(1)

Council Regulation (EU) 2015/104 (2) lays down quotas for 2015.

(2)

According to the information received by the Commission, catches of the stock referred to in the Annex to this Regulation by vessels flying the flag of or registered in the Member State referred to therein have exhausted the quota allocated for 2015.

(3)

It is therefore necessary to prohibit fishing activities for that stock,

(1)

Council Regulation (EU) 2015/104 (2), lays down quotas for 2015.

(2)

According to the information received by the Commission, catches of the stock referred to in the Annex to this Regulation by vessels flying the flag of or registered in the Member State referred to therein have exhausted the quota allocated for 2015.

(3)

It is therefore necessary to prohibit fishing activities for that stock,

(1)

Council Regulation (EU) 2015/104 (2) lays down quotas for 2015.

(2)

According to the information received by the Commission, catches of the stock referred to in the Annex to this Regulation by vessels flying the flag of or registered in the Member State referred to therein have exhausted the quota allocated for 2015.

(3)

It is therefore necessary to prohibit fishing activities for that stock,

(1)

Commission Regulation (EC) No 1881/2006 (2) sets maximum levels for polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) in food.

(2)

According to that Regulation, maximum levels for PAHs must be safe and as low as reasonably achievable (ALARA) based upon good manufacturing, drying and agricultural/fishery practices. In 2011, data for smoked fish have shown that lower maximum levels of PAHs were achievable and they were laid down by Commission Regulation (EU) No 835/2011 (3) Nevertheless, adaptations of smoking technology were necessary in some cases. Therefore a transitional period of three years was granted before the lower maximum levels become applicable as from 1 September 2014.

(3)

Katsuobushi is a traditional Japanese food product made from bonito. Its manufacturing process involves filleting, boiling and deboning followed by smoking/drying process over combusting woods. Recent evidence has been provided by the Japanese authorities demonstrating that, despite the application of good smoking practices to the extent possible, the lower levels for PAHs are not achievable for that product. Therefore it is appropriate to change the current maximum levels of PAHs in Katsuobushi into those applicable before 1 September 2014.

(4)

The product name ‘Sprotid’ is a general traditional name in Estonia for a product which traditionally can contain both sprat (Sprattus sprattus) and Baltic herring (Clupea harengus membras) depending on the season and availability. Both fishes are of comparable size and are classified as small scale fish. The label of ‘Sprotid’ mentions if the product contains sprats or Baltic herring or a mixture, with the ratio of each fish species present. The smoking procedure for this small Baltic herring is the same as the one applied to sprats and consequently levels of PAHs in small Baltic herring are similar to those found in smoked sprat. Therefore it is appropriate to establish he same maximum level for smoked small Baltic herring and canned smoked small herring as for smoked sprats and canned smoked sprats.

(5)

Legislation related to the common organisation of the markets in fishery and aquaculture products has been replaced necessitating changes to certain endnotes. The measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on Plants, Animals, Food and Feed,

(1)

Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011 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 Annex XVI, Part A thereto.

(2)

The standard import value is calculated each working day, in accordance with Article 136(1) of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 543/2011, taking into account variable daily data. Therefore this Regulation should enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union,

(1)

Annex II to Directive 2008/98/EC sets out a non-exhaustive list of recovery operations.

(2)

The R1 operation in Annex II to Directive 2008/98/EC applies to waste replacing fuel or other means to generate energy. This includes incineration facilities dedicated to the processing of municipal solid waste only where their energy efficiency meet the threshold established by using the energy efficiency formula (R1 formula) referred to in Annex II to Directive 2008/98/EC.

(3)

It results from technical evidence that local climate conditions in the Union influence the amounts of energy that can technically be used or produced in the form of electricity, heating, cooling or processing steam by incineration facilities dedicated to the processing of municipal solid waste.

(4)

A report from the Joint Research Centre of the European Commission has shown that in order to achieve a level playing field in the Union it is reasonable to compensate incineration facilities affected by the impact of local climatic conditions with a climate correction factor (CCF) applicable to the R1 formula. Such factor should be based on the reference document on Best Available Techniques for waste incineration.

