# Official Journal C 90/13 A

| | ISSN 1725-2423 |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | C 90 |
| | |
| English edition | Information and Notices | Volume 4913 April 2006 |

ISSN 1725-2423

Official Journal

of the European Union

C 90

English edition

Information and Notices

Volume 4913 April 2006

---

| Notice No | Contents | page |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | I   Information |
| | Commission |
| 2006/C 090/1 | Euro exchange rates | 1 |
| 2006/C 090/2 | Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case COMP/M.4066 — CVC/SLEC) (
  1
  ) | 2 |
| 2006/C 090/3 | Prior notification of a concentration (Case COMP/M.4137 — Mittal/Arcelor) (
  1
  ) | 3 |
| 2006/C 090/4 | Commission Communication on the results of the risk evaluation and the risk reduction strategies for the substances: Dibutylphthalate; 3,4-Dichloroaniline; Di-isodecyl phthalate; 1,2-Benzenedicarboxylic acid, di-C9-11-branched alkyl esters, C10-rich; Di-isononyl phthalate; 1,2-Benzenedicarboxylic acid, di-C8-10-branched alkyl esters, C9-rich; Ethylenediaminetetraacetate; Methyl acetate; Monochloroacetic acid; n-Pentane; Tetrasodium ethylenediaminetetraacetate | 4 |
| 2006/C 090/5 | Authorisation for State aid pursuant to Articles 87 and 88 of the EC Treaty — Cases where the Commission raises no objections | 29 |
| 2006/C 090/6 | Summary information communicated by Member States regarding State aid granted under Commission Regulation (EC) No 1/2004 of 23 December 2003 on the application of Articles 87 and 88 of the EC Treaty to State aid to small and medium-sized enterprises active in the production, processing and marketing of agricultural products | 31 |
| 2006/C 090/7 | State aid — Germany — State aid No C 6/06 (ex N 417/05) — Volkswerft Stralsund — Invitation to submit comments pursuant to Article 88(2) of the EC Treaty (
  1
  ) | 36 |
| 2006/C 090/8 | Information procedure — Technical rules (
  1
  ) | 40 |

Notice No

Contents

page

I   Information

Commission

2006/C 090/1

Euro exchange rates

1

2006/C 090/2

Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case COMP/M.4066 — CVC/SLEC) (
  1
  )

1

2

2006/C 090/3

Prior notification of a concentration (Case COMP/M.4137 — Mittal/Arcelor) (
  1
  )

1

3

2006/C 090/4

Commission Communication on the results of the risk evaluation and the risk reduction strategies for the substances: Dibutylphthalate; 3,4-Dichloroaniline; Di-isodecyl phthalate; 1,2-Benzenedicarboxylic acid, di-C9-11-branched alkyl esters, C10-rich; Di-isononyl phthalate; 1,2-Benzenedicarboxylic acid, di-C8-10-branched alkyl esters, C9-rich; Ethylenediaminetetraacetate; Methyl acetate; Monochloroacetic acid; n-Pentane; Tetrasodium ethylenediaminetetraacetate

4

2006/C 090/5

Authorisation for State aid pursuant to Articles 87 and 88 of the EC Treaty — Cases where the Commission raises no objections

29

2006/C 090/6

Summary information communicated by Member States regarding State aid granted under Commission Regulation (EC) No 1/2004 of 23 December 2003 on the application of Articles 87 and 88 of the EC Treaty to State aid to small and medium-sized enterprises active in the production, processing and marketing of agricultural products

31

2006/C 090/7

State aid — Germany — State aid No C 6/06 (ex N 417/05) — Volkswerft Stralsund — Invitation to submit comments pursuant to Article 88(2) of the EC Treaty (
  1
  )

1

36

2006/C 090/8

Information procedure — Technical rules (
  1
  )

1

40

| | III   Notices |
| --- | --- |
| | Commission |
| 2006/C 090/9 | Call for proposals — EAC/18/06 — Promotion of active European Citizenship — Pilot Projects/Citizens' Projects 2006 | 46 |

III   Notices

Commission

2006/C 090/9

Call for proposals — EAC/18/06 — Promotion of active European Citizenship — Pilot Projects/Citizens' Projects 2006

46

| | |
| --- | --- |
| | (1)   Text with EEA relevance |

---

(1)   Text with EEA relevance

1

| EN | |
| --- | --- |

EN

---

I Information

Commission

| 13.4.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 90/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.4.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 90/1

---

Euro exchange rates (1)

12 April 2006

(2006/C 90/01)

1 euro=

| | Currency | Exchange rate |
| --- | --- | --- |
| USD | US dollar | 1,2125 |
| JPY | Japanese yen | 143,22 |
| DKK | Danish krone | 7,4624 |
| GBP | Pound sterling | 0,69165 |
| SEK | Swedish krona | 9,3285 |
| CHF | Swiss franc | 1,5727 |
| ISK | Iceland króna | 92,37 |
| NOK | Norwegian krone | 7,8263 |
| BGN | Bulgarian lev | 1,9558 |
| CYP | Cyprus pound | 0,5764 |
| CZK | Czech koruna | 28,572 |
| EEK | Estonian kroon | 15,6466 |
| HUF | Hungarian forint | 265,21 |
| LTL | Lithuanian litas | 3,4528 |
| LVL | Latvian lats | 0,6961 |
| MTL | Maltese lira | 0,4293 |
| PLN | Polish zloty | 3,9254 |
| RON | Romanian leu | 3,4896 |
| SIT | Slovenian tolar | 239,61 |
| SKK | Slovak koruna | 37,385 |
| TRY | Turkish lira | 1,6275 |
| AUD | Australian dollar | 1,6582 |
| CAD | Canadian dollar | 1,3883 |
| HKD | Hong Kong dollar | 9,4062 |
| NZD | New Zealand dollar | 1,9720 |
| SGD | Singapore dollar | 1,9549 |
| KRW | South Korean won | 1 165,21 |
| ZAR | South African rand | 7,4335 |
| CNY | Chinese yuan renminbi | 9,7146 |
| HRK | Croatian kuna | 7,3115 |
| IDR | Indonesian rupiah | 10 921,59 |
| MYR | Malaysian ringgit | 4,454 |
| PHP | Philippine peso | 62,177 |
| RUB | Russian rouble | 33,5760 |
| THB | Thai baht | 46,235 |

Currency

Exchange rate

USD

US dollar

1,2125

JPY

Japanese yen

143,22

DKK

Danish krone

7,4624

GBP

Pound sterling

0,69165

SEK

Swedish krona

9,3285

CHF

Swiss franc

1,5727

ISK

Iceland króna

92,37

NOK

Norwegian krone

7,8263

BGN

Bulgarian lev

1,9558

CYP

Cyprus pound

0,5764

CZK

Czech koruna

28,572

EEK

Estonian kroon

15,6466

HUF

Hungarian forint

265,21

LTL

Lithuanian litas

3,4528

LVL

Latvian lats

0,6961

MTL

Maltese lira

0,4293

PLN

Polish zloty

3,9254

RON

Romanian leu

3,4896

SIT

Slovenian tolar

239,61

SKK

Slovak koruna

37,385

TRY

Turkish lira

1,6275

AUD

Australian dollar

1,6582

CAD

Canadian dollar

1,3883

HKD

Hong Kong dollar

9,4062

NZD

New Zealand dollar

1,9720

SGD

Singapore dollar

1,9549

KRW

South Korean won

1 165,21

ZAR

South African rand

7,4335

CNY

Chinese yuan renminbi

9,7146

HRK

Croatian kuna

7,3115

IDR

Indonesian rupiah

10 921,59

MYR

Malaysian ringgit

4,454

PHP

Philippine peso

62,177

RUB

Russian rouble

33,5760

THB

Thai baht

46,235

---

(1)

Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.

---

| 13.4.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 90/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.4.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 90/2

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case COMP/M.4066 — CVC/SLEC)

(2006/C 90/02)

(Text with EEA relevance)

On 20 March 2006, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the common market. This decision is based on Article 6(2) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004. The full text of the decision is available only in English and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

| — | from the Europa competition website (http://europa.eu.int/comm/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes, |
| --- | --- |

—

from the Europa competition website (http://europa.eu.int/comm/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website under document number 32006M4066. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law. (http://europa.eu.int/eur-lex/lex) |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website under document number 32006M4066. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law. (http://europa.eu.int/eur-lex/lex)

---

| 13.4.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 90/3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.4.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 90/3

---

Prior notification of a concentration

(Case COMP/M.4137 — Mittal/Arcelor)

(2006/C 90/03)

(Text with EEA relevance)

| 1. | On 7 April 2006, the Commission received a notification of a proposed concentration pursuant to Article 4 of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1) by which the undertaking Mittal Steel Company N.V. (‘Mittal’, The Netherlands) acquires within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Council Regulation control of the whole of the undertaking Arcelor S.A. (‘Arcelor’, Luxembourg) by way of public bid announced on 27 January 2006. |
| --- | --- |

1.

On 7 April 2006, the Commission received a notification of a proposed concentration pursuant to Article 4 of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1) by which the undertaking Mittal Steel Company N.V. (‘Mittal’, The Netherlands) acquires within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Council Regulation control of the whole of the undertaking Arcelor S.A. (‘Arcelor’, Luxembourg) by way of public bid announced on 27 January 2006.

| 2. | The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:






  — | for Mittal: manufacturing and sale of steel products at a world-wide level; |
| --- | --- | --- |

2.

The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:

—

for Mittal: manufacturing and sale of steel products at a world-wide level;

| — | for Arcelor: manufacturing and sale of steel products at a world-wide level. |
| --- | --- |

—

for Arcelor: manufacturing and sale of steel products at a world-wide level.

| 3. | On preliminary examination, the Commission finds that the notified transaction could fall within the scope of Regulation (EC) No 139/2004. However, the final decision on this point is reserved. |
| --- | --- |

3.

On preliminary examination, the Commission finds that the notified transaction could fall within the scope of Regulation (EC) No 139/2004. However, the final decision on this point is reserved.

| 4. | The Commission invites interested third parties to submit their possible observations on the proposed operation to the Commission.
  Observations must reach the Commission not later than 10 days following the date of this publication. Observations can be sent to the Commission by fax (No (32-2) 296 43 01 or 296 72 44) or by post, under reference number COMP/M.4137 — Mittal/Arcelor, to the following address:





  European Commission |
| --- | --- |
| Competition DG |
| Merger Registry |
| J-70 |
| B-1049 Brussels |

4.

The Commission invites interested third parties to submit their possible observations on the proposed operation to the Commission.

Observations must reach the Commission not later than 10 days following the date of this publication. Observations can be sent to the Commission by fax (No (32-2) 296 43 01 or 296 72 44) or by post, under reference number COMP/M.4137 — Mittal/Arcelor, to the following address:

European Commission

Competition DG

Merger Registry

J-70

B-1049 Brussels

---

(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.

---

| 13.4.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 90/4 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.4.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 90/4

---

Commission Communication on the results of the risk evaluation and the risk reduction strategies for the substances: Dibutylphthalate; 3,4-Dichloroaniline; Di-'isodecyl' phthalate; 1,2-Benzenedicarboxylic acid, di-C9-11-branched alkyl esters, C10-rich; Di-'isononyl' phthalate; 1,2-Benzenedicarboxylic acid, di-C8-10-branched alkyl esters, C9-rich; Ethylenediaminetetraacetate; Methyl acetate; Monochloroacetic acid; n-Pentane; Tetrasodium ethylenediaminetetraacetate

(2006/C 90/04)

Council Regulation (EEC) No 793/93 of 23 March 1993 on the evaluation and control of the risks of existing substances (1) involves the data reporting, priority setting, risk evaluation and, where necessary, development of strategies for limiting the risks of existing substances.

In the framework of Regulation (EEC) No 793/93 the following substances have been identified as priority substances for evaluation in accordance with Commission Regulations (EC) No 1179/94 (2), (EC) No 2268/95 (3) and (EC) No 143/97 (4) respectively concerning the first, second and third list of priority substances as foreseen under Regulation (EEC) No 793/93:

| — | Dibutylphthalate, |
| --- | --- |

—

Dibutylphthalate,

| — | 3,4-Dichloroaniline, |
| --- | --- |

—

3,4-Dichloroaniline,

| — | Ethylenediaminetetraacetat, |
| --- | --- |

—

Ethylenediaminetetraacetat,

| — | Methyl acetate, |
| --- | --- |

—

Methyl acetate,

| — | Tetrasodium ethylenediaminetetraacetate, |
| --- | --- |

—

Tetrasodium ethylenediaminetetraacetate,

| — | Di-'isodecyl' phthalate, |
| --- | --- |

—

Di-'isodecyl' phthalate,

| — | 1,2-Benzenedicarboxylic acid, di-C9-11-branched alkyl esters, C10-rich, |
| --- | --- |

—

1,2-Benzenedicarboxylic acid, di-C9-11-branched alkyl esters, C10-rich,

| — | Di-'isononyl' phthalate, |
| --- | --- |

—

Di-'isononyl' phthalate,

| — | 1,2-Benzenedicarboxylic acid, di-C8-10-branched alkyl esters, C9-rich, |
| --- | --- |

—

1,2-Benzenedicarboxylic acid, di-C8-10-branched alkyl esters, C9-rich,

| — | n-Pentane, |
| --- | --- |

—

n-Pentane,

| — | Monochloroacetic acid. |
| --- | --- |

—

Monochloroacetic acid.

The rapporteur States designated pursuant to those Regulations have completed the risk evaluation activities with regard to man and the environment for those substances in accordance with Commission Regulation (EC) No 1488/94 of 28 June 1994 laying down the principles for the assessment of risks to man and the environment of existing substances (5) and have suggested a strategy for limiting the risks in accordance with Regulation (EEC) No 793/93.

The Scientific Committee on Toxicity, Ecotoxicity and the Environment (SCTEE) has been consulted and has issued an opinion with respect to the risk evaluations carried out by the rapporteurs. These opinions can be found on the website of the Scientific Committee.

Article 11(2) of Regulation (EEC) No 793/93 stipulates that the results of the risk evaluation and the recommended strategy for limiting the risks shall be adopted at Community level and published by the Commission. This Communication, together with the corresponding Commission Recommendation (6), provides the results of risk evaluations (7) and strategies for limiting the risks for the above mentioned substances.

The results of the risk evaluation and strategies for limiting the risks provided for in this communication are in accordance with the opinion of the Committee set up pursuant to Article 15(1) of Regulation (EEC) No 793/93.

PART 1

CAS-NO. 84-74-2

Einecs-No. 201-557-4

| Structural Formula | : | C6H4 — (COOC4H9)2 |
| --- | --- | --- |
| Einecs Name | : | Dibutylphthalate |
| IUPAC Name | : | Dibutylphthalate |
| Rapporteur | : | Netherlands |
| Classification (8) | : | Repr. Cat. 2: R61
  Repr. Cat. 3: R62
  N: R50 |

Structural Formula

:

C6H4 — (COOC4H9)2

Einecs Name

:

Dibutylphthalate

IUPAC Name

:

Dibutylphthalate

Rapporteur

:

Netherlands

Classification (8)

:

Repr. Cat. 2: R61

Repr. Cat. 3: R62

N: R50

The risk assessment is based on current practices related to the lifecycle of the substance produced in or imported into the European Community as described in the comprehensive Risk Assessment Report forwarded to the Commission by the Member State rapporteur (9). The conclusion for the atmosphere is the result of further testing and is described in the addendum to the Risk Assessment Report.

The risk assessment has, based on the available information, determined that in the European Community the substance is mainly used as a plasticiser in resins and polymers. Other uses are in printing inks, adhesives, sealants/grouting agents, nitrocellulose paints, film coatings and glass fibres and cosmetic products. It was not possible to obtain information on the use of the total volume of substance produced in or imported into the European Community, therefore, some uses may exist which are not covered by this risk assessment.

RISK ASSESSMENT

A.   Human health

The conclusions of the evaluation of the risks to

WORKERS

is that there is a need for specific measures to limit the risks. This conclusion is reached because of:

| — | concerns for general systemic toxicity as a consequence of repeated dermal exposure arising from aerosol forming activities. |
| --- | --- |

—

concerns for general systemic toxicity as a consequence of repeated dermal exposure arising from aerosol forming activities.

| — | concerns for adverse local effects in the respiratory tract as a consequence of repeated inhalation exposure in all occupational exposure scenarios. |
| --- | --- |

—

concerns for adverse local effects in the respiratory tract as a consequence of repeated inhalation exposure in all occupational exposure scenarios.

The conclusions of the evaluation of the risks to

CONSUMERS and HUMANS EXPOSED VIA THE ENVIRONMENT

is that there is at present no need for further information and/or testing or for risk reduction measures beyond those which are being applied. This conclusion is reached because:

| — | the risk assessment shows that risks are not expected. Risk reduction measures already being applied are considered sufficient (10). |
| --- | --- |

—

the risk assessment shows that risks are not expected. Risk reduction measures already being applied are considered sufficient (10).

The conclusion of the assessment of the risks to

HUMAN HEALTH (physicochemical properties)

is that there is at present no need for further information and/or testing or for risk reduction measures beyond those which are being applied. This conclusion is reached because:

| — | the risk assessment shows that risks are not expected. Risk reduction measures already being applied are considered sufficient. |
| --- | --- |

—

the risk assessment shows that risks are not expected. Risk reduction measures already being applied are considered sufficient.

B.   Environment

The conclusions of the evaluation of the risks to the environment for

AQUATIC ECOSYSTEM and TERRESTRIAL ECOSYSTEM

is that there is at present no need for further information and/or testing or for risk reduction measures beyond those which are being applied. This conclusion is reached because:

| — | the risk assessment shows that risks related to the environmental spheres mentioned above are not expected. Risk reduction measures already being applied are considered sufficient. |
| --- | --- |

—

the risk assessment shows that risks related to the environmental spheres mentioned above are not expected. Risk reduction measures already being applied are considered sufficient.

The conclusion of the assessment of the risks for

ATMOSPHERE

is that there is a need for specific measures to limit the risks. This conclusion is reached because of:

| — | the anticipated risk for plants due to atmospheric exposure at local scale from processing in polymers, formulation in adhesives, use of printing inks and processing in glass fibres. |
| --- | --- |

—

the anticipated risk for plants due to atmospheric exposure at local scale from processing in polymers, formulation in adhesives, use of printing inks and processing in glass fibres.

The conclusion of the assessment of the risks for

MICRO-ORGANISMS IN THE SEWAGE TREATMENT PLANT

is that there is at present no need for further information and/or testing or for risk reduction measures beyond those which are being applied. This conclusion is reached because:

| — | the risk assessment shows that risks related to the environmental spheres mentioned above are not expected. Risk reduction measures already being applied are considered sufficient. |
| --- | --- |

—

the risk assessment shows that risks related to the environmental spheres mentioned above are not expected. Risk reduction measures already being applied are considered sufficient.

STRATEGY FOR LIMITING RISKS

for WORKERS

The legislation for workers' protection currently in force at Community level is generally considered to give an adequate framework to limit the risks of the substance to the extent needed and shall apply.

Within this framework it is recommended

| — | to establish at community level occupational exposure limit values for dibutylphthalate according to Directive 98/24/EC (11). |
| --- | --- |

—

to establish at community level occupational exposure limit values for dibutylphthalate according to Directive 98/24/EC (11).

for CONSUMER

| — | to consider at Community level restrictions in Council Directive 76/769/EEC (12) (Marketing and Use Directive) for the use of dibutylphthalate in toys and childcare articles due to the classification of dibutylphthalate at a category 2 substance toxic to reproduction and to prevent the use of dibutylphthalate as a replacement for other plasticisers for this application. As regards other uses the existing legislative measures for consumer protection, in particular the provisions under Council Directive 76/769/EEC (Marketing and Use Directive) as regards CMR substances, are considered sufficient to address risks identified to consumers. |
| --- | --- |

—

to consider at Community level restrictions in Council Directive 76/769/EEC (12) (Marketing and Use Directive) for the use of dibutylphthalate in toys and childcare articles due to the classification of dibutylphthalate at a category 2 substance toxic to reproduction and to prevent the use of dibutylphthalate as a replacement for other plasticisers for this application. As regards other uses the existing legislative measures for consumer protection, in particular the provisions under Council Directive 76/769/EEC (Marketing and Use Directive) as regards CMR substances, are considered sufficient to address risks identified to consumers.

for the ENVIRONMENT

| — | to facilitate permitting and monitoring under Council Directive 96/61/EC (Integrated Pollution Prevention and Control) dibutylphthalate should be included in the ongoing work to develop guidance on ‘Best Available Techniques’ (BAT). |
| --- | --- |

—

to facilitate permitting and monitoring under Council Directive 96/61/EC (Integrated Pollution Prevention and Control) dibutylphthalate should be included in the ongoing work to develop guidance on ‘Best Available Techniques’ (BAT).

PART 2

CAS-NO. 95-76-1

Einecs-No. 202-448-4

| Structural Formula | : | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| Einecs Name | : | 3,4-Dichloroaniline (3,4-DCA) |
| IUPAC Name | : | 1-Amino-3,4-dichlorobenzene |
| Rapporteur | : | Germany |
| Classification (13) | : | T: R23/24/25
  Xi: R41, R43
  N: R50-53 |

Structural Formula

:

Image

Einecs Name

:

3,4-Dichloroaniline (3,4-DCA)

IUPAC Name

:

1-Amino-3,4-dichlorobenzene

Rapporteur

:

Germany

Classification (13)

:

T: R23/24/25

Xi: R41, R43

N: R50-53

The risk assessment is based on current practices related to the life cycle of the substance produced in or imported into the European Community as described in the comprehensive Risk Assessment Report forwarded to the Commission by the Member State Rapporteur (14).

The risk assessment has, based on the available information, determined that in the European Community the substance is mainly used as a chemical intermediate in production of phenylurea and phenylcarbamate herbicides. Other uses reported are in the production of azo disperse dyes for polyester fibres, and in the production of trichlorocarbanilide which is used as bactericide in household products. It was not possible to obtain information on the use of the total volume of substance produced in or imported into the European Community, therefore, some uses may exist which are not covered by this risk assessment.

The risk assessment has identified other sources of exposure to the substance, relevant for man and the environment, in particular as a metabolite from its subsequent products, e.g. the plant protection agents diuron, linuron and propanil, and the bactericide trichlorocarbanilide (TCC). The assessment of the risks arising from these exposures are considered in the risk assessment. Environmental emissions of 3,4-dichloroaniline from the use of diuron as antifouling agent and as algicide in the construction sector have to be expected. These releases could not be taken into account in the risk characterisation, but may be assessed in due time under the Biocides Directive (98/8/EC) (15).

