type: contracts

jurisdiction: EU

text:
 Dôležité právne oznámenie
 |
 22000D0713(02)
 Úradný vestník L 174 , 13/07/2000 S. 0053 - 0053
 Rozhodnutie Spoločného výboru EHPč. 42/2000z 19. mája 2000,ktorým sa mení a dopĺňa príloha II (Technické predpisy, normy, testovanie a certifikácia) Dohody o EHPSPOLOČNÝ VÝBOR EHP,so zreteľom na Dohodu o Európskom hospodárskom priestore, v znení protokolu, ktorým sa prispôsobuje Dohoda o Európskom hospodárskom priestore, ďalej len "dohoda", najmä na jej článok 98,keďže:(1) príloha II dohody bola zmenená a doplnená rozhodnutím Spoločného výboru EHP č. 29/2000 z 31. marca 2000 [1];(2) rozhodnutie Komisie 1999/645/ES z 15. septembra 1999 o spoločnom technickom predpise na požiadavky na pripojenie TETRA prístupu k tiesňovým službám [2] bude zahrnuté v zmluve,ROZHODOL TAKTO:Článok 1"4zzh. 399 D 0645: rozhodnutie Komisie 1999/645/ES z 15. septembra 1999 o spoločnom technickom predpise na požiadavky na pripojenie TETRA prístupu k tiesňovým službám (Ú. v. ES L 255, 30.9.1999, s. 40)."Článok 2Texty rozhodnutia 98/483/ES v islandskom a nórskom jazyku, ktoré boli pripojené k príslušným jazykovým verziám v tomto rozhodnutí, sú autentické.Článok 3Toto rozhodnutie nadobúda účinnosť 20. mája 2000, po všetkých oznámeniach podľa článku 103 ods. 1 dohody, ktoré boli poskytnuté Spoločnému výboru EHP [3].Článok 4Toto rozhodnutie bude uverejnené v časti EHP a v dodatku EHP k Úradnému vestníku Európskych spoločenstiev.V Bruseli 19. mája 2000Za Spoločný výbor EHPpredsedaF. Barbaso[1] Ú. v. ES L 141, 15.6.2000, s. 51.[2] Ú. v. ES L 255, 30.9.1999, s. 40.[3] Ústavné požiadavky nie sú uvedené.--------------------------------------------------


type: legislation

text:
 30.11.2011
 DA
 Den Europæiske Unions Tidende
 L 317/16
 KOMMISSIONENS GENNEMFØRELSESFORORDNING (EU) Nr. 1234/2011
 af 23. november 2011
 om ændring af forordning (EU) nr. 1245/2010 om åbning af EU-toldkontingenter for 2011 for får, geder, fårekød og gedekød
 EUROPA-KOMMISSIONEN HAR —
 under henvisning til traktaten om Den Europæiske Unions Funktionsmåde,
 under henvisning til Rådets forordning (EF) nr. 1234/2007 af 22. oktober 2007 om en fælles markedsordning for landbrugsprodukter og om særlige bestemmelser for visse landbrugsprodukter (1), særlig artikel 144, stk. 1, og artikel 148 sammenholdt med artikel 4, og
 ud fra følgende betragtninger:
 (1)
 Ved Kommissionens forordning (EU) nr. 1245/2010 (2) åbnes der EU-toldkontingenter for import af får, geder, fårekød og gedekød i perioden 1. januar-31. december 2011.
 (2)
 Ved aftalen i form af brevveksling mellem Den Europæiske Union og Australien i henhold til artikel XXIV, stk. 6, og artikel XXVIII i den almindelige overenskomst om told og udenrigshandel (GATT) af 1994 vedrørende ændring af indrømmelserne i listerne for Republikken Bulgarien og Rumænien i løbet af deres tiltrædelse af Den Europæiske Union (3) (i det følgende benævnt »aftalen«), der er godkendt ved Rådets afgørelse 2011/768/EU (4), indrømmes Australien et supplerende årligt toldkontingent på 400 tons (slagtet vægt), som skal føjes til den mængde, der i henhold til forordning (EF) nr. 1245/2010 er til rådighed for 2011.
 (3)
 Forordning (EU) nr. 1245/2010 bør derfor ændres i overensstemmelse hermed.
 (4)
 Foranstaltningerne i denne forordning er i overensstemmelse med udtalelse fra Forvaltningskomitéen for den Fælles Markedsordning for Landbrugsprodukter —
 VEDTAGET DENNE FORORDNING:
 Artikel 1
 I bilaget til forordning (EF) nr. 1245/2010 affattes oplysningerne om Australien således:
 »—
 09.2105
 09.2106
 09.2012
 Australien
 19 186«
 Artikel 2
 Denne forordning træder i kraft dagen efter offentliggørelsen i Den Europæiske Unions Tidende.
 Den anvendes fra den 1. december 2011.
 Denne forordning er bindende i alle enkeltheder og gælder umiddelbart i hver medlemsstat.
 Udfærdiget i Bruxelles, den 23. november 2011.
 På Kommissionens vegne For formanden
 Dacian CIOLOȘ
 Medlem af Kommissionen
 (1) EUT L 299 af 16.11.2007, s. 1.
 (2) EUT L 338 af 22.12.2010, s. 37.
 (3) Se side 7 i denner EUT.
 (4) Se side 6 i denne EUT.


text:
 12.12.2019
 BG
 Официален вестник на Европейския съюз
 L 323/16
 РЕШЕНИЕ НА СЪВМЕСТНИЯ КОМИТЕТ НА ЕИП
 No 8/2018
 от 9 февруари 2018 година
 за изменение на приложение II (Технически правила, стандарти, изпитвания и сертифициране) към Споразумението за ЕИП [2019/2044]
 СЪВМЕСТНИЯТ КОМИТЕТ НА ЕИП,
 като взе предвид Споразумението за Европейското икономическо пространство („Споразумението за ЕИП“), и по-специално член 98 от него,
 като има предвид, че:
 (1)
 Регламент (ЕС) 2017/1151 на Комисията от 1 юни 2017 г. за допълване на Регламент (ЕО) No 715/2007 на Европейския парламент и на Съвета за типово одобрение на моторни превозни средства по отношение на емисиите от леки превозни средства за превоз на пътници и товари (Евро 5 и Евро 6) и за достъпа до информация за ремонт и техническо обслужване на превозни средства, за изменение на Директива 2007/46/ЕО на Европейския парламент и на Съвета, Регламент (ЕО) No 692/2008, Регламент (ЕС) No 1230/2012 и за отмяна на Регламент (ЕО) No 692/2008 на Комисията (1) следва да бъде включен в Споразумението за ЕИП.
 (2)
 Регламент (ЕС) 2017/1154 на Комисията от 7 юни 2017 г. за изменение на Регламент (ЕС) 2017/1151 на Комисията за допълване на Регламент (ЕО) No 715/2007 на Европейския парламент и на Съвета за типово одобрение на моторни превозни средства по отношение на емисиите от леки превозни средства за превоз на пътници и товари (Евро 5 и Евро 6) и за достъпа до информация за ремонт и техническо обслужване на превозни средства, за изменение на Директива 2007/46/ЕО на Европейския парламент и на Съвета, на Регламент (ЕО) No 692/2008 на Комисията и на Регламент (ЕС) No 1230/2012 на Комисията и за отмяна на Регламент (ЕО) No 692/2008 и на Директива 2007/46/ЕО на Европейския парламент и на Съвета по отношение на емисиите в реални условия на движение от леки превозни средства за превоз на пътници и товари (Евро 6) (2), поправен с ОВ L 256, 4.10.2017 г., стр. 11, следва да бъде включен в Споразумението за ЕИП.
 (3)
 Регламент (ЕС) 2017/1151 отменя от 1 януари 2022 г. Регламент (ЕО) No 692/2008 на Комисията, който е включен в Споразумението за ЕИП и който съответно следва да бъде заличен от Споразумението за ЕИП от 1 януари 2022 г.
 (4)
 Следователно приложение II към Споразумението за ЕИП следва да бъде съответно изменено,
 ПРИЕ НАСТОЯЩОТО РЕШЕНИЕ:
 Член 1
 Глава I от приложение II към Споразумението за ЕИП се изменя, както следва:
 1.
 След точка 45щщф (Регламент (ЕС) No 1230/2012 на Комисията) се вмъква следното:
 „45щщх.
 32017 R 1151: Регламент (ЕС) 2017/1151 на Комисията от 1 юни 2017 г. за допълване на Регламент (ЕО) No 715/2007 на Европейския парламент и на Съвета за типово одобрение на моторни превозни средства по отношение на емисиите от леки превозни средства за превоз на пътници и товари (Евро 5 и Евро 6) и за достъпа до информация за ремонт и техническо обслужване на превозни средства, за изменение на Директива (ЕО) 2007/46/ЕО на Европейския парламент и на Съвета, Регламент (ЕО) No 692/2008, Регламент (ЕС) No 1230/2012 и за отмяна на Регламент (ЕО) No 692/2008 на Комисията (ОВ L 175, 7.7.2017 г., стр. 1), изменен със:
 —
 32017 R 1154: Регламент (ЕС) 2017/1154 на Комисията от 7 юни 2017 г. (ОВ L 175, 7.7.2017 г., стр. 708), поправен с ОВ L 256, 4.10.2017 г., стр. 11.“
 2.
 В точка 45щф (Регламент (ЕО) No 692/2008 на Комисията) и точка 45щч (Директива 2007/46/ЕО на Европейския парламент и на Съвета) се добавя следното тире:
 „—
 32017 R 1151: Регламент (ЕС) 2017/1151 на Комисията от 1 юни 2017 г. (ОВ L 175, 7.7.2017 г., стр. 1).“
 3.
 В точка 45щщф (Регламент (ЕС) No 1230/2012 на Комисията) се добавя следното:
 „, изменен със:
 —
 32017 R 1151: Регламент (ЕС) 2017/1151 на Комисията от 1 юни 2017 г. (ОВ L 175, 7.7.2017 г., стр. 1).“
 4.
 В точка 45щч (Директива 2007/46/ЕО на Европейския парламент и на Съвета) се добавя следното тире:
 „—
 32017 R 1154: Регламент (ЕС) 2017/1154 на Комисията от 7 юни 2017 г. (ОВ L 175, 7.7.2017 г., стр. 708), поправен с ОВ L 256, 4.10.2017 г., стр. 11.“
 5.
 Текстът на точка 45щч (Регламент (ЕО) No 692/2008 на Комисията) се заличава от 1 януари 2022 г.
 Член 2
 Текстът на Регламент (ЕС) 2017/1151 и Регламент (ЕС) 2017/1154, поправен с ОВ L 256, 4.10.2017 г., стр. 11, на исландски и норвежки език, който ще бъде публикуван в притурката за ЕИП към Официален вестник на Европейския съюз, е автентичен.
 Член 3
 Настоящото решение влиза в сила на 10 февруари 2018 г., при условие че са внесени всички нотификации, предвидени в член 103, параграф 1 от Споразумението за ЕИП (*1).
 Член 4
 Настоящото решение се публикува в раздела за ЕИП и в притурката за ЕИП към Официален вестник на Европейския съюз.
 Съставено в Брюксел на 9 февруари 2018 година.
 За Съвместния комитет на ЕИП
 Председател
 Claude MAERTEN
 (1) ОВ L 175, 7.7.2017 г., стр. 1.
 (2) ОВ L 175, 7.7.2017 г., стр. 708.
 (*1) Без отбелязани конституционни изисквания.