(5)

As a result of the application of a CCF some disposal incineration installations would meet the R1 formula threshold and thus automatically become recovery incineration facilities. Notwithstanding that, the application of such a correction factor should remain an incentive for incineration plants to achieve high efficiency of energy production from waste in line with the objectives and the waste hierarchy laid down in Directive 2008/98/EC.

(6)

The CCF applicable to the R1 formula should be based on climatic conditions for the incineration facility location.

(7)

Directive 2008/98/EC should therefore be amended accordingly.

(8)

The measures provided for in this Directive are in accordance with the opinion of the Committee established by Article 39 of Directive 2008/98/EC,

(1)

Pursuant to Article 10(1) of Joint Action 2005/889/CFSP, the Political and Security Committee is authorised, in accordance with Article 38 of the Treaty, to take the relevant decisions for the purpose of exercising political control and strategic direction of the European Union Border Assistance Mission for the Rafah Crossing Point (EU BAM Rafah), including the decision to appoint a Head of Mission.

(2)

On 29 May 2015, the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy proposed the appointment of Ms Natalina CEA as Head of Mission of EU BAM Rafah from 1 July 2015 to 30 June 2016.

(3)

Council Decision (CFSP) 2015/1065 (2) extended the duration of EU BAM Rafah until 30 June 2016,

(1)

Pursuant to Article 9(1) of Decision 2013/354/CFSP, the Political and Security Committee (PSC) is authorised, in accordance with the third paragraph of Article 38 of the Treaty, to take the relevant decisions for the purpose of exercising political control and strategic direction of the European Union Police Mission for the Palestinian Territories (EUPOL COPPS), including the decision to appoint a Head of Mission.

(2)

On 17 February 2015, the PSC adopted Decision (CFSP) 2015/381 (2), appointing Mr Rodolphe MAUGET as Head of Mission of EUPOL COPPS from 16 February 2015 to 30 June 2015.

(3)

On 2 July 2015, the Council adopted Decision (CFSP) 2015/1064 (3), extending the mandate of EUPOL COPPS from 1 July 2015 to 30 June 2016.

(4)

The High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy proposed the extension of the mandate of Mr Rodolphe MAUGET as Head of Mission of EUPOL COPPS from 1 July 2015 to 30 June 2016,

(1)

On 26 July 2010, the Council adopted Decision 2010/413/CFSP (1) concerning restrictive measures against Iran.

(2)

On 24 November 2013, China, France, Germany, the Russian Federation, the United Kingdom and the United States, supported by the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy, reached an agreement with Iran on a Joint Plan of Action which sets out an approach towards reaching a long-term comprehensive solution to the Iranian nuclear issue. It was agreed that the process leading to this comprehensive solution would include, as a first step, initial mutually agreed measures to be taken by both sides for a duration of 6 months and renewable by mutual consent.

(3)

On 7 July 2015, by Decision (CFSP) 2015/1099 (2) the Council decided to extend the implementation of the measures of the Joint Plan of Action until 10 July 2015.

(4)

On 10 July 2015, China, France, Germany, the Russian Federation, the United Kingdom and the United States, supported by the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy, agreed with Iran to extend the implementation of the measures of the Joint Plan of Action until 13 July 2015 to allow time for continuing the negotiation with a view to reaching an agreement on a Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action.

(5)

The suspension of the Union restrictive measures specified in the Joint Plan of Action should therefore be extended until 13 July 2015. Relevant contracts would have to be executed within that date.

(6)

Decision 2010/413/CFSP should therefore be amended accordingly,

(1)

On 14 October 2013, the Commission adopted Implementing Decision 2013/505/EU (2) (‘the Decision’) authorising the provisional measure taken by the French Republic in accordance with Article 129 of Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 to restrict the use of ammonium salts in cellulose wadding insulation materials.

(2)

Pursuant to Article 1(1) of the Decision, the provisional measure is authorised for a time period of 21 months beginning on 15 October 2013, which will end on 14 July 2015.