RISK ASSESSMENT

A.   Human Health

The conclusion of the assessment of the risks to

WORKERS

is that there is a need for specific measures to limit the risks. This conclusion is reached because of:

| — | concerns for skin sensitisation as a consequence of dermal exposure arising from cleaning, maintenance and repair work in the production and further processing of 3,4-dichloroaniline. |
| --- | --- |

—

concerns for skin sensitisation as a consequence of dermal exposure arising from cleaning, maintenance and repair work in the production and further processing of 3,4-dichloroaniline.

The conclusion of the assessment of the risks to

CONSUMERS, HUMANS EXPOSED VIA THE ENVIRONMENT and HUMAN HEALTH (physicochemical properties)

is that there is at present no need for further information and/or testing or for risk reduction measures beyond those which are being applied. This conclusion is reached because

| — | the risk assessment shows that risks are not expected. Risk reduction measures already being applied are considered sufficient |
| --- | --- |

—

the risk assessment shows that risks are not expected. Risk reduction measures already being applied are considered sufficient

B.   Environment

The conclusion of the assessment of the risks to the

ATMOSPHERE

is that there is at present no need for further information and/or testing or for risk reduction measures beyond those which are being applied. This conclusion is reached because:

| — | the risk assessment shows that risks are not expected. Risk reduction measures already being applied are considered sufficient. |
| --- | --- |

—

the risk assessment shows that risks are not expected. Risk reduction measures already being applied are considered sufficient.

The conclusions of the assessment of the risks to the

AQUATIC ECOSYSTEM

are:

| 1. | that there is a need for specific measures to limit the risks. The conclusion is reached because of:






  — | concerns for effects for the environmental sphere mentioned above as a consequence of exposure arising from the non-agricultural use of diuron as total herbicide on sealed areas. |
| --- | --- | --- |

1.

that there is a need for specific measures to limit the risks. The conclusion is reached because of:

—

concerns for effects for the environmental sphere mentioned above as a consequence of exposure arising from the non-agricultural use of diuron as total herbicide on sealed areas.

and

| 2. | that there is a need for further information and/or testing. This conclusion is reached because:






  — | there is a need for better information to adequately characterise the risks to the aquatic ecosystem arising from the release from non-agricultural use of diuron on sealed areas as total herbicide. |
| --- | --- | --- |

2.

that there is a need for further information and/or testing. This conclusion is reached because:

—

there is a need for better information to adequately characterise the risks to the aquatic ecosystem arising from the release from non-agricultural use of diuron on sealed areas as total herbicide.

The information and/or test requirements are:

| — | long term test on sediment organism Hyalella azteca. |
| --- | --- |

—

long term test on sediment organism Hyalella azteca.

However, this requirement for further testing was awaiting the outcome of the risk reduction strategy for the aquatic compartment. Because the measures recommended are expected to sufficiently reduce concentrations in the aquatic compartment, the test is now no longer deemed necessary.

The conclusion of the assessment of the risks to the

TERRESTRIAL ECOSYSTEM

is that there is at present no need for further information and/or testing or for risk reduction measures beyond those which are being applied. This conclusion is reached because:

| — | the risk assessment shows that risks are not expected. Risk reduction measures already being applied are considered sufficient. |
| --- | --- |

—

the risk assessment shows that risks are not expected. Risk reduction measures already being applied are considered sufficient.

The conclusion of the assessment of the risks to

TOP PREDATORS VIA ACCUMULATION UP THE FOOD CHAIN

is that there is at present no need for further information and/or testing or for risk reduction measures beyond those which are being applied. This conclusion is reached because:

| — | the risk assessment shows that risks are not expected. Risk reduction measures already being applied are considered sufficient. |
| --- | --- |

—

the risk assessment shows that risks are not expected. Risk reduction measures already being applied are considered sufficient.

The conclusion of the assessment of the risks to

MICRO-ORGANISMS IN THE SEWAGE TREATMENT PLANT

is that there is at present no need for further information and/or testing or for risk reduction measures beyond those which are being applied. This conclusion is reached because:

| — | the risk assessment shows that risks are not expected. Risk reduction measures already being applied are considered sufficient. |
| --- | --- |

—

the risk assessment shows that risks are not expected. Risk reduction measures already being applied are considered sufficient.

PART 3

CAS-NO. 26761-40-0

Einecs-No. 247-977-1

| Structural Formula | : |
| --- | --- |
| Einecs Name | : | di- 'isodecyl' phthalate (DIDP) |
| IUPAC Name | : |
| Rapporteur | : | France |
| Classification | : | Not classified. |

Structural Formula

:

Einecs Name

:

di- 'isodecyl' phthalate (DIDP)

IUPAC Name

:

Rapporteur

:

France

Classification

:

Not classified.

The risk assessment is based on current practices related to the life-cycle of the substance produced in or imported into the European Community as described in the comprehensive Risk Assessment Reports as forwarded to the Commission by the Member State Rapporteur (16).

The risk assessment has, based on the available information, determined that in the European Community the substance is mainly used as a plasticiser in PVC applications. Other uses are polymer related or as constituents of inks and paints and sealing compounds.

RISK ASSESSMENT

A.   Human health

The conclusion of the assessment of the risks to

WORKERS, CONSUMERS and HUMANS EXPOSED VIA THE ENVIRONMENT

is that there is at present no need for further information and/or testing or for risk reduction measures beyond those which are being applied. This conclusion is reached because:

| — | the risk assessment shows that risks are not expected. Risk reduction measures already applied are considered sufficient (17). |
| --- | --- |

—

the risk assessment shows that risks are not expected. Risk reduction measures already applied are considered sufficient (17).

If the substance would be used as a plasticiser in PVC used for toys and childcare articles, then there would be a need for specific measures to limit the risks. The conclusion would be reached because of:

| — | concerns for infants and new born babies for general systemic toxicity as a consequence of oral exposure from toys and childcare articles containing the substance. |
| --- | --- |

—

concerns for infants and new born babies for general systemic toxicity as a consequence of oral exposure from toys and childcare articles containing the substance.

The conclusion of the assessment of the risks to

HUMAN HEALTH (physicochemical properties)

is that there is at present no need for further information and/or testing or for risk reduction measures beyond those which are being applied. This conclusion is reached because:

| — | the risk assessment shows that risks are not expected. Risk reduction measures already being applied are considered sufficient. |
| --- | --- |

—

the risk assessment shows that risks are not expected. Risk reduction measures already being applied are considered sufficient.

B.   Environment

The conclusion of the assessment of the risks to the

ATMOSPHERE, AQUATIC ECOSYSTEM and TERRESTRIAL ECOSYSTEM

is that there is at present no need for further information and/or testing or for risk reduction measures beyond those which are being applied. This conclusion is reached because:

| — | the risk assessment shows that risks are not expected. Risk reduction measures already being applied are considered sufficient. |
| --- | --- |

—

the risk assessment shows that risks are not expected. Risk reduction measures already being applied are considered sufficient.

The conclusion of the assessment of the risks to

MICRO-ORGANISMS IN THE SEWAGE TREATMENT PLANT

is that there is at present no need for further information and/or testing or for risk reduction measures beyond those which are being applied. This conclusion is reached because:

| — | the risk assessment shows that risks are not expected. Risk reduction measures already being applied are considered sufficient. |
| --- | --- |

—

the risk assessment shows that risks are not expected. Risk reduction measures already being applied are considered sufficient.

STRATEGY FOR LIMITING THE RISKS

for CONSUMERS

| — | to consider at Community level restrictions in Council Directive 76/769/EEC (18) (Marketing and Use Directive) for the use of DIDP in toys and childcare articles. |
| --- | --- |

—

to consider at Community level restrictions in Council Directive 76/769/EEC (18) (Marketing and Use Directive) for the use of DIDP in toys and childcare articles.

PART 4

CAS-NO. 68515-49-1

Einecs-No. 271-091-4

| Structural Formula | : |
| --- | --- |
| Einecs Name | : | 1,2-Benzenedicarboxylic acid, di-C9-11-branched alkyl esters, C10-rich |
| IUPAC Name | : |
| Rapporteur | : | France |
| Classification | : | Not classified. |

Structural Formula

:

Einecs Name

:

1,2-Benzenedicarboxylic acid, di-C9-11-branched alkyl esters, C10-rich

IUPAC Name

:

Rapporteur

:

France

Classification

:

Not classified.

The risk assessment is based on current practices related to the life-cycle of the substance produced in or imported into the European Community as described in the comprehensive Risk Assessment Reports as forwarded to the Commission by the Member State Rapporteur (19).

The risk assessment has, based on the available information, determined that in the European Community the substance is mainly used as a plasticiser in PVC applications. Other uses are polymer related or as constituents of inks and paints and sealing compounds.

RISK ASSESSMENT

A.   Human health

The conclusion of the assessment of the risks to

WORKERS, CONSUMERS and HUMANS EXPOSED VIA THE ENVIRONMENT

is that there is at present no need for further information and/or testing or for risk reduction measures beyond those which are being applied. This conclusion is reached because:

| — | the risk assessment shows that risks are not expected. Risk reduction measures already applied are considered sufficient (20). |
| --- | --- |

—

the risk assessment shows that risks are not expected. Risk reduction measures already applied are considered sufficient (20).

If the substance would be used as a plasticiser in PVC used for toys and childcare articles, then there would be a need for specific measures to limit the risks. The conclusion would be reached because of:

| — | concerns for infants and new born babies for general systemic toxicity as a consequence of oral exposure from toys and childcare articles containing the substance. |
| --- | --- |

—

concerns for infants and new born babies for general systemic toxicity as a consequence of oral exposure from toys and childcare articles containing the substance.

The conclusion of the assessment of the risks to

HUMAN HEALTH (physicochemical properties)

is that there is at present no need for further information and/or testing or for risk reduction measures beyond those which are being applied. This conclusion is reached because:

| — | the risk assessment shows that risks are not expected. Risk reduction measures already being applied are considered sufficient. |
| --- | --- |

—

the risk assessment shows that risks are not expected. Risk reduction measures already being applied are considered sufficient.

B.   Environment

The conclusion of the assessment of the risks to the

ATMOSPHERE, AQUATIC ECOSYSTEM and TERRESTRIAL ECOSYSTEM

is that there is at present no need for further information and/or testing or for risk reduction measures beyond those which are being applied. This conclusion is reached because:

| — | the risk assessment shows that risks are not expected. Risk reduction measures already being applied are considered sufficient. |
| --- | --- |

—

the risk assessment shows that risks are not expected. Risk reduction measures already being applied are considered sufficient.

The conclusion of the assessment of the risks to

MICRO-ORGANISMS IN THE SEWAGE TREATMENT PLANT

is that there is at present no need for further information and/or testing or for risk reduction measures beyond those which are being applied. This conclusion is reached because:

| | the risk assessment shows that risks are not expected. Risk reduction measures already being applied are considered sufficient. |
| --- | --- |

the risk assessment shows that risks are not expected. Risk reduction measures already being applied are considered sufficient.

STRATEGY FOR LIMITING THE RISKS

for CONSUMERS

| — | to consider at Community level restrictions in Council Directive 76/769/EEC (21) (Marketing and Use Directive) for the use of the substance in toys and childcare articles. |
| --- | --- |

—

to consider at Community level restrictions in Council Directive 76/769/EEC (21) (Marketing and Use Directive) for the use of the substance in toys and childcare articles.

PART 5

CAS-NO. 28553-12-0

Einecs-No. 249-079-5

| Structural Formula | : |
| --- | --- |
| Einecs Name | : | di-'isononyl' phthalate (DINP) |
| IUPAC Name | : |
| Rapporteur | : | France |
| Classification | : | Not classified |

Structural Formula

:

Einecs Name

:

di-'isononyl' phthalate (DINP)

IUPAC Name

:

Rapporteur

:

France

Classification

:

Not classified

The risk assessment is based on current practices related to the life-cycle of the substance produced in or imported into the European Community as described in the comprehensive Risk Assessment Reports as forwarded to the Commission by the Member State Rapporteur (22).

The risk assessment has, based on the available information, determined that in the European Community the substance is mainly used as a plasticiser in PVC applications. Other uses are polymer related or as constituents of adhesives, paints, varnishes and sealing compounds.

RISK ASSESSMENT

A.   Human Health

The conclusion of the assessment of the risks to

WORKERS, CONSUMERS and HUMANS EXPOSED VIA THE ENVIRONMENT

is that there is at present no need for further information and/or testing or for risk reduction measures beyond those which are being applied. This conclusion is reached because:

| — | the risk assessment shows that risks are not expected. Risk reduction measures already being applied are considered sufficient (23). |
| --- | --- |

—

the risk assessment shows that risks are not expected. Risk reduction measures already being applied are considered sufficient (23).

The conclusion of the assessment of the risks to

HUMAN HEALTH (physicochemical properties)

is that there is at present no need for further information and/or testing or for risk reduction measures beyond those which are being applied. This conclusion is reached because:

| — | the risk assessment shows that risks are not expected. Risk reduction measures already being applied are considered sufficient. |
| --- | --- |

—

the risk assessment shows that risks are not expected. Risk reduction measures already being applied are considered sufficient.

B.   Environment

The conclusion of the assessment of the risks to the

ATMOSPHERE, AQUATIC ECOSYSTEM and TERRESTRIAL ECOSYSTEM

is that there is at present no need for further information and/or testing or for risk reduction measures beyond those which are being applied. This conclusion is reached because:

| — | the risk assessment shows that risks are not expected. Risk reduction measures already being applied are considered sufficient. |
| --- | --- |

—

the risk assessment shows that risks are not expected. Risk reduction measures already being applied are considered sufficient.

The conclusion of the assessment of the risks to

MICRO-ORGANISMS IN THE SEWAGE TREATMENT PLANT

is that there is at present no need for further information and/or testing or for risk reduction measures beyond those which are being applied. This conclusion is reached because:

| — | the risk assessment shows that risks are not expected. Risk reduction measures already being applied are considered sufficient. |
| --- | --- |

—

the risk assessment shows that risks are not expected. Risk reduction measures already being applied are considered sufficient.

STRATEGY FOR LIMITING THE RISKS

for CONSUMERS

| — | In light of the divergent scientific views between the CSTEE (24) and the conclusions of the assessment of the risk for consumers under this Regulation, and taking into account the uncertainties in the evaluation of exposure to DINP from toys and childcare articles, precautionary considerations support the consideration at Community level of proportionate restrictions in Council Directive 76/769/EEC (25) (Marketing and Use Directive) for the use of DINP in toys and childcare articles. Such measures should be reviewed after 3-4 years, in light of further scientific developments. |
| --- | --- |

—

In light of the divergent scientific views between the CSTEE (24) and the conclusions of the assessment of the risk for consumers under this Regulation, and taking into account the uncertainties in the evaluation of exposure to DINP from toys and childcare articles, precautionary considerations support the consideration at Community level of proportionate restrictions in Council Directive 76/769/EEC (25) (Marketing and Use Directive) for the use of DINP in toys and childcare articles. Such measures should be reviewed after 3-4 years, in light of further scientific developments.

PART 6

CAS-NO. 68515-48-0

Einecs-No. 271-090-9

| Structural Formula | : |
| --- | --- |
| Einecs Name | : | 1,2-Benzenedicarboxylic acid, di-C8-10-branched alkyl esters, C9-rich |
| IUPAC Name | : |
| Rapporteur | : | France |
| Classification | : | Not classified |

Structural Formula

:

Einecs Name

:

1,2-Benzenedicarboxylic acid, di-C8-10-branched alkyl esters, C9-rich

IUPAC Name

:

Rapporteur

:

France

Classification

:

Not classified

The risk assessment is based on current practices related to the life-cycle of the substance produced in or imported into the European Community as described in the comprehensive Risk Assessment Reports as forwarded to the Commission by the Member State Rapporteur (26).

The risk assessment has, based on the available information, determined that in the European Community the substance is mainly used as a plasticiser in PVC applications. Other uses are polymer related or as constituents of adhesives, paints, varnishes and sealing compounds.

RISK ASSESSMENT

A.   Human Health

The conclusion of the assessment of the risks to

WORKERS, CONSUMERS and HUMANS EXPOSED VIA THE ENVIRONMENT

is that there is at present no need for further information and/or testing or for risk reduction measures beyond those which are being applied. This conclusion is reached because:

| — | the risk assessment shows that risks are not expected. Risk reduction measures already being applied are considered sufficient (27). |
| --- | --- |

—

the risk assessment shows that risks are not expected. Risk reduction measures already being applied are considered sufficient (27).

The conclusion of the assessment of the risks to

HUMAN HEALTH (physicochemical properties)

is that there is at present no need for further information and/or testing or for risk reduction measures beyond those which are being applied. This conclusion is reached because:

| — | the risk assessment shows that risks are not expected. Risk reduction measures already being applied are considered sufficient. |
| --- | --- |

—

the risk assessment shows that risks are not expected. Risk reduction measures already being applied are considered sufficient.

B.   Environment

The conclusion of the assessment of the risks to the

ATMOSPHERE, AQUATIC ECOSYSTEM and TERRESTRIAL ECOSYSTEM

is that there is at present no need for further information and/or testing or for risk reduction measures beyond those which are being applied. This conclusion is reached because:

| — | the risk assessment shows that risks are not expected. Risk reduction measures already being applied are considered sufficient. |
| --- | --- |

—

the risk assessment shows that risks are not expected. Risk reduction measures already being applied are considered sufficient.

The conclusion of the assessment of the risks to

MICRO-ORGANISMS IN THE SEWAGE TREATMENT PLANT

is that there is at present no need for further information and/or testing or for risk reduction measures beyond those which are being applied. This conclusion is reached because:

| — | the risk assessment shows that risks are not expected. Risk reduction measures already being applied are considered sufficient. |
| --- | --- |

—

the risk assessment shows that risks are not expected. Risk reduction measures already being applied are considered sufficient.

STRATEGY FOR LIMITING THE RISKS

for CONSUMERS

| — | In light of the divergent scientific views between the CSTEE (28) and the conclusions of the assessment of the risk for consumers under this Regulation, and taking into account the uncertainties in the evaluation of exposure to the substance from toys and childcare articles, precautionary considerations support the consideration at Community level of proportionate restrictions in Council Directive 76/769/EEC (29) (Marketing and Use Directive) for the use of the substance in toys and childcare articles. Such measures should be reviewed after 3-4 years, in light of further scientific developments. |
| --- | --- |

—

In light of the divergent scientific views between the CSTEE (28) and the conclusions of the assessment of the risk for consumers under this Regulation, and taking into account the uncertainties in the evaluation of exposure to the substance from toys and childcare articles, precautionary considerations support the consideration at Community level of proportionate restrictions in Council Directive 76/769/EEC (29) (Marketing and Use Directive) for the use of the substance in toys and childcare articles. Such measures should be reviewed after 3-4 years, in light of further scientific developments.

PART 7

CAS-NO. 60-00-4

Einecs-No. 200-449-4

| Structural Formula | : | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| Einecs Name | : | Ethylenediaminetetraacetate (EDTA) |
| IUPAC Name | : | {[2-(Bis-carboxymethyl-amino)-ethyl]- carboxymethyl-amino}- acetate |
| Rapporteur | : | Germany |
| Classification (30) | : | Xi: R36 |

Structural Formula

:

Image

Einecs Name

:

Ethylenediaminetetraacetate (EDTA)

IUPAC Name

:

{[2-(Bis-carboxymethyl-amino)-ethyl]- carboxymethyl-amino}- acetate

Rapporteur

:

Germany

Classification (30)

:

Xi: R36

The risk assessment is based on current practices related to the life-cycle of the substance produced in or imported into the European Community as described in the risk assessment forwarded to the Commission by the Member State Rapporteur.

The risk assessment has, based on the available information, determined that in the European Community the substance is mainly used as a complexing agent in many industrial branches, e.g. in cleaning products for industry and skilled trades, photochemicals, agriculture, pulp and paper industry, household laundry and cleaning products, textile industry, electroplating industry, cosmetics and water treatment.

RISK ASSESSMENT

A.   Human Health

The conclusion of the assessment of the risks to

WORKERS

is that there is at present no need for further information and/or testing or for risk reduction measures beyond those which are being applied. This conclusion is reached because:

| — | the risk assessment shows that risks are not expected. Risk reduction measures already being applied are considered sufficient. |
| --- | --- |

—

the risk assessment shows that risks are not expected. Risk reduction measures already being applied are considered sufficient.

The conclusion of the assessment of the risks to

CONSUMERS

is that there is at present no need for further information and/or testing or for risk reduction measures beyond those which are being applied. This conclusion is reached because:

| — | the risk assessment shows that risks are not expected. Risk reduction measures already being applied are considered sufficient. |
| --- | --- |

—

the risk assessment shows that risks are not expected. Risk reduction measures already being applied are considered sufficient.

The conclusion of the assessment of the risks to

HUMANS EXPOSED VIA THE ENVIRONMENT

is that there is at present no need for further information and/or testing or for risk reduction measures beyond those which are being applied. This conclusion is reached because:

| — | the risk assessment shows that risks are not expected. Risk reduction measures already being applied are considered sufficient. |
| --- | --- |

—

the risk assessment shows that risks are not expected. Risk reduction measures already being applied are considered sufficient.

The conclusion of the assessment of the risks to

HUMAN HEALTH (physicochemical properties)

that there is at present no need for further information and/or testing or for risk reduction measures beyond those which are being applied. This conclusion is reached because:

| — | the risk assessment shows that risks are not expected. Risk reduction measures already being applied are considered sufficient. |
| --- | --- |

—

the risk assessment shows that risks are not expected. Risk reduction measures already being applied are considered sufficient.

B.   Environment

The conclusion of the assessment of the risks to the

ATMOSPHERE and TERRESTRIAL ECOSYSTEM

is that there is at present no need for further information and/or testing or for risk reduction measures beyond those which are being applied. This conclusion is reached because:

| — | the risk assessment shows that risks are not expected. Risk reduction measures already being applied are considered sufficient. |
| --- | --- |

—

the risk assessment shows that risks are not expected. Risk reduction measures already being applied are considered sufficient.

The conclusion of the assessment of the risks to the

AQUATIC ECOSYSTEM

is that there is a need for specific measures to limit the risks. The conclusion is reached because of:

| — | concerns for environmental effects to environmental spheres mentioned above as a consequence of exposure arising from the use of EDTA in industrial detergents, by paper mills, circuit board producers and releases during recovery of EDTA containing wastes. |
| --- | --- |

—

concerns for environmental effects to environmental spheres mentioned above as a consequence of exposure arising from the use of EDTA in industrial detergents, by paper mills, circuit board producers and releases during recovery of EDTA containing wastes.

The conclusion of the assessment of the risks to

MICRO-ORGANISMS IN THE SEWAGE TREATMENT PLANT

is that there is at present no need for further information and/or testing or for risk reduction measures beyond those which are being applied. This conclusion is reached because:

| — | the risk assessment shows that risks are not expected. Risk reduction measures already being applied are considered sufficient. |
| --- | --- |

—

the risk assessment shows that risks are not expected. Risk reduction measures already being applied are considered sufficient.