text:
 Svarīgs juridisks paziņojums
 |
 22002D0070
 Oficiālais Vēstnesis L 266 , 03/10/2002 Lpp. 0003 - 0004
 EEZ Apvienotās komitejas LēmumsNr. 70/2002(2002. gada 25. jūnijs),ar ko groza EEZ līguma I pielikumu (Veterinārie un fitosanitārie jautājumi)EEZ APVIENOTĀ KOMITEJA,ņemot vērā Eiropas Ekonomikas zonas līgumu, kas grozīts ar protokolu, ar kuru pielāgo Eiropas Ekonomikas zonas līgumu, turpmāk tekstā "līgums", un jo īpaši tā 98. pantu,tā kā:(1) līguma I pielikums grozīts ar EEZ Apvienotās komitejas 2001. gada 11. decembra Lēmumu Nr. 149/2001 [1];(2) Komisijas 2001. gada 11. aprīļa Lēmums, ar kuru groza Lēmumu Nr. 92/486/EEK, ar ko izveido sadarbības formu starp ANIMO servercentru un dalībvalstīm [2], jāiekļauj līgumā;(3) Komisijas 2001. gada 4. aprīļa Lēmums Nr. 2001/313/EK, ar kuru otro reizi groza Lēmumu Nr. 1999/766/EK par dažiem aizsardzības pasākumiem, kas attiecas uz lašu infekciozo anēmiju lašu dzimtas zivīm Norvēģijā [3], jāiekļauj līgumā;(4) šis lēmums nav piemērojams Lihtenšteinai,IR PIEŅĒMUSI ŠO LĒMUMU.1. pantsLīguma I pielikuma I nodaļas 1.2. daļu groza šādi:1. Līguma 12. punktam (Komisijas Lēmums Nr. 92/486/EEK) pievieno šādu tekstu:"— 32001 D 0301: Komisijas 2001. gada 11. aprīļa Lēmums Nr. 2001/301/EK (OV L 102, 12.4.2001., 73. lpp.)."2. Līguma 90. punktam (Komisijas Lēmums Nr. 1999/766/EK) pievieno šādu ievilkumu:"— 32001 D 0313: Komisijas 2001. gada 4. aprīļa Lēmums Nr. 2001/313/EK (OV L 109, 19.4.2001., 67. lpp.)."2. pantsLēmuma Nr. 2001/301/EK un Nr. 2001/313/EK teksti islandiešu un norvēģu valodā, kas jāpublicē Eiropas Kopienu Oficiālā Vēstneša EEZ pielikumā, ir autentiski.3. pantsŠis lēmums stājas spēkā 2002. gada 26. jūnijā ar noteikumu, ka EEZ Apvienotajai komitejai ir iesniegti visi paziņojumi saskaņā ar līguma 103. panta 1. punktu [4].4. pantsŠo lēmumu publicē Eiropas Kopienu Oficiālā Vēstneša EEZ iedaļā un EEZ pielikumā.Briselē, 2002. gada 25. jūnijāEEZ Apvienotās komitejas vārdā —priekšsēdētājsP. Westerlund[1] OV L 65, 7.3.2002., 20. lpp.[2] OV L 102, 12.4.2001., 73. lpp.[3] OV L 109, 19.4.2001., 67. lpp.[4] Konstitucionālas prasības nav norādītas.--------------------------------------------------


text:
 Avis juridique important
 |
 21980A1017(04)
 Acuerdo formalizado mediante intercambio de notas entre la Comunidad Económica Europea y la República Oriental del Uruguay sobre el comercio de carnes de oveja y de cordero
 Diario Oficial n° L 275 de 18/10/1980 p. 0037 - 0042 Edición especial en finés : Capítulo 3 Tomo 12 p. 0171 Edición especial sueca: Capítulo 3 Tomo 12 p. 0171 Edición especial griega: Capítulo 11 Tomo 22 p. 0028
 ACUERDO formalizado mediante intercambio de notas entre la Comunidad Económica Europea y la República Oriental del Uruguay sobre el comercio de carnes de oveja y de cordero Nota n o 1 Estimado Señor , Tengo el honor de referirme a las negociaciones recientemente llevadas por nuestras delegaciones respectivas para redactar las disposiciones relativas a la importación , en la Comunidad Económica Europea , de carnes de oveja , cordero y cabra procedentes del Uruguay , en relación con la aplicación por parte de la Comunidad de la organización común de mercados en el sector de las carnes de ovino y caprino . Durante las negociaciones , ambas Partes han acordado lo siguiente : 1 . El presente Acuerdo se refiere a : - las carnes frescas o refrigeradas de oveja , cordero y cabra ( subpartida 02.01 A IV a ) del arancel aduanero común ) , - las carnes congeladas de oveja , cordero y cabra ( subpartida 02.01 A IV b ) del arancel aduanero común ) . 2 . En el marco del presente Acuerdo , las posibilidades de exportación , con destino a la Comunidad , de carnes de oveja , cordero y cabra procedentes del Uruguay se fijan en la cantidad anual siguiente : 5 100 toneladas métricas expresadas en peso canal (1) . Con objeto de garantizar el buen funcionamiento del acuerdo , el Uruguay se compromete a aplicar los procedimientos adecuados para garantizar que la cantidad anual efectivamente exportado no supere la cantidad convenida y se exporte respetando las estructuras de presentación tradicionales ( carnes congeladas o refrigeradas ) . Sin cambios a nivel tecnológico y comercial permitieren modificar la estructura comercial a nivel de la presentación , las Partes del presente Acuerdo , antes de introducir cualquier modificación , se consultarán recíprocamente en el seno del Comité contemplado en el punto 10 , para lograr una solución adecuada . 3 . Si la Comunidad recurriere a la cláusula de salvaguardia , se compromete a que el acceso del Uruguay a la Comunidad , tal como está previsto en el presente Acuerdo , no resulte afectado . 4 . Si , durante un año , las importaciones procedentes del Uruguay superaren las cantidades convenidas , la Comunidad se reserva el derecho de suspender las importaciones procedentes de dicho país para el resto del año . La cantidad exportada de más será cargada a cuenta de las cantidades que el Uruguay esté autorizado a exportar al año siguiente : 5 . La Comunidad se compromete a limitar a un tope del 10 % ad valorem la exacción reguladora aplicable a la importación de productos regulados por el presente Acuerdo . 6 . Cuando se adhieran nuevos Estados miembros , la Comunidad , previa consulta al Uruguay , modificará las cantidades previstas en el punto 2 , con arreglo al comercio de Uruguay con cada nuevo Estado miembro . Los gravámenes aplicables a las importaciones para estos nuevos Estados miembros se fijarán con arreglo a las normas del Tratado de adhesión , tomando en consideración el nivel de la limitación de la exacción reguladora , especificada en el punto 5 del presente Acuerdo . La cantidad total , mencionada en el punto 2 , queda fijada en 5 800 toneladas métricas en peso canal a partir de la fecha de adhesión de Grecia a la Comunidad . 7 . La Comunidad procurará evitar cualquier evolución del mercado que pudiere comprometer la comercialización , en el mercado comunitario , de las carnes de oveja y cordero procedentes del Uruguay , dentro de los límites de las cantidades convenidas . En particular , la Comunidad adoptará medidas para garantizar que la salida de las existencias de intervención de carnes congeladas resultante de la aplicación del Reglamento no obstaculice dicha comercialización . 8 . Teniendo en cuenta los objetivos y disposiciones del presente Acuerdo , la Comunidad conviene en que cualquier aplicación efectiva de restituciones u otra forma de ayuda relativa a la exportación de carnes de oveja y cordero , así como de oveja y corderos vivos , para sacrificio , únicamente se producirá a precios y en condiciones que cumplan las obligaciones internacionales existentes y respetando el peso que tradicionalmente tiene la Comunidad en el comercio de exportación mundial de dichos productos . Dichos términos deberán interpretarse de forma compatible con el artículo XVI del Acuerdo general sobre aranceles aduaneros y comercio y , en particular , con arreglo a la letra c ) del apartado 2 del artículo 10 del Acuerdo sobre interpretación y aplicación de los artículos VI , XVI y XXIII del Acuerdo general sobre aranceles aduaneros y comercio . 9 . Uruguay velará por que se respete el presente Acuerdo , en particular , mediante la expedición de certificados de exportación aplicables a los productos contemplados en el punto 1 , dentro de los límites de las cantidades previstas por el presente Acuerdo . Por su parte , la Comunidad se compromete a adoptar las disposiciones necesarias para supeditar la expedición de un certificado de importación para los productos mencionados , originarios de Uruguay , a la presentación de un certificado de exportación , expedido por las autoridades competentes designadas por el Gobierno Uruguayo . Las modalidades de aplicación de dicho régimen se establecerán de forma que no sea necesaria la prestación de una fianza para la expedición del certificado de importación en lo que se refiere a los productos considerados . Dichas modalidades de aplicación preverán asimismo que las autoridades competentes uruguayas comuniquen periódicamente a las autoridades competentes de la Comunidad las cantidades desglosadas , en su caso , según el destino , para las que se hayan expedido certificados de exportación . 10 . Se crea un Comité consultivo , compuesto por representantes de la Comunidad y del Uruguay . El Comité velará por que el Acuerdo se aplique correctamente y su funcionamiento sea armonioso . Estudiará con regularidad la evolución de los mercados de las carnes de oveja , cordero y cabra de ambas Partes y la del mercado internacional , así como las condiciones de comercialización en estos mercados , incluidas aquéllas que se deriven del objetivo establecido en el punto 7 del presente Acuerdo . Velará por que la correcta aplicación del Acuerdo no resulte afectada por la exportación a la Comunidad de productos a base de carnes de oveja , cordero y cabra incluidas en partidas arancelarias no incluidas en el Acuerdo . El Comité discutirá todas las cuestiones que pudieren plantearse al aplicar el Acuerdo y recomendará soluciones apropiadas a las autoridades competentes . 11 . Se conviene en las disposiciones del presente Acuerdo sin perjuicio de los derechos y obligaciones de las Partes en el marco del GATT . 12 . La Comunidad anual fijada en el punto 2 se refiere al período comprendido entre el 1 de enero y el 31 de diciembre . La cantidad aplicable desde la aplicación del presente Acuerdo hasta el 1 de enero del año siguiente se fijará a prorrateo de la cantidad anual global y tendrá en cuenta el carácter estacional del comercio . 13 . El presente Acuerdo se aplicará a los territorios donde sea aplicable el Tratado constitutivo de la Comunidad Económica Europea y en las condiciones previstas por dicho Tratado , por una parte , y al territorio de la República Oriental del Uruguay , por otra . 14 . El presente Acuerdo entrará en vigor el 20 de octubre de 1980 . Permanecerá vigente hasta el 31 de marzo de 1984 y posteriormente , sin perjuicio del derecho de ambas Partes a rescindir dicho Acuerdo mediante comunicación escrita presentada con un año de antelación . En cualquier caso , ambas Partes procederán a un examen de las disposiciones del presente Acuerdo antes del 1 de abril de 1984 , con objeto de introducir las modificaciones que consideren necesarias , de común acuerdo . Le agradecería tuviera a bien confirmarme el Acuerdo de su Gobierno en relación con lo que antecede . Le ruego acepte , Señor , el testimonio de mi más distinguida consideración . En nombre del Consejo de las Comunidades Europeas (1) Peso canal ( equivalente del peso con hueso ) . Por esta expresión , se entiende el peso de la carne sin deshuesar presentada tal cual , así como el peso de la carne deshuesada , convertido mediante un coeficiente , en peso de carne no deshuesada . A tal efecto , 55 kilogramos de carne de oveja deshuesada equivalen a 100 kilogramos de carne sin deshuesar y 60 kilogramos de carne de cordero deshuesada equivalen a 100 kilogramos de carne deshuesada . Nota n o 2 Estimado Señor , Tengo el honor de acusar recibo de su atenta nota del día de hoy , redactada en los siguientes términos : « Tengo el honor de referirme a las negociaciones recientemente llevadas por nuestras delegaciones respectivas para redactar las disposiciones relativas a la importación , en la Comunidad Económica Europea , de carnes de oveja , cordero y cabra procedentes del Uruguay , en relación con la aplicación por parte de la Comunidad de la organización común de mercados en el sector de las carnes de ovino y caprino . Durante las negociaciones , ambas Partes han acordado lo siguiente : 1 . El presente Acuerdo se refiere a : - las carnes frescas o refrigeradas de oveja , cordero y cabra ( subpartida 02.01 A IV a ) del arancel aduanero común ) , - las carnes congeladas de oveja , cordero y cabra ( subpartida 02.01 A IV b ) del arancel aduanero común ) . 2 . En el marco del presente Acuerdo , las posibilidades de exportación , con destino a la Comunidad , de carnes de oveja , cordero y cabra procedentes del Uruguay se fijan en la cantidad anual siguiente : 5 100 toneladas métricas expresadas en peso canal (1) . Con objeto de garantizar el buen funcionamiento del acuerdo , el Uruguay se compromete a aplicar los procedimientos adecuados para garantizar que la cantidad anual efectivamente exportada no supere la cantidad convenida y se exporte respetando las estructuras de presentación tradicionales ( carnes congeladas o refrigeradas ) . Si cambios a nivel tecnológico y comercial permitieren modificar la estructura comercial a nivel de la presentación , las Partes del presente Acuerdo , antes de introducir cualquier modificación , se consultarán recíprocamente en el seno del Comité contemplado en el punto 10 , para lograr una solución adecuada . 3 . Si la Comunidad recurriere a la cláusula de salvaguardia , se compromete a que el acceso del Uruguay a la Comunidad , tal como está previsto en el presente Acuerdo , no resulte afectado . 4 . Si , durante un año , las importaciones procedentes del Uruguay superaren las cantidades convenidas , la Comunidad se reserva el derecho de suspender las importaciones procedentes de dicho país para el resto del año . La cantidad exportada de más será cargada a cuenta de las cantidades que el Uruguay esté autorizado a exportar al año siguiente : 5 . La Comunidad se compromete a limitar a un tope del 10 % ad valorem la exacción reguladora aplicable a la importación de productos regulados por el presente Acuerdo . 6 . Cuando se adhieran nuevos Estados miembros , la Comunidad , previa consulta al Uruguay , modificará las cantidades previstas en el punto 2 , con arreglo al comercio de Uruguay con cada nuevo Estado miembro . Los gravámenes aplicables a las importaciones para estos nuevos Estados miembros se fijarán con arreglo a las normas del Tratado de adhesión , tomando en consideración el nivel de la limitación de la exacción reguladora , especificada en el punto 5 del presente Acuerdo . La cantidad total , mencionada en el punto 2 , queda fijada en 5 800 toneladas métricas en peso canal a partir de la fecha de adhesión de Grecia a la Comunidad . 7 . La Comunidad procurará evitar cualquier evolución del mercado que pudiere comprometer la comercialización , en el mercado comunitario , de las carnes de oveja y cordero procedentes del Uruguay , dentro de los límites de las cantidades convenidas . En particular , la Comunidad adoptará medidas para garantizar que la salida de las existencias de intervención de carnes congeladas resultante de la aplicación del Reglamento no obstaculice dicha comercialización . 8 . Teniendo en cuenta los objetivos y disposiciones del presente Acuerdo , la Comunidad conviene en que cualquier aplicación efectiva de restituciones u otra forma de ayuda relativa a la exportación de carnes de oveja y cordero , así como de oveja y corderos vivos , para sacrificio , únicamente se producirá a precios y en condiciones que cumplan las obligaciones internacionales existentes y respetando el peso que tradicionalmente tiene la Comunidad en el comercio de exportación mundial de dichos productos . Dichos términos deberán interpretarse de forma compatible con el artículo XVI del Acuerdo general sobre aranceles aduaneros y comercio y , en particular , con arreglo a la letra c ) del apartado 2 del artículo 10 del Acuerdo sobre interpretación y aplicación de los artículos VI , XVI y XXIII del Acuerdo General sobre Aranceles Aduaneros y Comercio . 9 . Uruguay velará por que se respete el presente Acuerdo , en particular , mediante la expedición de certificados de exportación aplicables a los productos contemplados en el punto 1 , dentro de los límites de las cantidades previstas por el presente Acuerdo . Por su parte , la Comunidad se compromete a adoptar las disposiciones necesarias para supeditar la expedición de un certificado de importación para los productos mencionados , originarios de Uruguay , a la presentación de un certificado de exportación , expedido por las autoridades competentes designadas por el Gobierno Uruguayo . Las modalidades de aplicación de dicho régimen se establecerán de forma que no sea necesaria la prestación de una fianza para la expedición del certificado de importación en lo que se refiera los productos considerados . Dichas modalidades de aplicación preverán asimismo que las autoridades competentes uruguayas comuniquen periódicamente a las autoridades competentes de la Comunidad las cantidades desglosadas , en su caso , según el destino , para las que se hayan expedido certificados de exportación . 10 . Se crea un Comité consultivo , compuesto por representantes de la Comunidad y del Uruguay . El Comité velará por que el Acuerdo de aplique correctamente y su funcionamiento sea armonioso . Estudiará con regularidad la evolución de los mercados de las carnes de oveja , cordero y cabra de ambas Partes y la del mercado internacional , así como las condiciones de comercialización en estos mercados , incluidas aquéllas que se deriven del objetivo establecido en el punto 7 del presente Acuerdo . El Comité discutirá todas las cuestiones que pudieren plantearse al aplicar el Acuerdo y recomendará soluciones apropiadas a las autoridades competentes . 11 . Se conviene en las disposiciones del presente Acuerdo sin perjuicio de los derechos y obligaciones de las Partes en el marco del GATT . 12 . La Comunidad anual fijada en el punto 2 se refiere al período comprendido entre el 1 de enero y el 31 de diciembre . La cantidad aplicable desde la aplicación del presente Acuerdo hasta el 1 de enero del año siguiente se fijará a prorrateo de la cantidad anual global y tendrá en cuenta el carácter estacional del comercio . 13 . El presente Acuerdo se aplicará a los territorios donde sea aplicable el Tratado constitutivo de la Comunidad Económica Europea y en las condiciones previstas por dicho Tratado , por una parte , y al territorio de la República Oriental del Uruguay , por otra . 14 . El presente Acuerdo entrará en vigor el 20 de octubre de 1980 . Permanecerá vigente hasta el 31 de marzo de 1984 y posteriormente , sin perjuicio del derecho de ambas Partes a rescindir dicho Acuerdo mediante comunicación escrita presentada con un año de antelación . En cualquier caso , ambas Partes procederán a un examen de las disposiciones del presente Acuerdo antes del 1 de abril de 1984 , con objeto de introducir las modificaciones que consideren necesarias , de común acuerdo . Le agradecería tuviera a bien confirmarme el Acuerdo de su Gobierno en relación con lo que antecede . » Tengo el honor de confirmarle el acuerdo de mi Gobierno sobre lo que antecede . Le ruego acepte , Señor , el testimonio de mi más distinguida consideración . Por el Gobierno de la República Oriental del Uruguay (1) Peso canal ( equivalente del peso con hueso ) . Por esta expresión , se entiende el peso de la carne sin deshuesar presentada tal cual , así como el peso de la carne deshuesada , convertido mediante un coeficiente , en peso de carne no deshuesada . A tal efecto , 55 kilogramos de carne de oveja deshuesada equivalen a 100 kilogramos de carne sin deshuesar y 60 kilogramos de carne de cordero deshuesada equivalen a 100 kilogramos de carne deshuesada .