(3)

The time period of 21 months was intended to provide sufficient time to conclude the restriction procedure that Article 129(3) of Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 obliged the French Republic to initiate by submitting to the European Chemicals Agency a dossier, in accordance with Annex XV thereto, within three months of the Decision. The Decision provides for the expiry of the authorisation before the end of the 21-month time period if the restriction procedure is concluded earlier.

(4)

Following unforeseen difficulties relating to the conformity check carried out on the dossier in accordance with Article 69(4) of Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006, the restriction procedure has been delayed and will probably not conclude before spring 2016.

(5)

The reasons for authorising the provisional measure remain unchanged.

(6)

In order to avoid the legal uncertainty that would result from the expiry of the authorisation of the French provisional measure before the conclusion of the restriction procedure, it is necessary to extend the time period for which the provisional measure is authorised.

(7)

This Decision is in accordance with the opinion of the REACH Committee,

(1)

The manufacturer Porsche AG (the ‘Applicant’) submitted an application for the approval of a ‘coasting function’ as an innovative technology on 13 October 2014. The completeness of the application was assessed in accordance with Article 4 of Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 725/2011 (2). The application was found to be complete and the period for the Commission's assessment of the application started on the 14 October 2014 being the day following the date of official receipt.

(2)

The application has been assessed in accordance with Article 12 of Regulation (EC) No 443/2009, Implementing Regulation (EU) No 725/2011 and the Technical Guidelines for the preparation of applications for the approval of innovative technologies pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 443/2009 (the ‘Technical Guidelines’) (3).

(3)

The application refers to the Porsche AG ‘coasting’ function. The innovative technology is an automatic gearbox intelligent control strategy that allows the possibility of a driving mode during which the vehicle runs while the combustion engine is decoupled from the wheels (i.e. the clutch is disengaged). During the coasting driving mode, the engine idles but the functioning of auxiliary equipment (e.g. generator, compressor, water pump) is ensured. In addition, when ‘coasting’, the kinetic and potential energy of the vehicle is directly used to overcome driving resistance and, as consequence, to decrease fuel consumption.

(4)

The Applicant has demonstrated that a coasting function of the kind described in this application did not exceed 3 % of the new passenger cars registered in the reference year 2009.

(5)

The accountability criteria specified in Article 4(2)(f)(iii) and Article 9(3) of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 725/2011 require the demonstration that the CO2 reducing performance of the technology is not dependent on the behaviour of driver or on settings or choices outside the control of the applicant. Having considered the information provided by the Applicant, as well as that from other public sources, the Commission considers that this condition would not be met where the coasting function can be disengaged and would require manual re-initiation. This is the case, for example, when the road or car conditions do not allow coasting, where there is a pronounced downhill gradient and when the driver touches the brake pedal, or activates cruise control or sport mode, switches off the start-stop system or uses the manual gear selector. The Applicant has provided an analysis related to some of these matters: when the road or car conditions do not allow coasting, when the driver touches the brake pedal or uses the manual gear selector. Other aspects of driver behaviour regarding manual re-activation of coasting have not been examined. The Commission concludes that the conditions should be specified in order for the coasting technology to meet the accountability criteria set out in the Implementing Regulation. These conditions should ensure that the coasting function cannot be deactivated by the driver, or, where the function is otherwise deactivated, e.g. by the automatic gearbox intelligent control strategy or by any other device, it is automatically activated again immediately after the deactivation event. In view of the above, subject to this condition, the Commission concludes that the information provided in the application demonstrates that the conditions and criteria referred to in Article 12 of Regulation (EC) No 443/2009 and in Articles 2 and 4 of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 725/2011 have been met.

(6)

In order to determine the CO2 savings that the innovative technology will deliver when fitted to a vehicle, it is necessary to define the baseline vehicle against which the efficiency of the vehicle equipped with the innovative technology should be compared as provided for in Articles 5 and 8 of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 725/2011. The Commission finds that it is appropriate to consider a vehicle with the coasting function installed and deactivated as a baseline vehicle. If it is not possible to deactivate the coasting function, it should be ensured that the coasting function is not in operation during the testing procedure.