STRATEGY FOR LIMITING RISKS

for the ENVIRONMENT

it is recommended:

| — | to facilitate permitting and monitoring under Council Directive 96/61/EC (Integrated Pollution Prevention and Control), EDTA should be included in the ongoing work to develop guidance on ‘Best Available Techniques’ (BAT). |
| --- | --- |

—

to facilitate permitting and monitoring under Council Directive 96/61/EC (Integrated Pollution Prevention and Control), EDTA should be included in the ongoing work to develop guidance on ‘Best Available Techniques’ (BAT).

| — | to take persistent complexing agents into account in the European eco-labelling of paper products and to extend the existing European eco-labelling for cleaners to industrial cleaners under Regulation 1980/2000/EC (31). |
| --- | --- |

—

to take persistent complexing agents into account in the European eco-labelling of paper products and to extend the existing European eco-labelling for cleaners to industrial cleaners under Regulation 1980/2000/EC (31).

PART 8

CAS-NO. 79-20-9

Einecs-No. 201-185-2

| Structural Formula | : | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| Einecs Name | : | Methyl acetate |
| IUPAC Name | : | Methyl acetate |
| Rapporteur | : | Germany |
| Classification (32) | : | F; R11
  Xi; R36
  R66, R67 |

Structural Formula

:

Image

Einecs Name

:

Methyl acetate

IUPAC Name

:

Methyl acetate

Rapporteur

:

Germany

Classification (32)

:

F; R11

Xi; R36

R66, R67

The risk assessment is based on current practices related to the life-cycle of the substance produced in or imported into the European Community as described in the risk assessment forwarded to the Commission by the Member State Rapporteur (33).

The risk assessment has, based on available information, determined that in the European Community the substance is mainly used as a solvent in adhesives, paint systems, cosmetic agents and cleaning products. Furthermore the substance is used as an intermediate in the manufacture of plant protection products, vitamins and as an intermediate for the production of sweeteners. It was not possible to obtain information on the use of the total volume of substance produced in or imported into the European Community, therefore, some uses may exist which are not covered by this risk assessment.

RISK ASSESSMENT

A.   Human Health

The conclusion of the assessment of the risks to

WORKERS

is that there is a need for specific measures to limit the risks. This conclusion is reached because of:

| — | concerns for respiratory tract irritation as a consequence of acute inhalation exposure arising from flooring works and building trade, |
| --- | --- |

—

concerns for respiratory tract irritation as a consequence of acute inhalation exposure arising from flooring works and building trade,

| — | concerns for local effects in the respiratory tract as a consequence of repeated inhalation exposure arising from manufacture and further processing as a chemical intermediate, production of formulations (paints, lacquers, adhesives, cleanser), metal treatment, electro-engineering, wood treatment, pulp and paper production (paints and adhesives), flooring works, building trade and use of cosmetics, |
| --- | --- |

—

concerns for local effects in the respiratory tract as a consequence of repeated inhalation exposure arising from manufacture and further processing as a chemical intermediate, production of formulations (paints, lacquers, adhesives, cleanser), metal treatment, electro-engineering, wood treatment, pulp and paper production (paints and adhesives), flooring works, building trade and use of cosmetics,

| — | concerns for systemic effects as a consequence of repeated inhalation exposure arising from the production of formulations (paints, lacquers, adhesives, cleanser), metal treatment, electro-engineering, wood treatment, pulp and paper production (paints and adhesives), flooring works, building trade |
| --- | --- |

—

concerns for systemic effects as a consequence of repeated inhalation exposure arising from the production of formulations (paints, lacquers, adhesives, cleanser), metal treatment, electro-engineering, wood treatment, pulp and paper production (paints and adhesives), flooring works, building trade

| — | concerns for developmental toxicity as a consequence of inhalation exposure arising from flooring works and building trade. |
| --- | --- |

—

concerns for developmental toxicity as a consequence of inhalation exposure arising from flooring works and building trade.

The conclusion of the assessment of the risks to

CONSUMERS

is that there is at present no need for further information and/or testing or for risk reduction measures beyond those which are being applied. This conclusion is reached because:

| — | the risk assessment shows that risk are not expected. Risk reduction measures already being applied are considered to be sufficient. |
| --- | --- |

—

the risk assessment shows that risk are not expected. Risk reduction measures already being applied are considered to be sufficient.

The conclusion of the assessment of the risks to

HUMANS EXPOSED VIA THE ENVIRONMENT

is that there is at present no need for further information and/or testing or for risk reduction measures beyond those which are being applied. This conclusion is reached because:

| — | the risk assessment shows that risks are not expected. Risk reduction measures already being applied are considered sufficient. |
| --- | --- |

—

the risk assessment shows that risks are not expected. Risk reduction measures already being applied are considered sufficient.

The conclusion of the assessment of the risks to

HUMAN HEALTH (physicochemical properties)

is that there is at present no need for further information and/or testing or for risk reduction measures beyond those which are being applied. This conclusion is reached because:

| — | the risk assessment shows that risks are not expected. Risk reduction measures already being applied are considered sufficient. |
| --- | --- |

—

the risk assessment shows that risks are not expected. Risk reduction measures already being applied are considered sufficient.

B.   Environment

The conclusion of the assessment of the risks to the

ATMOSPHERE, AQUATIC ECOSYSTEM and TERRESTRIAL ECOSYSTEM

is that there is at present no need for further information and/or testing and for risk reduction measures beyond those which are being applied. This conclusion is reached because:

| — | the risk assessment shows that risks are not expected. Risk reduction measures already being applied are considered sufficient. |
| --- | --- |

—

the risk assessment shows that risks are not expected. Risk reduction measures already being applied are considered sufficient.

The conclusion of the assessment of the risks to

MICRO-ORGANISMS IN THE SEWAGE TREATMENT PLANT

is that there is at present no need for further information and/or testing and for risk reduction measures beyond those which are being applied. This conclusion is reached because:

| — | the risk assessment shows that risks are not expected. Risk reduction measures already being applied are considered sufficient. |
| --- | --- |

—

the risk assessment shows that risks are not expected. Risk reduction measures already being applied are considered sufficient.

STRATEGY FOR LIMITING RISKS

for WORKERS

The legislation for workers' protection currently in force at Community level is generally considered to give an adequate framework to limit the risks of the substance to the extent needed and shall apply.

Within this framework it is recommended:

| — | to establish at community level occupational exposure limit values for methyl acetate according to Directive 98/24/EEC (34). |
| --- | --- |

—

to establish at community level occupational exposure limit values for methyl acetate according to Directive 98/24/EEC (34).

PART 9

CAS-NO. 79-11-8

Einecs-No. 201-178-4

| Structural Formula | : | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| Einecs Name | : | Monochloroacetic acid (MCAA) |
| IUPAC Name | : | 2-Chloro-ethanoic acid |
| Rapporteur | : | Netherlands |
| Classification (35) | : | T; R23/24/25
  C; R34
  N; R50 |

Structural Formula

:

Image

Einecs Name

:

Monochloroacetic acid (MCAA)

IUPAC Name

:

2-Chloro-ethanoic acid

Rapporteur

:

Netherlands

Classification (35)

:

T; R23/24/25

C; R34

N; R50

The risk assessment is based on current practices related to the life cycle of the substance produced in or imported into the European Community as described in the comprehensive Risk Assessment Report forwarded to the Commission by the Member State Rapporteur (36).

The risk assessment has, based on the available information, determined that in the European Community the substance is mainly used as a chemical intermediate for the synthesis of other products like carboxymethylcellulose (CMC), carboxymethyl starch, crop protection chemicals (like 2,4D and MCPA), plastics, thioglycol acid, sodium salt of MCAA and other products such as esters and amides.

Other uses are as a constituent in acidic paint remover or graffiti remover, can coating for food (i.e. as modifier for resins) escharotic agent, wart remover, anti-microbial additive for food and analytical reagent. However, these are not identified as current or significant consumer uses in the EU, therefore this risk assessment has not identified any risks for consumers.

The risk assessment has identified other sources of exposure to the substance for man and the environment, in particular, the substance can be formed (indirectly) in the atmosphere from industrial chlorinated chemicals. Besides anthropogenic sources, the substance is also expected to be formed de novo in the environment, which does not result from the life-cycle of the substance produced in or imported into the European Community. The assessment of the risks arising from these exposures is not part of this risk assessment. The comprehensive Risk Assessment Reports as forwarded to the Commission by the Member State Rapporteur does however provide information, which could be used to assess these risks.

RISK ASSESSMENT

A.   Human health

The conclusions of the evaluation of the risks to

WORKERS

| 1. | is that there is a warning that molten/liquid MCAA is very dangerous for dermal exposure. Following accidental dermal exposure to molten/liquid MCAA, fatal and non-fatal cases of severe acute systemic intoxication have been reported. |
| --- | --- |

1.

is that there is a warning that molten/liquid MCAA is very dangerous for dermal exposure. Following accidental dermal exposure to molten/liquid MCAA, fatal and non-fatal cases of severe acute systemic intoxication have been reported.

| 2. | is that there is a need for specific measures to limit the risks. This conclusion is reached because of:






  — | concerns for acute toxic effects as a consequence of short-term dermal exposure, arising from the use of MCAA in paint removers; |
| --- | --- | --- |

2.

is that there is a need for specific measures to limit the risks. This conclusion is reached because of:

—

concerns for acute toxic effects as a consequence of short-term dermal exposure, arising from the use of MCAA in paint removers;

| — | concerns for acute toxic effects as a consequence of short-term inhalation exposure arising from most scenarios (exceptions are the subscenarios: ‘Production and cleaning and maintenance in production’ and ‘Use of solids’); |
| --- | --- |

—

concerns for acute toxic effects as a consequence of short-term inhalation exposure arising from most scenarios (exceptions are the subscenarios: ‘Production and cleaning and maintenance in production’ and ‘Use of solids’);

| — | concerns for dermal irritation as a consequence of exposure arising from the use of MCAA in paint removers without worker protection measures e.g. PPE; |
| --- | --- |

—

concerns for dermal irritation as a consequence of exposure arising from the use of MCAA in paint removers without worker protection measures e.g. PPE;

| — | concerns for respiratory (sensory) irritation as a consequence of exposure arising from the production of monochloroacetic acid: transfer of molten monochloroacetic acid and transfer of 80 % monochloroacetic acid; |
| --- | --- |

—

concerns for respiratory (sensory) irritation as a consequence of exposure arising from the production of monochloroacetic acid: transfer of molten monochloroacetic acid and transfer of 80 % monochloroacetic acid;

| — | concerns for systemic effects as a consequence of repeated dermal exposure arising from the use of MCAA in paint removers; |
| --- | --- |

—

concerns for systemic effects as a consequence of repeated dermal exposure arising from the use of MCAA in paint removers;

| — | concerns for systemic effects as a consequence of repeated inhalation exposure arising from the production of monochloroacetic acid: transfer of molten monochloroacetic acid and transfer of 80 % monochloroacetic acid and the use of MCAA in paint removers. |
| --- | --- |

—

concerns for systemic effects as a consequence of repeated inhalation exposure arising from the production of monochloroacetic acid: transfer of molten monochloroacetic acid and transfer of 80 % monochloroacetic acid and the use of MCAA in paint removers.

| 3. | is that there is a need for further information and/or testing. This conclusion is reached because:






  — | there is a need for better information to adequately characterise the risks regarding concerns for effects on reproduction as a consequence of exposure to MCAA. |
| --- | --- | --- |

3.

is that there is a need for further information and/or testing. This conclusion is reached because:

—

there is a need for better information to adequately characterise the risks regarding concerns for effects on reproduction as a consequence of exposure to MCAA.

The information and/or test requirement is:

| — | a developmental toxicity study should be performed, awaiting the opinion of the Scientific Committee on Occupational Exposure Limits (SCOEL) on the necessity of such a study. |
| --- | --- |

—

a developmental toxicity study should be performed, awaiting the opinion of the Scientific Committee on Occupational Exposure Limits (SCOEL) on the necessity of such a study.

The conclusions of the evaluation of the risks to

CONSUMERS

is that there is a need for further information and/or testing. This conclusion is reached because:

| — | there is a need for better information to adequately characterise the risks regarding concerns for effects on reproduction as a consequence of exposure to MCAA. |
| --- | --- |

—

there is a need for better information to adequately characterise the risks regarding concerns for effects on reproduction as a consequence of exposure to MCAA.

The information and/or test requirement is:

| — | a developmental toxicity study should be performed, awaiting the opinion of the Scientific Committee on Occupational Exposure Limits on the necessity of such a study (see workers section). |
| --- | --- |

—

a developmental toxicity study should be performed, awaiting the opinion of the Scientific Committee on Occupational Exposure Limits on the necessity of such a study (see workers section).

The conclusions of the evaluation of the risks to

HUMANS EXPOSED VIA THE ENVIRONMENT

| 1. | is that there is a need for specific measures to limit the risks. This conclusion is reached because of:






  — | concerns for systemic effects as a consequence of possible repeated exposure to drinking water arising from one local production site. |
| --- | --- | --- |

1.

is that there is a need for specific measures to limit the risks. This conclusion is reached because of:

—

concerns for systemic effects as a consequence of possible repeated exposure to drinking water arising from one local production site.

| — | concerns for systemic effects as a consequence of possible repeated exposure to leaf crops arising from high emissions to air for one local processing site. |
| --- | --- |

—

concerns for systemic effects as a consequence of possible repeated exposure to leaf crops arising from high emissions to air for one local processing site.

| 2. | is that there is a need for further information and/or testing. This conclusion is reached because:






  — | there is a need for better information to adequately characterise the risks regarding the effects on reproduction as a consequence of exposure. |
| --- | --- | --- |

2.

is that there is a need for further information and/or testing. This conclusion is reached because:

—

there is a need for better information to adequately characterise the risks regarding the effects on reproduction as a consequence of exposure.

The information and/or test requirements are:

| — | a developmental toxicity study should be performed, awaiting the opinion of the Scientific Committee on Occupational Exposure Limits on the necessity of such a study (see workers section). |
| --- | --- |

—

a developmental toxicity study should be performed, awaiting the opinion of the Scientific Committee on Occupational Exposure Limits on the necessity of such a study (see workers section).

The conclusions of the evaluation of the risks to

HUMAN HEALTH (physicochemical properties)

is that there is at present no need for further information and/or testing or for risk reduction measures beyond those which are being applied. This conclusion is reached because:

| — | the risk assessment shows that risks are not expected. Risk reduction measures already being applied are considered sufficient. |
| --- | --- |

—

the risk assessment shows that risks are not expected. Risk reduction measures already being applied are considered sufficient.

B.   Environment

The conclusions of the assessment of the risks to the

ATMOSPHERE

is that there is at present no need for further information and/or testing or for risk reduction measures beyond those which are being applied. This conclusion is reached because:

| — | the risk assessment shows that risks are not expected. Risk reduction measures already being applied are considered sufficient. |
| --- | --- |

—

the risk assessment shows that risks are not expected. Risk reduction measures already being applied are considered sufficient.

The conclusions of the assessment of the risks to the

AQUATIC ECOSYSTEM

is that there is a need for specific measures to limit the risks. This conclusion is reached because of:

| — | concerns for the local aquatic environmental spheres as a consequence of exposure arising from two production/processing sites of the substance. |
| --- | --- |

—

concerns for the local aquatic environmental spheres as a consequence of exposure arising from two production/processing sites of the substance.

The conclusions of the assessment of the risks to the

TERRESTRIAL ECOSYSTEM

is that there is a need for further information and/or testing. This conclusion is reached because:

there is a need for better information to adequately characterise the risks to the terrestrial environmental spheres regarding the natural and anthropogenic emission sources of background levels of MCAA from unintentional sources.

The information and/or test requirements are

| — | further data reflecting the relative contributions from natural and anthropogenic emission sources of MCAA. |
| --- | --- |

—

further data reflecting the relative contributions from natural and anthropogenic emission sources of MCAA.

The conclusions of the evaluation of the risks to

MICRO-ORGANISMS IN THE SEWAGE TREATMENT PLANT

is that there is a need for specific measures to limit the risks. This conclusion is reached because of:

| — | concerns for sewage treatment plants as a consequence of exposure arising from one production/processing site of the substance. |
| --- | --- |

—

concerns for sewage treatment plants as a consequence of exposure arising from one production/processing site of the substance.

STRATEGY FOR LIMITING RISKS

for WORKERS

The legislation for workers protection currently in force at Community level is considered to give an adequate framework to limit the risks of the substance to the extent needed and shall apply.

Within this framework it is recommended:

| — | to establish at community level occupational exposure limit values for MCAA according to Directive 98/24/EC (37); |
| --- | --- |

—

to establish at community level occupational exposure limit values for MCAA according to Directive 98/24/EC (37);

for the ENVIRONMENT and HUMANS EXPOSED INDIRECTLY VIA THE ENVIRONMENT

| — | to facilitate permitting and monitoring under Council Directive 96/61/EC (Integrated Pollution Prevention and Control) MCAA should be included in the ongoing work to develop guidance on ‘Best Available Techniques’ (BAT). |
| --- | --- |

—

to facilitate permitting and monitoring under Council Directive 96/61/EC (Integrated Pollution Prevention and Control) MCAA should be included in the ongoing work to develop guidance on ‘Best Available Techniques’ (BAT).

PART 10

CAS-No.109-66-0

EINECS-No. 203-692-4

| Structural Formula | : | CH3-CH2-CH2-CH2-CH3 |
| --- | --- | --- |
| EINECS Name | : | n-Pentane |
| IUPAC Name | : | n-pentane |
| Rapporteur | : | Norway |
| Classification (38) | : | F+; R12
  Xn; R65, R66, R67
  N; R51-53 |

Structural Formula

:

CH3-CH2-CH2-CH2-CH3

EINECS Name

:

n-Pentane

IUPAC Name

:

n-pentane

Rapporteur

:

Norway

Classification (38)

:

F+; R12

Xn; R65, R66, R67

N; R51-53

The risk assessment is based on current practices related to the life-cycle of the substance produced in or imported into the European Community as described in the comprehensive Risk Assessment Report forwarded to the Commission by the Member State Rapporteur.

The risk assessment has, based on the available information, determined that in the European Community the substance is mainly used as a foaming agent for polystyrene and polyurethane in the polymers industry. It is also used as a solvent in aerosols and as a solvent in polymerisation processes. Other uses include use as a solvent in adhesive formulation and use as a laboratory chemical.

The risk assessment has identified other sources of exposure of the substance to man and the environment, in particular the use and combustion of petroleum products, which do not result from the life-cycle of the substance produced in or imported into the European Community. The assessment of the risks arising from these exposures is not part of this risk assessment. The comprehensive Risk Assessment Reports as forwarded to the Commission by the Member State Rapporteur does however provide information that could be used to assess these risks.

RISK ASSESSMENT:

A.   Human health

The conclusion of the assessment of the risks to

WORKERS

is that there is at present no need for further information and/or testing or for risk reduction measures beyond those which are being applied. This conclusion is reached because:

| — | the risk assessment shows that risks are not expected. Risk reduction measures already being applied are considered sufficient. |
| --- | --- |

—

the risk assessment shows that risks are not expected. Risk reduction measures already being applied are considered sufficient.

The conclusion of the assessment of the risks to

CONSUMERS

is that there is at present no need for further information and/or testing or for risk reduction measures beyond those which are being applied. This conclusion is reached because:

| — | the risk assessment shows that risks are not expected. Risk reduction measures already being applied are considered sufficient. |
| --- | --- |

—

the risk assessment shows that risks are not expected. Risk reduction measures already being applied are considered sufficient.

The conclusion of the assessment of the risks to

HUMANS EXPOSED VIA THE ENVIRONMENT

is that there is a need for specific measures to limit the risks. This conclusion is reached because of:

| — | concerns for effects on humans due to the contribution of isolated n-pentane to the formation of ozone in ambient air. |
| --- | --- |

—

concerns for effects on humans due to the contribution of isolated n-pentane to the formation of ozone in ambient air.

The conclusion of the assessment of the risks to

HUMAN HEALTH (physico-chemical properties)

is that there is at present no need for further information and/or testing or for risk reduction measures beyond those which are being applied. This conclusion is reached because:

| — | the risk assessment shows that risks are not expected. Risk reduction measures already being applied are considered sufficient. |
| --- | --- |

—

the risk assessment shows that risks are not expected. Risk reduction measures already being applied are considered sufficient.

B.   Environment

The conclusion of the assessment of the risks to the

ATMOSPHERE

is that there is a need for specific measures to limit the risks. This conclusion is reached because of:

| — | concerns for the contribution of isolated n-pentane to the formation of ozone in ambient air. |
| --- | --- |

—

concerns for the contribution of isolated n-pentane to the formation of ozone in ambient air.

The conclusion of the assessment of the risks to the

AQUATIC ECOSYSTEM and TERRESTRIAL ECOSYSTEM

is that there is at present no need for further information and/or testing or for risk reduction measures beyond those which are being applied. This conclusion is reached because:

| — | the risk assessment shows that risks are not expected. Risk reduction measures already being applied are considered sufficient. |
| --- | --- |

—

the risk assessment shows that risks are not expected. Risk reduction measures already being applied are considered sufficient.

The conclusion of the assessment of the risks to the

MICRO-ORGANISMS IN THE SEWAGE TREATMENT PLANT

is that there is at present no need for further information and/or testing or for risk reduction measures beyond those which are being applied. This conclusion is reached because:

| — | the risk assessment shows that risks are not expected. Risk reduction measures already being applied are considered sufficient. |
| --- | --- |

—

the risk assessment shows that risks are not expected. Risk reduction measures already being applied are considered sufficient.

STRATEGY FOR LIMITING RISKS

for the ENVIRONMENT and HUMANS EXPOSED VIA THE ENVIRONMENT

| — | The legislation currently in force to prevent and reduce harmful effect through pollution by ozone (Directive 2002/3/EC) (39) is generally considered to give an adequate framework to limit the risks of n-pentane. The Directive outlines provisions and recommendations for the monitoring of ozone precursors, such as volatile organic compounds (Annex VI to the Directive). The main objectives of such measurements are to analyse any trend in ozone precursors, to check the efficiency of emission reduction strategies, to check the consistency of emission inventories and to help attribute emission sources to pollution concentration. An additional aim is to support the understanding of ozone formation and precursor dispersion processes, as well as the application of photochemical models. The list of VOCs recommended for monitoring in ambient air names more than thirty individual VOCs of which one is n-pentane. |
| --- | --- |

—

The legislation currently in force to prevent and reduce harmful effect through pollution by ozone (Directive 2002/3/EC) (39) is generally considered to give an adequate framework to limit the risks of n-pentane. The Directive outlines provisions and recommendations for the monitoring of ozone precursors, such as volatile organic compounds (Annex VI to the Directive). The main objectives of such measurements are to analyse any trend in ozone precursors, to check the efficiency of emission reduction strategies, to check the consistency of emission inventories and to help attribute emission sources to pollution concentration. An additional aim is to support the understanding of ozone formation and precursor dispersion processes, as well as the application of photochemical models. The list of VOCs recommended for monitoring in ambient air names more than thirty individual VOCs of which one is n-pentane.

