alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 170 (Friday, August 31, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 44625-44626]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2018-18932]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[ER-FRL-9041-1]


Environmental Impact Statements; Notice of Availability

AGENCY: Office of Federal Activities, EPA.

General Information (202) 564-7156 or https://www2.epa.gov/nepa/
Weekly receipt of Environmental Impact Statements
Filed 08/20/2018 Through 08/24/2018
Pursuant to 40 CFR 1506.9.

Notice

    Section 309(a) of the Clean Air Act requires that EPA make public 
its comments on EISs issued by other Federal agencies. EPA's comment 
letters on EISs are available at: https://cdxnodengn.epa.gov/cdx-enepa-public/action/eis/search.

EIS No. 20180192, Draft, BLM, AZ, Ten West Link 500kV Transmission Line 
Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Draft Resource 
Management Plan Amendments, Comment Period Ends: 11/29/2018, Contact: 
Joseph Incardine 801-560-7135.
EIS No. 20180193, Final, DOI, AK, Liberty Development and Production 
Plan Beaufort Sea, Alaska Final Environmental Impact Statement, Review 
Period Ends: 10/01/2018, Contact: Lauren Boldrick 907-334-5200.
EIS No. 20180194, Draft, FERC, OR, Swan Lake North Pumped Storage 
Project, Comment Period Ends: 10/15/2018, Contact: Dianne Rodman 202-
502-6077.
EIS No. 20180195, Draft, BLM, WY, Leavitt Reservoir Expansion Project, 
Comment Period Ends: 10/15/2018, Contact: Holly Elliott 307-347-5100.
EIS No. 20180196, Final, BLM, AK, Alpine Satellite Development Plan for 
the Proposed Greater Mooses Tooth 2 Development Project, Review Period 
Ends: 10/01/2018, Contact: Stephanie Rice 907-271-3202.
EIS No. 20180197, Draft, BLM, WY, Lost Creek Uranium In-Situ Recovery 
Project Modifications, Comment Period Ends: 10/15/2018, Contact: 
Annette Treat 307-328-4314.
EIS No. 20180199, Draft, USFWS, IA, Draft Environmental Impact 
Statement for Proposed Habitat Conservation Plan and Incidental Take 
Permit, Comment Period Ends: 10/15/2018, Contact: Kraig McPeek 309-757-
5800.
EIS No. 20180199, Final Supplement, TVA, KY, Shawnee Fossil Plant Coal

[[Page 44626]]

Combustion Residual Management, Review Period Ends: 10/01/2018, 
Contact: Ashley Pilakowski 865-632-2256.
EIS No. 20180200, Draft, BLM, WY, Alkali Creek Reservoir Project, 
Comment Period Ends: 10/15/2018, Contact: Holly Elliott 307-347-5100.
EIS No. 20180201, Final, USFS, CA, Mammoth Base Area Land Exchange, 
Review Period Ends: 10/15/2018, Contact: Janelle Walker 760-924-5523.
EIS No. 20180202, Final, FAA, AZ, Tucson International Airport--
Airfield Safety Enhancement Project, Review Period Ends: 10/01/2018, 
Contact: David Kessler 424-405-7315.

    Dated: August 28, 2018.
Robert Tomiak,
Director, Office of Federal Activities.
[FR Doc. 2018-18932 Filed 8-30-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
T hi s di s pos i t i on i s notappr opr i a t e f orpubl i c a t i on and i s notpr e c e de nt * e xc e pta s pr ovi de d by9th C i r . R . 36- 3.

T he pane lunani m ous l yc onc l ude s thi s c a s e i s s ui t abl e f orde c i s i on ** w ith o u t o r a l ar g u m e n t. See F ed. R . A pp . P . 34 (a )( 2). NOT F OR P UB L I CAT I ON UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS FOR T HE NI NTH CI RC UI T UR I E L R AF AE L R AMI R E Z - S OS A, P et i t i on er , v. E R I C H . H O L D E R , J r ., A tto rn e yG e n e r a l, R e s p o n d e n t. N o. 08- 72739 A ge nc yN o. A 029- 555- 568 ME MOR AN DU M *

O n P e t i t i on f

orR e vi e w of

an O r de rof

the B o ar do f I m m ig r a tio n A p p e a ls S ubm i tt e d O c t obe r19, 2010 ** B efo re: O ’ S C A N N L A IN , T A L L M A N , an dB E A , C i rcu i tJu d g es. U ri elR af

ae lR am i re z- S osa, a nat i ve and ci t i ze n o f N i cara gu a, pet i t i on s pro s e f o rr e v ie w o f

th e B o ar do f

I m m ig r a tio n A p p e a ls ’ ( “B I A ” ) o r d e rd is m is s in g h is appe a lf r om an i m m i gr a t i on j udge ’ s ( “ I J ” ) de c i s i on de ny i ng hi s appl i c a t i on f or c an c e lla tio n o f

r e m o v a l. O u rju r is d ic tio n is g o v e rn e db y8 U .S .C . § 1 2 5 2 . W e 