(7)

The Applicant has provided a methodology for testing the CO2 reductions from the use of the ‘coasting’ technology. A number of factors in the formulae are derived from the analysis of the influence of the driver's behaviour on the ‘coasting’ technology. The Commission finds that the number of trips included in the database is satisfactory to conclude that the innovative technology would deliver CO2 savings. However, a larger number of robust, independent data, including additional analysis of how much driving takes place when the engine transmission and battery are being employed at their appropriate operating temperature and what proportion of driving time takes place when more pronounced downhill gradients are being driven when the coasting function is turned off would be necessary to alleviate the uncertainties associated with the CO2 savings from the innovative technology.

(8)

A conversion factor is required in the formulae for the calculation of the potential CO2 savings to address the difference between CO2 emissions from the standard NEDC test and those under modified NEDC testing conditions for the baseline vehicle. In discussions with industry limited data has been provided on relevant values for the c-parameter based on simulations. These showed different results which depend on the characteristics of the transmission and other parameters of the vehicle. From these data, the c-parameter appears to lie within the range 0,96 to 0,99. The Applicant has not provided strong evidence for the use of a specific value for c. In view of this, it is determined that a value of c at the lower end of the identified range should be used to provide certainty over the likely CO2 savings that will be achieved. The conversion factor c is therefore set at a value of 0,96 (compared to 0,97 in the application for which no justification is provided).

(9)

A key element in determining the CO2 savings is the proportion of the distance travelled by the vehicle over which the coasting function will be activated. A usage factor is determined which relates the observed distance covered under coasting conditions by the applicant in tests compared to the coasting distance under modified NEDC conditions. The Applicant proposed a value of 1. The Commission analysis shows that this value cannot be justified by the data provided. Using the Applicant's data would result in a value of 0,87 for the usage factor. However, the Applicant has provided insufficient data to provide certainty that other factors which may result in the coasting function being de-activated are fully taken into account. It is therefore considered appropriate to address the uncertainties by a further proportionate adjustment, resulting in a usage factor of 0,8. This is considered to provide an appropriate margin to take account of these uncertainties and to address their statistical significance. This conclusion could be re-examined if a sufficient number of robust, independent data would be available.

(10)

Furthermore, and in agreement with the Applicant, the Commission finds it appropriate to address the shortcomings in the current assumptions relating to the operation of the cruise control by further adjusting the usage factor since coasting is deactivated when cruise control is activated. The Applicant has not provided any information on this aspect in their application. The Commission has identified that data is available from research in the US on cruise control usage. This shows that, when fitted, cruise control is used for about half of the distance travelled. This means that the usage factor should be halved in cases where cruise control is fitted. The Applicant has confirmed this conclusion and therefore the usage factor is halved to a value of 0,4 when cruise control is fitted to the vehicle. This conclusion could be re-examined if a sufficient number of robust, independent data would be available.

(11)

Against this background, the Commission finds that the methodology provides accurate and reliable results that are reproducible by a third party with regard to the Porsche S-segment vehicles (sport coupé cars) referred to in the application.

(12)

Moreover, the Commission finds that the Applicant has demonstrated satisfactorily that the emission reduction achieved by the innovative technology is at least 1 g CO2/km for the Porsche S-segment vehicles referred to in the application.

(13)

Since the effects of the coasting function are not covered by the CO2 emissions type approval test referred to in Regulation (EC) No 715/2007 of the European Parliament and of the Council (4) and Commission Regulation (EC) No 692/2008 (5), the Commission is satisfied that the Porsche coasting function is not covered by the standard test cycle.

(14)

The Commission finds that the verification report has been prepared by the TÜV Nord and that the report supports the findings set out in the application.

(15)

Therefore, the Commission finds that no objections should be raised as regards the approval of the innovative technology in question, provided the above specified conditions to ensure accountability and adjustments to the methodology are introduced.

(16)

For the purposes of determining the general eco-innovation code to be used in the relevant type-approval documents in accordance with Annexes I, VIII and IX to Directive 2007/46/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council (6), the individual code to be used for the innovative technology approved through this Decision should be specified,