13.12.2016   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 337/1

(1)

On 25 September 2014, the Council authorised the Commission to negotiate, on behalf of the Union, an international agreement with the Agency for Aerial Navigation Safety in Africa and Madagascar establishing the conditions for provision of a satellite-based augmentation service (SBAS) in Africa on the basis of the EGNOS European satellite navigation programme.

(2)

Following the negotiations, the Cooperation Agreement between the European Union and the Agency for Aerial Navigation Safety in Africa and Madagascar (Asecna) on the development of satellite navigation and the provision of associated services in Asecna's area of competence for the benefit of civil aviation (the ‘Agreement’) was initialled on 12 May 2016.

(3)

The Agreement should be signed,

13.12.2016   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 337/3

(1)

On 6 May 2014, France submitted to the European Chemicals Agency (‘the Agency’) a dossier pursuant to Article 69(4) of Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 (‘the Annex XV dossier’ (2)), in order to initiate the restriction procedure set out in Articles 69 to 73 of that Regulation. The Annex XV dossier indicated a risk for workers (primarily cashiers) and consumers exposed to bisphenol A (BPA) by handling thermal paper receipts and proposed a restriction on the placing on the market of BPA in thermal paper in a concentration equal to or greater than 0,02 % by weight. More precisely, the population at risk was the unborn children of pregnant workers and consumers exposed to BPA contained in the thermal paper they handle.

(2)

Thermal paper is composed of a base paper with at least one coating which may contain BPA. The coating changes colour when exposed to heat, allowing the printed characters to appear.

(3)

France based its hazard assessment of BPA on the effects on several human health endpoints (the female reproductive system, the brain and behaviour, the mammary gland, metabolism and obesity). The effects on the mammary gland were considered the most critical endpoint, prevailing over the others. They were used to calculate the Derived No Effect Level (DNEL).

(4)

During the opinion forming process of the Agency, the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) published a new scientific opinion on BPA (3). The Agency's Committee for Risk Assessment (RAC) discussed the assessment of BPA with EFSA in order to ensure consistency in the scientific evaluation and to base it on the most recent and updated scientific literature. The hazard assessment of RAC, as presented in its opinion, is consistent with the approach used by EFSA.

(5)

RAC considered that the critical studies selected by France to calculate the DNEL did not allow quantification of the dose-response relationships and showed uncertainties. Therefore, for the purposes of calculating an oral DNEL, RAC selected the effects on the kidney and, as the available data indicated that these are not the most critical effects of BPA, applied an additional assessment factor of 6 to take account of effects on the female reproductive system, the brain and behaviour, the mammary gland, metabolism and obesity, and the immune system in the overall hazard assessment. Since the restriction proposal concerns the dermal route of exposure due to handling thermal paper, a DNEL for the dermal exposure route was also calculated for workers and the general population. As regards exposure, RAC refined the assessment and complemented it with new biomonitoring information on cashiers' exposure to BPA. Applying this methodology, RAC concluded that the risk for consumers is adequately controlled but confirmed the risk for workers.

(6)

On 5 June 2015, RAC adopted its opinion, concluding that the proposed restriction is the most appropriate Union-wide measure to address the identified risks in terms of effectiveness in reducing those risks.

(7)

Pursuant to the conclusion of RAC that the available data did not allow quantification of the dose-response relationship for the health effects of BPA, the Agency's Committee for Socio-Economic Analysis (‘SEAC’) could not use the benefit estimates in the French dossier and therefore performed a break-even analysis, on the basis of which it concluded that overall the estimated costs outweigh the potential health benefits of the proposed restriction. However, SEAC noted that the cost of the restriction amounts to a very small proportion of the total personnel costs or gross operating surplus of the affected sectors in the Union, and would only lead to a very small price increase if transferred to consumers through increased prices of consumer goods. Furthermore, SEAC noted that the restriction could lead to a more equitable distribution of impacts, considering that the sub-population of cashiers potentially at risk is disproportionately affected by the adverse health impacts, whereas the economic impact would be evenly shared by the wider Union population.