text:
 14.12.2018
 HR
 Službeni list Europske unije
 L 317/47
 ODLUKA br. 1/2018 ZAJEDNIČKOG ODBORA EU-ZZP
 od 4. prosinca 2018.
 u pogledu poziva Ujedinjenoj Kraljevini da pristupi Konvenciji o zajedničkom provoznom postupku [2018/1987]
 ZAJEDNIČKI ODBOR
 uzimajući u obzir Konvenciju od 20. svibnja 1987. o zajedničkom provoznom postupku (1), a posebno njezin članak 15. stavak 3. točku (e),
 budući da:
 (1)
 U skladu s člankom 15. stavkom 3. točkom (e) Konvencije o zajedničkom provoznom postupku („Konvencija”) Zajednički odbor osnovan tom konvencijom odlukom usvaja pozive trećim zemljama da pristupe toj konvenciji u skladu s člankom 15.a.
 (2)
 Ujedinjena Kraljevina Velike Britanije i Sjeverne Irske („Ujedinjena Kraljevina”) izrazila je želju za pristupom Konvenciji kao zasebna ugovorna stranka od datuma na koji se Konvencija više neće primjenjivati na Ujedinjenu Kraljevini i u njoj.
 (3)
 Kretanje robe u Ujedinjenu Kraljevinu i iz nje olakšalo bi se zajedničkim provoznim postupkom za robu koja se prevozi između Ujedinjene Kraljevine i Europske unije, Republike Islanda, bivše jugoslavenske republike Makedonije, Kraljevine Norveške, Republike Srbije, Švicarske Konfederacije i Republike Turske.
 (4)
 Kako bi se postiglo to olakšanje, primjereno je pozvati Ujedinjenu Kraljevinu da pristupi Konvenciji.
 (5)
 Pristup Ujedinjene Kraljevine Konvenciji trebao bi proizvoditi učinke tek od datuma na koji se Konvencija više ne primjenjuje na Ujedinjenu Kraljevinu kao državu članicu Europske unije ili, ako Europska unija i Ujedinjena Kraljevina dogovore prijelazne aranžmane prema kojima bi se Konvencija primjenjivala na Ujedinjenu Kraljevinu i u njoj, od datuma na koji se ti prijelazni aranžmani prestanu primjenjivati,
 DONIO JE OVU ODLUKU:
 Članak 1.
 Ujedinjena Kraljevina poziva se da pristupi Konvenciji u skladu s člankom 15.a Konvencije od datuma na koji prestane biti država članica Europske unije ili od datuma na koji se prestanu primjenjivati prijelazni aranžmani dogovoreni između Europske unije i Ujedinjene Kraljevine prema kojima bi se Konvencija primjenjivala na Ujedinjenu Kraljevinu i u njoj.
 Članak 2.
 Ova Odluka stupa na snagu na dan donošenja.
 Sastavljeno u Bruxellesu 4. prosinca 2018.
 Za Zajednički odbor
 Predsjednik
 Philip KERMODE
 (1) SL L 226, 13.8.1987., str. 2.