# FI LED OC T 26 2010 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS08- 72739 2 r e v ie w d e n o v o c la im s o f c o n s titu tio n a l v io la tio n s in im m ig r a tio n p r o c e e d in g s , se e Ra m v . I NS , 2 4 3 F .3 d5 1 0 , 5 1 6 ( 9 th C ir . 2 0 0 1 ) , an dw e d e n yin p art an dd is m is s in p artth e p e t i t i o n f

o rr e v i e w. R am ir e z - S o s ac o n te n d s th e I Jv io la te ddu e p r o c e s s b yn o t p r o v id in g h im w ith ac o p yo f

th e 1 9 9 1 o r d e rg r an tin g h im s u s p e n s io n o f d e p o rta tio n . C o n tr aryto R am i re z- S osa’ s c on t ent i on , the proceedi ng s w er e not“ so fund am ent al l y unfai r that [he] w as prevent ed fr om re as on abl y pre se nt i ng hi s c as e. ” Co lm e n a rv . I NS , 210 F .3 d9 6 7 , 9 7 1 ( 9 th C ir . 2 0 0 0 ) ( c ita tio n o m itte d ) . M o r e o v e r , R am ir e z - S o s af a ile dto de m ons tr a t e tha tc orr e c t i ng the I J ’ s a l l e ge d e rr orm ayhave a f f e c t e d the out c om e of th e p r o c e e d in g s . Se e id . (requ i ri n g p rej u d i ce t o p rev ai lo n a du e p ro cess c h a lle n g e ) . W e l a c k j ur i s di c t i on t o r e vi e w R am i r e z - S os a ’ s c ha l l e nge t o hi s c har ge of re m ov abi l i ty bec ause he fa i l ed t o rai se thati ss ue before the B IA and there by fa i l ed to e x h au s t h is a d m in is tr a tiv e r e m e d ie s . Se e B a rr o n v . A s h c r o ft , 358 F . 3d 674, 678 (9th C i r. 20 04 ). P E T IT IO N F O R R E V IE W D E N IE D i n p art; D IS M IS S E D i n p art.
MEETING SIGN - IN SHEET Project : TDI/MDI Workshop Facilitator: Name



# lU^^k ,^, cF o V4-

^Z cL_1d q^ L .c^1/Iid9Q Company Phone

...... 

### ., 5a-Z3Zo 7o3 Fax E-Mail

Ay.*f . cvor 

### D qsC vtn

.. . /•O . ...... 

### .......... . ... . '71 /C7ele BSc'-h4'.i

.... dAr.rs._....b1 dddreL @....... 0n^Or C. 4 M1; f C(tn, 5cc^.ec.o{--^ ^

1-RftAJU C}A1MN-iNq j^. i 379-ozy/ ._-.__..-.-........... ...... _ .................. 734 3.1 c/-5.1gL 

### 1513 ............ 

## 6orll4 6loe a 1.33w .. 

## ...... ...

M D i, 4- f iY 3_v;c -st, y - 4 

### US CeA A(I I- -J t.re . r , t ^aCc ;^ R itw5 . Cl ' i.41(Jac^^. CD ^G,D^ - C G . j^{-^;hld .& rot 

### e a. o v P s s. 

### C4 

### ej j fD 1_; Ejell.^es^i cp. ^ SUu_n

----------- - 

## 0 V-'
Page 1 of 1MEETING SIGN - IN SHEET Project : TDI/MDI Workshop Facilitator: Nam e 

### 6, 144,r Title Company
P 

### ...... ( IL 

### ... ......... 

### ... ........... _....... ACC , CP \ 

### C-Pj CP5c J

.. .. .. ..__.......... 

### Mead e ;C e, (dam

s Q of i 

## c c'SC G ^^F IC^FPr (^L Ld- ^(LoN^;i a j- yt^r^vc 

# pto'__C., c X'/ R 04O 6 is ; l^vN rS 11-744/

®1^'^,Cfio r, a r '^6,fC. Rrl.rn {-5Q

twc Meeting Date : 2/15/2012

Place/Room: Phone Fax E-Mail 3 016 3 0 5 a

.............._ ................. 202-- ZUq_ 

### r \MAW 

### -VC

r.eA •. ce!n._.__.
..._._..-......_... JicllLtY._ USmGtr't - 5y^h erP^m (" (anC^, icc^mr^

Page 1 of 1

## O(l - Jl ^'h on MEETING SIGN-IN SHEET Project : TDI/MDI Workshop Facilitator: Name Title

Dar?na- A?,q) n
.................................................................... 