PART 11

CAS-NO. 64-02-8

Einecs-No. 200-573-9

| Structural Formula | : | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| Einecs Name | : | Tetrasodium ethylenediaminetetraacetate (Na4EDTA) |
| IUPAC Name | : | Tetrasodium {[2-(bis-carboxymethyl-amino)-ethyl]- carboxymethyl-amino}- acetate |
| Rapporteur | : | Germany |
| Classification (40) | : | Xn: R22
  Xi: R41 |

Structural Formula

:

Image

Einecs Name

:

Tetrasodium ethylenediaminetetraacetate (Na4EDTA)

IUPAC Name

:

Tetrasodium {[2-(bis-carboxymethyl-amino)-ethyl]- carboxymethyl-amino}- acetate

Rapporteur

:

Germany

Classification (40)

:

Xn: R22

Xi: R41

The risk assessment is based on current practices related to the life-cycle of the substance produced in or imported into the European Community as described in the risk assessment forwarded to the Commission by the Member State Rapporteur.

The risk assessment has, based on the available information, determined that in the European Community the substance is mainly used as a complexing agent in many industrial branches, e.g. in cleaning products for industry and skilled trades, photochemicals, agriculture, pulp and paper industry, household laundry and cleaning products, textile industry, electroplating industry, cosmetics and water treatment.

RISK ASSESSMENT

A.   Human Health

The conclusion of the assessment of the risks to

WORKERS

is that there is at present no need for further information and/or testing or for risk reduction measures beyond those which are being applied. This conclusion is reached because:

| — | the risk assessment shows that risks are not expected. Risk reduction measures already being applied are considered sufficient. |
| --- | --- |

—

the risk assessment shows that risks are not expected. Risk reduction measures already being applied are considered sufficient.

The conclusion of the assessment of the risks to

CONSUMERS

is that there is at present no need for further information and/or testing or for risk reduction measures beyond those which are being applied. This conclusion is reached because:

| — | the risk assessment shows that risks are not expected. Risk reduction measures already being applied are considered sufficient. |
| --- | --- |

—

the risk assessment shows that risks are not expected. Risk reduction measures already being applied are considered sufficient.

The conclusion of the assessment of the risks to

HUMANS EXPOSED VIA THE ENVIRONMENT

is that there is at present no need for further information and/or testing or for risk reduction measures beyond those which are being applied. This conclusion is reached because:

| — | the risk assessment shows that risks are not expected. Risk reduction measures already being applied are considered sufficient. |
| --- | --- |

—

the risk assessment shows that risks are not expected. Risk reduction measures already being applied are considered sufficient.

The conclusion of the assessment of the risks to

HUMAN HEALTH (physicochemical properties)

that there is at present no need for further information and/or testing or for risk reduction measures beyond those which are being applied. This conclusion is reached because:

| — | the risk assessment shows that risks are not expected. Risk reduction measures already being applied are considered sufficient. |
| --- | --- |

—

the risk assessment shows that risks are not expected. Risk reduction measures already being applied are considered sufficient.

B.   Environment

The conclusion of the assessment of the risks to the

ATMOSPHERE and TERRESTRIAL ECOSYSTEM

is that there is at present no need for further information and/or testing or for risk reduction measures beyond those which are being applied. This conclusion is reached because:

| — | the risk assessment shows that risks are not expected. Risk reduction measures already being applied are considered sufficient. |
| --- | --- |

—

the risk assessment shows that risks are not expected. Risk reduction measures already being applied are considered sufficient.

The conclusion of the assessment of the risks to the

AQUATIC ECOSYSTEM

is that there is a need for specific measures to limit the risks. The conclusion is reached because of:

| — | concerns for environmental effects to environmental spheres mentioned above as a consequence of exposure arising from the use of Na4EDTA in industrial detergents, by paper mills, circuit board producers and releases during recovery of Na4EDTA containing wastes. |
| --- | --- |

—

concerns for environmental effects to environmental spheres mentioned above as a consequence of exposure arising from the use of Na4EDTA in industrial detergents, by paper mills, circuit board producers and releases during recovery of Na4EDTA containing wastes.

The conclusion of the assessment of the risks to

MICRO-ORGANISMS IN THE SEWAGE TREATMENT PLANT

is that there is at present no need for further information and/or testing or for risk reduction measures beyond those which are being applied. This conclusion is reached because:

| — | the risk assessment shows that risks are not expected. Risk reduction measures already being applied are considered sufficient. |
| --- | --- |

—

the risk assessment shows that risks are not expected. Risk reduction measures already being applied are considered sufficient.

STRATEGY FOR LIMITING RISKS

for the ENVIRONMENT

it is recommended:

| — | to facilitate permitting and monitoring under Council Directive 96/61/EC (Integrated Pollution Prevention and Control) Na4EDTA should be included in the ongoing work to develop guidance on ‘Best Available Techniques’ (BAT). |
| --- | --- |

—

to facilitate permitting and monitoring under Council Directive 96/61/EC (Integrated Pollution Prevention and Control) Na4EDTA should be included in the ongoing work to develop guidance on ‘Best Available Techniques’ (BAT).

| — | to take persistent complexing agents into account in the European eco-labelling of paper products and to extend the existing European eco-labelling for cleaners to industrial cleaners under Regulation 1980/2000/EC (41). |
| --- | --- |

—

to take persistent complexing agents into account in the European eco-labelling of paper products and to extend the existing European eco-labelling for cleaners to industrial cleaners under Regulation 1980/2000/EC (41).

---

(1)  OJ L 84, 5.4.1993, p. 1.

(2)  OJ L 131, 26.5.94, p. 3.

(3)  OJ L 231, 28.9.1995, p. 18.

(4)  OJ L 25, 28.1.1997, p. 13.

(5)  OJ L 161, 29.6.1994, p. 3.

(6)  OJ L 104, 13.4.2006.

(7)  The comprehensive Risk Assessment Report, as well as a summary thereof, can be found on the internet site of the European Chemicals Bureau: http://ecb.jrc.it/existing-substances/

(8)  Commission Directive 2001/59/EC of 6 August, adapting to technical progress for the 28th time Council Directive 67/548/EEC on the approximation of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions relating to the classification, packaging and labelling of dangerous substances, OJ L 225, 21.8.2001, p. 30.

(9)  The comprehensive Risk Assessment Report and its addendum, as well as a summary thereof, can be found on the internet site of the European Chemicals Bureau: http://ecb.jrc.it/existing-substances/

(10)  Commission Decision 1999/815/EC pursuant to article 9 of Council Directive 92/59/EEC (OJ L 315, 9.12.1999) and its subsequent prolongations.

(11)  OJ L 131, 5.5.1998, p. 11.

(12)  OJ L 262, 27.9.1976, p. 201.

(13)  Commission Directive 2004/73/EC of 29 April 2004, adapting to technical progress for the 29th time Council Directive 67/548/EEC on the approximation of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions relating to the classification, packaging and labelling of dangerous substances, OJ L 152, 30.4.2004, p. 1-311

(14)  The comprehensive Risk Assessment Report, as well as a summary thereof, can be found on the internet site of the European Chemicals Bureau: http://ecb.jrc.it/existing-substances/

(15)  OJ L 123, 24.4.1998, p. 1

(16)  The comprehensive Risk Assessment Report, as well as a summary thereof, can be found on the internet site of the European Chemicals Bureau: http://ecb.jrc.it/existing-substances/

(17)  Commission Decision 1999/815/EC pursuant to article 9 of Council Directive 92/59/EEC (OJ L 315, 9.12.1999) and its subsequent prolongations.

(18)  OJ L 262, 27.9.1976, p. 201

(19)  The comprehensive Risk Assessment Report, as well as a summary thereof, can be found on the internet site of the European Chemicals Bureau: http://ecb.jrc.it/existing-substances/

(20)  Commission Decision 1999/815/EC pursuant to article 9 of Council Directive 92/59/EEC (OJ L 315, 9.12.1999) and its subsequent prolongations.

(21)  OJ L 262, 27.9.1976, p. 201

(22)  The comprehensive Risk Assessment Report, as well as a summary thereof, can be found on the internet site of the European Chemicals Bureau: http://ecb.jrc.it/existing-substances/

(23)  Commission Decision 1999/815/EC pursuant to article 9 of Council Directive 92/59/EEC (OJ L 315, 9.12.1999) and its subsequent prolongations.

(24)  Opinion on the results of the risk assessment of: 1,2-Benzenedicarboxylic acid, di-C8-10-branched alkyl esters, C9-rich and di-'isononyl' phthalate, report version (Human Health Effects), 27th CSTEE plenary meeting, Brussels, 30 October 2001.

(25)  OJ L 262, 27.9.1976, p. 201

(26)  The comprehensive Risk Assessment Report, as well as a summary thereof, can be found on the internet site of the European Chemicals Bureau: http://ecb.jrc.it/existing-substances/

(27)  Commission Decision 1999/815/EC pursuant to article 9 of Council Directive 92/59/EEC (OJ L 315, 9.12.1999) and its subsequent prolongations.

(28)  Opinion on the results of the risk assessment of: 1,2-Benzenedicarboxylic acid, di-C8-10-branched alkyl esters, C9-rich and di-'isononyl' phthalate, report version (Human Health Effects), 27th CSTEE plenary meeting, Brussels, 30 October 2001.

(29)  OJ L 262, 27.9.1976, p. 201

(30)  Commission Directive [...], adapting to technical progress for the 30th time Council Directive 67/548/EEC on the approximation of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions relating to the classification, packaging and labelling of dangerous substances, to be published.

(31)  OJ L 237, 21.9.2000, p. 1.

(32)  Commission Directive [...], adapting to technical progress for the 30th time Council Directive 67/548/EEC on the approximation of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions relating to the classification, packaging and labelling of dangerous substances, to be published.

(33)  The comprehensive Risk Assessment Report, as well as a summary thereof, can be found on the internet site of the European Chemicals Bureau: http://ecb.jrc.it/existing-substances/

(34)  OJ L 131, 5.5.1998, p. 11

(35)  Commission Directive [...], adapting to technical progress for the 30th time Council Directive 67/548/EEC on the approximation of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions relating to the classification, packaging and labelling of dangerous substances, to be published.

(36)  The comprehensive Risk Assessment Report, as well as a summary thereof, can be found on the internet site of the European Chemicals Bureau: http://ecb.jrc.it/existing-substances/

(37)  OJ L 131, 5.5.1998, p. 11

(38)  Commission Directive 98/98/EC of 15 December 1998 adapting to technical progress for the 25th time Council Directive 67/548/EEC on the approximation of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions relating to the classification, packaging and labelling of dangerous substances, OJ L 355, 30.12.1998, p. 1

(39)  OJ L 67, 9.3.2002, p. 14

(40)  Commission Directive [...], adapting to technical progress for the 30th time Council Directive 67/548/EEC on the approximation of the laws, regulations and administrative provisions relating to the classification, packaging and labelling of dangerous substances, to be published.

(41)  OJ L 237, 21.09.2000, p. 1

---

| 13.4.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 90/29 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.4.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 90/29

---

Authorisation for State aid pursuant to Articles 87 and 88 of the EC Treaty

Cases where the Commission raises no objections

(2006/C 90/05)

Date of adoption of the decision:

Member State: Italy

Aid No: NN 54 B/2004

Title: Assistance for the capitalisation of undertakings. Legislative Decree No 102/2004, Article 17

Objective: Guarantees. The guarantee scheme has been conceived in such a way that it may be considered to involve no state aid within the meaning of Article 87(1) of the Treaty: the conditions set out in point 4.3 of the Commission Notice on the application of Articles 87 and 88 of the EC Treaty to State aid in the form of guarantees have been fulfilled

Legal basis: Decreto legislativo 29 marzo 2004, n. 102, articolo 17 e Progetto di decreto del Ministero delle politiche agricole e forestali

Budget: EUR 60 million

Aid intensity or amount: The measure involves no state aid

Duration: 6 years

The authentic text(s) of the decision, from which all confidential information has been removed, can be found at:

http://europa.eu.int/comm/secretariat_general/sgb/state_aids/

Date of adoption of the decision:

Member State: The Netherlands

Aid No: N 155/2004

Title: Aid for the production and marketing of quality meat products

Objective: To raise the quality of meat products and to establish a more environmentally friendly and energy efficient production process

Legal basis: Verordening Heffing Fonds Onderzoek en Ontwikkeling Vleesindustrie 2003

Budget: EUR 120 000 per year, to be financed by parafiscal levies of the product board for livestock and meat

Duration: Indefinite

The authentic text(s) of the decision, from which all confidential information has been removed, can be found at:

http://europa.eu.int/comm/secretariat_general/sgb/state_aids/

Date of adoption of the decision:

Member State: Germany (Hessen)

Aid No: N 348/2005

Title: Agro-Marketing Hessen — Amendment with the Product Group Eggs

Objective: The quality scheme for promotion and advertising (N 260/A/02) should be extended to eggs

Legal basis: Hessischer Agrarmarketing-Vertrag

Budget: EUR 1 549 000 per year

Aid intensity or amount: 50 % for advertising measures, 100 % for participation in trade fairs and exhibitions, 100 % for training measures and consultancy

Duration: Until 31 December 2008

The authentic text(s) of the decision, from which all confidential information has been removed, can be found at:

http://europa.eu.int/comm/secretariat_general/sgb/state_aids/

Date of adoption of the decision:

Member State: Italy (Calabria)

Aid No: N 372/2004

Title: Assistance in agricultural areas which have suffered damage (frosts in January/February 2004 in the provinces of Cosenza and Catanzaro, strong winds on 16 April 2004 in the province of Reggio Calabria)

Objective: To compensate farmers for damage to agricultural production and farming structures as a result of bad weather (frosts in the provinces of Cosenza and Catanzaro in January/February 2004, and strong winds 2004 in the province of Reggio Calabria on 16 April 2004)

Legal basis: Legge n. 185/1992 e decreto legislativo n. 102/2004

Budget: See the approved schemes (C 12/B/95 and NN 54/A/04)

Aid intensity or amount: Up to 100 % of the cost of the damage

Duration: Measure applying aid schemes approved by the Commission

Other details: Measure applying the aid schemes approved by the Commission under State aid C 12/B/95 (Commission Decision 2004/307/EC of 16 December 2003) and NN 54/A/2004 (Commission letter C(2005) 1622 final, dated 7 June 2005)

The authentic text(s) of the decision, from which all confidential information has been removed, can be found at:

http://europa.eu.int/comm/secretariat_general/sgb/state_aids/

Date of adoption of the decision:

Member State: Germany

Aid No: N 551/2005

Title: Model measure: ‘Multiplication-oriented and input-based advisory models in privately owned forests’

Objective: To develop models for the forestry consultancy of the enterprises of the small private forest and its associations

Legal basis: Zuwendungsbescheid des Bundesministeriums für Verbraucherschutz, Ernährung und Landwirtschaft vom 7. Oktober 2005

Budget: EUR 0,3 million

Aid intensity or amount: Up to 100 %

Duration: 4 Years

The authentic text(s) of the decision, from which all confidential information has been removed, can be found at:

http://europa.eu.int/comm/secretariat_general/sgb/state_aids/

Date of adoption of the decision:

Member State: Italy

Aid No: N 580/C/03

Title: Programme for combating the citrus fruit disease tristeza in Calabria

Objective: Plant disease prevention measures

Legal basis: Legge n. 423 del 2 dicembre 1998

Decreti del ministero delle Politiche agricole e forestali del 29 dicembre 2003 e del 14 luglio 2004

Budget: EUR 2 958 006,78

Aid intensity or amount: 100 % (a measure does not constitute a State aid under Article 87(1) of the Treaty)

Duration: At least one year

The authentic text(s) of the decision, from which all confidential information has been removed, can be found at:

http://europa.eu.int/comm/secretariat_general/sgb/state_aids/

Date of adoption of the decision:

Member State: Germany (Bayern)

Aid No: N 647/2005

Title: Aid for Bavarian machinery rings

Objective: to enhance the cooperation between farmers

Legal basis: Gesetz zur Förderung der bayerischen Landwirtschaft

Budget: EUR 3,2 million

Aid intensity: max. 30 %

Duration: 1 year (2006)

The authentic text(s) of the decision, from which all confidential information has been removed, can be found at:

http://europa.eu.int/comm/secretariat_general/sgb/state_aids/

---

| 13.4.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 90/31 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.4.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 90/31

---

Summary information communicated by Member States regarding State aid granted under Commission Regulation (EC) No 1/2004 of 23 December 2003 on the application of Articles 87 and 88 of the EC Treaty to State aid to small and medium-sized enterprises active in the production, processing and marketing of agricultural products

(2006/C 90/06)

Aid No: XA 67/05

Member State: Spain

Region: Navarre

Title of aid scheme or name of company receiving an individual aid: Aid for 2005 to renew Navarre's fleet of agricultural tractors and provide it with safety systems

Legal basis: Orden foral 167/2005, de 12 de septiembre, del consejero de agricultura, ganadería y alimentación por la que se aprueba la convocatoria de ayudas a la renovación y dotación de sistemas de seguridad del parque de tractores agrícolas de Navarra para el año 2005, y se establecen las bases reguladoras que regiran dicha convocatoria

Annual expenditure planned under the scheme or overall amount of individual aid granted to the company: EUR 100 000 for the 2005 financial year

Maximum aid intensity: 50 % in less-favoured areas, 40 % in the others

In the case of young farmers acquiring a new tractor and scrapping another, the above percentages will increase by ten points

Date of implementation:

Duration of scheme or individual aid award: December 2005

Objective of aid: Acquisition of new tractors, provided this involves the scrapping of old ones and the fitting of roll-over protection systems in tractors registered before 1978. Article 4, ‘Investment in agricultural holdings’. Eligible costs: cost of the new tractor and of the roll-over protection systems

Sector(s) concerned: Plant production and animal production. The aid objective is to acquire new tractors with, in each case, the scrapping of an old one, and to fit roll-over protection systems. Every subsector within the sectors mentioned is eligible: for example, wheat or grapes with regard to plant production, pigs or poultry with regard to animal production

Name and address of the granting authority:

| Gobierno de Navarra |
| --- |
| Departamento de Agricultura, Ganadería y Alimentación |
| C/. Tudela 20 |
| E-31003 Pamplona |

Gobierno de Navarra

Departamento de Agricultura, Ganadería y Alimentación

C/. Tudela 20

E-31003 Pamplona

Web address: www.navarra.es

Aid No: XA 3/06

Member State: Austria

Region: Upper Austria

Title of aid scheme or name of company receiving individual aid: Guidelines on support for farming mountain pastures in protected areas within the meaning of the Ordinance on protected areas

Legal basis: Landesgesetz über die Erhaltung und Pflege der Natur (Oö. Natur- und Landschaftsschutzgesetz 2001 — Oö. NSchG 2001)

Annual expenditure planned/overall amount of individual aid granted to company: Total annual costs: approximately EUR 13 000; aid per mountain-pasture holding: probably less than EUR 2 100

Maximum aid intensity: Aid per mountain-pasture holding: probably less than EUR 2 100

Implementation date: From 25 January 2006 onwards

Duration of scheme or period during which individual aid is paid: Annual payment with a five-year commitment in each case

Purpose of the aid: Aid in accordance with Article 5 of Regulation (EC) No 1/2004

Since over recent decades farming mountain pastures has in many cases been discontinued, many of these typical farmlands in Upper Austria have disappeared. The purpose of this support is therefore to maintain these farmlands by sustainably farming mountain pastures in compliance with measures which have been devised jointly by the mountain-pasture farmer and the district representative responsible for protecting nature and the landscape and which serve to achieve the objective of safeguarding the protected area

Economic sectors concerned: mountain-pasture farming

Name and address of the granting authority:

| Amt der Oberösterreichischen Landesregierung |
| --- |
| Naturschutzabteilung |
| Bahnhofplatz 1 |
| A-4021 Linz |

Amt der Oberösterreichischen Landesregierung

Naturschutzabteilung

Bahnhofplatz 1

A-4021 Linz

Website: http://www.land-oberoesterreich.gv.at

Aid No: XA 04/06

Member State: United Kingdom

Region: The Chilterns Area of Outstanding Beauty

Title of Aid scheme or name of company receiving an individual aid: Chilterns Landscape Conservation Programme

Legal basis: Section 87 of The National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1949. Sections 83-84, 86-88 and 89-93 of The Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000

Annual expenditure planned under the scheme or overall amount of individual aid granted to the company: 1 February — 31 December 2006: GBP 160,499

Maximum aid intensity: For capital grants, the maximum aid intensity will normally be 50 % of eligible costs. Exceptionally capital grants may be paid up to 100 % of eligible costs. Where the investment would lead to an increase in the agricultural production capacity, the maximum rate of grant will be 40 % of the eligible costs. Where the aid is in the form of advice or training, the maximum aid intensity will be 100 %

Date of implementation:

Duration of scheme or individual aid award: Until 31 December 2006

Objective of aid: Sectoral development and environmental enhancement and protection

The grant scheme will be implemented under Articles 5 and 14 of Regulation (EC) No 1/2004

The eligible expenses are as per Article 5 and 14

Sector(s) concerned: The programme applies to all agricultural businesses in the Chilterns Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty, including production, processing and marketing. The programme is open to all sub-sectors

Name and address of the granting authority:

| Chilterns Conservation Board |
| --- |
| The Lodge |
| Station Road |
| Chinnor |
| Oxon OX39 4HA |
| United Kingdom |

Chilterns Conservation Board

The Lodge

Station Road

Chinnor

Oxon OX39 4HA

United Kingdom

Web-Address: www.chilternsaonb.org

(go to the menu at the top of the page and click on Publications, then scroll down and click on Chilterns Landscape Conservation Programme — agricultural state aid (download)

Alternatively, you can visit the UK's central page for exempted agricultural State aids at:

www.defra.gov.uk/farm/state-aid/setup/exist-exempt.htm

Other information: The Programme consists of two separate measures:

Signed and dated on behalf of the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (UK competent authority)

Stephen Anderson

Agricultural State aid Team Leader

Defra

Area 8e

9 Millbank

London SW1P 3JR

United Kingdom

Aid No: XA 05/2006

Member State: Italy

Region: Piedmont

Title of aid scheme or name of company receiving an individual aid: Financial aid for investment in technological innovation, environmental protection, organisational innovation, commercial innovation and health and safety in the workplace

