(1)

Regulation (EC) No 3223/94 lays down, pursuant to the outcome of the Uruguay Round multilateral trade negotiations, the criteria whereby the Commission fixes the standard values for imports from third countries, in respect of the products and periods stipulated in the Annex thereto.

(2)

In compliance with the above criteria, the standard import values must be fixed at the levels set out in the Annex to this Regulation,

(1)

Article 10(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1784/2003 states that the import duty on products falling within CN codes 1001 10 00, 1001 90 91, ex 1001 90 99 (high quality common wheat), 1002, ex 1005 other than hybrid seed, and ex 1007 other than hybrids for sowing, is to be equal to the intervention price valid for such products on importation and increased by 55 %, minus the cif import price applicable to the consignment in question. However, that duty may not exceed the rate of duty in the Common Customs Tariff.

(2)

Article 10(3) of Regulation (EC) No 1784/2003 lays down that, for the purposes of calculating the import duty referred to in paragraph 2 of that Article, representative cif import prices are to be established on a regular basis for the products in question.

(3)

Under Article 2(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1249/96, the price to be used for the calculation of the import duty on products of CN codes 1001 10 00, 1001 90 91, ex 1001 90 99 (high quality common wheat), 1002 00, 1005 10 90, 1005 90 00 and 1007 00 90 is the daily cif representative import price determined as specified in Article 4 of that Regulation.

(4)

Import duties should be fixed for the period from 1 September 2007, and should apply until new import duties are fixed and enter into force,

(1)

Section 2 of Chapter III of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1282/2006 (2) provides that export licences for cheese exported to the United States of America as part of the quotas under the agreements concluded during multilateral trade negotiations may be allocated according to a special procedure by which preferred importers in the USA may be designated.

(2)

That procedure should be opened for exports during 2008 and the additional rules relating to it should be determined.

(3)

In administering imports the competent authorities in the USA make a distinction between the additional quota granted to the European Community under the Uruguay Round and the quotas resulting from the Tokyo Round. Export licences should be allocated taking into account the eligibility of those products for the USA quota in question as described in the Harmonised Tariff Schedule of the United States of America.

(4)

With a view to exporting the maximum quantity under the quotas for which there is moderate interest, applications covering the whole quota quantity should be allowed.

(5)

In order to allow operators in Bulgaria and Romania to adapt to the system applied in the Community, transitional measures should be introduced for the 2008 quota year to requests for export licences lodged in those Member States.

(6)

The transitional arrangement shall apply to the historic export criterion and the subsidiaries criterion.

(7)

The measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Management Committee for Milk and Milk Products,

(a)

submit to the competent authority of the Member State in which the application is lodged documentary evidence that they have been established for at least three years in Bulgaria and Romania and have exported products of CN code 0406 to the United States of America in at least one of the three calendar years prior to lodging the application;

(b)

give to the competent authority of the Member State in which the application is lodged a written undertaking to initiate the procedure to establish a subsidiary in the United States of America.

(1)

For the implementation of Protocol No 2 to the Agreement, internal reference prices are fixed for the Contracting Parties by the Joint Committee.

(2)

Actual prices have changed on the domestic markets of the Contracting Parties as regards raw materials for which price compensation measures are applied.

(3)

The domestic reference prices of all raw materials were fixed by the Joint Committee at the end of 2006. The domestic reference prices should periodically, at least once a year, be reviewed.

(4)

As the market for cereals seemed to be really volatile by the end of 2006 a review in May was foreseen.

(5)

As the review of the cereal prices resulted in substantially different figures it is necessary to update the reference prices and amounts listed in tables III and IV(b) to Protocol No 2 accordingly,

(1)

Commission Regulation (EC) No 2032/2003 of 4 November 2003 on the second phase of the 10-year work programme referred to in Article 16(2) of Directive 98/8/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council concerning the placing of biocidal products on the market and amending Regulation (EC) No 1896/2000 (2) establishes a list of active substances to be assessed, with a view to their possible inclusion in Annex I, IA or IB to Directive 98/8/EC. That list includes guazatine triacetate.

(2)

Pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 2032/2003, guazatine triacetate has been evaluated in accordance with Article 11(2) of Directive 98/8/EC for use in product-type 8, wood preservatives, as defined in Annex V to Directive 98/8/EC.

(3)

The United Kingdom was designated as Rapporteur Member State and submitted the competent authority report, together with a recommendation, to the Commission on 22 September 2006 in accordance with Article 10(5) and (7) of Regulation (EC) No 2032/2003.

(4)

The competent authority report was reviewed by the Member States and the Commission. In accordance with Article 11(4) of Regulation (EC) No 2032/2003, the findings of the review were incorporated in an assessment report by the Standing Committee on Biocidal Products at its meeting of 16 March 2007.

