EDITORIAL NOTE. After January 1, 1979, ‘‘Budget of Expenses and Rate of Assess- ment’’ regulations (e.g., sections .200 through .299) and ‘‘Handling’’ regulations (e.g., sections .300 through .399) which are in effect for a year or less, will not be carried in the Code of Federal Regulations. For FED- ERAL REGISTER citations affecting these reg- ulations, see the List of CFR Sections Af- fected, which appears in the Finding Aids section of the printed volume and at xxx.xxxxx.xxx. Sec. 980.1 Import regulations; Irish potatoes. 980.117 Import regulations; onions. 980.212 Import regulations; tomatoes. 980.501 Safeguard procedures for potatoes, onions, and tomatoes exempt from grade, size, quality, and maturity requirements.
EDITORIAL NOTE. On January 23, 1970, the NSC Review Group met to discuss a pa- per drafted by the NSC staff on X.X. xxxxxx toward Europe. The paper, intended as the basis for further discussion by the NSC on January 28, was divided into two parts, the first on alternative structures and the second on specific policy issues, including the recent emergence of Ost- politik as an important factor in European affairs. The section on Ger- many began as follows: “German issues are, of course, the basic East-West problems in Eu- rope, and thus closely linked to European security, including negoti- ated force reductions. The Eastern policy (Ostpolitik) which the new Xxxxxx government apparently intends to pursue could introduce a po- tentially troublesome and disruptive element in East-West relations and within the Alliance. Bonn apparently intends to put primary emphasis on direct and parallel negotiations with the USSR, East Germany and Poland on a wide range of issues. Provided the USSR, after consider- ing East German interests, continues to encourage these efforts, Bonn may become less inclined to defer to Western interests and views. This could lead to some disagreement and discord between West Germany on the one hand and its allies, particularly the US and France, on the other. “As it applies to East Germany the new Ostpolitik assumes that the cumulative effect of agreements on functional problems will lower the barrier to increased contacts. In these efforts, however, Bonn may agree to most East German demands short of de jure recognition. “Thus, certain specific problems will arise in terms of our own interests: —the four power responsibility we bear for a final German set- tlement may gradually be subsumed in German negotiations with Moscow and East Germany; —the special responsibilities we bear in Berlin may become com- plicated by the upgrading of East German sovereignty, or by the in- troduction of the Berlin question in all-German negotiations; —our ability to influence and control the evolution of a German settlement may decline or come into conflict with Bonn; —the US could be caught in a position between Bonn and Paris, if German Ostpolitik seems to be dictating the overall Western ap- proach to the USSR. “A final consideration is the fact that the internal power base of the Xxxxxx government is by no means secure. Each step of the way in developing a new Eastern policy the government will face major op- position. Thus, we could find ourselves confronted with choo...
EDITORIAL NOTE. On February 3, 1970, Polish Ambassador Xxxxxxxxxxx met Xxxxx Xxxxxxxxx at the White House to review the status of East-West nego- tiations, in particular the upcoming first round of the Warsaw talks. The discussion included an exchange on formal recognition of the Polish-East German border, the so-called Oder-Neisse line: “He [Xxxxxxxxxxx] said that the US could contribute by telling the FRG that we wanted an agreement settling the border. Xx. Xxxxxxxxx said that we had made clear that we want reconciliation between Poland and the FRG. Xxxxxxxxxxx said this was not enough. Xx. Xxxxxxxxx said that we would present no obstacle to Polish-German understanding.” Xxxxxxxxxxx told Xxxxxxxxx he considered the latter remark an “important” statement of X.X. xxxxxx. (Memorandum for the record by Xxxxxxxxxxx, February 9; National Archives, Xxxxx Presidential Mate- rials, NSC Files, Box 698, Country Files, Europe, Poland, Vol. I) One week later the West German Foreign Office instructed its Em- bassy in Washington to confirm a report from the Polish delegation in Warsaw that a White House “personality,” although not the President himself, recently told Xxxxxxxxxxx that the United States would not object if West Germany recognized the Oder-Neisse line. On February 12 Xxxx Xxxxxx, the German Minister in Washington, accordingly raised the issue with Xxxxxx Xxxxxxxxxxx who admitted that Xxxxxxxxx had remarked that the United States would “present no obstacles to German-Polish understanding” but denied any implication on the border issue. (Memorandum for the record by Xxxxxxxxxxx, February 12; ibid., Box 683, Germany, Vol. IV) In a meeting with Counselor Xxxxxxxxxxx of the Polish Embassy on March 17, Xxxxxxxxxxx suggested that such Polish behavior might pres- ent an obstacle for bilateral relations. When Xxxxxxxxxxx stressed “how important it was for the US and other allies to encourage the Germans to settle the Oder-Neisse,” Xxxxxxxxxxx was blunt in his reply: “I took occasion to tell him that the Poles would make a bad mis- take if they tried to play the Western allies off against each other on this question. I had been very disturbed to learn that Xx. Xxxxxxxxx’x general comments to the Polish Ambassador about our support for German-Polish reconciliation had been passed on to the Germans by Polish officials in a version that had us supporting the Polish inter- pretation of Potsdam. I also noted that an American journalist in Xxxx- xxxxxx had told me that Xx. Xxxxxxxxx’x a...
EDITORIAL NOTE. The agreed lists of exemptions under paragraph 2 of Article II appear as part of this Annex in the authentic text. ANNEX ON MOVEMENT OF NATURAL PERSONS SUPPLYING SERVICES UNDER THE AGREEMENT
EDITORIAL NOTE. Text of the heading as supplemented by the Single Article of the Council Decision of 21 February 1983 adding a number of products to the list in Annex I to the ECSC Treaty (OJ L 56, 3.3.1983).