text:
 EIROPAS KOMISIJA
 Briselē, 1.10.2019
 COM(2019) 441 final
 PIELIKUMS
 [pie dokumenta]
 PriekšlikumsPADOMES LĒMUMS
 par to, lai Eiropas Savienības un tās dalībvalstu vārdā noslēgtu protokolu pie Sadarbības nolīguma civilās globālās navigācijas satelītu sistēmas (GNSS) jomā starp Eiropas Kopienu un tās dalībvalstīm un Ukrainu nolūkā ņemt vērā Bulgārijas Republikas, Horvātijas Republikas un Rumānijas pievienošanos Eiropas Savienībai
 PROTOKOLS
 PIE SADARBĪBAS NOLĪGUMA
 CIVILĀS GLOBĀLĀS NAVIGĀCIJAS SATELĪTU SISTĒMAS (GNSS) JOMĀ
 STARP EIROPAS KOPIENU UN TĀS DALĪBVALSTĪM
 UN UKRAINU
 NOLŪKĀ ŅEMT VĒRĀ BULGĀRIJAS REPUBLIKAS, HORVĀTIJAS REPUBLIKAS UN RUMĀNIJAS PIEVIENOŠANOS EIROPAS SAVIENĪBAI
 EIROPAS SAVIENĪBA
 un
 BEĻĢIJAS KARALISTE,
 BULGĀRIJAS REPUBLIKA,
 ČEHIJAS REPUBLIKA,
 DĀNIJAS KARALISTE,
 VĀCIJAS FEDERATĪVĀ REPUBLIKA,
 IGAUNIJAS REPUBLIKA,
 ĪRIJA,
 GRIEĶIJAS REPUBLIKA,
 SPĀNIJAS KARALISTE,
 FRANCIJAS REPUBLIKA,
 HORVĀTIJAS REPUBLIKA,
 ITĀLIJAS REPUBLIKA,
 KIPRAS REPUBLIKA,
 LATVIJAS REPUBLIKA,
 LIETUVAS REPUBLIKA,
 LUKSEMBURGAS LIELHERCOGISTE,
 UNGĀRIJA,
 MALTAS REPUBLIKA,
 NĪDERLANDES KARALISTE,
 AUSTRIJAS REPUBLIKA,
 POLIJAS REPUBLIKA,
 PORTUGĀLES REPUBLIKA,
 RUMĀNIJA,
 SLOVĒNIJAS REPUBLIKA,
 SLOVĀKIJAS REPUBLIKA,
 SOMIJAS REPUBLIKA,
 ZVIEDRIJAS KARALISTE,
 LIELBRITĀNIJAS UN ZIEMEĻĪRIJAS APVIENOTĀ KARALISTE,
 turpmāk “dalībvalstis”,
 no vienas puses, un
 UKRAINA,
 no otras puses,
 ATGĀDINOT par Sadarbības nolīgumu civilās globālās navigācijas satelītu sistēmas (GNSS) jomā starp Eiropas Kopienu un tās dalībvalstīm un Ukrainu (turpmāk "nolīgums"), kas tika parakstīts 2005. gada 1. decembrī un stājās spēkā 2013. gada 1. decembrī, un jo īpaši tā 17. panta 3. punktu,
 ŅEMOT VĒRĀ Bulgārijas Republikas un Rumānijas pievienošanos Eiropas Savienībai 2007. gada 1. janvārī un Horvātijas Republikas pievienošanos Eiropas Savienībai 2013. gada 1. jūlijā,
 VĒLOTIES, lai Bulgārijas Republika, Horvātijas Republika un Rumānija pievienotos
 nolīgumam,
 IEVĒROJOT 6. panta 2. punktu Aktā par Bulgārijas Republikas un Rumānijas pievienošanās nosacījumiem, 6. panta 2. punktu Aktā par Horvātijas Republikas pievienošanās nosacījumiem un pielāgojumus līgumos, kas ir Eiropas Savienības pamatā, par šo valstu pievienošanos nolīgumam ir jāvienojas, noslēdzot nolīguma protokolu,
 IR VIENOJUŠĀS ŠĀDI.
 1. PANTS
 Bulgārijas Republika, Horvātijas Republika un Rumānija ir līgumslēdzējas puses Sadarbības nolīgumam civilās globālās navigācijas satelītu sistēmas (GNSS) jomā starp Eiropas Kopienu un tās dalībvalstīm un Ukrainu un tāpat kā pārējās dalībvalstis attiecīgi pieņem un ievēro nolīguma tekstu.
 2. PANTS
 Šis protokols ir nolīguma neatņemama sastāvdaļa.
 3. PANTS
 Nolīguma teksts bulgāru, horvātu un rumāņu valodā ir pievienots šim protokolam.
 4. PANTS
 Šis protokols stājas spēkā tā mēneša pirmajā dienā, kas seko dienai, kurā puses, izmantojot diplomātiskās notas, ir paziņojušas nolīguma depozitāram par pušu attiecīgo iekšējo juridisko procedūru pabeigšanu attiecībā uz šā protokola stāšanos spēkā.
 TO APLIECINOT, attiecīgi pilnvarotie ir parakstījuši šo protokolu.
 SAGATAVOTS [xxxx] divos eksemplāros divi tūkstoši [zz] gada [dd mm] angļu, bulgāru, čehu, dāņu, franču, grieķu, holandiešu, horvātu, igauņu, itāļu, latviešu, lietuviešu, maltiešu, poļu, portugāļu, rumāņu, slovāku, slovēņu, somu, spāņu, ungāru, vācu, zviedru un ukraiņu valodā, un visi teksti ir vienlīdz autentiski.
 EIROPAS SAVIENĪBAS UN TĀS DALĪBVALSTU VĀRDĀ —
 UKRAINAS VĀRDĀ —
 ---documentbreak---
 EIROPAS KOMISIJA
 Briselē, 1.10.2019
 COM(2019) 441 final
 2019/0207(NLE)
 Priekšlikums
 PADOMES LĒMUMS
 par to, lai Eiropas Savienības un tās dalībvalstu vārdā noslēgtu protokolu pie Sadarbības nolīguma civilās globālās navigācijas satelītu sistēmas (GNSS) jomā starp Eiropas Kopienu un tās dalībvalstīm un Ukrainu nolūkā ņemt vērā Bulgārijas Republikas, Horvātijas Republikas un Rumānijas pievienošanos Eiropas Savienībai
 PASKAIDROJUMA RAKSTS
 1.PRIEKŠLIKUMA KONTEKSTS
 Pievienotais priekšlikums ir juridisks instruments, kas vajadzīgs, lai noslēgtu protokolu pie Sadarbības nolīguma civilās globālās navigācijas satelītu sistēmas (GNSS) jomā starp Eiropas Kopienu un tās dalībvalstīm un Ukrainu nolūkā ņemt vērā Bulgārijas Republikas, Horvātijas Republikas un Rumānijas pievienošanos Eiropas Savienībai.
 Saskaņā ar Bulgārijas Republikas, Rumānijas un Horvātijas Republikas pievienošanās aktiem minētās trīs dalībvalstis pievienojas Eiropas Savienības un tās dalībvalstu parakstītajiem vai noslēgtajiem starptautiskajiem nolīgumiem, pievienojot minētajiem nolīgumiem protokolu.
 Sadarbības nolīgums civilās globālās navigācijas satelītu sistēmas (GNSS) jomā starp Eiropas Kopienu un tās dalībvalstīm un Ukrainu (“nolīgums”), tika parakstīts 2005. gada 1. decembrī un stājās spēkā 2013. gada 1. decembrī.
 Pēc Padomes [...] lēmuma parakstīt nolīguma protokolu nolūkā ņemt vērā Bulgārijas Republikas, Rumānijas un Horvātijas Republikas pievienošanos Eiropas Savienībai protokols [...] tika parakstīts kopā ar Ukrainas pārstāvi.
 Ierosinātais protokols padara Bulgārijas Republiku, Horvātijas Republiku un Rumāniju par nolīguma līgumslēdzējām pusēm un uzliek Eiropas Savienībai saistības nodrošināt nolīguma autentisko versiju bulgāru, horvātu un rumāņu valodā.
 2.PRIEKŠLIKUMA JURIDISKIE ASPEKTI
 Pēc protokola parakstīšanas Komisija ierosina, lai Padome atļautu Eiropas Savienības un tās dalībvalstu vārdā noslēgt protokolu pie Sadarbības nolīguma civilās globālās navigācijas satelītu sistēmas (GNSS) jomā starp Eiropas Kopienu un tās dalībvalstīm un Ukrainu nolūkā ņemt vērā Bulgārijas Republikas, Horvātijas Republikas un Rumānijas pievienošanos Eiropas Savienībai.
 2019/0207 (NLE)
 Priekšlikums
 PADOMES LĒMUMS
 par to, lai Eiropas Savienības un tās dalībvalstu vārdā noslēgtu protokolu pie Sadarbības nolīguma civilās globālās navigācijas satelītu sistēmas (GNSS) jomā starp Eiropas Kopienu un tās dalībvalstīm un Ukrainu nolūkā ņemt vērā Bulgārijas Republikas, Horvātijas Republikas un Rumānijas pievienošanos Eiropas Savienībai
 EIROPAS SAVIENĪBAS PADOME,
 ņemot vērā Līgumu par Eiropas Savienības darbību un jo īpaši tā 172. pantu saistībā ar tā 218. panta 6. punkta a) apakšpunktu,
 ņemot vērā Bulgārijas Republikas un Rumānijas pievienošanās aktu un Horvātijas Republikas pievienošanās aktu un jo īpaši to 6. panta 2. punktu,
 ņemot vērā Eiropas Komisijas priekšlikumu,
 ņemot vērā Eiropas Parlamenta piekrišanu,
 tā kā:
 (1)Sadarbības nolīgums civilās globālās navigācijas satelītu sistēmas (GNSS) jomā starp Eiropas Kopienu un tās dalībvalstīm, no vienas puses, un Ukrainu, no otras puses (“nolīgums”), tika parakstīts 2005. gada 1. decembrī un stājās spēkā 2013. gada 1. decembrī.
 (2)Bulgārija un Rumānija kļuva par Savienības dalībvalstīm 2007. gada 1. janvārī, un Horvātija — 2013. gada 1. jūlijā.
 (3)Saskaņā ar Bulgārijas, Horvātijas un Rumānijas attiecīgajiem pievienošanās aktiem, proti, to 6. panta 2. punktu, par pievienošanos nolīgumam ir jāvienojas ar minētā nolīguma protokola palīdzību. Saskaņā ar pievienošanās akta 6. panta 2. punktu attiecībā uz šādu pievienošanos ir jāpiemēro vienkāršota procedūra, saskaņā ar kuru Padomei, pieņemot vienprātīgu lēmumu dalībvalstu vārdā, un attiecīgajām trešām valstīm ir jānoslēdz protokols.
 (4)Padome 2006. gada 23. oktobrī un 2012. gada 14. septembrī pilnvaroja Komisiju sākt sarunas ar attiecīgajām trešām valstīm nolūkā noslēgt protokolus pie starptautiskajiem nolīgumiem, ko noslēgusi Savienība un tās dalībvalstis.
 (5)Komisijas un Ukrainas sarunas par protokolu pie Sadarbības nolīguma civilās globālās navigācijas satelītu sistēmas (GNSS) jomā starp Eiropas Kopienu un tās dalībvalstīm, no vienas puses, un Ukrainu, no otras puses, nolūkā ņemt vērā Bulgārijas Republikas, Horvātijas Republikas un Rumānijas pievienošanos Eiropas Savienībai (“protokols”) tika sekmīgi pabeigtas ar verbālnotu apmaiņu.
 (6)Saskaņā ar Padomes Lēmumu [XXX]
 1
 protokolu parakstīja [...], ņemot vērā tā noslēgšanu vēlākā datumā.
 (7)Tāpēc protokols būtu jāapstiprina Eiropas Savienības un tās dalībvalstu vārdā,
 IR PIEŅĒMUSI ŠO LĒMUMU.
 1. pants
 Ar šo Savienības un tās dalībvalstu vārdā tiek apstiprināts protokols pie Sadarbības nolīguma civilās globālās navigācijas satelītu sistēmas (GNSS) jomā starp Eiropas Kopienu un tās dalībvalstīm un Ukrainu nolūkā ņemt vērā Bulgārijas Republikas, Horvātijas Republikas un Rumānijas pievienošanos.
 Protokola teksts ir pievienots šim lēmumam.
 2. pants
 Padomes priekšsēdētājs norīko personu, kura ir tiesīga Eiropas Savienības un tās dalībvalstu vārdā sniegt protokola 4. pantā paredzēto paziņojumu, lai paustu Eiropas Savienības un tās dalībvalstu piekrišanu uzņemties protokola saistības.
 3. pants
 Šis lēmums stājas spēkā tā pieņemšanas dienā.
 Briselē,
 Padomes vārdā —
 priekšsēdētājs
 (1)
 Padomes Lēmums par to, lai Eiropas Savienības un tās dalībvalstu vārdā parakstītu protokolu pie Sadarbības nolīguma civilās globālās navigācijas satelītu sistēmas (GNSS) jomā starp Eiropas Kopienu un tās dalībvalstīm un Ukrainu nolūkā ņemt vērā Bulgārijas Republikas, Horvātijas Republikas un Rumānijas pievienošanos Eiropas Savienībai (OV L , , lpp.).


