(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)

Commission Regulation (EC) No 1555/96 of 30 July 1996 on rules of application for additional import duties on fruit and vegetables (2) provides for surveillance of imports of the products listed in the Annex thereto. That surveillance is to be carried out in accordance with the rules laid down in Article 308d of Commission Regulation (EEC) No 2454/93 of 2 July 1993 laying down provisions for the implementation of Council Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 establishing the Community Customs Code (3).

(2)

For the purposes of Article 5(4) of the Agreement on Agriculture (4) concluded during the Uruguay Round of multilateral trade negotiations and in the light of the latest data available for 2004, 2005 and 2006, the trigger levels for additional duties on cucumbers, artichokes, clementines, mandarins and oranges should be adjusted.

(3)

As a result, Regulation (EC) No 1555/96 should be amended.

(4)

The measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Management Committee for Fresh Fruit and Vegetables,

(1)

In the light of the experience gained from the application of Commission Regulation (EC) No 793/2006 (2) it appears that some provisions of that Regulation need to be adapted.

(2)

Commission Regulation (EC) No 1291/2000 of 9 June 2000 laying down common detailed rules for the application of the system of import and export licences and advance fixing certificates for agricultural products (3) provides for the issuing and use of certificates using computerised systems; references to this possibility should be integrated in Regulation (EC) No 793/2006.

(3)

The first indent of Article 29 of Regulation (EC) No 793/2006 includes only the specific supply arrangements which are to be paid at any time of the year. Additional measures should be added in order to ensure the proper functioning and the efficiency of the programme. It should therefore be made possible to make payments at any time of the year for import and supply of live animals as well as for the measures referred to in Article 50 of that Regulation.

(4)

The procedures for amendments to programmes provided for in Article 49 of Regulation (EC) No 793/2006 need to be more precise. It is appropriate to specify the rules for the submission of the requests for amendments to the overall programmes and for their approval by the Commission, as well as the timing for their application. Due to budgetary rules, the approved amendments should be implemented as from 1 January of the year following the request for amendment. Moreover, there should be a distinction between major amendments requiring approval by a Commission Decision and minor amendments that should only be notified to the Commission for information.

(5)

The current wording of Article 50 of Regulation (EC) No 793/2006 needs to be clarified in a more precise way with reference to the relating Article of Regulation (EC) No 247/2006.

(6)

In order to ensure a smooth transition from the previous arrangements applying until 2006 as regards the possibility to make use of electronic certificates for the purposes of aid under the Specific Supply Arrangements and as regards the possibility to make payments throughout the year for the import and supply of live animals as well as for the measures referred to in Article 50 of Regulation (EC) No 793/2006, the amendments to Articles 5(2), 7(2) and 29 should be applicable as from the date on which the Commission has notified its approval of the relevant Member State's overall programme in accordance with Article 24(2) of Regulation (EC) No 247/2006.

(7)

Regulation (EC) No 793/2006 should therefore be amended accordingly.

(8)

The measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Management Committee for Direct Payments,

1.

In Article 5(2), the second subparagraph is replaced by the following:

‘Articles 8(5), 13, 15, 17, 18, 19, 21, 23, 26, 27, 29 to 33 and 36 to 41 of Regulation (EC) No 1291/2000 shall apply, mutatis mutandis, without prejudice to this Regulation.’;

2.

In Article 7(2), the second subparagraph is replaced by the following:

‘Articles 8(5), 13, 15, 17, 18, 19, 21, 23, 26, 27, 29 to 33 and 36 to 41 of Regulation (EC) No 1291/2000 shall apply, mutatis mutandis, without prejudice to this Regulation.’;

3.

In Article 29, the first indent is replaced by the following:

4.

Article 49 is replaced by the following:

(*1)   OJ L 256, 7.9.1987, p. 1.’ "

5.

Article 50 is replaced by the following:

(1)

Reducing the administrative burden imposed on enterprises by existing Community legislation is a crucial element for improving their competitiveness and for achieving the objectives of the Lisbon agenda.

(2)

Regulation (EC) No 853/2004 lays down specific rules on the hygiene of food of animal origin for food business operators. That Regulation provides that food business operators are to comply with the relevant provisions of Annex III thereto.