(8)

On 4 December 2015, SEAC adopted its opinion and considered the proposed restriction unlikely to be proportionate in terms of comparing its socioeconomic benefits to its socioeconomic costs, but highlighted possible favourable distributional and affordability considerations. Furthermore, SEAC confirmed that a Union wide measure is justified and concluded that the proposed restriction is an appropriate measure to address the human health risks to workers.

(9)

RAC and SEAC also concluded that the proposed restriction is implementable, enforceable, manageable and monitorable.

(10)

The Agency's Forum for Exchange of Information on Enforcement was consulted during the restriction process and its recommendations were taken into account.

(11)

On 29 January 2016, the Agency submitted the opinions of RAC and SEAC (4) to the Commission. Based on those opinions, the Commission concluded that there is an unacceptable risk to the health of workers who handle thermal paper containing BPA in a concentration equal to or greater than 0,02 % by weight. Taking into account SEAC's considerations on affordability and distributional effects, the Commission considers that the proposed restriction would address the identified risks without imposing significant burden on industry, supply chain or consumers. Thus, the Commission concluded that the restriction proposed by France is an appropriate Union wide measure to address the identified risks to the health of workers who handle thermal paper containing BPA. By regulating the placing on the market, the proposed restriction would also provide a greater margin of protection for consumers.

(12)

Since test methods to measure the concentration of BPA in thermal paper are currently available, the restriction is enforceable. As confirmed by SEAC, the application of the restriction should be deferred in order to enable industry to comply with it. A period of 36 months seems reasonable and sufficient for that purpose.

(13)

In its opinion, RAC noted that bisphenol S (BPS), the most likely substitute according to France, may have a toxicological profile similar to BPA and might cause similar adverse health effects. Therefore, in order to avoid that the adverse effects of BPA would simply be superseded by the adverse effects of BPS particular attention should be paid to an eventual substitution trend towards BPS. To that end, the Agency should monitor the use of BPS in thermal paper. The Agency should communicate any further information to the Commission so that it considers whether a proposal to restrict BPS under Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 is necessary given that, contrary to BPA, the health risk associated to BPS in thermal paper has not yet been evaluated.

(14)

Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 should therefore be amended accordingly.

(15)

The measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Committee established under Article 133 of Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006,

13.12.2016   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 337/6

(1)

The EU has a long-standing commitment to promoting work-life balance. Minimum standards in this field are set out through Directives on Maternity Leave (2) and Parental Leave (3). The EU has likewise set targets to improve the provision of childcare with the Barcelona Objectives, and Country-Specific Recommendations in the area of work-life balance have also been issued in the European Semester 2016.

(2)

In its work programme 2016 (4) , the Commission sets out its plans to develop an initiative addressing the work-life balance challenges faced by parents and carers.

(3)

Monitoring the challenges of work-life balance and progress in this area is therefore essential and improved data collection is likewise important.

(4)

Commission Regulation (EU) No 318/2013 (5) establishes an ad hoc module on reconciliation between work and family life.

(5)

Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) No 1397/2014 (6) specifies and describes the areas of specialised information (‘ad hoc sub-modules’) to be included in the 2018 ad hoc module on reconciliation between work and family life.

(6)

The Commission should specify the technical characteristics, filters, codes and the deadline for the transmission of data under the ad hoc module on reconciliation between work and family life.

(7)

The measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the European Statistical System Committee,

13.12.2016   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 337/13

(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,

13.12.2016   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 337/15

(1)

On 12 August 2010, the Council adopted Decision 2010/452/CFSP (1), which extended the European Union Monitoring Mission in Georgia (‘EUMM Georgia’ or the ‘Mission’), established by Council Joint Action 2008/736/CFSP (2). Decision 2010/452/CFSP expires on 14 December 2016.

(2)

Following the 2016 Strategic Review, EUMM Georgia should be extended for a further period of two years.

(3)

Decision 2010/452/CFSP should be amended accordingly.