type: other

jurisdiction: US

text: b' USE OF THE\nNATIONAL AIRSPACE SYSTEM\n Federal Aviation Administration\n\n Report Number: CR-2008-028\n Date Issued: March 3, 2008\n\x0c U.S. Department of\n Memorandum\n Transportation\n Office of the Secretary\n of Transportation\n Office of Inspector General\n\n\nSubject: INFORMATION: Use of the National Date: March 3, 2008\n Airspace System\n Federal Aviation Administration\n Report Number CR-2008-028\n From: David Tornquist Reply to\n Attn. of: JA-50\n Assistant Inspector General\n for Rail and Maritime Program Audits and\n Economic Analysis\n To: Acting Federal Aviation Administrator\n\n\n This report presents the results of our audit of the use of the National Airspace\n System (NAS). The House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure\n requested this audit to provide policymakers with a common understanding of who\n uses the NAS as they consider how to finance the aviation system into the future.\n Disagreement among stakeholders regarding their use of the NAS makes it\n difficult to evaluate Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) financing alternatives.\n\n Our specific objectives were to determine: (1) how different groups use NAS\n elements, (2) how that usage contributes to aviation congestion, (3) whether NAS\n users can be grouped in a meaningful manner based on their usage of the system,\n and (4) how good a proxy is jet fuel for use of FAA air traffic services.\n\n We examined FAA fiscal year (FY) 2005 flight activity data 1 and other data\n regarding the use of FAA tower, terminal, and en route services by different\n aircraft types and user groups. We also assessed the relationship between jet fuel\n consumption and use of FAA\xe2\x80\x99s air traffic control services in several representative\n markets. A detailed discussion of our scope and methodology is included in\n Exhibit A. We conducted this audit in accordance with generally accepted\n Government Auditing Standards prescribed by the Comptroller General of the\n United States. We did not systematically audit or validate the data in any of the\n\n 1\n FY 2005 is the latest flight activity data available from FAA that contains the corrected identification of aircraft\n engine type and operator classification necessary to undertake this analysis.\n\x0c 2\n\ndatabases. However, we conducted trend analyses and checks of the data to assess\nreasonableness and comprehensiveness. We also spoke with managers responsible\nfor maintaining the databases to understand any noted inconsistencies and attempt\nto resolve them. Based on our understanding of the data through discussions with\nknowledgeable agency officials, as well as checks for obvious errors in accuracy\nand completeness, we determined that the data was sufficiently reliable for our\npurposes.\n\nBACKGROUND\n\nCurrently, NAS users pay the vast majority of FAA\xe2\x80\x99s costs through ten aviation-\nrelated excise taxes, including taxes on airfares, fuel and cargo. Almost 68 percent\nof the revenue from these taxes in FY 2006 derived from the 7.5 percent ticket tax\nand the then $3.30 segment tax in calendar year (CY) 2006. 2 All of the aviation\nexcise taxes supporting FAA\xe2\x80\x99s programs will expire on June 30, 2008. 3 Congress\nis currently deliberating on whether to continue, replace, or modify these excise\ntaxes as part of its ongoing effort to reauthorize the FAA.\n\nAviation stakeholder groups strongly disagree on their relative use of the aviation\nsystem and contribution to aviation congestion. Air carrier representatives argue\nthat non-air carriers are significant NAS users and as such contribute to aviation\ncongestion and the resultant system delays. Non-air carrier representatives,\nparticularly general aviation and \xe2\x80\x9cbusiness jet\xe2\x80\x9d groups, claim that they do not\nmake significant use of the NAS, are marginal users to the system, and do not\ncontribute to aviation congestion because they avoid congested airports and\nairspace.\n\nThis disagreement on NAS usage leads to similar disagreements as to the relative\nshare of FAA\xe2\x80\x99s costs that each stakeholder group should pay.4 Air carriers claim\nthat they are being unfairly required to pay Air Carriers are scheduled and charter\nmore than their use of the NAS and FAA airlines, usually operating jet or\nservices would justify. As a result, they turboprop aircraft with more than 30\nclaim that they are subsidizing non-air seats.\ncarriers\xe2\x80\x99, in particular business jet\noperators\xe2\x80\x99, NAS usage. Conversely, Non-Air Carriers are general aviation,\n fractional (shared) ownership, and on-\ngeneral aviation and business jet operators demand air-taxi operators using aircraft\ncontend they are paying their fair share for with less than 30 seats.\ntheir relative use of the system.\n2\n The segment tax rose to $3.40 in calendar year 2007.\n3\n These taxes were scheduled to expire on September 30, 2007. Congress extended them through a series of\n Continuing Resolutions, the most recent of which expires on June 30, 2008.\n4\n Another factor relevant to the policy decision on the amounts that user groups should pay for FAA services is the\n cost of providing individual FAA services at different locations using different staff and equipment. This report does\n not address the cost of providing individual services.\n\x0c 3\n\n\nOn March 21, 2007, we testified 5 on the use of the NAS before the House\nTransportation and Infrastructure Committee\xe2\x80\x99s Aviation Subcommittee; our\ntestimony also included our observations on the Administration\xe2\x80\x99s FAA financing\nproposal. 6 In lieu of the Administration\xe2\x80\x99s FAA financing proposal, the Senate\nCommerce Committee passed the Aviation Investment and Modernization Act of\n2007 (S. 1300). In addition, the Senate Finance Committee, which has jurisdiction\nover the aviation excise taxes, passed its title of the FAA financing legislation.\nHowever, the Senate as a whole has not passed a long-term FAA program\nreauthorization and financing bill at this time. The House passed the FAA\nReauthorization Act of 2007 (H.R. 2881), which incorporates both program\nauthorization and tax provisions.\n\nThe Administration\xe2\x80\x99s proposal would alter the structure of fees and taxes paid by\nair carriers and non-air carriers, reflecting FAA\xe2\x80\x99s conclusion that the revenues\nrecovered from users should be more closely linked with the cost of providing air\ntraffic services. The Senate Commerce and Finance Committee proposals would\nchange the structure of fees and taxes of non-air carriers to a lesser degree. The\nHouse proposal fundamentally maintains the current structure of taxes among the\nuser groups.\n\nRESULTS IN BRIEF\n\nWe found that air carriers and non-air carriers, including general aviation and\nbusiness jet operators, all make sufficient use of the NAS so as to materially\ncontribute to FAA\xe2\x80\x99s costs and congestion in general. We also found alternative\nNAS user groupings that are more homogeneous in terms of their use of FAA\nservices than the groupings reflected in the current aviation excise tax structure.\nFinally, we found that jet fuel consumption is a better proxy for the use of the\nNAS than the current aviation excise taxes, but it does not measure whether air\ntraffic control services are used, nor does it distinguish between the types and\ncomplexities of services used.\n\nAll Aircraft Groupings by Engine or Operator Type Make Significant\nUse of the NAS\n\nWe examined use of the NAS in two ways: by aircraft powered by different\nengine type and by aircraft flown by different operator types. We found that all of\nthe groups examined made significant use of FAA air traffic control services.\n\n5\n OIG Testimony Number CC-2007-034, \xe2\x80\x9cFAA\xe2\x80\x99s Financing Proposal,\xe2\x80\x9d March 21, 2007. OIG reports and testimonies\n are available on our website: www.oig.dot.gov.\n6\n The Next Generation Air Transportation Financing Reform Act of 2007 (S. 1076).\n\x0c 4\n\nPiston Engine Airplanes and Rotorcraft Make Significant Use of the NAS.\nWhile jets and turboprops were the major users of the NAS, piston engine\nairplanes and rotorcraft accounted for 41 percent of FAA tower services 7 and\n31 percent of FAA terminal area control services in FY 2005 (see figure 1).\nHowever, since piston engine airplanes and rotorcraft typically operate at lower\naltitudes, they only utilized 4 percent of en route services.\n\n\n Figure 1. Use of Air Traffic Control Services\n by Aircraft Type - FY 2005\n\n\n 100%\n Tower Terminal 89% En Route\n 80%\n Percent of Operations\n\n\n\n\n 60% 55%\n 46%\n 41%\n 40%\n 31%\n\n 20% 13% 14%\n 7%\n 4%\n 0%\n Jet Turboprop Piston/Rotor Jet Turboprop Piston/Rotor Jet Turboprop Piston/Rotor\n\n\nSource: OIG Analysis of FAA Stakeholder Data Package\n\n\n\nNon-Air Carriers Make Significant Use of the NAS. Non-air carriers were the\nmajor users of FAA tower and terminal area control services in FY 2005,\naccounting for 59 percent and 49 percent respectively of these services. However,\nair carriers were the major users of FAA en route services, accounting for\n79 percent of the total (see figure 2 on the following page).\n\n\n\n\n7\n FAA services were measured in terms of operations, i.e., an aircraft handled by an air traffic control facility. For a\n tower, this was a landing or take-off. For terminal area radar, this was an instrument approach, departure or other\n control within the terminal airspace. For en route, this was a mile flown under positive en route control.\n\x0c 5\n\n\n Figure 2. Use of Air Traffic Control Services\n by Operator Group - FY 2005\n 100%\n Tower Terminal En Route\n 79%\n 80%\n Percent of Operations\n\n\n\n\n 59%\n 60%\n 49%\n 44%\n 40% 35%\n\n\n 20% 17%\n 6% 7%\n 4%\n 0%\n Carrier Non-air Public Carrier Non-air Public Carrier Non-air Public\n carrier carrier carrier\n\nSource: OIG Analysis of FAA Stakeholder Data Package\n\n\nWe found that non-air carriers tend to avoid large primary metropolitan airports.\nOverall, at the 26 8 large primary airports we examined, air carriers accounted for\n93 percent of all operations. Operations by non-air carriers at these airports\nranged from as little as 1 percent to as high as 20 percent. However, we also\nfound that non-air carriers have significant operations at the most active towers in\nthe country (as determined by number of operations). More than half (53 percent)\nof non-air carrier operations occurred at the top third (162) most active towered\nairports (see table 4 on page 10). Finally, 77 percent of all operations at the two-\nthirds of towers with the lowest activity were attributable to non-air carriers.\n\nBusiness Jets\xe2\x80\x99 NAS Usage Is Considerable. FAA does not track business jets as\na separate NAS user group. However, we disaggregated FAA\xe2\x80\x99s data in two\ndifferent ways that shed light on the current debate among stakeholder groups\nrepresenting air carriers and business jet operators about business jets\xe2\x80\x99 NAS usage.\nA broader categorization that approximates business jets is non-air carrier jets (jets\noperated by corporations, individuals, and air taxis and under fractional or shared\nownership arrangements). These jets accounted for 12 percent of tower and\n13 percent of terminal area control services in 2005. In comparative terms, non-\nair carrier jets use of tower and terminal area control services is about one-third of\nair carrier jets and turboprops. A narrower categorization of business jets is\ngeneral aviation jets, which excludes air taxis and fractionals. These accounted for\n\n8\n Four of the 30 large primary airports were not included in this analysis. Washington Reagan is general aviation\n restricted. The data for Minneapolis-St. Paul was incomplete. The data for San Diego was not provided, and\n Honolulu is geographically unique.\n\x0c 6\n\n9 percent of tower and 7 percent of terminal area control services in 2005 (see\ntables 1 and 2 on pages 8 and 9).\n\nBoth Air Carriers and Non-Air Carriers Contribute to Aviation\nCongestion\n\nWe examined congestion 9 at several of the most active towers, terminal radar\napproach control (TRACON) facilities, and en route centers. We found that air\ncarriers accounted for the majority of activity and congestion at the 26 large\nprimary metropolitan airports, with non-air carriers contributing, but to a far lesser\ndegree. Air carriers and non-air carriers contributed to congestion at the terminal\ncontrol areas we examined. For example, non-air carriers accounted for 20 to\n30 percent of the peak level of instrument approach operations at the New York\nTRACON (see figure 5 on page 14). Both commercial and general aviation\noperators contributed to congestion at the heavily used en route centers we\nexamined. For example, general aviation operations accounted for 18 percent to\n23 percent of operations at the Cleveland en route center during peak times of the\nday (see figure 6 on page 15).\n\nNAS Users Can Be Grouped More Homogeneously Than Reflected in\nthe Current Aviation Excise Tax Structure\n\nThe current aviation excise taxes do not group NAS users homogeneously in terms\nof their use of the NAS. For example, the current tax structure groups jets used for\nnon-commercial purposes with general aviation piston engine airplanes, although\nthey are taxed at different rates. However, those jets are likely to have more in\ncommon (in terms of NAS usage) with commercial jets, which are taxed\ndifferently. Certain aircraft and operator types have distinct operating\ncharacteristics that could form the basis of more homogeneous groupings. Jet and\nturboprop aircraft have different operating characteristics than piston engine\nairplanes and rotorcraft. Similarly, air carrier operators have different operating\ncharacteristics than non-air carriers. Grouping users by aircraft or operator type\nwould be more indicative of NAS usage than the distinctions inherent in the\ncurrent excise tax structure.\n\nA Tax Based on Fuel Consumption Would Approximate NAS Usage,\nbut it Does Not Measure Use of Air Traffic Control Services\n\nWe found that a tax based on fuel consumption is a better barometer of NAS\nactivity than the current excise taxes because it would recover costs from users\n9\n We measured congestion by examining the demand for specific air traffic services at the busiest times of day. For\n towers, we examined arriving flight operations. For TRACONs, we examined instrument approach operations. For\n en route centers, we examined operations.\n\x0c 7\n\nmore in proportion to their system activity than excise taxes. For example, our\nexamination of the Las Vegas to Los Angeles flight market found that commercial\naircraft accounted for 90 percent of all aircraft activity. However, commercial\naircraft paid 99 percent of the excise taxes currently collected. This share would\ndecline to 94 percent under a fuel-only tax. However, a fuel tax is not a perfect\nproxy for NAS activity since fuel consumption can vary in proportion to factors\nunrelated to that activity, such as aircraft weight. In addition, a tax based on fuel\nconsumption neither measures whether ATC services are used nor distinguishes\namong the types and complexities of the services used. Similarly, the current\nticket, segment, and freight waybill taxes do not vary according to the complexity\nor amount of ATC services consumed.\n\nFINDINGS\n\nAll Aircraft Groupings By Engine or Operator Type Significantly Use\nthe NAS.\n\nWe examined use of the NAS in two ways: by aircraft powered by different engine\ntypes (jet, turboprop, and piston/rotor) and by aircraft flown by different operator\ntypes (air carrier, non-air carrier, and public use). We found that none of the\ngroups examined were marginal users of FAA air traffic control services.\n\nPiston Engine Airplanes and Rotorcraft Significantly Use the NAS\n\nWe examined NAS usage by Tower services manage ground operations on airport\naircraft type and found that taxiways and runways as well as departure and\npiston engine airplanes and landing activity in airspace within about 5 miles of the\nrotorcraft were significant NAS airport. The sophistication of services ranges from\nusers, accounting for 41 percent visual-only control, at the majority of airports, to\n radar and instrument landing aids at the larger air\nof tower, 31 percent of terminal,\n carrier airports.\nand 4 percent of en route\nservices in FY 2005. Turboprop Terminal Area Control services are provided to\naircraft accounted for 13 percent aircraft in an area that rises up to 10,000 feet and\nof tower, 14 percent of terminal, expands to a 30 to 50 mile radius of major airports.\nand 7 percent of en route Aircraft are provided instrument approaches to and\n departures from the primary and secondary airports\nservices. Jet aircraft were the within the terminal control area or managed while\nlargest users of FAA services, transiting the terminal area airspace.\naccounting for 46 percent of\ntower, 55 percent of terminal, En Route Control services provide positive control\nand 89 percent of en route for all aircraft flying above 18,000 feet and those\n flying below that level, but operating under Instrument\nservices (see figure 1 on\n Flight Rules (IFR) conditions and oceanic air traffic\npage 4). control for the 80 percent of controlled international\n airspace under FAA management.\n\x0c 8\n\nNon-Air Carriers Significantly Use the NAS\n\nWe also examined NAS usage by operator type and found that in FY 2005 non-air\ncarriers exceeded air carriers in their use of FAA tower and terminal area control\nservices, but not en route services. Non-air carriers accounted for 59 percent of\ntower, 49 percent of terminal, and 17 percent of en route services. Air carriers\naccounted for 35 percent of tower services, 44 percent of terminal, and 79 percent\nof en route services. Public users 10 accounted for 6 percent of tower services, 7\npercent of terminal area control services, and 4 percent of en route services.\n\nWe also found that non-air carriers accounted for 93 percent of the aircraft\ncontacts made by flight service stations in FY 2005. While general aviation\noperators accounted for 75 percent of the total contacts, fractionals and air taxis\naccounted for 18 percent of the total contacts. 11 Users of these services are mostly\nlight aircraft operators, not airlines or corporate aircraft operators that contract for\nweather and flight dispatch services or employ their own staff to handle these\nfunctions.\n\nNon-air carrier piston engine airplanes and rotorcraft were the largest users of\nFAA tower services in FY 2005, accounting for 40 percent of all services. Their\nusage of tower services was 33 percent higher than the next highest user group, air\ncarrier jets, which accounted for 30 percent of tower service usage. Non-air\ncarrier jets also accounted for considerable tower service usage at 12 percent (see\ntable 1).\n\n Table 1. Tower Services Usage \xe2\x80\x93 FY 2005\n Percent of Tower Operations by User Category and Aircraft Type\n\n User Jet Turboprop Piston/Rotor User Total\n Air Carrier 30% 4% 1% 35%\n Non-Air Carrier 12% 7% 40% 59%\n (General Aviation) (9%) (5%) (38%) (51%)\n\n Public Use 4% 1% 1% 6%\n Aircraft Total 46% 13% 41% 100%\nSource: OIG Analysis of FAA Stakeholder Data Package\nPercentages may not add due to rounding.\n\n\n\n\n10\n Public users are military, governmental, and medical flight operators.\n11\n Fractional operators are shared ownership arrangements, and air taxis are on-demand charter operators.\n\x0c 9\n\nAir carrier jets were the largest users of terminal area control services in FY 2005,\naccounting for 38 percent of those services. Their usage was 31 percent greater\nthan the next highest user, non-air carrier piston engine airplanes and rotorcraft, at\n29 percent (see table 2). Non-air carrier jet usage of terminal area control services\nwas 13 percent.\n\n Table 2. Terminal Area Control Services Usage \xe2\x80\x93 FY 2005\n Percent of Approach Control Operations by User Category and Aircraft Type\n\n User Jet Turboprop Piston/Rotor User Total\n Air Carrier 38% 5% 1% 44%\n Non-Air Carrier 13% 7% 29% 49%\n (General Aviation) (7%) (3%) (22%) (33%)\n\n Public Use 4% 2% 1% 7%\n Aircraft Total 55% 14% 31% 100%\nSource: OIG Analysis of FAA Stakeholder Data Package\nPercentages may not add due to rounding.\n\n\nAir carrier jets dominated the use of en route services in FY 2005, accounting for\n75 percent of those services. Their usage was almost seven times that of the next\nlargest user, non-air carrier jets, at 11 percent (see table 3).\n\n Table 3. En Route Control Services Usage \xe2\x80\x93 FY 2005\n Percent of Aircraft Miles Controlled by User Category and Aircraft Type\n\n User Jet Turboprop Piston/Rotor User Total\n Air Carrier 75% 3% 0% 79%\n Non-Air Carrier 11% 3% 4% 17%\n (General Aviation) (5%) (2%) (3%) (10%)\n\n Public Use 3% 1% 0% 4%\n Aircraft Total 89% 7% 4% 100%\nSource: OIG Analysis of FAA Stakeholder Data Package\nPercentages may not add due to rounding.\n\nWe found that non-air carriers tend to avoid certain large primary metropolitan\nairports. Overall, at the 26 large primary airports we examined, air carriers\naccounted for 93 percent of all operations. Operations by non-air carriers at these\nairports ranged from as little as 1 percent to as high as 20 percent. However, we\nalso found that non-air carriers have significant operations at the most active\n\x0c 10\n\ntowers in the country (as determined by number of operations), many of which\nsurround large primary airports.\n\nWhile 87 percent of air carrier operations were at the top third most active towers\n(162 airports), more than half (53 percent) of non-air carrier operations also\noccurred at these airports. Total activity at the top third most active towers was\nsplit almost evenly between air carrier and non-air carrier operations. Finally,\n77 percent of all operations at the two-thirds of airports with the lowest activity\nwere attributable to non-air carriers (see table 4).\n\nSome towered airports exclusively used by non-air carrier operators are among the\nbusiest towers in the country in terms of flight operations. Of the 40 most active\ntowers in the country, nine are nearly exclusive non-air carrier facilities. For\nexample, in FY 2005, Denver Centennial Airport, a reliever to Denver\nInternational Airport, had more operations than New York John F. Kennedy\nAirport, and Deer Valley Airport, in Phoenix, had more tower operations than\neither Orlando International or San Francisco International Airports.\n\n Table 4. Operations at Towered Airports - FY 2005\n% of Tower\nOperations\n Air Carrier Non-Carrier Public\n % of Carrier\n Operations\n\n1/3 Most Active 48% 50% 3%\n Towers 87% 53% 33%\n\n2/3 Least Active 13% 77% 10%\n Towers 13% 47% 67%\nSource: OIG Analysis of FAA Stakeholder Data Package\nPercentages may not add due to rounding.\n\nBusiness Jets\xe2\x80\x99 NAS Usage Is Considerable\nThe structure of taxes on \xe2\x80\x9cbusiness\xe2\x80\x9d or \xe2\x80\x9ccorporate\xe2\x80\x9d jets has become a lightening\nrod in the debate regarding how to finance the FAA. Under the current system of\naviation excise taxes, the same flight can be charged a significantly different\namount depending upon the purpose for which the flight is made. An aircraft\nflown by a scheduled air carrier will be charged the 7.5 percent ticket tax and the\n$3.30 (CY 2006) per passenger flight segment fee. The same aircraft, privately\nowned, would likely impose similar costs on FAA, but would pay less than the\nscheduled airlines for those same services through the general aviation fuel tax.\n\x0c 11\n\nAir carrier representatives argue that it is unfair for their passengers and\nthemselves to subsidize these business jets. However, the National Business\nAviation Association contends that only 3 percent of general aviation aircraft that\nare used for business purposes actually belong to Fortune 500 companies (i.e. are\n\xe2\x80\x9ccorporate jets\xe2\x80\x9d) and business aircraft tend to avoid congested primary airports in\nfavor of reliever or business airports. As a result, these stakeholders contend that\nthe current scheme by which business aircraft are charged for air traffic services is\nboth fair and appropriate.\nFAA does not track business jets as a separate NAS user group. This would be\ndifficult as it requires determining whether or not a particular flight was taken for\nbusiness purposes. However, we disaggregated FAA\xe2\x80\x99s data in two different ways\nthat shed light on the current debate regarding business or corporate jets\xe2\x80\x99 NAS\nusage.