(3)

The requirements of Section VIII of Annex III to Regulation (EC) No 853/2004 as regards vessels engaged in primary production and associated operations supplement those laid down in Annex I to Regulation (EC) No 852/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the hygiene of foodstuffs (2). In particular, those vessels are to keep and retain records relating to measures put in place to control hazards in an appropriate manner and for an appropriate period.

(4)

Experience has shown that for food business operators involved in small-scale coastal fishing within the meaning of Article 26 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1198/2006 of 27 July 2006 on the European Fisheries Fund (3), that requirement may create an additional administrative burden. It is therefore appropriate to provide for a derogation from that requirement for such operators.

(5)

Section XIV of Annex III to Regulation (EC) No 853/2004 sets out the requirements for the production of gelatine intended for human consumption. It specifies that when manufactured from ruminant bone material, gelatine must be produced using a unique process that ensures that all bone material is subjected to an alkaline treatment of saturated lime solution (pH > 12,5) for a period of at least 20 days with a heat treatment step of 138 °C minimum during at least four seconds, after having been finely crushed and degreased with hot water and treated with dilute hydrochloric acid (at minimum concentration of 4 % and pH < 1,5) over a period of at least two days.

(6)

The Scientific Panel on Biological Hazards of the European Food Safety Authority adopted on 18 January 2006 an opinion on the ‘Quantitative assessment of the human BSE risk posed by gelatine with respect to residual BSE risk’. On 18 May 2006, it adopted another opinion on the ‘Quantitative assessment of the human BSE risk posed by bovine vertebral column including dorsal root ganglia with respect to residual BSE risk’. According to both opinions, the production processes involving an acid process or a heat and pressure process ensure respectively equivalent and higher BSE infectivity reduction compared to the safety level achieved by applying the alkaline process currently required by Section XIV of Annex III to Regulation (EC) No 853/2004. The conditions for the production of gelatine should therefore be amended accordingly.

(7)

There have been difficulties in interpreting provisions on possible other use of gelatine and collagen produced in accordance with the provisions laid down in Sections XIV and XV of Annex III to Regulation (EC) No 853/2004 in some Member States. It is therefore appropriate to clarify those provisions in order to harmonise their implementation.

(8)

Regulation (EC) No 853/2004 should therefore be amended accordingly.

(9)

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

(1)

Regulation (EC) No 853/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 laying down specific hygiene rules for food of animal origin (2), Regulation (EC) No 854/2004, and Regulation (EC) No 882/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on official controls performed to ensure the verification of compliance with feed and food law, animal health and animal welfare rules (3) lay down the health rules and requirements regarding food of animal origin and the official controls required.

(2)

Implementing rules for those Regulations are laid down in Commission Regulation (EC) No 2074/2005 of 5 December 2005 laying down implementing measures for certain products under Regulation (EC) No 853/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council and for the organisation of official controls under Regulation (EC) No 854/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council and Regulation (EC) No 882/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council, derogating from Regulation (EC) No 852/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council and amending Regulations (EC) No 853/2004 and (EC) No 854/2004 (4).

(3)

In accordance with Regulation (EC) No 854/2004, the competent authority may decide that the official veterinarian need not be present at all times during post-mortem inspections in certain slaughterhouses or game handling establishments identified on the basis of a risk analysis. In such cases, an official auxiliary is to perform the post-mortem inspection, which might contribute to reducing the financial burden for establishments with a low throughput.

(4)

The criteria for such derogations should be determined on the basis of a risk analysis. In particular, establishments carrying out discontinuous slaughter or game handling activities fulfil a social and economic function in rural communities. It should therefore be possible for those establishments to benefit from such derogations provided that they comply with the legal and hygiene requirements.

(5)

In accordance with Regulation (EC) No 854/2004 the competent authority may decide that fattening pigs housed under controlled housing conditions in integrated production systems since weaning need only undergo visual inspection. More specific requirements should be laid down for the conditions under which such reduced, but risk-based meat inspection procedures should be allowed.