EDITORIAL NOTE. The Department of Health and Human Services issued a notice of waiver regarding the requirements set forth in part 46, relating to protection of human subjects, as they pertain to dem- onstration projects, approved under section 1115 of the Social Security Act, which test the use of cost—sharing, such as deductibles, copayment and coinsurance, in the Medicaid program. For further information see 47 FR 9208, Mar. 4, 1982. SOURCE: 82 FR 7259, 7273, Jan. 19, 2017, un- less otherwise noted.
EDITORIAL NOTE. The College has a zero tolerance policy for failing to maintain professional boundaries and/or committing acts constituting sexual abuse as defined in the Health Professions Procedural Code. Whether or not complaints of sexual abuse are referred to the police, the College will take whatever steps are necessary to ensure that members who engage in this kind of behavior will be subject to lengthy suspensions; required to repay the College’s investigative, administrative and legal costs; pay for the costs of therapy or counseling for victims of sexual abuse; and, in appropriate cases, will have their Certificates of Registration revoked.
EDITORIAL NOTE. On February 10, 1970, Soviet Deputy Foreign Minister Xxxxxxx met Ambassador Xxxx in Moscow to deliver the Soviet response to the Western proposal of December 16 for talks on Berlin. (Telegram 715 from Moscow, February 10; National Archives, RG 59, Central Files 1970–73, POL 28 GER B) The text of the Soviet aide-mémoire, Febru- ary 10, reads: “The Government of the USSR has acquainted itself with the United States Government aide-mémoire, which was the answer to its (Soviet) statement of September 12, 1969. It confirms the readiness ex- pressed in this statement for an exchange of views for the purpose of improving the situation in West Berlin and of eliminating frictions in this region. The Soviet Government is also guided by the fact that it is necessary to approach this question in the context of the tasks of nor- malizing the situation and of ensuring security in Europe. “Bearing in mind the purpose of the exchange of opinions, as it is formulated by the parties, the Soviet Government considers it impor- tant, first of all, to reach agreement on excluding activity incompatible with the international situation of West Berlin, which was and remains a source of tension existing here. In the conditions of the continuing occupation of West Berlin and the absence of other joint settlements, only the Potsdam and other quadripartite agreements and decisions can be the basis in principle during an examination, in particular, of practical questions regarding this city. It is self-evident, moreover, that questions of the communications of West Berlin and of access to it can- not be settled in isolation from the legitimate interests and sovereign rights of the German Democratic Republic within which West Berlin is situated and whose lines of communications it uses for its external ties. “Corresponding to the subject of an exchange of views, the Soviet Government would agree that meetings of the representatives of the Four Powers should take place in West Berlin in the former Control Council Building. It appoints as its representative for conducting ne- gotiations P.A. Abrasimov, Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipo- tentiary, who will be ready to enter into contact with the U.S. Repre- sentative empowered to do so, beginning in the second half of February 1970. Organizational and technical questions could be clarified through the usual channels.” (Attached to memorandum from Xxxxxxxxxx to Xxxxx, February 13; ibid., POL 38–6) In a February 13 memorandum to the Presi...
EDITORIAL NOTE. Notwithstanding the provisions of Article 3 of the SEA, and for historical reasons, the term 'Assembly' has not been replaced by the terms 'European Parliament'.
Article 2 The European Parliament of the Community shall forward each year to the Consultative Assembly of the Council of Europe a report on its activities.
Article 3 The Commission shall communicate each year to the Committee of Ministers and to the Consultative Assembly of the Council of Europe the general report provided for in Article 17 of this Treaty.
Article 4 The Commission shall inform the Council of Europe of the action which it has been able to take on any recommendations that may have been sent to it by the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe under Article 15(b) of the Statute of the Council of Europe.
Article 5 The present Treaty establishing the European Coal and Steel Community and the Annexes thereto shall be registered with the Secretariat of the Council of Europe.
Article 6 Agreements between the Community and the Council of Europe may, among other things, provide for any other type of mutual assistance and cooperation between the two organizations and indicate the appropriate forms thereof. Done at Paris this eighteenth day of April in the year one thousand nine hundred and fifty one. XXXXXXXX Xxxx XXX ZEELAND X. XXXXXXX XXXXXXX XXXXXX Xxx. BECH STIKKER XXX XXX XXXXX The representatives of the Federal Government have several times declared in the course of the negotiations on the European Coal and Steel Community that the status of the Saar can be finally settled only by the Peace Treaty or a similar Treaty. Furthermore, they have declared in the course of the negotiations that in signing the Treaty the Federal Government is not expressing recognition of the present status of the Saar. I would repeat this declaration and would ask you to confirm that the French Government agrees with the Federal Government that the status of the Saar can be finally settled only by the Peace Treaty or a similar Treaty and that the French Government does not view the Federal Government's signature of the European Coal and Steel Community Treaty as recognition by the Federal Government of the present status of the Saar. I am, Sir, (Signed) XXXXXXXX Paris, 18 April 1951 In reply to your letter of 18 April 1951, the French Government notes that the Federal Government in signing the Treaty establishing the European Coal and Steel Community does not intend recognition of the present status ...
EDITORIAL NOTE. The reader will find below a complete amended version of the Treaty establishing the European Community as it results from Title IV of the TEU: Provisions amending the Treaty establishing the European Atomic Energy Community [Article I(1) to (29)].