\nThe first, broader categorization that approximates business jets is non-air carrier\njets (jets operated by corporations, individuals, and air taxis and under fractional\nor shared ownership arrangements). This categorization will necessarily include a\nsmall number of jet aircraft that are owned by individuals or corporations, but used\nfor recreational or non-business purposes. This categorization is significantly\nsmaller than the category of \xe2\x80\x9cbusiness aircraft\xe2\x80\x9d used by some stakeholder groups,\nwhich includes a significant number of piston engine airplane and rotorcraft\noperations. Non-air carrier jets accounted for 12 percent of tower and 13 percent\nof terminal area control services in 2005 (see figure 3).\n\n Figure 3. Jet Use of Air Traffic Control Services - FY 2005\n\n 100% Tower Terminal En Route\n\n\n 80% 75%\n Percent of Operations\n\n\n\n\n 60%\n\n\n\n\n 40%\n 38%\n 30%\n\n 20%\n 12% 13% 11%\n 4% 4% 3%\n 0%\n Carrier Non-air Public Carrier Non-air Public Carrier Non-air Public\n carrier carrier carrier\n\nSource: OIG Analysis of FAA Stakeholder Data Package\n\x0c 12\n\nThe second, narrower categorization of business jets is general aviation jets. This\nnarrower categorization more closely approximates \xe2\x80\x9ccorporate jets\xe2\x80\x9d used by some\nstakeholder groups as opposed to our definition of business jets. Under this\nnarrower definition, non-air carrier general aviation jets accounted for 9 percent of\ntower and 7 percent of terminal area control services in 2005. To put this in\nperspective, under both categorizations, these proxies for business jets\xe2\x80\x99 tower and\nterminal area control services in FY 2005 was about one-third of air carrier jets.\n\nWe did find support for the argument by representatives of business jet operators\nthat business jets do not generally use large primary airports. As stated\npreviously, the majority of tower operations at these primary airports are air\ncarrier. However, business jets\xe2\x80\x99 use of the NAS in total is not insignificant. As\nwe stated in our March 21, 2007 testimony, based on our analysis of NAS usage,\nthe use of FAA air traffic services by commercial operators, general aviation\noperators, and public users is sufficient to warrant separate cost allocation\ncategories. None of these groups had activity levels low enough to support a\nconclusion that they did not materially contribute to FAA\xe2\x80\x99s costs.\n\nAir Carriers and Non-Air Carriers Contributed to Congestion\n\nWe measured congestion by examining the demand for specific air traffic services\nat the busiest times of day. For towers, we examined arriving flight operations.\nFor TRACONs, we examined instrument approach operations. For en route\ncenters, we examined operations. We found that air carriers dominate tower\nactivity at most of the large primary metropolitan airports and were responsible for\nmost of the congestion. Non-air carriers contributed to congestion at the busy\nterminal control and en route facilities we examined, and less significantly at large\nprimary metropolitan airports.\n\nDemand for Tower Services at Large Airports\n\nAir carriers account for the majority of tower operations at the large, primary\nmetropolitan airports. Non-air carrier operators tend to use other airports in the\nmetropolitan area surrounding the large primary airports. At 26 large hub\n(primary) airport towers, air carriers accounted for an overall average of\n93 percent of operations, ranging from 78 percent to 99 percent. While non-air\ncarriers accounted for less than 4 percent of tower operations at 11 of the 26\nairports we reviewed, at other large primary airports the percent of non-air carrier\noperations ranged from 6 percent to as high as 20 percent of operations.\n\nIn terms of time of day operations, we found that at the three primary airports in\nthe New York metropolitan area, hourly demand for terminal area control services\nincreased, starting at 7:00 a.m., and peaked between 2:00 p.m. and 6:00 p.m.\n\x0c 13\n\nThese are popular arrival times for travelers returning to New York or connecting\nto departing international flights at Kennedy. Air carriers account for the bulk of\noperations during these peak time periods, and therefore account for the majority\nof congestion. Non-air carriers account for a small amount of this activity (see\nfigure 4), but do exhibit similar time of day peaking, and as such, do contribute to\ncongestion. We found similar results for the other large primary airports we\nexamined.\n\n Figure 4. New York Terminal Control Area - FY 2005\n Arriving Flight Operations by Hour of Day\n (LaGuardia, Newark, and John F. Kennedy)\n\n\n\n\n 120\n Average Hourly Arrivals\n\n\n\n\n 100\n\n 80\n\n 60\n\n 40\n\n 20\n\n 0\n 7AM 8AM 9AM 10AM 11AM 12PM 1PM 2PM 3PM 4PM 5PM 6PM 7PM 8PM 9PM 10PM\n\n\n\n non-air carrier air carrier\n\nSource: OIG Analysis of FAA Data\n\n\nDemand for Terminal Area Services\n\nWe found that both air carriers and non-air carriers contributed to congestion at\nthe terminal area radar facilities we examined. 12 These facilities provide terminal\narea radar services for both the primary and secondary airports within their areas\nof coverage. Therefore, even though air carriers and non-air carriers may tend to\nuse different airports in a metropolitan area, they use the same TRACON facility.\nFor example, the New York TRACON facility handles three large primary\nairports, 13 primarily serving air carriers, and 12 outlying towered airports,\nprimarily serving non-air carriers. Non-air carriers accounted for 20 percent to\n30 percent of the peak level of instrument approach operations at the New York\nTRACON.\n\n12\n Terminal area radar control services are provided by terminal radar approach control (TRACON) facilities located\n within the primary airport\xe2\x80\x99s control tower or in a separate facility.\n13\n La Guardia, Kennedy, and Newark.\n\x0c 14\n\nAir carrier and non-air carrier demand for terminal area radar services exhibited\nthe same peaking during the prime travel times of the day at the metropolitan areas\nwe examined. In other words, both air carriers and non-air carriers were\ncompeting for terminal area control services during the same busy, congested time\nperiods. For example, at the New York TRACON, non-air carriers exhibited the\nsame time of day peaking in demand for terminal services as did air carriers (see\nfigure 5). We found the same patterns of terminal service use by non-air carriers,\nincluding time of day peaking, in our examination of activity at the Chicago\nTRACON.\n\n Figure 5. New York Terminal Control Area \xe2\x80\x93 FY 2005\n Instrument Approach Operations by Hour of Day\n (Includes Outlying Airports)\n\n\n\n\n 140\n Average Hourly Arrivals\n\n\n\n\n 120\n 100\n 80\n 60\n 40\n 20\n 0\n 7AM 8AM 9AM 10AM 11AM 12PM 1PM 2PM 3PM 4PM 5PM 6PM 7PM 8PM 9PM 10PM\n\n\n\n non-air carrier air carrier\n\nSource: OIG Analysis of FAA Data\n\n\nDemand for En Route Services\n\nWe found that both commercial and general aviation operators contributed to\ncongestion at the two heavily used en route centers we examined. General\naviation operators\xe2\x80\x99 use of en route services was not insignificant. Their demand\nfor air traffic control services peaked during the busy periods at the en route\ncenters. Due to data limitations, we included fractional and air taxi services with\nair carriers in a \xe2\x80\x9ccommercial\xe2\x80\x9d category and presented general aviation separately\nin the en route time of day demand analysis.\n\x0c 15\n\nAs shown in figure 6, 80 percent of operations during July 2005 at the Cleveland\nen route center were attributable to commercial operators and 17 percent of\noperations were attributable to general aviation. In addition, general aviation\noperations accounted for an even higher share of total operations, between\n18 percent and 23 percent, during the most congested times.\n\n\n Figure 6. En Route Center Operations by Hour of Day\n Cleveland Center \xe2\x80\x93 July 2005\n\n Gener al A viat io n\n 18 % - 2 3 %\n at p eak ho ur s\n\n\n 500\n Operations\n\n\n\n\n 400\n Operations\n\n\n\n\n 300\n DailyDaily\n\n\n\n\n 200\n Average\n\n\n\n\n 100\n Average\n\n\n\n\n 0\n 12AM 2AM 4AM 6AM 8AM 2PMM 4PMM M 6PM M M 8PM M M 10PM\n M M M 12PM\n 10AM M M M M M\n 2A :A M :A M :A M :A M :A M :A M :A M :A M :A M 0A 1A 2P 1:P 2:P 3:P 4:P 5:P 6:P 7:P 8:P 9:P 0P 1P\n 1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 1 1 1 1\n public general aviation commercial\n\n\nSource: OIG Analysis of FAA Data\n\n\n\nWe found the same pattern of usage at the Atlanta en route center.\nSeventy-five percent of operations during July 2005 were attributable to\ncommercial operators and 21 percent of operations were attributable to general\naviation. As in Cleveland, the share of operations at the Atlanta en route center\nattributed to general aviation during peak periods ranged from 21 percent to\n28 percent (see figure 7 on the following page).\n\x0c 16\n\n\n Figure 7. En Route Center Operations by Hour of Day\n Atlanta Center \xe2\x80\x93 July 2005\n\n G ener al A vi at io n\n 2 1% - 2 8 %\n at p eak ho ur s\n\n 500\nAverage Daily Operations\n\n\n\n\n 400\n\n 300\n\n 200\n\n 100\n\n 0\n 12AM 2AM 4AM 6AM 8AM 10AM 12PM 2PM 4PM 6PM 8PM 10PM\n M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M\n A :A M :A M :A M :A M :A M :A M :A M :A M :A M 0A 1A 2P 1:P 2:P 3:P 4:P 5:P 6:P 7:P 8:P 9:P 0P 1P\n 12 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 1 1 1 1\n public general aviation commercial\n\nSource: OIG Analysis of FAA Data\n\n\nNAS Users Can Be Meaningfully Grouped Based on Their System\nUsage\n\nCertain aircraft and operator types have distinct operating characteristics that form\nthe basis of meaningful groupings. For example, jet and turboprop aircraft share\ndifferent operating characteristics than piston engine airplanes and rotorcraft. Jet\nand turboprop aircraft have greater altitude capacity and usually employ more\nsophisticated navigational aids that make greater use of more complex air traffic\ncontrol services. Piston engine airplanes and rotorcraft usually fly at lower\naltitudes than jet and turbo-prop aircraft, rarely using en route control services.\n\nSimilarly, air carrier operators have different operating characteristics than non-air\ncarriers. Air carriers generally fly fixed routes, serve large metropolitan airports,\nand have specific time of day requirements. Non-air carriers generally do not\noperate on a fixed schedule and rarely use large primary airports. We found these\ngroupings were more meaningful in terms of NAS usage than alternatives such as\ncommercial versus recreational aircraft. Either of these groupings (engine or\noperator type) could form the basis for recovering from a group as a whole the\ncosts it imposes on FAA.\n\x0c 17\n\n Fuel Consumption is a Better Measure of Use of the NAS than\n Existing Passenger and Cargo Taxes, but it Does Not Measure the\n Use of Air Traffic Control Services\n\n Existing passenger and cargo excise taxes have a minimal relationship to the use\n of air traffic control services. Trust Fund revenue generated by the passenger\n ticket taxes and cargo waybill taxes depends on the ticket price or waybill amount\n and the quantity of passengers or cargo on a flight, not the air traffic control\n services received. Thus, there is disparity among the commercial operators\n subject to the excise taxes\xe2\x80\x94the revenue generated by large air carrier aircraft\n versus smaller aircraft operated by air taxis and fractional operators. The\n passenger and cargo excise taxes, which are applied only to commercial flights,\n also create a disparity when compared to the fuel tax paid by general aviation\n users of the same air traffic control services.\n\n Based on a review of five nonstop markets, a tax based on fuel consumption\n would distribute the fee burden more equitably than the current excise tax system.\n In the markets studied, air carriers accounted for 92 percent of all flight activity,\n but paid 99 percent of the taxes collected under the current system (see table 5).\n The tax share would decline to 97 percent under a fuel only tax (see table 5). Non-\n air carrier flights, on the other hand, comprised 8 percent of the flight activity and\n contributed only 1 percent under the current tax and fee structure. Under a fuel-\n only tax system, contributions to the cost of operations by non-air carriers would\n increase to 3 percent.\n\n\n Table 5. Fuel Consumption as a Measure of System Use\n Flight Fuel Consumption and Current Tax Contribution \xe2\x80\x93 October 2006\n\n Air Carrier Non-air carrier\n Percent Percent of Contributions Percent Percent of Contributions\n of Flights Fuel Under of Flights Fuel Under\n Market Consumed Current Tax Consumed Current Tax\n\n Newark \xe2\x80\x93 Los Angeles 99.1% 99.5% 99.8% 0.9% 0.5% 0.2%\n Salt Lake City \xe2\x80\x93 Seattle 70.4% 82.6% 88.9% 29.6% 17.4% 11.1%\n Memphis \xe2\x80\x93 Miami 97.2% 99.3% 99.9% 2.8% 0.7% 0.1%\n Boston \xe2\x80\x93 La Guardia 97.6% 99.1% 99.9% 2.4% 0.9% 0.1%\n Las Vegas- Los Angeles 90.6% 94.4% 99.2% 9.4% 5.6% 0.8%\n\n Weighted Average 92.3% 96.9% 98.8% 7.7% 3.1% 1.2%\nSource: OIG Analysis of FAA, BTS and DOT Data\n\x0c 18\n\nHowever, a tax based on fuel consumption is not a perfect proxy for NAS activity\nsince fuel consumption can vary in proportion to factors unrelated to that activity,\nsuch as aircraft weight. In addition, fuel consumption neither measures whether\nATC services are used nor distinguishes among the types and complexity of the\nservices used. Similarly, the current ticket, segment, and freight waybill taxes do\nnot vary according to the complexity or amount of ATC services consumed.\n\nIn conclusion, we did not find support for the arguments that either piston engine\nairplanes, rotorcraft, or non-air carrier operators are marginal users of the NAS\nand do not contribute to congestion. However, we did find support for the\nargument that these user groups tend to avoid the large primary metropolitan\nairports, particularly when a reliever airport is nearby. We found that both air\ncarriers and non-air carriers contribute to congestion at the terminal area radar and\nen route facilities we examined. We also found that user groupings based either\non aircraft or operator type would provide a more homogeneous grouping of users,\naccording to their use of the NAS, than is inherent in the current excise tax\nstructure. Finally, we found that a tax based on jet fuel consumption is a better\nproxy for the use of the NAS than the current aviation excise taxes, but it does not\nmeasure whether air traffic control services are used, nor does it distinguish\nbetween the types and complexities of services used.\n\nWe met with FAA officials to discuss our results, and their technical comments\nwere incorporated into the report. Since we are making no recommendations, no\nformal response to this report is required. We appreciate the courtesies and\ncooperation given by FAA representatives during this audit. If I can be of further\nassistance, please feel free to contact me at (202) 366-1981 or Mitchell Behm,\nProgram Director, at (202) 366-1995.\n\n\n #\n\n\ncc: FAA Assistant Administrator for Aviation Policy,\n Planning, and Environment\n FAA Chief of Staff\n FAA Audit Liaison\n\x0c 19\n\n\nEXHIBIT A. SCOPE AND METHODOLOGY\n\nScope\n\nIn a letter to the Inspector General, the House Committee on Transportation and\nInfrastructure, Subcommittee on Aviation requested that our office determine who\nuses the National Airspace System and how users contribute to congestion. In\naddition, we were requested to evaluate whether jet fuel consumption was\nrepresentative of NAS usage.\n\nData in this report were obtained from the FAA. The data was used to perform the\nanalyses detailed below.\n\nThis performance audit was conducted in accordance with generally accepted\nGovernment Auditing Standards prescribed by the Comptroller General of the\nUnited States with the exception of the data quality standards described below.\nThere has been no prior audit coverage in this area by the Department of\nTransportation\xe2\x80\x99s Office of Inspector General.\n\nMethodology\n\nOur analysis focused on the flight activity of FY 2005. It is the latest period for\nwhich enhanced FAA flight activity data were available.\n\nWe analyzed data on tower, terminal area, and en route air traffic control (ATC)\noperations to assess the use of air traffic control services. We obtained the\noperations data from FAA. We used the data to analyze the use of ATC services\nby aircraft operator type (carrier, non-air carrier, and public user) and by aircraft\nengine type (jet, turboprop, and piston/rotor). The analysis extended to use of ATC\nservices at different types of towers and terminal control areas as well as at\ndomestic and oceanic en route facilities. For tower facilities, we also conducted\nanalyses of operations at individual tower facilities.\n\nWe examined contributions to congested air traffic control services by analyzing\ndemand for the largest passenger service airports and several of the most heavily\nused terminal control TRACONs and en route centers. We analyzed demand by\ntime of day and by user group.\n\nThe fuel as a proxy analysis was based on flight data obtained using the FAA\xe2\x80\x99s\nETMSC database for selected origin and destination markets over the period of\none month (October 2006).\n\n\n\nExhibit A. Scope and Methodology\n\x0c 20\n\nFor each of the markets selected:\n \xe2\x80\xa2 We utilized Form 41 data to determine fuel burn rates for each of the\n aircraft types (large jets, regional jets, business jets, general aviation\n aircraft, and cargo aircraft).\n \xe2\x80\xa2 We obtained revenue data from the FAA for cargo carriers, air taxi\n operations, belly cargo on commercial carriers, and fractional and other\n non-scheduled Part 135 passenger and cargo carriers.\n \xe2\x80\xa2 We utilized the quarterly airfare data for Q106 which is compiled published\n by OST to estimate the average air fares between the selected origin and\n destination markets.\n \xe2\x80\xa2 We utilized BTS data for estimates of average system-wide load factors.\n\nUsing this information we examined and modeled contributions made by different\naircraft groups under the current excise tax system compared to a fuel only excise\ntax system and a weight and distance based user fee.\n\nData\n\nWe did not systematically audit or validate the data in any of the databases.\nHowever, in prior work, we conducted trend analyses and checks of the data to\nassess reasonableness and comprehensiveness. We also spoke with managers\nresponsible for maintaining the databases to understand any noted inconsistencies\nand attempt to resolve them. Based on our understanding of the data through\ndiscussions with knowledgeable agency officials, as well as checks for obvious\nerrors in accuracy and completeness, we determined that the data was sufficiently\nreliable for our purposes.\n\n 1. Data Package for Stakeholders: FAA-developed air traffic activity data\n and cost accounting data. The air traffic activity measures include\n operations data for FAA towers and approach control facilities and flight\n activity data for domestic and en route flights. The data provide information\n on air traffic activity by user groups (aircraft operator types) and by aircraft\n engine types. In addition, FAA provided individual flight operations\n records for flights at selected TRACONs, towers, and en route centers.\n This data included time of day information. Scope: FY 2005.\n\n We found that FAA understated piston engine airplane and rotorcraft NAS\n usage in FY 2005 by an estimated 6 percent due to a partial error in its\n\n\n\n\nExhibit A. Scope and Methodology\n\x0c 21\n\n methodology.14 As a result, we believe the actual percent of tower\n operations by piston engine airplanes and rotorcraft was approximately 47\n percent as opposed to the 41 percent FAA reported. Conversely, jet and\n turboprop usage was approximately 53 percent as opposed to the reported\n 59 percent. The data did not allow us to restate the jet and turboprop\n categories separately. However, the error does not appear to have a\n significant impact on the results of the FAA cost allocation methodology.\n\n 2. Air Traffic Activity Data System (ATADS): An FAA database of flight\n activity at staffed facilities. Scope: Airport towers across the country,\n FY 2005.\n\n 3. Enhanced Traffic Management System (ETMS):\xef\x80\xa0 An FAA-maintained\n database providing detailed flight records, including time, distance, aircraft\n types, and user types for aircraft flying under an instrument flight plan.\n Scope: October 2006.\n\n\n\n\n14\n FAA made an allocation of generic general aviation operations among the different engine type classifications\n without taking into consideration that most general aviation jet and turboprop aircraft were already accounted for in\n another (ETMS) data source, thus creating duplicate counts for many of those types and under counting of piston and\n rotor aircraft operations.\n\n\nExhibit A. Scope and Methodology\n\x0c 22\n\n\nEXHIBIT B. MAJOR CONTRIBUTORS TO THIS REPORT\n\n\nTHE FOLLOWING INDIVIDUALS CONTRIBUTED TO THIS REPORT.\n\n\n Name Title\n\n David Tornquist Assistant Inspector General for\n Rail and Maritime Program\n Audits and Economic Analysis\n\n Mitchell Behm Program Director\n\n Marshall Jackson Project Manager\n\n Stephen Smith Transportation Industry Analyst\n\n Ralph W. Morris Economist\n\n Jay Borwankar Financial Analyst\n\n Meredith McDaniel Analyst\n\n Darlisa Crawford Writer-Editor\n\x0c 23\n\nThe following pages contain textual versions of the charts and graphs found in this\ndocument. These pages were not in the original document, but have been added\nhere to accommodate assistive technology.\n\x0c 24\n\n Use of the National Airspace System\n Section 508 Compliant Presentation\n\nFigure 1. Use of Air Traffic Control Services by Aircraft Type \xe2\x80\x93 FY 2005\n\n Aircraft Type Tower Terminal En Route\nJet 46% 55% 89%\nTurboprop 13% 14% 7%\nPiston/Rotorcraft 41% 31% 4%\n\nFigure 2. Use of Air Traffic Control Services by Operator Group \xe2\x80\x93 FY 2005\n\n Operator Tower Terminal En Route\n Group\nCarrier 35% 44% 79%\nNon-Air 59% 49% 17%\nCarrier\nPublic 6% 7% 4%\n\nFigure 3. Jet Use of Air Traffic Control Services \xe2\x80\x93 FY 2005\n\n Operator Tower Terminal En Route\n Group\nCarrier 30% 38% 75%\nNon-Air 12% 13% 11%\nCarrier\nPublic 4% 4% 3%\n\nFigure 4. New York Terminal Control Area \xe2\x80\x93 FY 2005\nArriving Flight Operations by Hour of Day\n(LaGuardia, Newark, and John F. Kennedy Airports)\n\n Time of Day Air Carrier Operations Non-Air Carrier\n Operations\n 7 a.m. 67 2\n 8 a.m. 69 2\n 9 a.m. 65 2\n 10 a.m. 78 3\n 11 a.m. 75 3\n 12 p.m. 89 2\n 1 p.m. 89 3\n 2 p.m. 106 3\n\x0c 25\n\n 3 p.m. 108 3\n 4 p.m. 115 4\n 5 p.m. 94 3\n 6 p.m. 100 3\n 7 p.m. 100 2\nFigure 5. New York Terminal Control Area \xe2\x80\x93 FY 2005\nInstrument Approach Operations by Hour of Day\n(Includes Outlying Airports)\n\n Time of Day Air Carrier Operations Non-Air Carrier\n Operations\n 7 a.m. 71 19\n 8 a.m. 74 27\n 9 a.m. 73 29\n 10 a.m. 87 33\n 11 a.m. 82 36\n 12 p.m. 98 38\n 1 p.m. 96 39\n 2 p.m. 115 42\n 3 p.m. 117 46\n 4 p.m. 129 50\n 5 p.m. 105 53\n 6 p.m. 110 48\n 7 p.m. 108 40\n\nFigure 6. En Route Center Operations by Hour of Day\nCleveland Center \xe2\x80\x93 July 2005\n\n Time of Day Commercial General Aviation Public\n Operations Operations Operations\n 12 a.m. 75 9 2\n 1 a.m. 38 5 2\n 2 a.m. 26 3 2\n 3 a.m. 28 3 1\n 4 a.m. 52 4 1\n 5 a.m. 118 8 2\n 6 a.m. 237 28 4\n 7 a.m. 328 70 7\n 8 a.m. 312 95 9\n 9 a.m. 392 101 12\n 10 a.m. 366 104 13\n 11 a.m. 309 93 11\n\x0c 26\n\n 12 p.m. 366 94 12\n 1 p.m. 333 98 12\n 2 p.m. 354 103 13\n 3 p.m. 423 105 12\n 4 p.m. 347 109 11\n 5 p.m. 411 96 10\n 6 p.m. 359 80 9\n 7 p.m. 413 58 9\n 8 p.m. 352 47 7\n 9 p.m. 335 34 4\n 10 p.m. 248 23 4\n 11 p.m. 160 15 3\n\nNote: General Aviation represents between 18 percent and 23 percent of total\noperations during peak hours.\n\nFigure 7. En Route Center Operations by Hour of Day\nAtlanta Center \xe2\x80\x93 July 2005\n\n Time of Day Commercial General Aviation Public\n Operations Operations Operations\n 12 a.m. 94 10 3\n 1 a.m. 38 6 2\n 2 a.m. 16 4 1\n 3 a.m. 15 4 1\n 4 a.m. 28 5 1\n 5 a.m. 70 8 1\n 6 a.m. 197 30 1\n 7 a.m. 286 83 4\n 8 a.m. 346 134 9\n 9 a.m. 412 155 20\n 10 a.m. 374 151 23\n 11 a.m. 403 141 24\n 12 p.m. 394 133 24\n 1 p.m. 380 133 24\n 2 p.m. 371 138 24\n 3 p.m. 378 142 24\n 4 p.m. 388 142 21\n 5 p.m. 401 124 15\n 6 p.m. 370 99 13\n 7 p.m. 372 72 11\n 8 p.m. 330 55 11\n\x0c 27\n\n 9 p.m. 371 38 8\n 10 p.m. 304 27 5\n 11 p.m. 193 16 3\n\nNote: General Aviation represents between 21 percent and 28 percent of total\noperations during peak hours.\n\x0c'