(6)

On 24 February 2000, the Scientific Committee on Veterinary Measures relating to Public Health adopted an opinion on ‘Revision of meat inspection procedures’, which deals with the general principles relating to meat inspections. It concludes that current meat inspection systems can be improved when supplemented with information from the complete production chain, use of the Hazard Analysis, Critical Control Point (HACCP) principles in the slaughter plant and microbiological monitoring of faecal indicator organisms.

(7)

On 20 and 21 June 2001, the Scientific Committee on Veterinary Measures relating to Public Health adopted an opinion on ‘Identification of species/categories of meat-producing animals in integrated production systems where meat inspection may be revised’. It concludes that there are already a number of production systems in Member States where the criteria for application of a simplified meat inspection system are fulfilled.

(8)

On 14 and 15 April 2003, the Scientific Committee on Veterinary Measures relating to Public Health adopted an opinion on ‘Revision of meat inspection in veal calves’, which states that visual inspection of veal calves reared in integrated systems is sufficient for routine inspection, but that as long as bovine tuberculosis has not been eradicated, surveillance for bovine tuberculosis should be maintained in bovine animals at both holding and abattoir levels.

(9)

On 26 November 2003, the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) adopted an opinion on ‘Tuberculosis in bovine animals: risks for human health and control strategies’, which concludes that efficient post-mortem examination of specified lymph nodes and of the lungs represents an important element of national bovine tuberculosis eradication programmes, as well as being an integral part of veterinary meat inspection programmes aimed at the protection of human health.

(10)

On 1 December 2004, the EFSA adopted an opinion on ‘Revision of meat inspection for beef raised in integrated production systems’, which states that the incision of lymph nodes should continue as part of a revised post-mortem meat inspection system in order to be able to detect tuberculous lesions.

(11)

On 18 May 2006, the EFSA adopted an opinion on ‘An assessment of the public and animal health risks associated with the adoption of a visual inspection system in veal calves raised in a Member State (or part of a Member State) considered free of bovine tuberculosis’. It states that in case of veal calves reared in integrated production units and in officially bovine tuberculosis-free herds, post-mortem inspection can be restricted to observation and palpation of lymph nodes.

(12)

On 22 April 2004, the EFSA adopted an opinion on ‘Meat inspection procedures for lambs and goats’. It states that the important pathological conditions seen at meat inspection of lambs and goat kids can be diagnosed by visual inspection, thus preventing cross-contamination by less manipulation.

(13)

On 27 and 28 September 2000, the Scientific Committee on Veterinary Measures relating to Public Health adopted an opinion on ‘The control of taeniosis/cysticercosis in man and animals’. It specifies the prerequisites necessary to ensure cysticercosis-free conditions.

(14)

On 26 and 27 January 2005, the EFSA adopted an opinion on ‘The risk assessment of a revised inspection of slaughter animals in areas with low prevalence of Cysticercus’. It emphasises the need for risk profiling of the different calf production systems. Simplified post-mortem inspection can be applied for calves coming from integrated production systems previously assessed as of low-risk profile.

(15)

Based on those scientific opinions the conditions for a reduced, but risk-based meat inspection procedure of ruminants of a young age should be laid down.

(16)

The availability of food chain information 24 hours in advance of slaughter should be a prerequisite for a risk-based meat inspection without incision procedures. Consequently, whenever such a simplified meat inspection procedure is applied, the food business operator should not be able to benefit from the transitional arrangements laid down in Commission Regulation (EC) No 2076/2005 of 5 December 2005 laying down transitional arrangements for the implementation of Regulations (EC) No 853/2004, (EC) No 854/2004 and (EC) No 882/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council and amending Regulations (EC) No 853/2004 and (EC) No 854/2004 (5).

(17)

Regulation (EC) No 2074/2005 establishes the analytical methods for the detection of the amnesic shellfish poison (ASP) content of edible parts of molluscs. The 2006.02 ASP ELISA Method, as published in the AOAC Journal of June 2006, should be considered as an alternative screening method to the high-performance liquid chromatography (HPLC) method for the detection of ASP in bivalve molluscs. The ELISA method has the advantage of being able to screen a large number of samples in a relatively cheap way.

(18)

Part D of Chapter IX of Section IV of Annex I to Regulation (EC) No 854/2004 provides for that, where appropriate, solipeds are to be examined for glanders. A detailed post-mortem examination for glanders should be mandatory for those solipeds or meat thereof that originates from countries that are not free of the disease.