### cb fre cher : . . . . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . . . . .. . .. . .. . .. . . . . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . . . . . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . .. . k f ^i e'$ecl,.r9 .............._........ ......................... ....J O n t^ a _sakw,C I-^ Meeting Date : 2/15/201 2 Place/Room:

Page 1 of 1
#### Agnes Becker, as Administratrix of the Estate of Magdalene J. Vanderlip, Deceased, Appellant, v New York Telephone Company, Respondent.

Judgment unanimously reversed on the law with costs and new trial granted. Memorandum: Plaintiff is entitled to a new trial because the charge given by the court was confusing, incoherent and incomplete with respect to the applicable legal principles *(see, Cumbo v Valente,*118 AD2d 679; *Lopato v Kinney Rent-A-Car,*73 AD2d 565; *Biener v City of New York,*47 AD2d 520; *see also, Runfola v Bryant,*127 AD2d 972). Supreme Court failed to give a specific charge on comparative negligence, intermingled the principles of comparative negligence and proximate cause, and interjected elements of contributory negligence into the charge, thereby implying to the jury that, if plaintiffs decedent had been negligent in any way, there could be no recovery. In the circumstances of this case, it is doubtful that the jury gave fair consideration to plaintiff’s claims *(see, Theodoropoulos v New York City Health & Hosps. Corp.,*90 AD2d 792; *cf., Binder v Supermarkets Gen. Corp.,*49 AD2d 562).

We have examined plaintiffs other contentions and find them to be without merit. (Appeal from Judgment of Supreme Court, Erie County, Sedita, J.—Negligence.) Present—Callahan, J. P., Doerr, Green, Balio and Lowery, JJ.
#### MANGUM v. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF BREVARD COUNTY.

No. 36914.

Supreme Court of Florida.

Feb. 1968.

Certiorari denied without opinion. 202 So.2d 207.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                              5
<RESTATED>

<S>                                    <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                          9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                      DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                         JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                           SEP-30-1996
<CASH>                                 3,284,024
<SECURITIES>                           0
<RECEIVABLES>                          0
<ALLOWANCES>                           0
<INVENTORY>                            0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                       4,102,440
<PP&E>                                 71,714
<DEPRECIATION>                         0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                         6,213,362
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                  3,389,702
<BONDS>                                0
<COMMON>                               61,719
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                  0
<PREFERRED>                            8,075
<OTHER-SE>                             2,753,866
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>           5,213,362
<SALES>                                0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                       1,500,000
<CGS>                                  0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                          3,586,094
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                       0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                       0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                     0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                        (1,962,663)
<INCOME-TAX>                           0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                    0
<DISCONTINUED>                         0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                        0
<CHANGES>                              0
<NET-INCOME>                           (1,962,663)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                          (.32)
<EPS-DILUTED>                          (.32)
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 06-1922
CONSOLIDATION COAL COMPANY, Petitioner, versus BENNY S. SPADARO; DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF WORKERS’ COMPENSATION PROGRAMS, Respondents. On Petition for Review of an Order of the Benefits Review Board. (05-0689-BLA; 2003-BLA-6384) Submitted: March 28, 2007 Decided: April 12, 2007 Before NIEMEYER and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Ashley M. Harman, Douglas A. Smoot, JACKSON KELLY, PLLC, Morgantown, West Virginia, for Petitioner. Frederick K. Muth, HENSLEY, MUTH, GARTON & HAYES, Bluefield, West Virginia; Howard M. Radzely, Patricia M. Nece, Jeffrey S. Goldberg, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, Washington, D.C., for Respondents. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.- 2 - PER CURIAM: Consolidation Coal Company seeks review of the Benefits Review Board’s decision and order affirming the administrative law judge’s award of black lung benefits on a claim filed by Benny Spadaro pursuant to 30 U.S.C. §§ 901-945 (2000). Our review of the record discloses that the Board’s decision is based upon substantial evidence and is without reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the Board. Consolidation Coal Co. v. Spadaro , No. 05-0689-BLA (B.R.B. June 26, 2006). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
```

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 3541 Introduced in House (IH)]

103d CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 3541

 To provide for the duty-free entry of methanol produced aboard United 
         States vessels on the high seas or in foreign waters.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           November 18, 1993

Mr. Neal of Massachusetts (for himself and Mr. Moakley) introduced the 
 following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Ways and Means

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To provide for the duty-free entry of methanol produced aboard United 
         States vessels on the high seas or in foreign waters.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. METHANOL PRODUCED ABOARD UNITED STATES VESSELS.

    Chapter 29 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States 
is amended by inserting in numerical order the following new 
subheading:
      

``  2905.11.15       Produced from natural gas aboard a                                      Free             ''
                      vessel of the United States on the                                                       .
                      high seas or in foreign waters.....  Free                                                 

SEC. 2. EFFECTIVE DATE.

    The amendment made by section 1 applies to goods entered, or 
withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, on or after the 15th day 
after the date of the enactment of this Act.

                                 <all>
```
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 06-1663
In Re: VALARIE PRICE, Petitioner.