text:
 9.2.2016
 SL
 Uradni list Evropske unije
 L 32/29
 IZVEDBENA UREDBA KOMISIJE (EU) 2016/163
 z dne 28. januarja 2016
 o odobritvi spremembe specifikacije za ime, vpisano v registru zaščitenih označb porekla in zaščitenih geografskih označb, ki ni manjša (Huile d'olive de Nîmes (ZOP))
 EVROPSKA KOMISIJA JE –
 ob upoštevanju Pogodbe o delovanju Evropske unije,
 ob upoštevanju Uredbe (EU) št. 1151/2012 Evropskega parlamenta in Sveta z dne 21. novembra 2012 o shemah kakovosti kmetijskih proizvodov in živil (1) in zlasti člena 52(2) Uredbe,
 ob upoštevanju naslednjega:
 (1)
 Komisija je v skladu s prvim pododstavkom člena 53(1) Uredbe (EU) št. 1151/2012 proučila zahtevek Francije za odobritev spremembe specifikacije za zaščiteno označbo porekla „Huile d'olive de Nîmes“, registrirano v skladu z Uredbo Komisije (ES) št. 148/2007 (2).
 (2)
 Ker zadevna sprememba ni manjša v smislu člena 53(2) Uredbe (EU) št. 1151/2012, je Komisija v skladu s členom 50(2)(a) navedene uredbe zahtevek za spremembo objavila v Uradnem listu Evropske unije
 (3).
 (3)
 Ker v skladu s členom 51 Uredbe (EU) št. 1151/2012 Komisija ni prejela nobene izjave o ugovoru, bi bilo treba spremembo specifikacije odobriti –
 SPREJELA NASLEDNJO UREDBO:
 Člen 1
 Sprememba specifikacije, objavljena v Uradnem listu Evropske unije v zvezi z imenom „Huile d'olive de Nîmes“ (ZOP), se odobri.
 Člen 2
 Ta uredba začne veljati dvajseti dan po objavi v Uradnem listu Evropske unije.
 Ta uredba je v celoti zavezujoča in se neposredno uporablja v vseh državah članicah.
 V Bruslju, 28. januarja 2016
 Za Komisijo
 V imenu predsednika
 Phil HOGAN
 Član Komisije
 (1) UL L 343, 14.12.2012, str. 1.
 (2) Uredba Komisije (ES) št. 148/2007 z dne 15. februarja 2007 o vnosu nekaterih imen v Register zaščitenih označb porekla in zaščitenih geografskih označb (Geraardsbergse mattentaart (ZGO) – Pataca de Galicia ali Patata de Galicia (ZGO) – Poniente de Granada (ZOP) – Gata-Hurdes (ZOP) – Patatas de Prades ali Patates de Prades (ZGO) – Mantequilla de Soria (ZOP) – Huile d'olive de Nîmes (ZOP) – Huile d'olive de Corse ali huile d'olive de Corse-Oliu di Corsica (ZOP) – Clémentine de Corse (ZGO) – Agneau de Sisteron (ZGO) – Connemara Hill Lamb ali Uain Sléibhe Chonamara (ZGO) – Sardegna (ZOP) – Carota dell'Altopiano del Fucino (ZGO) – Stelvio ali Stilfser (ZOP) – Limone Femminello del Gargano (ZGO) – Azeitonas de Conserva de Elvas e Campo Maior (ZOP) – Chouriça de Carne de Barroso – Montalegre (ZGO) – Chouriço de Abóbora de Barroso – Montalegre (ZGO) – Sangueira de Barroso – Montalegre (ZGO) – Batata de Trás-os-Montes (ZGO) – Salpicão de Barroso – Montalegre (ZGO) – Alheira de Barroso – Montalegre (ZGO) – Cordeiro de Barroso, Anho de Barroso ali Borrego de leite de Barroso (ZGO) – Azeite do Alentejo Interior (ZOP) – Paio de Beja (ZGO) – Linguíça do Baixo Alentejo ali Chouriço de carne do Baixo Alentejo (ZGO) – Ekstra deviško oljčno olje Slovenske Istre (ZOP)) (UL L 46, 16.2.2007, str. 14).
 (3) UL C 317, 25.9.2015, str. 3.