Legal basis: Deliberazione della Giunta Regionale n. 17-881 del 26 settembre 2005 (B.U.R.P n. 39, Supplemento, del 29 settembre 2005) «Funzioni delegate alla Regione in materia di incentivi alle imprese. Prescrizioni per l'accesso agli incentivi di cui alla L. 28/11/1965 n. 1329 ed all'art. 11 comma 2 lett. b) L.27/10/1994 n. 598 e s.m.i.» integrata dalla Deliberazione della Giunta Regionale n. 67-1743 del 5 dicembre 2005«Prescrizioni per l'accesso agli incentivi di cui alla L. 28/11/1965 n. 1329 (c.d. Sabatini) ed all'art. 11 comma 2 lett. b) L. 27/10/1994 n. 598 e s.m.i. (Tutela ambientale-innovazione tecnologica, organizzativa, commerciale, sicurezza luoghi di lavoro): modifiche ed integrazioni» (B.U.R.P. n. 50 del 15 dicembre 2005) entrambi modificative della L. 598/84-art. 11 e s.m.i già approvata dalla Commissione con Lettera D/53877 del 17 luglio 2000 — Aiuto N/487/95

Annual expenditure forecast under the scheme or total annual amount awarded to the company: EUR 25 million

Maximum aid intensity: Interest-rate subsidy

The amount of financing may reach up to 100 % of the investment plan for a period of up to 7 years, including a grace period of up to 2 years

The level of financing is 100 % of the reference level, which is set and updated by a Decree of the Ministry of Industry, Trade and Crafts (under Article 2(2) of Legislative Decree No 123/98), applicable at the time the financing contract is concluded, within the limits of aid intensity set by the European Union

Date of implementation: 27 September 2005: in any case the first payment will be awarded when notification of the identification number given by the Commission is sent, which is issued when the summary information is received

Duration of scheme or individual aid award:

Objective of aid: Article 4 and Article 7 of Regulation (EC) No 1/2004. Types of investment and expenditure eligible: aid for investment in technological innovation and environment protection, organisational and commercial innovation and health and safety in the work place, in accordance with Articles 4 and 7 of Regulation (EC) No 1/2004

Sector(s) concerned: The scheme applies to small and medium businesses involved in the processing and marketing of agricultural products under Annex I of the EC Treaty

Name and address of the granting authority:

| Region of Piedmont |
| --- |
| Department for Industry, Employment and Budget –Directorate for Industry |
| Via Pisano, 6 |
| I-10152 Turin |
| Tel. (39-11) 432 14 61 |
| Fax (39-11) 432 34 83 |
| e-mail: direzione16@regione.piemonte.it |

Region of Piedmont

Department for Industry, Employment and Budget –Directorate for Industry

Via Pisano, 6

I-10152 Turin

Tel. (39-11) 432 14 61

Fax (39-11) 432 34 83

e-mail: direzione16@regione.piemonte.it

Website: www.regione.piemonte.it/industria/index.htm

Other information: The annual expenditure indicated herein is cumulative for the two laws cited under the legal basis and also includes annual expenditure forecast under the scheme with the same legal basis targeting SMEs that are covered not by Regulation (EC) No 1/2004 but by Regulation (EC) No 70/2001

Aid No: XA 06/2006

Member State: Italy

Region: Piedmont

Title of aid scheme or name of company receiving an individual aid: Financial aid for the purchase or lease of new production machines and tools (‘Sabatini’)

Legal basis: Deliberazione della Giunta Regionale n. 17-881 del 26 settembre 2005 (B.U.R.P n. 39, Supplemento, del 29 settembre 2005) «Funzioni delegate alla Regione in materia di incentivi alle imprese. Prescrizioni per l'accesso agli incentivi di cui alla L. 28/11/1965 n. 1329 ed all'art. 11 comma 2 lett. b) L.27/10/1994 n. 598 e s.m.i.» come integrata dalla Deliberazione della Giunta Regionale n. 67-1743 del 5 dicembre 2005«Prescrizioni per l'accesso agli incentivi di cui alla L. 28/11/1965 n. 1329 (c.d. Sabatini) ed all'art. 11 comma 2 lett. b) L. 27/10/1994 n. 598 e s.m.i. (Tutela ambientale-innovazione tecnologica, organizzativa, commerciale, sicurezza luoghi di lavoro): modifiche ed integrazioni» (B.U.R.P. n. 50 del 15 dicembre 2005)

La legge 28/11/1965 n. 1329 è stata già approvata dalla Commissione con Lettera D/55254 del 18 ottobre 2000 Aiuto N 659/A97

Annual expenditure planned under the scheme or total annual amount awarded to the company: EUR 25 million

Maximum aid intensity: Interest-rate subsidy for the purchase of new machine tools or new manufacturing equipment, excluding replacement investments

The amount of funding may reach up to 100 % of the investment plan for a period of up to 5 years

Aid may not exceed 40 % of eligible expenditure

Date of implementation: 27 September 2005: in any case the first payment will be awarded when notification of the identification number given by the Commission is sent, which is issued after the summary information is received

Duration of scheme or individual aid award:

Objective of aid: Article 4 and Article 7 of Regulation (EC) No 1/2004

Financial contribution, including securities issued for a contract for the sale/purchase or hire of machines (with purchasing obligation), secured by options on the machines specified under Article 1 of Law No 1329/65 expiring up to 5 years from the issue date, provided they form part of the same contract, with a term of payment or hire lasting more than twelve months

Sector(s) concerned: The scheme applies to small and medium enterprises involved in the production, processing and marketing of agricultural products under Annex 1 of the EC Treaty

Name and address of the granting authority:

| Region of Piedmont |
| --- |
| Department for Industry, Employment and Budget — Directorate for Industry |
| Via Pisano, 6 |
| I-10152 Turin |
| Tel. (39-11) 432 14 61 |
| Fax (39-11) 432 34 83 |
| e-mail: direzione16@regione.piemonte.it |

Region of Piedmont

Department for Industry, Employment and Budget — Directorate for Industry

Via Pisano, 6

I-10152 Turin

Tel. (39-11) 432 14 61

Fax (39-11) 432 34 83

e-mail: direzione16@regione.piemonte.it

Web site: www.regione.piemonte.it/industria/index.htm

Other information: The annual expenditure indicated herein is cumulative for the two laws cited under the legal basis and also includes annual expenditure forecast under the scheme with the same legal basis targeting SMEs that are covered not by Regulation (EC) No 1/2004 but by Regulation No (EC) 70/2001

Aid No: XA 07/2006

Member State: Italy

Region: Piedmont

Title of aid scheme: Financial aid to purchase or lease new production machines and tools (‘Sabatini decambializzata’ Law)

Legal basis: Deliberazione della Giunta Regionale n. 17-881 del 26 settembre 2005 (B.U.R.P n. 39, Supplemento, del 29 settembre 2005) «Funzioni delegate alla Regione in materia di incentivi alle imprese. Prescrizioni per l'accesso agli incentivi di cui alla L. 28/11/1965 n. 1329 ed all'art. 11 comma 2 lett. b) L.27/10/1994 n. 598 e s.m.i.» come integrata dalla Deliberazione della Giunta Regionale n. 67-1743 del 5 dicembre 2005«Prescrizioni per l'accesso agli incentivi di cui alla L. 28/11/1965 n. 1329 (c.d. Sabatini) ed all'art. 11 comma 2 lett. b) L. 27/10/1994 n. 598 e s.m.i. (Tutela ambientale-innovazione tecnologica, organizzativa, commerciale, sicurezza luoghi di lavoro): modifiche ed integrazioni» (B.U.R.P. n. 50 del 15 dicembre 2005)

La legge 28/11/1965 n. 1329 è stata già approvata dalla Commissione con Lettera D/55254 del 18 ottobre 2000 Aiuto N 659/A97

Annual expenditure forecast under the scheme or total annual amount awarded to the company: EUR 25 million

Maximum aid intensity: Interest-rate subsidy for the purchase of new machine tools or new manufacturing equipment, excluding replacement investments

The amount of funding may not exceed 40 % of eligible expenditure

Date of implementation: 27 September 2005: in any case the first payment will be awarded when notification of the identification number given by the Commission is sent, which is issued after the summary information is received

Duration of scheme or individual aid award:

Objective of aid: Article 4 and Article 7 of Regulation (EC) No 1/2004

Financial contribution, not including securities, towards a contract for the sale/purchase or hire of machines (with purchasing obligation), secured by options on the machines specified under Article 1 of Law No 1329/65

The aid may reach up to 100 % of the investment programme over a period of up to 7 years, including a grace period of up to 2 years

Aid for each individual request may not exceed the maximum aid intensity granted under applicable EU rules

Sector(s) concerned: The scheme applies to small and medium businesses involved in the production, processing and marketing of agricultural products under Annex 1 of the EC Treaty

Name and address of the granting authority:

| Region of Piedmont |
| --- |
| Department for Industry, Employment and Budget –Directorate for Industry |
| Via Pisano, 6 |
| I-10152 Turin |
| Tel. (39-11) 432 14 61 |
| Fax (39-11) 432 34 83 |
| e-mail: direzione16@regione.piemonte.it |

Region of Piedmont

Department for Industry, Employment and Budget –Directorate for Industry

Via Pisano, 6

I-10152 Turin

Tel. (39-11) 432 14 61

Fax (39-11) 432 34 83

e-mail: direzione16@regione.piemonte.it

Website: www.regione.piemonte.it/industria/index.htm

Other information: The annual expenditure indicated herein is cumulative for the two laws cited under the legal basis and also includes annual expenditure forecast under the scheme with the same legal basis targeting SMEs that are covered not by Regulation (EC) No 1/2004 but by Regulation (EC) No 70/2001

Aid No: XA 08/06

Member State: United Kingdom

Region: The Cotswolds Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty

Title of Aid scheme or name of company receiving an individual aid: Cotswolds Landscape Conservation Programme

Legal basis: Section 87 of The National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1949

Sections 83-84, 86-88 and 89-93 of The Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000

Annual expenditure planned under the scheme or overall amount of individual aid granted to the company: The overall budget allocated to aid to agricultural businesses is GBP 646,016

1 February — 31 December 2006: GBP 646,016

Maximum aid intensity: For capital grants, the maximum aid intensity will normally be 50 % of eligible costs. Exceptionally capital grants may be paid up to 100 % of eligible costs where the investment is non-productive and where it leads to no increase in the agricultural production capacity of the holding. Where the aid is in the form of advice or training, the maximum aid intensity will be 100 % of the eligible costs of the Conservation Board but beneficiaries will receive no direct payments

Where the investment would lead to an increase in the agricultural production capacity, the maximum rate of grant will be 40 %

Date of implementation:

Duration of scheme or individual aid award: Until 31 December 2006

Objective of aid: Articles 5 and 14 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1/2004

Sectoral Development and environmental enhancement and protection

The aid will help the Conservation Board achieve its statutory purposes which are to conserve and enhance the natural beauty of the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB) and to increase the understanding and enjoyment of the special qualities of the AONB, ensuring these are compatible with their conservation and enhancement

The scheme consists of two measures: investments in holdings and technical support

Under investments the eligible costs will be the costs incurred for investments or capital works intended for the conversation of productive and non-productive heritage features located on agricultural holdings. Under technical support the eligible costs will be

the education and training of farmers and farm workers (costs of organising the training programme)

consultancy services

Sector(s) concerned: The programme applies to all agricultural businesses in the Cotswolds Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty, including production, processing and marketing. The programme is open to all sub-sectors

Name and address of the granting authority:

| Cotswolds Conservation Board |
| --- |
| The Old Police Station |
| Cotswolds Heritage Centre |
| Northleach |
| Gloucestershire GL54 3JH |
| United Kingdom |

Cotswolds Conservation Board

The Old Police Station

Cotswolds Heritage Centre

Northleach

Gloucestershire GL54 3JH

United Kingdom

Website: www.cotswoldsaonb.org

go to the menu at the top of the page and click on publications, then scroll down and click on ‘State aid notification-Cotswolds Landscape Conservation Programme Guidance’

Alternatively you can visit the UK's central page for exempted agricultural State aids at http://www.defra.gov.uk/farm/state-aid/setup/exist-exempt.htm Click on The Cotswolds Landscape Conservation Programme

Other information: The Programme consists of two separate measures

To provide financial assistance as a contribution towards investments and activities that will contribute directly to the conservation or enhancement of the special landscape quality, biodiversity or cultural heritage of the Chilterns

To providing advice, both bespoke and general, on countryside management that aims to further the statutory purpose of the AONB; to organise training to explain countryside management techniques; and to organise and participate in fairs, shows and other events that raise awareness about the Conservation Board's work, environmental schemes and environmental management techniques. Where technical advice is not provided by the Conservation Board itself, the service provider will be chosen and remunerated according to market principles, in a non-discriminatory way, where necessary using tendering procedures which are in accordance with Community law

Signed and dated on behalf of the Department for Environment Food and Rural Affairs (UK competent authority)

Graham Collins

Agricultural State Aid Adviser

Defra

Area 8E

9 Millbank

c/o Nobel House

17, Smith Square

London SW1P 3JR

United Kingdom

---

| 13.4.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 90/36 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.4.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 90/36

---

STATE AID — GERMANY

State aid No C 6/06 (ex N 417/05) — Volkswerft Stralsund

Invitation to submit comments pursuant to Article 88(2) of the EC Treaty

(2006/C 90/07)

(Text with EEA relevance)

By means of the letter dated 22 February 2006 reproduced in the authentic language on the pages following this summary, the Commission notified the Federal Republic of Germany of its decision to initiate the procedure laid down in Article 88(2) of the EC Treaty concerning the abovementioned aid measures.

Interested parties may submit their comments on the aid measure in respect of which the Commission is initiating the procedure within one month of the date of publication of this summary and the following letter, to:

| European Commission |
| --- |
| Directorate-General Competition |
| State aid Greffe |
| B-1049 Brussels |
| Fax No: (32-2) 296 12 42 |

European Commission

Directorate-General Competition

State aid Greffe

B-1049 Brussels

Fax No: (32-2) 296 12 42

These comments will be communicated to the Federal Republic of Germany. Confidential treatment of the identity of the interested party submitting the comments may be requested in writing, stating the reasons for the request.

TEXT OF SUMMARY

Procedure

On 26 August 2005 Germany notified to the Commission its intention to grant regional investment aid to Volkswerft Stralsund (VWS). The notification was completed by letters submitted on 17 October 2005 and 19 December 2005.

Description

VWS is a shipyard located in Stralsund, Mecklenburg-Vorpommern, an assisted area pursuant to Article 87(3)(a) of the Treaty. It is a large undertaking.

VWS intends to implement an investment project to improve the productivity of the yard and to allow the yard to build larger vessels of panamax size. The investments concern the panel and section fabrication, conservation and the prolongation of the ship lift. Eligible investment costs amount to EUR 18 699 000. Germany intends to grant State aid amounting to EUR 4 200 500, which is equal to 22,5 % of the eligible investment costs, on the basis of two approved regional aid schemes.

Assessment

The aid falls to be assessed in the light of the Framework on State aid to Shipbuilding (‘shipbuilding framework’). The shipbuilding framework allows the granting of regional aid for investments in upgrading or modernising existing yards with the objective of improving the productivity of existing installations. The aid intensity may not exceed 22,5 % in Article 87(3)(a) regions.

The Commission doubts that the conditions of the shipbuilding framework are fulfilled. The Commission has doubts that the investments in the field of panel production and section construction can be considered as investments into existing installations. The Commission also doubts that the investments in the field of conservation and the prolongation of the ship lift constitute eligible investments as their objective does not seem to be the improvement of the productivity of existing installations.

In addition, the Commission has doubts whether the investments of VWS would not lead to an increase of capacities of the yard and whether such a capacity increase would be compatible with the shipbuilding framework and the common market.

TEXT OF LETTER

„Die Kommission teilt Deutschland mit, dass sie nach Prüfung der von Ihren Behörden zu der erwähnten Beihilfe vorgelegten Informationen beschlossen hat, ein Verfahren nach Artikel 88 Absatz 2 EG-Vertrag einzuleiten.

I.   VERFAHREN

| (1) | Mit Schreiben vom 22. August 2005, das am 26. August eingetragen wurde, meldete Deutschland der Kommission ihre Absicht an, der Volkswerft Stralsund eine regionale Investitionsbeihilfe zu gewähren. Mit Schreiben vom 13. September 2005 erbat die Kommission Auskünfte, die mit Schreiben vom 14. Oktober 2005, das am 17. Oktober eingetragen wurde, erteilt wurden. Die Kommission ersuchte um weitere Auskünfte mit Schreiben vom 18. November 2005, die mit Schreiben vom 19. Dezember 2005, das am 20. Dezember eingetragen wurde, vorgelegt wurden. |
| --- | --- |

(1)

Mit Schreiben vom 22. August 2005, das am 26. August eingetragen wurde, meldete Deutschland der Kommission ihre Absicht an, der Volkswerft Stralsund eine regionale Investitionsbeihilfe zu gewähren. Mit Schreiben vom 13. September 2005 erbat die Kommission Auskünfte, die mit Schreiben vom 14. Oktober 2005, das am 17. Oktober eingetragen wurde, erteilt wurden. Die Kommission ersuchte um weitere Auskünfte mit Schreiben vom 18. November 2005, die mit Schreiben vom 19. Dezember 2005, das am 20. Dezember eingetragen wurde, vorgelegt wurden.

II.   BESCHREIBUNG

| (2) | Begünstigter der Beihilfe ist die Volkswerft Stralsund GmbH (VWS), eine Werft in Stralsund (Mecklenburg-Vorpommern), einem Fördergebiet nach Artikel 87 Absatz 3 a) EG-Vertrag. VWS gehört zum dänischen A.P. Möller Konzern und ist als solches Bestandteil der Werftengruppe unter der Führung der Odense Steel Shipyard Ltd. VWS ist ein Großunternehmen. |
| --- | --- |

(2)

Begünstigter der Beihilfe ist die Volkswerft Stralsund GmbH (VWS), eine Werft in Stralsund (Mecklenburg-Vorpommern), einem Fördergebiet nach Artikel 87 Absatz 3 a) EG-Vertrag. VWS gehört zum dänischen A.P. Möller Konzern und ist als solches Bestandteil der Werftengruppe unter der Führung der Odense Steel Shipyard Ltd. VWS ist ein Großunternehmen.

| (3) | VWS ist im Entwurf und der Fertigung von seegehenden Schiffen sowie in der Schiffsreparatur und dem Schiffsumbau tätig. Es fertigt überwiegend mittelgroße Containerschiffe aber auch Fahrgastschiffe, Fährschiffe und Spezialschiffe wie Laderaum-Saugbagger, Ankerzieh- und Versorgungsschiffe, Kabelleger und Schadstoff-Bekämpfungsschiffe. VWS kann Schiffe bis zu einer Länge von 260 m fertigen. |
| --- | --- |

(3)

VWS ist im Entwurf und der Fertigung von seegehenden Schiffen sowie in der Schiffsreparatur und dem Schiffsumbau tätig. Es fertigt überwiegend mittelgroße Containerschiffe aber auch Fahrgastschiffe, Fährschiffe und Spezialschiffe wie Laderaum-Saugbagger, Ankerzieh- und Versorgungsschiffe, Kabelleger und Schadstoff-Bekämpfungsschiffe. VWS kann Schiffe bis zu einer Länge von 260 m fertigen.

| (4) | Die Vorfertigung der Schiffsbauteile bis hin zur Sektionsgröße erfolgt in spezialisierten Fertigungsstrassen. Die Endmontage erfolgt nach vorheriger Konservierung und Farbgebung in der Schiffbauhalle, die Schiffskörper bis zu einer Länge von 300 m zulässt. Das Aufschwimmen der Schiffe erfolgt mit Hilfe eines Schiffslifts von 230 m Länge. Dieser Schiffslift begrenzt das Schiffbauprogramm von VWS auf Schiffe bis zu 260 m. |
| --- | --- |

(4)

Die Vorfertigung der Schiffsbauteile bis hin zur Sektionsgröße erfolgt in spezialisierten Fertigungsstrassen. Die Endmontage erfolgt nach vorheriger Konservierung und Farbgebung in der Schiffbauhalle, die Schiffskörper bis zu einer Länge von 300 m zulässt. Das Aufschwimmen der Schiffe erfolgt mit Hilfe eines Schiffslifts von 230 m Länge. Dieser Schiffslift begrenzt das Schiffbauprogramm von VWS auf Schiffe bis zu 260 m.

| (5) | VWS beabsichtigt, seine Produktion zu modernisieren und zu rationalisieren sowie sich den Veränderungen der internationalen Marktanforderungen anzupassen, um auf dem Weltmarkt wettbewerbsfähig bleiben zu können. Es geht davon aus, dass die günstigen Marktbedingungen für Handelsschiffe noch für mehrere Jahre anhalten werden, glaubt jedoch, dass sich die Nachfrage zunehmend zugunsten von Schiffe der Panamax-Klasse verschieben wird, die VWS gegenwärtig nicht herstellen kann. Panamaxschiffe sind die größten Schiffe, die den Panamakanal durchfahren können, d.h. Schiffe mit einer maximalen Länge von 300 m und einer maximalen Breite von 32,2 m. |
| --- | --- |

(5)

VWS beabsichtigt, seine Produktion zu modernisieren und zu rationalisieren sowie sich den Veränderungen der internationalen Marktanforderungen anzupassen, um auf dem Weltmarkt wettbewerbsfähig bleiben zu können. Es geht davon aus, dass die günstigen Marktbedingungen für Handelsschiffe noch für mehrere Jahre anhalten werden, glaubt jedoch, dass sich die Nachfrage zunehmend zugunsten von Schiffe der Panamax-Klasse verschieben wird, die VWS gegenwärtig nicht herstellen kann. Panamaxschiffe sind die größten Schiffe, die den Panamakanal durchfahren können, d.h. Schiffe mit einer maximalen Länge von 300 m und einer maximalen Breite von 32,2 m.

| (6) | VWS führt daher gegenwärtig ein Investitionsvorhaben durch, um die Produktivität der Werft zu erhöhen sowie die Herstellung größerer Schiffe der Panamax-Klasse zu ermöglichen. Das Investitionsvorhaben wird VWS die Erschließung des Marktsegment Panamaxschiffe ermöglichen und damit das Absatzpotenzial der Werft erhöhen. VWS geht davon aus, dass dies zu einer gleichmäßigeren Auslastung der vorhandenen Produktionsanlagen führen wird und somit zu einer Degression der Herstellungskosten pro Schiff, wodurch sich die Produktivität der Werft erhöhen wird. |
| --- | --- |

(6)