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (2:03-cv-00568-RBS) Submitted: December 13, 2006 Decided: May 4, 2007 Before WILKINSON, GREGORY, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Valarie Price, Petitioner Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.- 2 - PER CURIAM: Valarie Price petitions for a writ of mandamus, seeking: a stay of a show cause hearing in the district court; discovery, transfer of venue, and an “on briefs” resolution of the show cause matter; and a stay of a related appeal pending resolution of the show cause proceeding. The district court conducted a show cause hearing on August 1, 2006, and has entered judgment in that matter. Accordingly, the request for relief is moot, and we deny the petition for a writ of mandamus. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

PETITION DENIED
#### Marion A. OWENS, Appellant, v. MULLEN’S INTERIORS, INCORPORATED, etc., et al., Appellees.

No. P-285.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

June 7, 1973.

R. P. Warfield, Levin, Warfield, Graff, Mabie & Rosenbloum, Pensacola, for appellant.

Charles C. Sherrill, Sherrill & Moore, Pensacola, for appellees.

PER CURIAM.

A summary judgment in favor of the defendants-appellees is appealed here.

We have reviewed the records and briefs and carefully weighed the arguments, and we are of the opinion, and so hold that there was no legally sufficient evidence upon which a jury could have found the defendants guilty of any negligent acts which constituted even reasonable inferences of negligence on the part of the defendants. In fact, from the evidence before the trial court, it more strongly appears that the plaintiff-appellant was guilty of negligence which was the proximate cause of his injuries.

Therefore, the judgment is affirmed.

CARROLL, DONALD K., Acting C. J., and RAWLS and JOHNSON, JJ., concur.
#### 78 Second Street Realty Corp., Appellant, v Ellen B. Mitchell et al., Respondents.

Appeal by the plaintiff from so much of an order and judgment (one paper) of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Morrison, J.), entered November 8, 1989, as granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order and judgment is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs, for reasons stated by Justice Morrison in the Supreme Court. Lawrence, J. P., Harwood, Rosenblatt and O’Brien, JJ., concur.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 05-6318
JACQUES FLOYD, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus SUPERINTENDENT HINES; TOMMY PAGE, Captain; LIEUTENANT OWENS; SERGEANT STIRES, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. C. Weston Houck, Senior District Judge. (CA-03-958) Submitted: June 27, 2005 Decided: July 26, 2005 Before LUTTIG, MICHAEL, and KING, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Jacques Floyd, Appellant Pro Se. Yvonne Bulluck Ricci, NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).- 2 - PER CURIAM: Jacques Floyd appeals the district court’s order and judgment granting summary judgment and dismissing his civil rights complaint. We have reviewed the record and the district court’s order and affirm for the reasons of the district court. See Floyd v. Hines , No. CA-03-958 (E.D.N.C. Jan. 24, 2005). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Rodney Moore, Appellant.

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Suffolk County (Mallon, J.), rendered December 1, 1988, convicting him of murder in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence. The appeal brings up for review the denial, after a hearing, of that branch of the defendant’s omnibus motion which was to suppress statements he made to the police.

Ordered that the judgment is reversed, on the law, and a new trial is ordered. The facts have been considered and determined to have been established.

The court did not err in denying the defendant’s motion to suppress his oral, written, and videotaped statements to the police.

Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution *(see, People v Contes,*60 NY2d 620), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant’s guilt of depraved indifference murder *(see, People v Register,*60 NY2d 270, *cert denied*466 US 953; *People v Solomon,*172 AD2d 781 [decided herewith]; *People v Rammelkamp,*167 AD2d 560; *see also,*Donnino, Practice Commentaries, McKinney’s Cons Laws of NY, Book 39, Penal Law art 125, at 491).