(4)

The Mission will be conducted in the context of a situation which may deteriorate and could impede the achievement of the objectives of the Union's external action as set out in Article 21 of the Treaty,

(1)

in Article 14(1), the following subparagraph is added:

‘The financial reference amount intended to cover the expenditure related to the Mission between 15 December 2016 and 14 December 2017 shall be EUR 18 000 000.’;

(2)

in Article 18, the second paragraph is replaced by the following:

‘It shall expire on 14 December 2018.’.

13.12.2016   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 337/16

(1)

On 15 February 2010, the Council adopted Decision 2010/96/CFSP (1) establishing an EU military mission to contribute to the training of Somali security forces.

(2)

On 16 March 2015, Council Decision (CFSP) 2015/441 (2) amended Decision 2010/96/CFSP and extended the EU military mission until 31 December 2016.

(3)

Following the 2016 Strategic Review, the mandate of the EU military mission should be extended until 31 December 2018.

(4)

In accordance with Article 5 of Protocol No 22 on the position of Denmark annexed to the Treaty on European Union and to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, Denmark does not participate in the elaboration and implementation of decisions and actions of the Union which have defence implications. Denmark does not participate in the implementation of this Decision and therefore does not participate in the financing of this mission.

(5)

Decision 2010/96/CFSP should therefore be amended accordingly,

(1)

in Article 10, the following paragraph is added:

‘6.   The financial reference amount for the common costs of the EU military mission for the period from 1 January 2017 until 31 December 2018 shall be EUR 22 948 000. The percentage of the reference amount referred to in Article 25(1) of Decision (CFSP) 2015/528 (*1) shall be 0 %.

(*1)  Council Decision (CFSP) 2015/528 of 27 March 2015 establishing a mechanism to administer the financing of the common costs of European Union operations having military or defence implications (Athena) and repealing Decision 2011/871/CFSP (OJ L 84, 28.3.2015, p. 39).’;"

(2)

in Article 12, paragraph 2 is replaced by the following:

‘2.   The mandate of the EU military mission shall end on 31 December 2018.’.

13.12.2016   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 337/18

(1)

On 16 July 2012, the Council adopted Decision 2012/389/CFSP (1) on the European Union Mission on Regional Maritime Capacity Building in the Horn of Africa (EUCAP NESTOR).

(2)

On 22 July 2014, the Council adopted Decision 2014/485/CFSP (2), amending Decision 2012/389/CFSP and extending EUCAP NESTOR until 12 December 2016.

(3)

The Holistic and Comprehensive Strategic Review of CSDP Engagement in Somalia and the Horn of Africa led to the conclusion that EUCAP NESTOR should focus on Somalia and that, consequently, its name should be changed to EUCAP Somalia and its mandate should be adapted and extended until December 2018.

(4)

Decision 2012/389/CFSP, including if necessary the Mission's tasks and objectives, should be reviewed in the course of 2017.

(5)

The reference amount provided for to cover the period until 12 December 2016 is sufficient to cover the period until 28 February 2017, when detailed information on the financial needs for the new approach should be available to establish a reference amount for the subsequent period,

(1)

In the title and throughout the text, the name ‘EUCAP NESTOR’ is replaced by ‘EUCAP Somalia’.

(2)

Article 1 is replaced by the following:

‘Article 1

Mission

The Union hereby establishes a Capacity Building Mission in Somalia (EUCAP Somalia).’.

(3)

Article 2 is replaced by the following:

‘Article 2

Mission Statement

EUCAP Somalia shall assist Somalia in strengthening its maritime security capacity in order to enable it to enforce maritime law more effectively.’.

(4)

Article 3 is replaced by the following:

‘Article 3

Objectives and tasks

1.   In order to achieve the Mission Statement set out in Article 2, EUCAP Somalia shall:

2.   In order to achieve these objectives, EUCAP Somalia shall operate in accordance with the lines of operation and tasks set out in the operational planning documents approved by the Council.

3.   EUCAP Somalia shall not carry out any executive function.’.

(5)

In Article 13(1), the last subparagraph is replaced by the following:

‘The financial reference amount intended to cover the expenditure related to EUCAP Somalia for the period from 16 December 2015 to 28 February 2017 shall be EUR 12 000 000.’.

