lisähenkilöstö ja tarvittavat hallintomäärärahat saadaan varsinaisesti käyttöön vasta, kun komissio on tehnyt voimavarojen jakoa koskevan vuosittaisen päätöksensä, jossa otetaan erityisesti huomioon henkilöstön sisäisen uudelleenjärjestelyn tarjoamat mahdollisuudet sekä budjettivallan käyttäjän vahvistamat lisävoimavarat.10.3 Toiminnasta aiheutuvien hallintomenojen kasvuSeuraava taulukko on ohjeellinen, ja se perustuu vuoden 1998 tietoihin.(euroa)>TAULUKON PAIKKA>Yllä olevassa taulukossa budjettikohdan A-7 (virkamatkat) menot katetaan ulkosuhteiden pääosaston kokonaismäärärahoista.