The trial court erred, however, in denying the defendant’s challenge for cause to a prospective juror who equivocated as to her ability to be objective and unbiased. During voir dire she informed the court that her son was a member of the Suffolk County Police Department. When asked whether her relationship to her son might affect her ability to be impartial, she replied, "I can’t honestly answer that”. The court then asked the prospective juror, "[y]ou feel that you can never be swayed?”, and she replied, "I never experienced this before. I really don’t know, you know, if I would be influenced. I don’t know”. The record is devoid of any indication that this prospective juror subsequently made an express declaration that *779her relationship to a law enforcement agent would not affect her ability to be impartial.

Appellate courts have repeatedly cautioned that: " '[T]he trial court should lean toward disqualifying a prospective juror of dubious impartiality, rather than testing the bounds of discretion by permitting such a juror to serve. * * *’ Even if, through such caution, the court errs and removes an impartial juror, 'the worst the court will have done * * * is to have replaced one impartial juror with another impartial juror’ *(People v Culhane,*33 NY2d 90, 108, n 3 * * *)” *(People v Blyden,*55 NY2d 73, 78; *see also, People v Nicolas, 171*AD2d 817). Since the defendant exhausted his peremptory challenges, a new trial is necessary *(see, People v Scott,*170 AD2d 627).

In light of the foregoing determination, we decline to reach the defendant’s remaining contentions. Lawrence, J. P., Harwood, Rosenblatt and O’Brien, JJ., concur.
# C_2015341EN.01000101.xml

| 16.10.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 341/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

16.10.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 341/1

---

Communication in accordance with Article 12(5)(a) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92, on the information provided by the customs authorities of the Member States concerning the classification of goods in the customs nomenclature

(2015/C 341/01)

Binding Tariff Information ceases to be valid from this day if it becomes incompatible with the interpretation of the customs nomenclature as a result of the following international tariff measures:

Amendments to the Harmonized System Explanatory Notes and the Compendium of Classification Opinions, approved by the Customs Cooperation Council (CCC doc. NC2116 – report of the 55th Session of the HS Committee):

AMENDMENTS TO THE EXPLANATORY NOTES TO BE DONE UNDER ARTICLE 8 PROCEDURE OF THE HS CONVENTION AND CLASSIFICATION OPINIONS EDITED BY THE HS COMMITTEE OF THE WORLD CUSTOMS ORGANIZATION

AMENDMENTS TO THE EXPLANATORY NOTES TO BE DONE UNDER ARTICLE 8 PROCEDURE OF THE HS CONVENTION AND CLASSIFICATION OPINIONS EDITED BY THE HS COMMITTEE OF THE WORLD CUSTOMS ORGANIZATION

(55th SESSION OF THE HSC IN MARCH 2015)

DOC. NC2116

Amendments of the Explanatory Notes of the Nomenclature annexed to the HS Convention

Amendments of the Explanatory Notes of the Nomenclature annexed to the HS Convention

| 29.30 | R/8 |
| --- | --- |
| 25.01 | R/25 |
| 30.02 | R/9 |
| 33.07 | R/25 |
| 35.06 | R/10 |
| Chapter 39 General — Annex | R/10 |
| 61.10 | R/24 |

29.30

R/8

25.01

R/25

30.02

R/9

33.07

R/25

35.06

R/10

Chapter 39 General — Annex

R/10

61.10

R/24

Classification Opinions approved by the HS Committee

Classification Opinions approved by the HS Committee

| 1511.90/1-2 | R/11 |
| --- | --- |
| 1904.10/1 | R/12 |
| 2007.99/1 | R/13 |
| 2106.90/30-31 | R/14 |
| 2309.90/7 | R/15 |
| 3701.30/1 | R/16 |
| 6102.30/1 | R/17 |
| 6210.50/1 | R/17 |
| 6307.90/6 | R/18 |
| 8528.51/5 | R/19 |
| 8541.40/1 | R/20 |
| 8704.21/3 | R/21 |
| 8711.50/1 | R/22 |
| 9019.10/2 | R/23 |

1511.90/1-2

R/11

1904.10/1

R/12

2007.99/1

R/13

2106.90/30-31

R/14

2309.90/7

R/15

3701.30/1

R/16

6102.30/1

R/17

6210.50/1

R/17

6307.90/6

R/18

8528.51/5

R/19

8541.40/1

R/20

8704.21/3

R/21

8711.50/1

R/22

9019.10/2

R/23

Information regarding the contents of these measures can be obtained from the Directorate-General for Taxation and Customs Union of the European Commission (rue de la Loi/Wetstraat 200, 1049 Brussels, Belgium) or can be downloaded from the internet site of this Directorate-General:

http://ec.europa.eu/comm/taxation_customs/customs/customs_duties/tariff_aspects/harmonised_system/index_en.htm

---