(6)

In Article 16, the second paragraph is replaced by the following:

‘It shall apply until 31 December 2018.’.

13.12.2016   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 337/20

(1)

In Denmark the quantity of available basic seed of certain varieties of Beta vulgaris L. satisfying the condition of point 3(b) of Part B of Annex I to Directive 2002/54/EC as regards the maximum weight of inert matter of monogerm seed is insufficient due to dry harvest conditions and is therefore not adequate to meet the needs of that Member State.

(2)

The demand for such seed cannot be satisfied by seed from other Member States or from third countries, fulfilling all the requirements laid down in Directive 2002/54/EC.

(3)

Consequently, Denmark should be authorised to permit the marketing of seed of those varieties subject to less stringent requirements.

(4)

In addition, other Member States which are in a position to supply Denmark with seed of those varieties, irrespective of whether the seed was harvested in a Member State or in a third country covered by Council Decision 2003/17/EC (2), should be authorised to permit the marketing of such seed to ensure the functioning of the internal market and avoid its disruption.

(5)

As this Decision introduces a derogation from the standards of the Union rules, it is appropriate to limit the quantity of seed complying with less stringent requirements to a minimum necessary to meet the needs of Denmark. In order to ensure that the total quantity of seed authorised to be placed on the market pursuant to this Decision does not exceed the maximum quantity covered by this Decision, it is appropriate that Denmark act as co-ordinator as it has submitted the respective request for the adoption of this Decision and is mostly concerned by the marketing of that variety.

(6)

As providing for derogation from the standards of the Union rules, the marketing of seed complying with less stringent requirements shoud be temporary until 31 December 2017, because this time is necessary to allow the production of that seed and a review of the situtation with regards to the varieties concerned.

(7)

The measures provided for in this Decision are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on Plants, Animals, Food and Feed,

(a)

there is sufficient evidence to doubt as to whether the supplier is able to place on the market the amount of seed for which it has applied for authorisation; or

(b)

granting the authorisation would result in the total maximum quantity of seed referred to in Article 1 being exceeded.

13.12.2016   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 337/22

(1)

In Spain the quantity of available certified seed second generation of Hordeum vulgare L. satisfying the condition of point 1(A) of Annex II to Directive 66/402/EEC as regards minimum purity of seeds is insufficient due to problems that occurred during the production process of the last year and is therefore not adequate to meet the needs of that Member State.

(2)

The demand of such seed cannot be satisfied by seed from other Member States or from third countries, fulfilling all requirements laid down in Directive 66/402/EEC.

(3)

Consequently, Spain should be authorised to permit the marketing of seed of that variety subject to less stringent requirements.

(4)

In addition, other Member States which are in position to supply Spain with seed of that variety, irrespective of whether the seed was harvested in a Member State or in a third country covered by Council Decision 2003/17/EC (2), should be authorised to permit the marketing of such seed to ensure the functioning of the internal market and avoid its disruption.

(5)

As this Decision introduces a derogation from the standards of the Union rules, it is appropriate to limit the quantity of seed complying with less stringent requirements to a minimum necessary to meet the needs of Spain. In order to ensure that the total quantity of seed authorised to be placed on the market pursuant to this Decision does not exceed the maximum quantity covered by this Decision, it is appropriate that Spain act as coordinator as it has submitted the respective request for the adoption of this Decision and is mostly concerned by the marketing of that variety.

(6)

As providing for derogation from the standards of the Union rules, the marketing of seed complying with less stringent requirements should be temporary until 31 December 2018, because this time is necessary to allow the production of that seed and a review of the situtation with regards to the variety concerned.

(7)

The measures provided for in this Decision are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on Plants, Animals, Food and Feed,

(a)

there is sufficient evidence to doubt as to whether the supplier is able to place on the market the amount of seed for which it has applied for authorisation; or

(b)

granting the authorisation would result in the maximum quantity of seed referred to in Article 1 being exceeded.

13.12.2016   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 337/24