(5)

In the absence of critical data on leaching from a treated surface, on reproductive effects of guazatine in Daphnia magna and on degradation rates in water-sediment systems and soil, it is not possible to include guazatine triacetate in Annex I, IA or IB to Directive 98/8/EC for product-type 8. In addition, the United Kingdom competent authority carried out an environmental risk assessment using a realistic worst-case approach, which showed unacceptable risks to the environment.

(6)

The review of guazatine triacetate did not reveal any open questions or concerns to be addressed by the Scientific Committee on Health and Environmental Risks.

(7)

The measures provided for in this Decision are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on Biocidal Products,

(1)

Directive 2005/94/EC sets out certain preventive measures relating to the surveillance and the early detection of avian influenza and the minimum control measures to be applied in the event of an outbreak of that disease in poultry or other captive birds.

(2)

Directive 2005/94/EC also lays down rules for the introduction of preventive vaccination against avian influenza of poultry and other captive birds, such as other captive birds kept in zoos and approved bodies, institutes or centres, and provides for detailed rules thereof to be established by the Commission. That Directive also provides for the submission by the Member States to the Commission for approval of their preventive vaccination plans for poultry or other captive birds.

(3)

Commission Decision 2006/474/EC of 6 July 2006 concerning measures to prevent the spread of highly pathogenic avian influenza caused by influenza A virus of subtype H5N1 to birds kept in zoos and approved bodies, institutes and centres in the Member States and repealing Decision 2005/744/EC (3) lays down rules to prevent the spread of avian influenza caused by highly pathogenic influenza A virus of subtype H5N1 from birds living in the wild to birds kept in zoos and approved bodies, institutes or centres. It also lays down rules for the vaccination of birds kept in zoos and approved bodies, institutes or centres and provides for detailed rules for the submission by the Member States to the Commission of their vaccination plans.

(4)

For the purposes of such preventive vaccination, only vaccines authorised in accordance with Directive 2001/82/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 November 2001 on the Community code relating to veterinary medicinal products (4) or Regulation No 726/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 laying down Community procedures for the authorisation and supervision of medicinal products for human and veterinary use and establishing a European Medicines Agency (5) should be used.

(5)

Council Directive 1999/22/EC of 29 March 1999 relating to the keeping of wild animals in zoos (6) defines zoos which are covered by that Directive. In the interests of consistency of Community legislation, that definition should be taken into account for the purposes of this Decision.

(6)

Pursuant to Decision 2006/474/EC, the Commission has approved 17 preventive vaccination plans against avian influenza for birds kept in zoos submitted by Member States. Vaccination plans have been implemented by 14 Member States. In general no adverse reactions in almost 45 000 vaccinated birds have been observed and most bird species have produced a significant immune response following two administrations of the vaccines.

(7)

In addition, experience gained during the latest vaccination campaign and the opinions of the Scientific Panel on Animal Health and Animal Welfare of the European Food Safety Authority of 1 February 2007 on preventive vaccination of zoo birds against avian influenza of H5 and H7 subtypes and of 11 May 2007 on vaccination in domestic poultry and captive birds, demonstrate that it is appropriate to extend the scope of the preventive vaccination plans to any highly pathogenic avian influenza of the H5 and H7 subtypes, thereby taking into account the risks posed by wild migratory birds proceeding from areas where avian influenza cases in wild birds or outbreaks in poultry occur and in the event an outbreak in poultry occurs in the same Member State, a neighbouring Member State or a third country that is liable to endanger the health status of birds kept in zoos and approved bodies, institutes or centres.

(8)

Furthermore the administrative requirements for approval and implementation of preventive vaccination plans should be amended, provided they do not endanger disease control. Accordingly, requirements which ease the administrative burden should be taken into account in the present Decision.

(9)

It is further appropriate to consider certain preventive vaccination plans that have been approved pursuant to Decision 2006/474/EC as approved for the purposes of the present Decision. Accordingly, such plans should be listed in Annex III to the present Decision.

(10)

Since the date of adoption of Decision 2006/474/EC, certain Member States have submitted preventive vaccination plans for approval in accordance with the requirements of that Decision. Those Member States have been informed of the requirements set out in the present Decision. As those plans also comply with the requirements of the present Decision, they should be approved and listed in Annex III hereto.

(11)

For the sake of clarity it is appropriate to repeal Decision 2006/474/EC and replace it by this Decision.

(12)

The measures provided for in this Decision are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health,

(a)

to be applied in order to prevent the spread of highly pathogenic avian influenza virus from birds living in the wild or from outbreaks in poultry or other captive birds, to other captive birds kept in zoos and approved bodies, institutes or centres;

(b)

for the preventive vaccination of other captive birds kept in zoos and approved bodies, institutes or centres.

(a)

the definitions in Article 2 of Directive 2005/94/EC;

(b)

the definition of zoos in Article 2 of Directive 1999/22/EC;

(c)

the definition of approved bodies, institutes or centres in Article 2(1)(c) of Directive 92/65/EEC.