text:
 18.7.2013
 SK
 Úradný vestník Európskej únie
 L 195/18
 VYKONÁVACIE NARIADENIE KOMISIE (EÚ) č. 682/2013
 zo 17. júla 2013,
 ktorým sa stodeväťdesiaty šiestykrát mení nariadenie Rady (ES) č. 881/2002, ktoré ukladá niektoré špecifické obmedzujúce opatrenia namierené proti niektorým osobám a subjektom spojeným so sieťou al-Káida
 EURÓPSKA KOMISIA,
 so zreteľom na Zmluvu o fungovaní Európskej únie,
 so zreteľom na nariadenie Rady (ES) č. 881/2002 z 27. mája 2002, ktoré ukladá niektoré špecifické obmedzujúce opatrenia namierené proti niektorým osobám a subjektom spojeným so sieťou al-Káida (1), a najmä na jeho článok 7 ods. 1 písm. a) a článok 7a ods. 5,
 keďže:
 (1)
 V prílohe I k nariadeniu (ES) č. 881/2002 sa uvádza zoznam osôb, skupín a subjektov, na ktoré sa podľa uvedeného nariadenia vzťahuje zmrazenie finančných prostriedkov a hospodárskych zdrojov.
 (2)
 Dňa 10. júla 2013 sankčný výbor Bezpečnostnej rady OSN rozhodol o vymazaní jednej fyzickej osoby zo zoznamu osôb, skupín a subjektov, na ktoré by sa malo vzťahovať zmrazenie finančných prostriedkov a hospodárskych zdrojov.
 (3)
 Príloha I k nariadeniu (ES) č. 881/2002 by sa preto mala zodpovedajúcim spôsobom aktualizovať,
 PRIJALA TOTO NARIADENIE:
 Článok 1
 Príloha I k nariadeniu (ES) č. 881/2002 sa týmto mení v súlade s prílohou k tomuto nariadeniu.
 Článok 2
 Toto nariadenie nadobúda účinnosť dňom nasledujúcim po jeho uverejnení v Úradnom vestníku Európskej únie.
 Toto nariadenie je záväzné v celom rozsahu a priamo uplatniteľné vo všetkých členských štátoch.
 V Bruseli 17. júla 2013
 Za Komisiu v mene predsedu
 riaditeľ útvaru pre nástroje zahraničnej politiky
 (1) Ú. v. ES L 139, 29.5.2002, s. 9.
 PRÍLOHA
 Príloha I k nariadeniu (ES) č. 881/2002 sa mení takto:
 Pod nadpisom „Fyzické osoby“ sa vypúšťa tento záznam:
 „Nayif Bin-Muhammad al-Qahtani [alias a) Nayif Bin-Muhammad al-Qahtani, b) Nayef Bin Muhammad al- Qahtani, c) Nayif Muhammad al-Qahtani, d) Nayf Mohammed al-Qahtani, e) Naif Mohammad Said al- Qahtani Alkodri, f) Naif Mohammed Saeed al-Kodari al-Qahtani, g) Nayef Bin Mohamed al-Khatani, h) Mohammed Naif al-Khatani, i) Nayef bin Mohamed al-Khatany, j) Al-Qahtani Abohemem, k) Abi Hamam, l) Abu-Hamam, m) Abu-Humam, n) Abu-Hammam, o) Abu Hammam al-Qahtani]. Adresa: Jemen. Dátum narodenia: 25.3.1988. Miesto narodenia: Saudská Arábia. Štátna príslušnosť: Saudská Arábia. Číslo cestovného pasu: G449745 ((saudskoarabský cestovný pas vydaný 30. mája 2006, platnosť do 6. apríla 2011). Ďalšie informácie: spojený s Al-Káidou na Arabskom polostrove a jej vodcom, Nasir ’abd-al-Karim ’Abdullah Al-Wahishi. Dátum zaradenia do zoznamu uvedený v článku 2a ods. 4 písm. b): 11.5.2010.“


text:
 22.6.2017
 NL
 Publicatieblad van de Europese Unie
 L 161/43
 BESLUIT VAN HET GEMENGD COMITÉ VAN DE EER
 Nr. 261/2015
 van 30 oktober 2015
 tot wijziging van bijlage II (Technische voorschriften, normen, keuring en certificatie) bij de EER-overeenkomst [2017/1050]
 HET GEMENGD COMITÉ VAN DE EER,
 Gezien de Overeenkomst betreffende de Europese Economische Ruimte („de EER-overeenkomst”), en met name artikel 98,
 Overwegende hetgeen volgt:
 (1)
 Uitvoeringsverordening (EU) 2015/984 van de Commissie van 24 juni 2015 tot goedkeuring van koperpyrithion als bestaande werkzame stof voor gebruik in biociden voor productsoort 21 (1) moet in de EER-overeenkomst worden opgenomen.
 (2)
 Uitvoeringsverordening (EU) 2015/985 van de Commissie van 24 juni 2015 tot goedkeuring van clothianidine als bestaande werkzame stof voor gebruik in biociden voor productsoort 18 (2) moet in de EER-overeenkomst worden opgenomen.
 (3)
 Bijlage II bij de EER-overeenkomst dient derhalve dienovereenkomstig te worden gewijzigd,
 HEEFT HET VOLGENDE BESLUIT VASTGESTELD:
 Artikel 1
 In hoofdstuk XV van bijlage II bij de EER-overeenkomst worden na punt 12zzz (Uitvoeringsverordening (EU) 2015/744 van de Commissie) de volgende punten ingevoegd:
 „12zzza.
 32015 R 0984: Uitvoeringsverordening (EU) 2015/984 van de Commissie van 24 juni 2015 tot goedkeuring van koperpyrithion als bestaande werkzame stof voor gebruik in biociden voor productsoort 21 (PB L 159 van 25.6.2015, blz. 43).
 12zzzb.
 32015 R 0985: Uitvoeringsverordening (EU) 2015/985 van de Commissie van 24 juni 2015 tot goedkeuring van clothianidine als bestaande werkzame stof voor gebruik in biociden voor productsoort 18 (PB L 159 van 25.6.2015, blz. 46).”.
 Artikel 2
 De in het EER-supplement bij het Publicatieblad van de Europese Unie bekend te maken teksten in de IJslandse en de Noorse taal van de Uitvoeringsverordeningen (EU) 2015/984 en (EU) 2015/985 zijn authentiek.
 Artikel 3
 Dit besluit treedt in werking op 1 november 2015, op voorwaarde dat alle in artikel 103, lid 1, van de EER-overeenkomst bedoelde kennisgevingen hebben plaatsgevonden (*1).
 Artikel 4
 Dit besluit wordt bekendgemaakt in het EER-gedeelte van en in het EER-supplement bij het Publicatieblad van de Europese Unie.
 Gedaan te Brussel, 30 oktober 2015.
 Voor het Gemengd Comité van de EER
 De voorzitter
 Oda SLETNES
 (1) PB L 159 van 25.6.2015, blz. 43.
 (2) PB L 159 van 25.6.2015, blz. 46.
 (*1) Geen grondwettelijke vereisten aangegeven.