VWS führt daher gegenwärtig ein Investitionsvorhaben durch, um die Produktivität der Werft zu erhöhen sowie die Herstellung größerer Schiffe der Panamax-Klasse zu ermöglichen. Das Investitionsvorhaben wird VWS die Erschließung des Marktsegment Panamaxschiffe ermöglichen und damit das Absatzpotenzial der Werft erhöhen. VWS geht davon aus, dass dies zu einer gleichmäßigeren Auslastung der vorhandenen Produktionsanlagen führen wird und somit zu einer Degression der Herstellungskosten pro Schiff, wodurch sich die Produktivität der Werft erhöhen wird.

| (7) | Die Investitionen betreffen die Stahlverarbeitung (Paneel-/ Sektionsbau; Konservierung), um den Bau und die Bearbeitung größere Stahlkonstruktionen (Sektionen) zu ermöglichen, und die Verlängerung des Schifflifts um 40 m, so dass größere Schiffe gehoben und gesenkt werden können. |
| --- | --- |

(7)

Die Investitionen betreffen die Stahlverarbeitung (Paneel-/ Sektionsbau; Konservierung), um den Bau und die Bearbeitung größere Stahlkonstruktionen (Sektionen) zu ermöglichen, und die Verlängerung des Schifflifts um 40 m, so dass größere Schiffe gehoben und gesenkt werden können.

| (8) | Im Bereich des Paneel- und Sektionsbaus soll in einer bestehenden Halle eine neue Fertigungsstraße für Paneele und Subsektionen für größere Schiffstypen errichtet werden. Auf der Helling sollen außerdem vier zusätzliche Bauplätze zur Herstellung von Sektionen errichtet werden. Hinsichtlich der Konservierung betreffen die Investitionen die Vergrößerung von zwei der vier bestehenden Kabinen der Konservierungsanlagen, um größere Sektionen unterbringen zu können. Die Fähigkeit, größere Stahlsektionen bauen und bearbeiten zu können, ist aus wirtschaftlicher und technischer Sicht für die Herstellung von größeren Schiffen erforderlich, da die Endmontage von größeren Schiffen aus kleineren Sektionen ineffizient wäre. Die Kapazität des Schiffslifts wird durch die Verlängerung auf die Kapazität der Schiffsbauhalle eingestellt. |
| --- | --- |

(8)

Im Bereich des Paneel- und Sektionsbaus soll in einer bestehenden Halle eine neue Fertigungsstraße für Paneele und Subsektionen für größere Schiffstypen errichtet werden. Auf der Helling sollen außerdem vier zusätzliche Bauplätze zur Herstellung von Sektionen errichtet werden. Hinsichtlich der Konservierung betreffen die Investitionen die Vergrößerung von zwei der vier bestehenden Kabinen der Konservierungsanlagen, um größere Sektionen unterbringen zu können. Die Fähigkeit, größere Stahlsektionen bauen und bearbeiten zu können, ist aus wirtschaftlicher und technischer Sicht für die Herstellung von größeren Schiffen erforderlich, da die Endmontage von größeren Schiffen aus kleineren Sektionen ineffizient wäre. Die Kapazität des Schiffslifts wird durch die Verlängerung auf die Kapazität der Schiffsbauhalle eingestellt.

| (9) | Das Vorhaben begann Anfang des Jahres 2005 und wird am 28. Februar 2006 abgeschlossen sein. Das Vorhaben wird 207 neue direkte Arbeitsplätze schaffen. |
| --- | --- |

(9)

Das Vorhaben begann Anfang des Jahres 2005 und wird am 28. Februar 2006 abgeschlossen sein. Das Vorhaben wird 207 neue direkte Arbeitsplätze schaffen.

| (10) | Das Investitionsvorhaben bedingt eine Verringerung der vertikalen Integration der Schiffswerft. Der Anteil der fremdvergebenen Leistungen soll von 17 % der Fertigungsstunden im Jahr 2005 auf 28 % bis Ende des Jahres 2007 erhöht werden. Es wird erwartet, dass mit zunehmender Fremdvergabe 400 neue Arbeitsplätze in der Region Stralsund entstehen. |
| --- | --- |

(10)

Das Investitionsvorhaben bedingt eine Verringerung der vertikalen Integration der Schiffswerft. Der Anteil der fremdvergebenen Leistungen soll von 17 % der Fertigungsstunden im Jahr 2005 auf 28 % bis Ende des Jahres 2007 erhöht werden. Es wird erwartet, dass mit zunehmender Fremdvergabe 400 neue Arbeitsplätze in der Region Stralsund entstehen.

| (11) | Den von Deutschland angemeldeten Informationen zufolge belaufen sich die Kosten des Vorhabens auf 18,669 Mio. EUR, was den förderbaren Kosten entspricht. Diese Kosten lassen sich der Anmeldung zufolge wie folgt aufschlüsseln:






  EUR |
| --- | --- |
| Schiffslift | 10 512 000 |
| Paneel-/Sektionsbau | 6 910 000 |
| Konservierung | 4 347 000 |
| INSGESAMT | 18 669 000 |

(11)

Den von Deutschland angemeldeten Informationen zufolge belaufen sich die Kosten des Vorhabens auf 18,669 Mio. EUR, was den förderbaren Kosten entspricht. Diese Kosten lassen sich der Anmeldung zufolge wie folgt aufschlüsseln:

EUR

Schiffslift

10 512 000

Paneel-/Sektionsbau

6 910 000

Konservierung

4 347 000

INSGESAMT

18 669 000

| (12) | Deutschland beabsichtigt, staatliche Beihilfen in Höhe von 4 200 500 EUR zu gewähren, was 22,5 % der förderbaren Investitionskosten von 18 669 000 EUR entspricht. Die Beihilfe wird auf der Grundlage von zwei genehmigten Regionalbeihilferegelungen gewährt (1). |
| --- | --- |

(12)

Deutschland beabsichtigt, staatliche Beihilfen in Höhe von 4 200 500 EUR zu gewähren, was 22,5 % der förderbaren Investitionskosten von 18 669 000 EUR entspricht. Die Beihilfe wird auf der Grundlage von zwei genehmigten Regionalbeihilferegelungen gewährt (1).

III.   WÜRDIGUNG

3.1.   Staatliche Beihilfen im Sinne von Artikel 87 Absatz 1 EG-Vertrag

| (13) | Gemäß Artikel 87 Absatz 1 EG-Vertrag sind staatliche oder aus staatlichen Mitteln gewährte Beihilfen gleich welcher Art, die durch die Begünstigung bestimmter Unternehmen oder Produktionszweige den Wettbewerb verfälschen oder zu verfälschen drohen, mit dem Gemeinsamen Markt unvereinbar, soweit sie den Handel zwischen Mitgliedstaaten beeinträchtigen. Gemäß der ständigen Rechtsprechung der europäischen Gerichte ist das Kriterium der Beeinträchtigung des Handels erfüllt, wenn das begünstigte Unternehmen eine Wirtschaftstätigkeit ausübt, die den Handel zwischen Mitgliedstaaten berührt. |
| --- | --- |

(13)

Gemäß Artikel 87 Absatz 1 EG-Vertrag sind staatliche oder aus staatlichen Mitteln gewährte Beihilfen gleich welcher Art, die durch die Begünstigung bestimmter Unternehmen oder Produktionszweige den Wettbewerb verfälschen oder zu verfälschen drohen, mit dem Gemeinsamen Markt unvereinbar, soweit sie den Handel zwischen Mitgliedstaaten beeinträchtigen. Gemäß der ständigen Rechtsprechung der europäischen Gerichte ist das Kriterium der Beeinträchtigung des Handels erfüllt, wenn das begünstigte Unternehmen eine Wirtschaftstätigkeit ausübt, die den Handel zwischen Mitgliedstaaten berührt.

| (14) | Die Beihilfe wird vom Land Mecklenburg-Vorpommern gewährt und ist somit dem Staat zuzuordnen. Sie gewährt VWS einen Vorteil, den das Unternehmen auf dem Markt nicht erlangt hätte. VWS fertigt seegängige Schiffe. Da diese Produkte gehandelt werden, droht die Maßnahme den Wettbewerb zu verfälschen und beeinträchtigt den Handel zwischen Mitgliedstaaten. Somit stellt der Zuschuss eine staatliche Beihilfe im Sinne von Artikel 87 Absatz 1 EG-Vertrag dar und muss entsprechend gewürdigt werden. |
| --- | --- |

(14)

Die Beihilfe wird vom Land Mecklenburg-Vorpommern gewährt und ist somit dem Staat zuzuordnen. Sie gewährt VWS einen Vorteil, den das Unternehmen auf dem Markt nicht erlangt hätte. VWS fertigt seegängige Schiffe. Da diese Produkte gehandelt werden, droht die Maßnahme den Wettbewerb zu verfälschen und beeinträchtigt den Handel zwischen Mitgliedstaaten. Somit stellt der Zuschuss eine staatliche Beihilfe im Sinne von Artikel 87 Absatz 1 EG-Vertrag dar und muss entsprechend gewürdigt werden.

3.2.   Ausnahme gemäß Artikel 87 Absätze 2 und 3 EG-Vertrag

| (15) | Artikel 87 Absätze 2 und 3 EG-Vertrag sehen Ausnahmen von der allgemeinen Unvereinbarkeit gemäß Absatz 1 dieses Artikels vor. |
| --- | --- |

(15)

Artikel 87 Absätze 2 und 3 EG-Vertrag sehen Ausnahmen von der allgemeinen Unvereinbarkeit gemäß Absatz 1 dieses Artikels vor.

| (16) | Zur Bewertung von Beihilfen an den Schiffbau hat die Kommission Rahmenbestimmungen für Beihilfen an den Schiffbau erlassen (‚Rahmenbestimmungen‘) (2). Demnach bezeichnet Schiffbau den Bau in der Gemeinschaft von seegängigen Handelsschiffen mit Eigenantrieb. Die Tätigkeiten von VWS fallen unter diese Definition und die Beihilfe an VWS muss somit angesichts dieser Rahmenbestimmungen bewertet werden. Die Kommission hat zum jetzigen Zeitpunkt keine Hinweise darauf, dass VWS auch Fischereifahrzeuge herstellen würde. Den Leitlinien für die Prüfung staatlicher Beihilfen im Fischerei- und Aquakultursektor (3) zufolge dürfen keine Beihilfen an Werften für den Bau von Fischereifahrzeuge gewährt werden. |
| --- | --- |

(16)

Zur Bewertung von Beihilfen an den Schiffbau hat die Kommission Rahmenbestimmungen für Beihilfen an den Schiffbau erlassen (‚Rahmenbestimmungen‘) (2). Demnach bezeichnet Schiffbau den Bau in der Gemeinschaft von seegängigen Handelsschiffen mit Eigenantrieb. Die Tätigkeiten von VWS fallen unter diese Definition und die Beihilfe an VWS muss somit angesichts dieser Rahmenbestimmungen bewertet werden. Die Kommission hat zum jetzigen Zeitpunkt keine Hinweise darauf, dass VWS auch Fischereifahrzeuge herstellen würde. Den Leitlinien für die Prüfung staatlicher Beihilfen im Fischerei- und Aquakultursektor (3) zufolge dürfen keine Beihilfen an Werften für den Bau von Fischereifahrzeuge gewährt werden.

| (17) | In Randnr. 26 der Rahmenbestimmungen heißt es, dass Regionalbeihilfen für den Schiffbau, die Schiffsreparatur oder den Schiffsumbau nur dann für mit dem Gemeinsamen Markt vereinbar angesehen werden, wenn die Beihilfen für Investitionen zur Sanierung oder Modernisierung gewährt werden, die nicht mit deren finanzieller Umstrukturierung verknüpft sind, um die Produktivität der vorhandenen Anlagen zu erhöhen. |
| --- | --- |

(17)

In Randnr. 26 der Rahmenbestimmungen heißt es, dass Regionalbeihilfen für den Schiffbau, die Schiffsreparatur oder den Schiffsumbau nur dann für mit dem Gemeinsamen Markt vereinbar angesehen werden, wenn die Beihilfen für Investitionen zur Sanierung oder Modernisierung gewährt werden, die nicht mit deren finanzieller Umstrukturierung verknüpft sind, um die Produktivität der vorhandenen Anlagen zu erhöhen.

| (18) | Die Beihilfeintensität darf in Regionen gemäß Artikel 87 Absatz 3 a) EG-Vertrag 22,5 % bzw. die anwendbare Obergrenze für Regionalbeihilfen, wenn diese niedriger ist, nicht überschreiten. Ferner ist die Beihilfe auf die förderbaren Ausgaben gemäß der Definition in den anwendbaren Gemeinschaftsleitlinien für Regionalbeihilfen zu beschränken. |
| --- | --- |

(18)

Die Beihilfeintensität darf in Regionen gemäß Artikel 87 Absatz 3 a) EG-Vertrag 22,5 % bzw. die anwendbare Obergrenze für Regionalbeihilfen, wenn diese niedriger ist, nicht überschreiten. Ferner ist die Beihilfe auf die förderbaren Ausgaben gemäß der Definition in den anwendbaren Gemeinschaftsleitlinien für Regionalbeihilfen zu beschränken.

| (19) | Wie oben zitiert, sind Beihilfen an den Schiffbau auf Investitionen zur Modernisierung oder Sanierung bestehender Werften mit dem Ziel, die Produktivität bestehender Anlagen zu erhöhen, begrenzt. |
| --- | --- |

(19)

Wie oben zitiert, sind Beihilfen an den Schiffbau auf Investitionen zur Modernisierung oder Sanierung bestehender Werften mit dem Ziel, die Produktivität bestehender Anlagen zu erhöhen, begrenzt.

| (20) | Nach Auffassung der Kommission muss die Frage, ob die Beihilfe eine bestehende oder eine neue Anlage betrifft, einige spezifische Faktoren, die in Randnr. 3 der Rahmenbestimmungen dargelegt sind, berücksichtigen. Zu diesen Faktoren zählen überschüssige Kapazitäten, niedrige Preise und Verfälschungen des Handels auf dem Weltschiffbaumarkt. Neue Anlagen können zu Kapazitätssteigerungen führen. Staatliche Beihilfen für solche Investitionen könnten somit dem grundlegenden Ziel der Rahmenbestimmungen zuwiderlaufen, wonach zu berücksichtigen ist, dass der Schiffbausektor regelmäßig mit Phasen der Überkapazität konfrontiert gewesen ist. |
| --- | --- |

(20)

Nach Auffassung der Kommission muss die Frage, ob die Beihilfe eine bestehende oder eine neue Anlage betrifft, einige spezifische Faktoren, die in Randnr. 3 der Rahmenbestimmungen dargelegt sind, berücksichtigen. Zu diesen Faktoren zählen überschüssige Kapazitäten, niedrige Preise und Verfälschungen des Handels auf dem Weltschiffbaumarkt. Neue Anlagen können zu Kapazitätssteigerungen führen. Staatliche Beihilfen für solche Investitionen könnten somit dem grundlegenden Ziel der Rahmenbestimmungen zuwiderlaufen, wonach zu berücksichtigen ist, dass der Schiffbausektor regelmäßig mit Phasen der Überkapazität konfrontiert gewesen ist.

| (21) | Die Kommission hat Zweifel, dass die Investitionen in den Paneel-/Sektionsbau die Voraussetzungen von Randnr. 26 der Rahmenbestimmungen erfüllen. Die Errichtung einer neuen Fertigungsstraße für Paneele und Subsektionen und von vier zusätzlichen Bauplätzen könnten zusätzliche Ausrüstungsanlagen darstellen und könnten damit mehr als bloße Investitionen zur Verbesserung der Produktivität einer bestehenden Anlage sein. |
| --- | --- |

(21)

Die Kommission hat Zweifel, dass die Investitionen in den Paneel-/Sektionsbau die Voraussetzungen von Randnr. 26 der Rahmenbestimmungen erfüllen. Die Errichtung einer neuen Fertigungsstraße für Paneele und Subsektionen und von vier zusätzlichen Bauplätzen könnten zusätzliche Ausrüstungsanlagen darstellen und könnten damit mehr als bloße Investitionen zur Verbesserung der Produktivität einer bestehenden Anlage sein.

| (22) | Die Kommission hat auch Zweifel, ob die Investitionen in die Konservierungsanlagen, d.h. die Vergrößerung von zwei der vier Kabinen, und die Verlängerung des Schifflifts förderbare Investitionen gemäß Randnr. 26 der Rahmenbestimmungen sind. Obwohl diese Investitionen bestehende Anlagen betreffen, hat die Kommission gegenwärtig Zweifel, dass ihr Ziel in der Erhöhung der Produktivität dieser Anlagen besteht. Vielmehr scheinen diese Investitionen VWS in die Lage zu versetzen, seine Schiffbautätigkeiten durch die Bearbeitung größerer Sektionen in der Konservierungshalle und die Beförderung größerer Schiffe zu erweitern. |
| --- | --- |

(22)

Die Kommission hat auch Zweifel, ob die Investitionen in die Konservierungsanlagen, d.h. die Vergrößerung von zwei der vier Kabinen, und die Verlängerung des Schifflifts förderbare Investitionen gemäß Randnr. 26 der Rahmenbestimmungen sind. Obwohl diese Investitionen bestehende Anlagen betreffen, hat die Kommission gegenwärtig Zweifel, dass ihr Ziel in der Erhöhung der Produktivität dieser Anlagen besteht. Vielmehr scheinen diese Investitionen VWS in die Lage zu versetzen, seine Schiffbautätigkeiten durch die Bearbeitung größerer Sektionen in der Konservierungshalle und die Beförderung größerer Schiffe zu erweitern.

| (23) | Außerdem hat die Kommission Bedenken, dass die Investitionen von VWS zu einer Erweiterung der Kapazitäten führen könnten, die mit den Schiffbau-Rahmenbestimmungen nicht zu vereinbaren wäre. |
| --- | --- |

(23)

Außerdem hat die Kommission Bedenken, dass die Investitionen von VWS zu einer Erweiterung der Kapazitäten führen könnten, die mit den Schiffbau-Rahmenbestimmungen nicht zu vereinbaren wäre.

| (24) | In Randnr. 3 a) in der Einleitung zu den Rahmenbestimmungen sind bestimmte, den Schiffbausektor betreffende Faktoren genannt, die die Kommission in ihrer Politik der Beihilfenkontrolle berücksichtigen sollte. Zu diesen besonderen Faktoren zählen u.a. überschüssige Kapazitäten, niedrige Preise und Verfälschungen des Handels auf dem Weltschiffbaumarkt. Seit Anfang der 90er Jahre bis vor kurzem war der fortdauernde Kapazitätsüberhang im Schiffbau einer der Hauptgründe für niedrige Preise, die sogar in nachfragestarken Zeiten anhielten. Die Kommission weist darauf hin, dass die Schiffbauindustrie von ihrer Natur her zyklisch ist und dass die gegenwärtige Weltmarktsituation von einem hohen Neuauftragsniveau, höheren Preisen und, wenn überhaupt, geringer freier Kapazität gekennzeichnet ist. Es sollten jedoch auch Prognosen angemessen berücksichtigt werden, die steigende Überkapazitäten, v.a. infolge von Investitionen in China und anderen asiatischen Ländern, vorhersagen. |
| --- | --- |

(24)

In Randnr. 3 a) in der Einleitung zu den Rahmenbestimmungen sind bestimmte, den Schiffbausektor betreffende Faktoren genannt, die die Kommission in ihrer Politik der Beihilfenkontrolle berücksichtigen sollte. Zu diesen besonderen Faktoren zählen u.a. überschüssige Kapazitäten, niedrige Preise und Verfälschungen des Handels auf dem Weltschiffbaumarkt. Seit Anfang der 90er Jahre bis vor kurzem war der fortdauernde Kapazitätsüberhang im Schiffbau einer der Hauptgründe für niedrige Preise, die sogar in nachfragestarken Zeiten anhielten. Die Kommission weist darauf hin, dass die Schiffbauindustrie von ihrer Natur her zyklisch ist und dass die gegenwärtige Weltmarktsituation von einem hohen Neuauftragsniveau, höheren Preisen und, wenn überhaupt, geringer freier Kapazität gekennzeichnet ist. Es sollten jedoch auch Prognosen angemessen berücksichtigt werden, die steigende Überkapazitäten, v.a. infolge von Investitionen in China und anderen asiatischen Ländern, vorhersagen.

| (25) | Daher ist die Kommission gegenwärtig der Auffassung, dass sie die Auswirkungen einer geförderten Investition auf die Kapazitätslage der betreffenden Schiffswerft untersuchen sollte. Das Ausmaß, mit dem eine solche mögliche Kapazitätszunahme den Wettbewerb auf dem Markt zu verfälschen droht, muss von der Kommission bei der Bestimmung der Vereinbarkeit der betroffenen Beihilfe mit den Rahmenbestimmungen für den Schiffbau sorgfältig geprüft werden. Die Kommission konnte bisher in sämtlichen Regionalbeihilfefällen zunächst ausdrücklich ausschließe, dass die zu fördernde Investition nicht zu einer Kapazitätserweiterung führen würde, bevor sie die Beihilfe genehmigt (4). |
| --- | --- |

(25)

Daher ist die Kommission gegenwärtig der Auffassung, dass sie die Auswirkungen einer geförderten Investition auf die Kapazitätslage der betreffenden Schiffswerft untersuchen sollte. Das Ausmaß, mit dem eine solche mögliche Kapazitätszunahme den Wettbewerb auf dem Markt zu verfälschen droht, muss von der Kommission bei der Bestimmung der Vereinbarkeit der betroffenen Beihilfe mit den Rahmenbestimmungen für den Schiffbau sorgfältig geprüft werden. Die Kommission konnte bisher in sämtlichen Regionalbeihilfefällen zunächst ausdrücklich ausschließe, dass die zu fördernde Investition nicht zu einer Kapazitätserweiterung führen würde, bevor sie die Beihilfe genehmigt (4).

| (26) | Die Kapazität einer Schiffswerft ist als potenziellen Output definiert, d.h. die in Anbetracht der verfügbaren Anlagen unter normal günstigen Bedingungen erzielbare Produktion. Eine Schiffswerft besteht aus mehreren Anlagen (Paneelfertigung, Sektionsbau, Kran, Dock, Schiffslift usw.) Einige dieser Anlagen werden als technische Engpässe (sog. ‚bottlenecks‘) einer Werft betrachtet, die effektiv die Kapazität der Werft bestimmen. Die Kapazität wird normalerweise in CGT (compensated gross tons, gewichtete Schiffstonnage) gemessen. |
| --- | --- |

(26)

Die Kapazität einer Schiffswerft ist als potenziellen Output definiert, d.h. die in Anbetracht der verfügbaren Anlagen unter normal günstigen Bedingungen erzielbare Produktion. Eine Schiffswerft besteht aus mehreren Anlagen (Paneelfertigung, Sektionsbau, Kran, Dock, Schiffslift usw.) Einige dieser Anlagen werden als technische Engpässe (sog. ‚bottlenecks‘) einer Werft betrachtet, die effektiv die Kapazität der Werft bestimmen. Die Kapazität wird normalerweise in CGT (compensated gross tons, gewichtete Schiffstonnage) gemessen.

| (27) | Deutschland hat bis jetzt noch keine eingehenden Angaben über die technischen Engpässe der Werft und ihrer Kapazitäten vorgelegt. Vielmehr hat Deutschland geltend gemacht, dass das Investitionsvorhaben nicht zu einer Erhöhung der Kapazität führen würde, da sich die Produktionsfläche insgesamt nur geringfügig vergrößern werde. |
| --- | --- |

(27)

Deutschland hat bis jetzt noch keine eingehenden Angaben über die technischen Engpässe der Werft und ihrer Kapazitäten vorgelegt. Vielmehr hat Deutschland geltend gemacht, dass das Investitionsvorhaben nicht zu einer Erhöhung der Kapazität führen würde, da sich die Produktionsfläche insgesamt nur geringfügig vergrößern werde.

| (28) | Die Kommission merkt jedoch an, dass das Vorhaben zur Schaffung von 200 neuen Arbeitsplätzen bei VWS sowie weiteren Arbeitsplätzen bei den Zulieferern und Unterauftragnehmern der VWS führen wird. In Anbetracht dieser spürbaren Beschäftigungszunahme und der Tatsache, dass sich die vertikale Integration von VWS nicht erhöhen wird, d.h. dass VWS keine Arbeiten übernehmen wird, die es zuvor fremdvergeben hat, kann die Kommission gegenwärtig nicht ausschließen, dass sich die Kapazität der Schiffswerft erhöhen wird. |
| --- | --- |

(28)

Die Kommission merkt jedoch an, dass das Vorhaben zur Schaffung von 200 neuen Arbeitsplätzen bei VWS sowie weiteren Arbeitsplätzen bei den Zulieferern und Unterauftragnehmern der VWS führen wird. In Anbetracht dieser spürbaren Beschäftigungszunahme und der Tatsache, dass sich die vertikale Integration von VWS nicht erhöhen wird, d.h. dass VWS keine Arbeiten übernehmen wird, die es zuvor fremdvergeben hat, kann die Kommission gegenwärtig nicht ausschließen, dass sich die Kapazität der Schiffswerft erhöhen wird.

| (29) | Damit daher die Kommission die Auswirkung der Investition auf die Kapazität der Werft und die Vereinbarkeit hiervon mit dem Gemeinsamen Markt beurteilen kann, müssen der Kommission weitere Informationen, insbesondere zu den Auswirkungen der verschiedenen Investitionen, den technischen Engpässe der Werft, der Marktlage und -aussichten übermittelt werden. Die Kommission wird die Auswirkung des Vorhabens als ganzes auf die Kapazität der Werft würdigen. |
| --- | --- |

(29)

Damit daher die Kommission die Auswirkung der Investition auf die Kapazität der Werft und die Vereinbarkeit hiervon mit dem Gemeinsamen Markt beurteilen kann, müssen der Kommission weitere Informationen, insbesondere zu den Auswirkungen der verschiedenen Investitionen, den technischen Engpässe der Werft, der Marktlage und -aussichten übermittelt werden. Die Kommission wird die Auswirkung des Vorhabens als ganzes auf die Kapazität der Werft würdigen.