(19)

Regulation (EC) No 2074/2005 should therefore be amended accordingly.

(20)

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

1.

the following Article is inserted:

2.

Chapter II of Annex III is amended in accordance with Annex I to this Regulation;

3.

the text in Annex II to this Regulation is inserted as Annex VIb.

(1)

Commission Regulation (EC) No 2075/2005 of 5 December 2005 laying down specific hygiene rules on official controls for Trichinella in meat (2) provides for methods of detection of Trichinella in samples of carcases. The reference method laid down in Annex I to that Regulation requires that for the detection of Trichinella larvae in meat samples, 10 ± 0,2 g of pepsin is to be added to the sample.

(2)

Reports have been published (3) indicating that pepsin powder can cause allergic reactions in certain susceptible individuals.

(3)

Investigations by the Community Reference Laboratory for Parasites indicated that the sensitivity of the reference method of detection for Trichinella is not altered when liquid pepsin is used according to the manufacturer's specifications instead of pepsin powder. Such an alternative should therefore be provided both for the reference method and the equivalent method of detection of Trichinella in meat.

(4)

Regulation (EC) No 2075/2005 should therefore be amended accordingly.

(5)

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

1.

Chapter I is amended as follows:

2.

Chapter II is amended as follows:

(1)

Regulation (EC) No 853/2004 lays down specific rules on the hygiene of food of animal origin for food business operators. That Regulation provides that food business operators producing fish oil intended for human consumption are to comply with the relevant provisions of Annex III thereto.

(2)

Regulation (EC) No 854/2004 lays down specific rules for the organisation of official controls on products of animal origin. It applies in respect of activities and persons to which Regulation (EC) No 853/2004 applies.

(3)

Article 7(3) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 2076/2005 of 5 December 2005 laying down transitional arrangements for the implementation of Regulations (EC) No 853/2004, (EC) No 854/2004 and (EC) No 882/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council and amending Regulations (EC) No 853/2004 and (EC) No 854/2004 (3) provides for a derogation from the requirements for fish oil for human consumption laid down in Part E of Chapter III of Section VIII of Annex III to Regulation (EC) No 853/2004 for food business operators so that they may continue, until 31 October 2007, to import fish oil from establishments in third countries that were approved for that purpose before the date of the entry into force of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1664/2006 (4).

(4)

In addition, Article 7(4) of Regulation (EC) No 2076/2005 provides for a derogation from Annex VI to Commission Regulation (EC) No 2074/2005 of 5 December 2005 laying down implementing measures for certain products under Regulation (EC) No 853/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council and for the organisation of official controls under Regulation (EC) No 854/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council and Regulation (EC) No 882/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council, derogating from Regulation (EC) No 852/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council and amending Regulations (EC) No 853/2004 and (EC) No 854/2004 (5), for fish oil for which a certificate has been issued in accordance with national rules applicable before the date of the entry into force of Regulation (EC) No 2074/2005, duly completed and signed prior to 31 October 2007, which may be imported into the Community until 31 December 2007.

(5)

It now appears that third countries will be unable to comply with the requirements for fish oil for human consumption laid down in Annex III to Regulation (EC) No 853/2004 by 31 October 2007. In particular, third countries are experiencing practical difficulties in adjusting the processing conditions in fish oil producing establishments in order to comply with those requirements. As the importation of fish oil on the basis of the existing requirements does not pose any additional risk for human health, and in order to avoid any disruption in trade, it is appropriate to extend by one year the period of the derogation. The derogation provided for in Article 7(3) of Regulation (EC) No 2076/2005 should therefore be extended until 31 October 2008.

(6)

The derogation provided for in Article 7(4)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 2076/2005 should also be extended until 31 December 2008 for imports into the Community of fish oil accompanied by the relevant certificate. In addition, such certificates should be duly completed and signed prior to 31 October 2008.

(7)

Regulation (EC) No 2076/2005 should be amended accordingly.

(8)

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

1.

In paragraph 3, the date of ‘31 October 2007’ is replaced by ‘31 October 2008’.

2.

In paragraph 4, point (b) is amended as follows:

(1)

The Protocol to the Partnership and Cooperation Agreement (PCA) between the European Communities and their Member States, of the one part, and the Republic of Moldova, of the other part, on accession of the Republic of Bulgaria and Romania to the PCA (1), was signed on behalf of the European Community and the Member States on 17 April 2007 in accordance with Council Decision 2007/546/EC (2).

(2)

Pending its entry into force, the Protocol has been applied on a provisional basis as from 1 January 2007.

(3)

The Protocol should be approved,

(1)

Classical swine fever is a threat for domestic and feral pigs (wild boar) in the Community.

(2)

Outbreaks of classical swine fever in domestic pig holdings can lead to serious consequences and economic losses in the Community, in particular if they occur in areas with a high density of pigs.

(3)

The rules for applying emergency vaccination of domestic and feral pigs are laid down in Directive 2001/89/EC.

(4)

The Community has purchased 1 000 000 doses of live attenuated classical swine fever vaccine and made arrangements for keeping it in stock and making it rapidly available in case of an emergency vaccination of domestic pigs.

(5)

Those doses have been made available to Romania in July 2007. Accordingly, they need to be replaced for the purpose of maintaining the Community’s capability to respond quickly to the need to carry out emergency vaccination against classical swine fever.

(6)

In addition, in the light of the overall disease situation in certain Member States the stock of live attenuated vaccine should be replaced quickly when depleted in order to maintain the Community’s capability to respond to an emergency.

(7)

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

(1)

Directive 2001/89/EC introduces the minimum Community measures for the control of classical swine fever.

(2)

In January 2007, classical swine fever was confirmed in the feral pig population in Hungary.

(3)

In the light of the epidemiological situation, on 24 April 2007 Hungary submitted to the Commission, in accordance with Directive 2001/89/EC, a plan for the eradication of classical swine fever in feral pigs in the concerned area of Hungary.

(4)

The Commission requested that an amendment be made to that plan. Accordingly, an amended plan was submitted by Hungary on 11 July 2007. The amended plan complies with Directive 2001/89/EC and should therefore be approved.

(5)

For the sake of transparency, it is appropriate to set out in this Decision the geographical area of Hungary where the eradication plan is to be implemented.

(6)

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

(1)

Directive 2000/75/EC lays down control rules and measures to combat bluetongue in the Community, including the establishment of protection and surveillance zones and a ban on animals leaving those zones.

(2)

Commission Decision 2005/393/EC of 23 May 2005 on protection and surveillance zones in relation to bluetongue and conditions applying to movements from or through these zones (2) provides for the demarcation of the global geographic areas where protection and surveillance zones (the restricted zones) are to be established by the Member States in relation to bluetongue.

(3)

Following a substantiated request submitted by France and Germany, it is appropriate to amend the demarcation of the restricted zones in those Member States in zone F.

(4)

Following the enlargement of the restricted zone in Germany due to the recent outbreaks of bluetongue serotype 8, it is appropriate to demarcate a restricted zone in Austria and to amend the restricted zones in Denmark and in the Czech Republic in the zone F.

(5)

Following the notification of outbreaks of bluetongue serotype 1 and a substantiated request by Portugal, it is appropriate to amend the demarcation of the restricted zone E in Annex I to Decision 2005/393/EEC and to amend the zone I with serotypes 1 and 4.

(6)

Following the notification of outbreaks of bluetongue serotype 8 in the United Kingdom, it is appropriate to demarcate a restricted zone in this Member State in the zone F.

(7)

Decision 2005/393/EC should be amended accordingly.

(8)

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

(1)

Article 10 of Council Joint Action 2007/369/CFSP provides that the Council authorises the Political and Security Committee to take the relevant decisions in accordance with Article 25 of the Treaty, including powers to take subsequent decisions regarding the appointment of the Head of EUPOL AFGHANISTAN.

(2)

In a letter dated 6 October 2007, the current Head of Mission informed the European Commission of his decision to terminate his contract, with effect from end of business on 31 October 2007.

(3)

The Secretary General/High Representative has proposed the appointment of Mr Jürgen Scholz as the New Head of Mission of EUPOL AFGHANISTAN,