IV.   ENTSCHEIDUNG

| (30) | Aus den dargelegten Gründen bezweifelt die Kommission, dass die geplante Regionalbeihilfe zugunsten von VWS mit den in den Rahmenbestimmungen dargelegten Voraussetzungen für Regionalbeihilfen in Einklang steht. Sie hat deshalb Zweifel, ob die Beihilfe mit dem Gemeinsamen Markt zu vereinbaren ist. |
| --- | --- |

(30)

Aus den dargelegten Gründen bezweifelt die Kommission, dass die geplante Regionalbeihilfe zugunsten von VWS mit den in den Rahmenbestimmungen dargelegten Voraussetzungen für Regionalbeihilfen in Einklang steht. Sie hat deshalb Zweifel, ob die Beihilfe mit dem Gemeinsamen Markt zu vereinbaren ist.

Daher fordert die Kommission die Bundesrepublik Deutschland im Rahmen des Verfahrens nach Artikel 88 Absatz 2 EG-Vertrag auf, innerhalb eines Monats nach Eingang dieses Schreibens ihre Stellungnahme abzugeben und alle für die Würdigung der Beihilfe sachdienlichen Informationen zu übermitteln. Sie bittet die deutschen Behörden, dem etwaigen Beihilfeempfänger unmittelbar eine Kopie dieses Schreibens zuzuleiten.

Die Kommission wird alle Interessierten durch eine Veröffentlichung dieses Schreibens und einer Zusammenfassung seines wesentlichen Inhalts im Amtsblatt der Europäischen Union hiervon unterrichten. Außerdem wird sie die EFTA-Länder, die das EWR-Abkommen unterzeichnet haben, durch die Veröffentlichung einer Mitteilung in der EWR-Beilage zum Amtsblatt der Europäischen Union und die EFTA-Überwachungsbehörde durch Übersendung einer Kopie dieses Schreibens ebenfalls in Kenntnis setzten. Alle Interessierten werden aufgefordert, ihre Bemerkungen binnen einem Monat vom Datum dieser Veröffentlichung an zu unterbreiten.“

---

(1)  Gemeinschaftsaufgabe ‚Verbesserung der regionalen Wirtschaftsstruktur‘ — 34. Rahmenplan; Investitionszulagengesetz 2005.

1

(2)  ABl. C 317 vom 30.12.2003, S. 11.

2

(3)  ABl. C 229, vom 14.9.2004, S. 5.

3

(4)  Siehe z.B. C 23/2001 Flender Werft Lübeck, ABl. L 203, 12.8.2000, S. 60; N 306/2002 Flensburger Schiffbaugesellschaft mbH & Co. KG (Deutschland), ABl. C 277, 14.11.2002, S. 2; N 383/2002 Neorion Shipyards, ABl. C 6, 10.1.2004, S. 21; N 617/2003 Lamda-Werft, ABl C 24, 29.1.2005, S. 5.

4

---

| 13.4.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 90/40 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.4.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 90/40

---

Information procedure — Technical rules

(2006/C 90/08)

(Text with EEA relevance)

Directive 98/34/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 June 1998 laying down a procedure for the provision of information in the field of technical standards and regulations and of rules on Information Society services. (OJ L 204, 21.7.1998, p. 37; OJ L 217, 5.8.1998, p. 18).

Notifications of draft national technical rules received by the Commission

| Reference (1) | Title | End of three-month standstill period (2) |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 2006/0141/E | Draft Royal Decree amending Annex III to Royal Decree No 142 of 1 February 2002 adopting the positive list of additives other than colorants or sweeteners for use in the manufacture of foodstuffs, and their conditions of use | 19.6.2006 |
| 2006/0142/E | Regulation on Amusement and Gaming machines | 19.6.2006 |
| 2006/0143/S | Swedish Maritime Administration's administrative provisions on machinery installations, electrical installations and periodically unattended machinery spaces | 21.6.2006 |
| 2006/0144/D | Order amending the Order on radioactive medicinal products and medicinal products treated with ionising radiation (German designation: AMRAdV) | 21.6.2006 |
| 2006/0145/D | BnetzA SSB FE-OE 009 Interface description for point-to-multipoint digital radio relay equipment in the fixed radio service in the 26 GHz band | 22.6.2006 |
| 2006/0146/IRL | Poisons (Amendment) Regulations 2006 | 22.6.2006 |
| 2006/0147/LT | Draft Order of the Minister for Environment of the Republic of Lithuania on Approval of the Rules on Co-existence of Genetically Modified Crops with Conventional and Organic Crops | 22.6.2006 |
| 2006/0148/LT | Draft Order on the List of Regulated Construction Products | 23.6.2006 |
| 2006/0149/FIN | Railway Engineering Regulations and Instructions (RAMO) Part 17 Rail Signs | 26.6.2006 |
| 2006/0150/B | Royal Decree amending the Royal Decree of 20 December 1972 partially enacting the Act of 16 June 1970 on measurement units, standards and instruments and laying down the methods of implementation of Chapter II of this Act, on measuring instruments | 26.6.2006 |

Reference (1)

Title

End of three-month standstill period (2)

2006/0141/E

Draft Royal Decree amending Annex III to Royal Decree No 142 of 1 February 2002 adopting the positive list of additives other than colorants or sweeteners for use in the manufacture of foodstuffs, and their conditions of use

19.6.2006

2006/0142/E

Regulation on Amusement and Gaming machines

19.6.2006

2006/0143/S

Swedish Maritime Administration's administrative provisions on machinery installations, electrical installations and periodically unattended machinery spaces

21.6.2006

2006/0144/D

Order amending the Order on radioactive medicinal products and medicinal products treated with ionising radiation (German designation: AMRAdV)

21.6.2006

2006/0145/D

BnetzA SSB FE-OE 009 Interface description for point-to-multipoint digital radio relay equipment in the fixed radio service in the 26 GHz band

22.6.2006

2006/0146/IRL

Poisons (Amendment) Regulations 2006

22.6.2006

2006/0147/LT

Draft Order of the Minister for Environment of the Republic of Lithuania on Approval of the Rules on Co-existence of Genetically Modified Crops with Conventional and Organic Crops

22.6.2006

2006/0148/LT

Draft Order on the List of Regulated Construction Products

23.6.2006

2006/0149/FIN

Railway Engineering Regulations and Instructions (RAMO) Part 17 Rail Signs

26.6.2006

2006/0150/B

Royal Decree amending the Royal Decree of 20 December 1972 partially enacting the Act of 16 June 1970 on measurement units, standards and instruments and laying down the methods of implementation of Chapter II of this Act, on measuring instruments

26.6.2006

The Commission draws attention to the judgement delivered on 30 April 1996 in the ‘CIA Security’ case (C-194/94 — ECR I, p. 2201), in which the Court of Justice ruled that Articles 8 and 9 of Directive 98/34/EC (formerly 83/189/EEC) are to be interpreted as meaning that individuals may rely on them before national courts which must decline to apply a national technical regulation which has not been notified in accordance with the Directive.

This judgement confirms the Commission's communication of 1 October 1986 (OJ C 245, 1.10.1986, p. 4).

Accordingly, breach of the obligation to notify renders the technical regulations concerned inapplicable, and consequently unenforceable against individuals.

For more information on the notification procedure, please write to:

| European Commission |
| --- |
| DG Enterprise and Industry, Unit C3 |
| B-1049 Brussels |
| e-mail: Dir83-189-Central@cec.eu.int |

European Commission

DG Enterprise and Industry, Unit C3

B-1049 Brussels

e-mail: Dir83-189-Central@cec.eu.int

Also consult the website: http://europa.eu.int/comm/enterprise/tris/

If you require any further information on these notifications, please contact the national departments listed below:

LIST OF NATIONAL DEPARTMENTS RESPONSIBLE FOR THE MANAGEMENT OF DIRECTIVE 98/34/EC

BELGIUM

| BELNotif |
| --- |
| Qualité et Sécurité |
| SPF Economie, PME, Classes moyennes et Energie |
| NG III — 4ème étage |
| boulevard du Roi Albert II/16 |
| B-1000 Bruxelles |
| Ms Pascaline Descamps |
| Tel.: (32) 2 277 80 03 |
| Fax: (32) 2 277 54 01 |
| E-mail: pascaline.descamps@mineco.fgov.be |
| paolo.caruso@mineco.fgov.be |
| General e-mail: belnotif@mineco.fgov.be |
| Website: http://www.mineco.fgov.be |

BELNotif

Qualité et Sécurité

SPF Economie, PME, Classes moyennes et Energie

NG III — 4ème étage

boulevard du Roi Albert II/16

B-1000 Bruxelles

Ms Pascaline Descamps

Tel.: (32) 2 277 80 03

Fax: (32) 2 277 54 01

E-mail: pascaline.descamps@mineco.fgov.be

paolo.caruso@mineco.fgov.be

General e-mail: belnotif@mineco.fgov.be

Website: http://www.mineco.fgov.be

CZECH REPUBLIC

| Czech Office for Standards, Metrology and Testing |
| --- |
| Gorazdova 24 |
| P.O. BOX 49 |
| CZ-128 01 Praha 2 |
| Mr Miroslav Chloupek |
| Director of International Relations Department |
| Tel.: (420) 224 907 123 |
| Fax: (420) 224 914 990 |
| E-mail: chloupek@unmz.cz |
| Ms Lucie Růžičková |
| Tel.: (420) 224 907 139 |
| Fax: (420) 224 907 122 |
| E-mail: ruzickova@unmz.cz |
| General e-mail: eu9834@unmz.cz |
| Website: http://www.unmz.cz |

Czech Office for Standards, Metrology and Testing

Gorazdova 24

P.O. BOX 49

CZ-128 01 Praha 2

Mr Miroslav Chloupek

Director of International Relations Department

Tel.: (420) 224 907 123

Fax: (420) 224 914 990

E-mail: chloupek@unmz.cz

Ms Lucie Růžičková

Tel.: (420) 224 907 139

Fax: (420) 224 907 122

E-mail: ruzickova@unmz.cz

General e-mail: eu9834@unmz.cz

Website: http://www.unmz.cz

DENMARK

| Erhvervs- og Byggestyrelsen |
| --- |
| (National Agency for Enterprise and Construction) |
| Dahlerups Pakhus |
| Langelinie Allé 17 |
| DK-2100 København Ø (or DK-2100 Copenhagen OE) |
| Mr Bjarne Bang Christensen |
| Legal adviser |
| Tel.: (45) 35 46 63 66 (direct) |
| E-mail: bbc@ebst.dk |
| Ms Birgit Jensen |
| Principal Executive Officer |
| Tel.: (45) 35 46 62 87 (direct) |
| Fax: (45) 35 46 62 03 |
| E-mail: bij@ebst.dk |
| Common mailbox for notification messages — noti@ebst.dk |
| Website: http://www.ebst.dk/Notifikationer |

Erhvervs- og Byggestyrelsen

(National Agency for Enterprise and Construction)

Dahlerups Pakhus

Langelinie Allé 17

DK-2100 København Ø (or DK-2100 Copenhagen OE)

Mr Bjarne Bang Christensen

Legal adviser

Tel.: (45) 35 46 63 66 (direct)

E-mail: bbc@ebst.dk

Ms Birgit Jensen

Principal Executive Officer

Tel.: (45) 35 46 62 87 (direct)

Fax: (45) 35 46 62 03

E-mail: bij@ebst.dk

Common mailbox for notification messages — noti@ebst.dk

Website: http://www.ebst.dk/Notifikationer

GERMANY

| Bundesministerium für Wirtschaft und Technologie |
| --- |
| Referat XA2 |
| Scharnhorststr. 34 — 37 |
| D-10115 Berlin |
| Ms Christina Jäckel |
| Tel.: (49) 30 20 14 63 53 |
| Fax: (49) 30 20 14 53 79 |
| E-mail: infonorm@bmwa.bund.de |
| Website: http://www.bmwa.bund.de |

Bundesministerium für Wirtschaft und Technologie

Referat XA2

Scharnhorststr. 34 — 37

D-10115 Berlin

Ms Christina Jäckel

Tel.: (49) 30 20 14 63 53

Fax: (49) 30 20 14 53 79

E-mail: infonorm@bmwa.bund.de

Website: http://www.bmwa.bund.de

ESTONIA

| Ministry of Economic Affairs and Communications |
| --- |
| Harju str. 11 |
| EE-15072 Tallinn |
| Mr Karl Stern |
| Executive Officer of Trade Policy Division |
| EU and International Co-operation Department |
| Tel.: (372) 6 256 405 |
| Fax: (372) 6 313 029 |
| E-mail: karl.stern@mkm.ee |
| General e-mail: el.teavitamine@mkm.ee |
| Website: http://www.mkm.ee |

Ministry of Economic Affairs and Communications

Harju str. 11

EE-15072 Tallinn

Mr Karl Stern

Executive Officer of Trade Policy Division

EU and International Co-operation Department

Tel.: (372) 6 256 405

Fax: (372) 6 313 029

E-mail: karl.stern@mkm.ee

General e-mail: el.teavitamine@mkm.ee

Website: http://www.mkm.ee

GREECE

| Ministry of Development |
| --- |
| General Secretariat of Industry |
| Mesogeion 119 |
| GR-101 92 Athens |
| Tel.: (30) 210 696 98 63 |
| Fax: (30) 210 696 91 06 |

Ministry of Development

General Secretariat of Industry

Mesogeion 119

GR-101 92 Athens

Tel.: (30) 210 696 98 63

Fax: (30) 210 696 91 06

| ELOT |
| --- |
| Acharnon 313 |
| GR-111 45 Athens |
| Ms Evangelia Alexandri |
| Tel.: (30) 210 212 03 01 |
| Fax: (30) 210 228 62 19 |
| E-mail: alex@elot.gr |
| General e-mail: 83189in@elot.gr |
| Website: http://www.elot.gr |

ELOT

Acharnon 313

GR-111 45 Athens

Ms Evangelia Alexandri

Tel.: (30) 210 212 03 01

Fax: (30) 210 228 62 19

E-mail: alex@elot.gr

General e-mail: 83189in@elot.gr

Website: http://www.elot.gr

SPAIN

| S.G. de Asuntos Industriales, Energéticos, de Transportes y Comunicaciones y de Medio Ambiente |
| --- |
| D.G. de Coordinación del Mercado Interior y otras PPCC |
| Secretaría de Estado para la Unión Europea |
| Ministerio de Asuntos Exteriores y de Cooperación |
| Torres ‘Ágora’ |
| C/ Serrano Galvache, 26-4a |
| E-20033 Madrid |
| Mr Angel Silván Torregrosa |
| Tel.: (34) 91 379 83 32 |
| Ms Esther Pérez Peláez |
| Technical Advisor |
| E-mail: esther.perez@ue.mae.es |
| Tel.: (34) 91 379 84 64 |
| Fax: (34) 91 379 84 01 |
| General e-mail: d83-189@ue.mae.es |

S.G. de Asuntos Industriales, Energéticos, de Transportes y Comunicaciones y de Medio Ambiente

D.G. de Coordinación del Mercado Interior y otras PPCC

Secretaría de Estado para la Unión Europea

Ministerio de Asuntos Exteriores y de Cooperación

Torres ‘Ágora’

C/ Serrano Galvache, 26-4a

E-20033 Madrid

Mr Angel Silván Torregrosa

Tel.: (34) 91 379 83 32

Ms Esther Pérez Peláez

Technical Advisor

E-mail: esther.perez@ue.mae.es

Tel.: (34) 91 379 84 64

Fax: (34) 91 379 84 01

General e-mail: d83-189@ue.mae.es

FRANCE

| Délégation interministérielle aux normes |
| --- |
| Direction générale de l'Industrie, des Technologies de l'information et des Postes (DiGITIP) |
| Service des politiques d'innovation et de compétitivité (SPIC) |
| Sous-direction de la normalisation, de la qualité et de la propriété industrielle (SQUALPI) |
| DiGITIP 5 |
| 12, rue Villiot |
| F-75572 Paris Cedex 12 |
| Ms Suzanne Piau |
| Tel.: (33) 1 53 44 97 04 |
| Fax: (33) 1 53 44 98 88 |
| E-mail: suzanne.piau@industrie.gouv.fr |
| Ms Françoise Ouvrard |
| Tel.: (33) 1 53 44 97 05 |
| Fax: (33) 1 53 44 98 88 |
| E-mail: francoise.ouvrard@industrie.gouv.fr |
| General e-mail: d9834.france@industrie.gouv.fr |

Délégation interministérielle aux normes

Direction générale de l'Industrie, des Technologies de l'information et des Postes (DiGITIP)

Service des politiques d'innovation et de compétitivité (SPIC)

Sous-direction de la normalisation, de la qualité et de la propriété industrielle (SQUALPI)

DiGITIP 5

12, rue Villiot

F-75572 Paris Cedex 12

Ms Suzanne Piau

Tel.: (33) 1 53 44 97 04

Fax: (33) 1 53 44 98 88

E-mail: suzanne.piau@industrie.gouv.fr

Ms Françoise Ouvrard

Tel.: (33) 1 53 44 97 05

Fax: (33) 1 53 44 98 88

E-mail: francoise.ouvrard@industrie.gouv.fr

General e-mail: d9834.france@industrie.gouv.fr

IRELAND

| NSAI |
| --- |
| Glasnevin |
| Dublin 9 |
| Ireland |
| Mr Tony Losty |
| Tel.: (353) 1 807 38 80 |
| Fax: (353) 1 807 38 38 |
| E-mail: tony.losty@nsai.ie |
| Website: http://www.nsai.ie |

NSAI

Glasnevin

Dublin 9

Ireland

Mr Tony Losty

Tel.: (353) 1 807 38 80

Fax: (353) 1 807 38 38

E-mail: tony.losty@nsai.ie

Website: http://www.nsai.ie

ITALY

| Ministero delle attività produttive |
| --- |
| Direzione Generale per lo sviluppo produttivo e la competitività |
| Ufficio F1 — Ispettorato tecnico dell'industria |
| Via Molise 2 |
| I-00187 Roma |
| Mr Vincenzo Correggia |
| Tel.: (39) 06 47 05 22 05 |
| Fax: (39) 06 47 88 78 05 |
| E-mail: vincenzo.correggia@attivitaproduttive.gov.it |
| Mr Enrico Castiglioni |
| Tel.: (39) 06 47 05 26 69 |
| Fax: (39) 06 47 88 78 05 |
| E-mail: enrico.castiglioni@attivitaproduttive.gov.it |
| General e-mail: ucn98.34.italia@attivitaproduttive.gov.it |
| Website: http://www.minindustria.it |

Ministero delle attività produttive

Direzione Generale per lo sviluppo produttivo e la competitività

Ufficio F1 — Ispettorato tecnico dell'industria

Via Molise 2

I-00187 Roma

Mr Vincenzo Correggia

Tel.: (39) 06 47 05 22 05

Fax: (39) 06 47 88 78 05

E-mail: vincenzo.correggia@attivitaproduttive.gov.it

Mr Enrico Castiglioni

Tel.: (39) 06 47 05 26 69

Fax: (39) 06 47 88 78 05

E-mail: enrico.castiglioni@attivitaproduttive.gov.it

General e-mail: ucn98.34.italia@attivitaproduttive.gov.it

Website: http://www.minindustria.it

CYPRUS

| Cyprus Organization for the Promotion of Quality |
| --- |
| Ministry of Commerce, Industry and Tourism |
| 13-15, A. Araouzou street |
| CY-1421 Nicosia |
| Tel.: (357) 22 40 93 10 |
| Fax: (357) 22 75 41 03 |
| Mr Antonis Ioannou |
| Tel.: (357) 22 40 94 09 |
| Fax: (357) 22 75 41 03 |
| E-mail: aioannou@cys.mcit.gov.cy |
| General e-mail: dir9834@cys.mcit.gov.cy |
| Website: http://www.cys.mcit.gov.cy |

Cyprus Organization for the Promotion of Quality

Ministry of Commerce, Industry and Tourism

13-15, A. Araouzou street

CY-1421 Nicosia

Tel.: (357) 22 40 93 10

Fax: (357) 22 75 41 03

Mr Antonis Ioannou

Tel.: (357) 22 40 94 09

Fax: (357) 22 75 41 03

E-mail: aioannou@cys.mcit.gov.cy

General e-mail: dir9834@cys.mcit.gov.cy

Website: http://www.cys.mcit.gov.cy

LATVIA

| Ministry of Economics of Republic of Latvia |
| --- |
| Trade Normative and SOLVIT Notification Division |
| SOLVIT Coordination Centre |
| 55, Brīvības Street |
| LV-1519 Riga |
| Reinis Berzins |
| Deputy Head of Trade Normative and SOLVIT Notification Division |
| Tel.: (371) 701 32 30 |
| Fax: (371) 728 08 82 |
| Zanda Liekna |
| Senior Officer of Division of EU Internal Market Coordination |
| Tel.: (371) 701 32 36 |
| Tel.: (371) 701 30 67 |
| Fax: (371) 728 08 82 |
| E-mail: zanda.liekna@em.gov.lv |
| General e-mail: notification@em.gov.lv |

Ministry of Economics of Republic of Latvia

Trade Normative and SOLVIT Notification Division

SOLVIT Coordination Centre

55, Brīvības Street

LV-1519 Riga

Reinis Berzins

Deputy Head of Trade Normative and SOLVIT Notification Division

Tel.: (371) 701 32 30

Fax: (371) 728 08 82

Zanda Liekna

Senior Officer of Division of EU Internal Market Coordination

Tel.: (371) 701 32 36

Tel.: (371) 701 30 67

Fax: (371) 728 08 82

E-mail: zanda.liekna@em.gov.lv

General e-mail: notification@em.gov.lv

LITHUANIA

| Lithuanian Standards Board |
| --- |
| T. Kosciuskos g. 30 |
| LT-01100 Vilnius |
| Ms Daiva Lesickiene |
| Tel.: (370) 5 270 93 47 |
| Fax: (370) 5 270 93 67 |
| E-mail: dir9834@lsd.lt |
| Website: http://www.lsd.lt |

Lithuanian Standards Board

T. Kosciuskos g. 30

LT-01100 Vilnius

Ms Daiva Lesickiene

Tel.: (370) 5 270 93 47

Fax: (370) 5 270 93 67

E-mail: dir9834@lsd.lt

Website: http://www.lsd.lt

LUXEMBURG

| SEE — Service de l'Energie de l'Etat |
| --- |
| 34, avenue de la Porte-Neuve B.P. 10 |
| L-2010 Luxembourg |
| Mr J.P. Hoffmann |
| Tel.: (352) 46 97 46 1 |
| Fax: (352) 22 25 24 |
| E-mail: see.direction@eg.etat.lu |
| Website: http://www.see.lu |

SEE — Service de l'Energie de l'Etat

34, avenue de la Porte-Neuve B.P. 10

L-2010 Luxembourg

Mr J.P. Hoffmann

Tel.: (352) 46 97 46 1

Fax: (352) 22 25 24

E-mail: see.direction@eg.etat.lu

Website: http://www.see.lu

HUNGARY

| Hungarian Notification Centre — |
| --- |
| Ministry of Economy and Transport |
| Industrial Department |
| Budapest |
| Honvéd u. 13-15. |
| H-1880 |
| Mr Zsolt Fazekas |
| Leading Councillor |
| E-mail: fazekas.zsolt@gkm.gov.hu |
| Tel.: (36) 1 374 28 73 |
| Fax: (36) 1 473 16 22 |
| E-mail: notification@gkm.gov.hu |
| Website: http://www.gkm.hu/dokk/main/gkm |

Hungarian Notification Centre —

Ministry of Economy and Transport

Industrial Department

Budapest

Honvéd u. 13-15.

H-1880

Mr Zsolt Fazekas

Leading Councillor

E-mail: fazekas.zsolt@gkm.gov.hu

Tel.: (36) 1 374 28 73

Fax: (36) 1 473 16 22

E-mail: notification@gkm.gov.hu

Website: http://www.gkm.hu/dokk/main/gkm

MALTA

| Malta Standards Authority |
| --- |
| Level 2 |
| Evans Building |
| Merchants Street |
| VLT 03 |
| MT-Valletta |
| Tel.: (356) 21 24 24 20 |
| Tel.: (356) 21 24 32 82 |
| Fax: (356) 21 24 24 06 |
| Ms Lorna Cachia |
| E-mail: lorna.cachia@msa.org.mt |
| General e-mail: notification@msa.org.mt |
| Website: http://www.msa.org.mt |

Malta Standards Authority

Level 2

Evans Building

Merchants Street

VLT 03

MT-Valletta

Tel.: (356) 21 24 24 20

Tel.: (356) 21 24 32 82

Fax: (356) 21 24 24 06

Ms Lorna Cachia

E-mail: lorna.cachia@msa.org.mt

General e-mail: notification@msa.org.mt

Website: http://www.msa.org.mt

NETHERLANDS

| Ministerie van Financiën |
| --- |
| Belastingsdienst/Douane Noord |
| Team bijzondere klantbehandeling |
| Centrale Dienst voor In-en uitvoer |
| Engelse Kamp 2 |
| Postbus 30003 |
| 9700 RD Groningen |
| Nederland |
| Mr Ebel van der Heide |
| Tel.: (31) 50 5 23 21 34 |
| Ms Hennie Boekema |
| Tel.: (31) 50 5 23 21 35 |
| Ms Tineke Elzer |
| Tel.: (31) 50 5 23 21 33 |
| Fax: (31) 50 5 23 21 59 |
| General e-mail: |
| Enquiry.Point@tiscali-business.nl |
| Enquiry.Point2@tiscali-business.nl |

Ministerie van Financiën

Belastingsdienst/Douane Noord

Team bijzondere klantbehandeling

Centrale Dienst voor In-en uitvoer

Engelse Kamp 2

Postbus 30003

9700 RD Groningen

Nederland

Mr Ebel van der Heide

Tel.: (31) 50 5 23 21 34

Ms Hennie Boekema

Tel.: (31) 50 5 23 21 35

Ms Tineke Elzer

Tel.: (31) 50 5 23 21 33

Fax: (31) 50 5 23 21 59

General e-mail:

Enquiry.Point@tiscali-business.nl

Enquiry.Point2@tiscali-business.nl

AUSTRIA

| Bundesministerium für Wirtschaft und Arbeit |
| --- |
| Abteilung C2/1 |
| Stubenring 1 |
| A-1010 Wien |
| Ms Brigitte Wikgolm |
| Tel.: (43) 1 711 00 58 96 |
| Fax: (43) 1 715 96 51 or (43) 1 712 06 80 |
| E-mail: not9834@bmwa.gv.at |
| Website: http://www.bmwa.gv.at |

Bundesministerium für Wirtschaft und Arbeit

Abteilung C2/1

Stubenring 1

A-1010 Wien

Ms Brigitte Wikgolm

Tel.: (43) 1 711 00 58 96

Fax: (43) 1 715 96 51 or (43) 1 712 06 80

E-mail: not9834@bmwa.gv.at

Website: http://www.bmwa.gv.at

POLAND

| Ministry of Economy and Labour |
| --- |
| Department for European and Multilateral Relations |
| Plac Trzech Krzyży 3/5 |
| PL-00-507 Warszawa |
| Ms Barbara Nieciak |
| Tel.: (48) 22 693 54 07 |
| Fax: (48) 22 693 40 28 |
| E-mail: barnie@mg.gov.pl |
| Ms Agata Gągor |
| Tel.: (48) 22 693 56 90 |
| General e-mail: notyfikacja@mg.gov.pl |

Ministry of Economy and Labour

Department for European and Multilateral Relations

Plac Trzech Krzyży 3/5

PL-00-507 Warszawa

Ms Barbara Nieciak

Tel.: (48) 22 693 54 07

Fax: (48) 22 693 40 28

E-mail: barnie@mg.gov.pl

Ms Agata Gągor

Tel.: (48) 22 693 56 90

General e-mail: notyfikacja@mg.gov.pl

PORTUGAL

| Instituto Portugês da Qualidade |
| --- |
| Rua Antonio Gião, 2 |
| P-2829-513 Caparica |
| Ms Cândida Pires |
| Tel.: (351) 21 294 82 36 or 81 00 |
| Fax: (351) 21 294 82 23 |
| E-mail: c.pires@mail.ipq.pt |
| General e-mail: not9834@mail.ipq.pt |
| Website: http://www.ipq.pt |

Instituto Portugês da Qualidade

Rua Antonio Gião, 2

P-2829-513 Caparica

Ms Cândida Pires

Tel.: (351) 21 294 82 36 or 81 00

Fax: (351) 21 294 82 23

E-mail: c.pires@mail.ipq.pt

General e-mail: not9834@mail.ipq.pt

Website: http://www.ipq.pt

SLOVENIA

| SIST — Slovenian Institute for Standardization |
| --- |
| Contact point for 98/34/EC and WTO-TBT Enquiry Point |
| Šmartinska 140 |
| SLO-1000 Ljubljana |
| Ms Vesna Stražišar |
| Tel.: (386) 1 478 30 41 |
| Fax: (386) 1 478 30 98 |
| E-mail: contact@sist.si |

SIST — Slovenian Institute for Standardization

Contact point for 98/34/EC and WTO-TBT Enquiry Point

Šmartinska 140

SLO-1000 Ljubljana

Ms Vesna Stražišar

Tel.: (386) 1 478 30 41

Fax: (386) 1 478 30 98

E-mail: contact@sist.si

SLOVAKIA

| Ms Kvetoslava Steinlova |
| --- |
| Director of the Department of European Integration, |
| Office of Standards, Metrology and Testing of the Slovak Republic |
| Stefanovicova 3 |
| SK-814 39 Bratislava |
| Tel.: (421) 2 52 49 35 21 |
| Fax: (421) 2 52 49 10 50 |
| E-mail: steinlova@normoff.gov.sk |

Ms Kvetoslava Steinlova

Director of the Department of European Integration,

Office of Standards, Metrology and Testing of the Slovak Republic

Stefanovicova 3

SK-814 39 Bratislava

Tel.: (421) 2 52 49 35 21

Fax: (421) 2 52 49 10 50

E-mail: steinlova@normoff.gov.sk

FINLAND

| Kauppa- ja teollisuusministeriö |
| --- |
| (Ministry of Trade and Industry) |
| Visitor address: |
| Aleksanterinkatu 4 |
| FIN-00171 Helsinki |
| and |
| Katakatu 3 |
| FIN-00120 Helsinki |
| Postal address: |
| PO Box 32 |
| FIN-00023 Government |
| Ms Leila Orava |
| Tel.: (358) 9 1606 46 86 |
| Fax: (358) 9 1606 46 22 |
| E-mail: leila.orava@ktm.fi |
| Ms Katri Amper |
| Tel.: (358) 9 1606 46 48 |
| General e-mail: maaraykset.tekniset@ktm.fi |
| Website: http://www.ktm.fi |

Kauppa- ja teollisuusministeriö

(Ministry of Trade and Industry)

Visitor address:

Aleksanterinkatu 4

FIN-00171 Helsinki

and

Katakatu 3

FIN-00120 Helsinki

Postal address:

PO Box 32

FIN-00023 Government

Ms Leila Orava

Tel.: (358) 9 1606 46 86

Fax: (358) 9 1606 46 22

E-mail: leila.orava@ktm.fi

Ms Katri Amper

Tel.: (358) 9 1606 46 48

General e-mail: maaraykset.tekniset@ktm.fi

Website: http://www.ktm.fi

SWEDEN

| Kommerskollegium |
| --- |
| (National Board of Trade) |
| Box 6803 |
| Drottninggatan 89 |
| S–113 86 Stockholm |
| Ms Kerstin Carlsson |
| Tel.: (46) 86 90 48 82 or (46) 86 90 48 00 |
| Fax: (46) 8 690 48 40 or (46) 83 06 759 |
| E-mail: kerstin.carlsson@kommers.se |
| General e-mail: 9834@kommers.se |
| Website: http://www.kommers.se |

Kommerskollegium

(National Board of Trade)

Box 6803

Drottninggatan 89

S–113 86 Stockholm

Ms Kerstin Carlsson

Tel.: (46) 86 90 48 82 or (46) 86 90 48 00

Fax: (46) 8 690 48 40 or (46) 83 06 759

E-mail: kerstin.carlsson@kommers.se

General e-mail: 9834@kommers.se

Website: http://www.kommers.se

UNITED KINGDOM

| Department of Trade and Industry |
| --- |
| Standards and Technical Regulations Directorate 2 |
| 151 Buckingham Palace Road |
| London SW1 W 9SS |
| United Kingdom |
| Mr Philip Plumb |
| Tel.: (44) 2072151488 |
| Fax: (44) 2072151529 |
| E-mail: philip.plumb@dti.gsi.gov.uk |
| General e-mail: 9834@dti.gsi.gov.uk |
| Website: http://www.dti.gov.uk/strd |

Department of Trade and Industry

Standards and Technical Regulations Directorate 2

151 Buckingham Palace Road

London SW1 W 9SS

United Kingdom

Mr Philip Plumb

Tel.: (44) 2072151488

Fax: (44) 2072151529

E-mail: philip.plumb@dti.gsi.gov.uk

General e-mail: 9834@dti.gsi.gov.uk

Website: http://www.dti.gov.uk/strd

EFTA — ESA

| EFTA Surveillance Authority |
| --- |
| Rue Belliard 35 |
| B-1040 Bruxelles |
| Ms Adinda Batsleer |
| Tel.: (32) 2 286 18 61 |
| Fax: (32) 2 286 18 00 |
| E-mail: aba@eftasurv.int |
| Ms Tuija Ristiluoma |
| Tel.: (32) 2 286 18 71 |
| Fax: (32) 2 286 18 00 |
| E-mail: tri@eftasurv.int |
| General e-mail: DRAFTTECHREGESA@eftasurv.int |
| Website: http://www.eftasurv.int |

EFTA Surveillance Authority

Rue Belliard 35

B-1040 Bruxelles

Ms Adinda Batsleer

Tel.: (32) 2 286 18 61

Fax: (32) 2 286 18 00

E-mail: aba@eftasurv.int

Ms Tuija Ristiluoma

Tel.: (32) 2 286 18 71

Fax: (32) 2 286 18 00

E-mail: tri@eftasurv.int

General e-mail: DRAFTTECHREGESA@eftasurv.int

Website: http://www.eftasurv.int

| EFTA |
| --- |
| Goods Unit |
| EFTA Secretariat |
| Rue Joseph II 12-16 |
| B-1000 Bruxelles |
| Ms Kathleen Byrne |
| Tel.: (32) 2 286 17 49 |
| Fax: (32) 2 286 17 42 |
| E-mail: kathleen.byrne@efta.int |
| General e-mail: DRAFTTECHREGEFTA@efta.int |
| Website: http://www.efta.int |

EFTA

Goods Unit

EFTA Secretariat

Rue Joseph II 12-16

B-1000 Bruxelles

Ms Kathleen Byrne

Tel.: (32) 2 286 17 49

Fax: (32) 2 286 17 42

E-mail: kathleen.byrne@efta.int

General e-mail: DRAFTTECHREGEFTA@efta.int

Website: http://www.efta.int

TURKEY

| Undersecretariat of Foreign Trade |
| --- |
| General Directorate of Standardisation for Foreign Trade |
| Inönü Bulvari no 36 |
| 06510 |
| Emek — Ankara |
| Mr Mehmet Comert |
| Tel.: (90) 312 212 58 98 |
| Fax: (90) 312 212 87 68 |
| E-mail: comertm@dtm.gov.tr |
| Website: http://www.dtm.gov.tr |

Undersecretariat of Foreign Trade

General Directorate of Standardisation for Foreign Trade

Inönü Bulvari no 36

06510

Emek — Ankara

Mr Mehmet Comert

Tel.: (90) 312 212 58 98

Fax: (90) 312 212 87 68

E-mail: comertm@dtm.gov.tr

Website: http://www.dtm.gov.tr

---

(1)  Year — registration number — Member State of origin.

(2)  Period during which the draft may not be adopted.

(3)  No standstill period since the Commission accepts the grounds of urgent adoption invoked by the notifying Member State.

(4)  No standstill period since the measure concerns technical specifications or other requirements or rules on services linked to fiscal or financial measures, pursuant to the third indent of the second paragraph of Article 1(11) of Directive 98/34/EC.

(5)  Information procedure closed.

---

III Notices

Commission

| 13.4.2006 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 90/46 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.4.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 90/46

---

CALL FOR PROPOSALS — EAC/18/06

Promotion of active European Citizenship

Pilot Projects/Citizens' Projects 2006

(2006/C 90/09)

1.   OBJECTIVES — PROJECT CATEGORIES

The general objectives of this call for proposals are to:

| — | encourage the emergence of an active and participatory European citizenship; |
| --- | --- |

—

encourage the emergence of an active and participatory European citizenship;

| — | demonstrate how the democratic and participatory nature of European construction can be enhanced by engaging citizens; |
| --- | --- |

—

demonstrate how the democratic and participatory nature of European construction can be enhanced by engaging citizens;

| — | stimulate the active participation of citizens in activities linked to the further integration of Europe; |
| --- | --- |

—

stimulate the active participation of citizens in activities linked to the further integration of Europe;

The call for proposals is aimed at supporting projects in the following two categories:

Category 1:   Citizens' panels

The specific objective of citizen's panels is to provide a model for stimulating active interaction between citizens of the EU, supporting the formulation of their opinions concerning the European integration process and encouraging dialogue between European citizens and the institutions of the EU.

Citizens' panels should:

| — | involve directly citizens who would not have spontaneously participated in projects of a European nature; |
| --- | --- |

—

involve directly citizens who would not have spontaneously participated in projects of a European nature;

| — | develop innovative methods to involve citizens; |
| --- | --- |

—

develop innovative methods to involve citizens;

| — | encourage a real bottom up approach to allow citizens to express their views. |
| --- | --- |

—

encourage a real bottom up approach to allow citizens to express their views.

Category 2:   Capacity building for active European citizenship

The specific objective is to encourage capacity building with regard to active European citizenship and to empower a group of active European citizens, such as NGO leaders, municipal representatives, youth workers, community representatives, trade union leaders and journalists, to transmit their commitment to active European citizenship.

They should benefit from an innovative and inter-active form of training on the issues of European identity, European citizenship and citizens' participation. Training events must involve participants from a wide spectrum of organisations.

Capacity building projects should:

| — | develop the participant's potential to transmit to others their commitment to active European citizenship; |
| --- | --- |

—

develop the participant's potential to transmit to others their commitment to active European citizenship;

| — | encourage making EU/ trans-national cooperation part of everyday reality in the organisations of the participants; |
| --- | --- |

—

encourage making EU/ trans-national cooperation part of everyday reality in the organisations of the participants;

| — | develop innovative approaches and means to encourage citizens participation |
| --- | --- |

—

develop innovative approaches and means to encourage citizens participation

| — | in the European integration process; |
| --- | --- |

—

in the European integration process;

| — | explore possible new links between decision-makers from the local, regional and European level and European citizens; |
| --- | --- |

—

explore possible new links between decision-makers from the local, regional and European level and European citizens;

| — | develop means to encourage direct participation of citizens, who would not have spontaneously participated in projects of a European nature; |
| --- | --- |

—

develop means to encourage direct participation of citizens, who would not have spontaneously participated in projects of a European nature;

| — | have a trans-national dimension and bring together participants from the partner countries encourage exchange of experience and good practices; |
| --- | --- |

—

have a trans-national dimension and bring together participants from the partner countries encourage exchange of experience and good practices;

2.   ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA

Applications which comply with the following eligibility criteria will be subject of an in-depth evaluation.

a)   Eligible applicants

The project must be carried out by the applicant (co-ordinator) in co-operation with eligible partner organisations (co-beneficiaries).

To be eligible for a grant, the applicant (co-ordinator) must satisfy the following requirements:

| — | It must be a public body or a non-profit-making organisation with a legal status and legal personality. Consequently, natural persons — i.e. individuals- are not eligible. |
| --- | --- |

—

It must be a public body or a non-profit-making organisation with a legal status and legal personality. Consequently, natural persons — i.e. individuals- are not eligible.

| — | It must be established in an eligible country (1). |
| --- | --- |

—

It must be established in an eligible country (1).

| — | It must have the appropriate qualifications and requisite financial as well as operational resources to complete the project. |
| --- | --- |

—

It must have the appropriate qualifications and requisite financial as well as operational resources to complete the project.

The co-ordinator is the organisation responsible for submitting the project proposal and must be formally mandated by the project partners (co-beneficiaries) to represent them and to sign any eventual grant agreement with the European Commission The co-ordinator is responsible for the design and implementation of the proposed project and is considered as the primary beneficiary of any subsequent grant award.

The co-ordinator has to demonstrate its capacity of co-operation with project partners (co-beneficiaries) and give evidence of past successful co-operation with at least two of them.

The partner organisations (co-beneficiaries) must fulfil the eligibility criteria as defined in section 2 of the call for proposals and must be from at least 4 other eligible countries than the country of the co-ordinator.

b)   Eligible countries

The 25 Member States of the European Union (Austria, Belgium, Cyprus, the Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, the Slovak Republic, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, United Kingdom).

3.   BUDGET AND PROJECT DURATION

The total amount available for the co-financing of projects within this call for proposals will be EUR 500 000.

The grant awarded may not exceed 50 % of the total amount of the project's eligible costs as specified in the detailed budget estimate.

The minimum grant will be EUR 50 000.

The maximum grant will be EUR 150 000.

This call covers projects starting between 1.10.2006 and 31.12.2006.

All projects must end by 31.8.2007.

The maximum duration of a project is 11 months.

4.   DEADLINE FOR APPLICATIONS

Applications must be sent at the latest by 31.5.2006.

5.   FURTHER INFORMATION

The full text of the call for proposals as well as the application forms and enclosures is available on the following website:

http://europa.eu.int/comm/dgs/education_culture/activecitizenship/index_en.htm

Applications must comply with the requirements set out in the full text of the call and be submitted using the forms provided.

---

(1)  Based on the co-ordinators and partners registered place of business or its place of main activity.

---