Conclusions. This project evaluates the registration of materials produced in a nanoparticulate state according to the KB of May 27th 2014. The Royal Decree concerning the placing on the market of substances manufactured in nanoparticulate state was signed on May 27th, 2014, published on September 24th, 2014, and modified on December 22nd, 2017. According to this Royal Decree, the deadlines for registration of substances and mixtures manufactured in a nanoparticulate state were January 1st, 2016 and January 1st, 2018, respectively. The registration software was launched on September 15th, 2015. Phase 1 of the project included the evaluation of the registrations of the trade year 2017 and was successfully completed and reported in this document. As a next step, data extraction and statistical analysis methods will be applied to evaluate the registrations of the trade year 2018. For 2017, the completion of obligatory fields within the registration dossiers (“compliance check”) and the quality of the content of the submitted dossiers were assessed. The compliance check assessed for each dossier if all obligatory fields were completed by the applicants. For the simplified registrations it was checked if the declaration of honour was added to the dossier. A derived, “compliance” database was constructed and a statistical analysis of the data in the “compliance“ database was done. The content of the register was evaluated per parameter, and included listing and evaluating the methods used for measuring each registered parameter, and the number of different materials and their quantity. For the complete dossiers, it was assessed per parameter if the reported physicochemical data are in accordance with the current technical possibilities. The results of the assessment and a list of recommendations for further optimization of the register based on this assessment are reported in this document. The main results for the trade year 2017 are summarized as: • During the trade year 2017, 454 registrations were submitted. • Evaluation of the submitted registrations showed that most of the applicants provided the requested information for the materials they registered, and the declaration of honor for the simplified registrations was undersigned (100%). • In the complete registrations, most of the obligatory information was present, as indicated from the compliance check, although specific parameters, as for instance the uncertainties of size measurements, were systematically missing (...
Conclusions. The assessment conducted for XXXXX Xxxxxxxx was in accordance with the Uniform Principles and demonstrates an acceptable risk to human health and the environment. An authorisation can therefore be granted.
Conclusions. An extension of the authorisation in oats, spring barley and winter barley can be granted.
Conclusions. Au vu de ce qui précède, la Commission ne peut pas exclure, à ce stade, qu'une aide d'État soit versée à Ryanair et/ou à d'autres compagnies aériennes sur la base du Contrat de services aéroportuaires et prie les parties inté- ressées de présenter leur commentaires.
Conclusions. In the light of the foregoing considerations, the Commis- sion, acting under the procedure laid down in Article 88(2) of the EC Treaty, requests Ireland to submit its comments and to provide all such information as may help to assess the measures, within one month of the date of receipt of this letter.
Conclusions. It can be concluded from experiment 1. that a relatively low inclusion level of SDAP in weaning piglets diets without AMGP has positive effects on growth performance and possibly on health and that these effects are dependent of diet complexity. The results of experiment 2. show that SDAP in the diet can significantly improve ADFI, ADG, FCR and faecal consistency during the first two weeks post-weaning. The effect of SDAP is bigger when added to a diet without avilamycine. This indicates an increased value of plasma in diets without AMGP.
Conclusions. Outdoor unit : ERLQ004CAV3 Mfg NO : J117719 Mfg DATE : 2018.01 Indoor unit : EHSH04P30BA Mfg NO : 5006500000083 Mfg DATE :
Conclusions. Regarding combination toxicology for birds, the zRMS concluded: The reproductive risk for both actives was resolved at screening step however it is noted that the TER for difenoconazole is only just above the trigger value (5.03) and the shortcut value used (18.2) would also be used in the first tier assessment. Despite this it is clear that the risk from difenoconazole is driving the risk assessment and therefore an acceptable combined reproductive risk can be concluded. Both substances have the same effect on birds and it is unknown if the effects are enhanced due to the combination of the active substances. Furthermore, the approach of the zRMS regarding combination toxicology is not in line with the guidance. Therefore, the Ctgb performed a risk assessment for combination toxicology for birds which resulted in a TER of 4.4. An additional uncertainty analysis showed that the tier 1 risk assessment might not be over conservative for birds in ornamentals/nurseries. However, the zRMS did consider the NL comments, other member states did not disagree with the approach of the zRMS regarding combination toxicology for birds and it is not clear whether there is an actual risk based on combination toxicology. Therefore, the zRMS conclusion, i.e. the risk regarding combination toxicology for birds is acceptable, is followed. In conclusion, based on the evaluation, an authorisation can be granted for Xxxxx Xxxxx.
Conclusions. The Commission invites the Irish authorities to provide further information for the period 2000 up to date for payments under the National Development Plan and for the period 2003 up to date for the payments under the Memoranda of Understanding, relating in particular to:
Conclusions. Unfortunately, many respondents answered the questions about the performance of the research institute with the option ‘no opinion’, which prevented this research to conclude with concrete evidence of a relationship between trust, employee loyalty and performance. To provide the reader with some conclusions, the averages were took for each variable (trust, employee loyalty and performance). Afterwards the figures were compared to find some relationships. It is thus not the intention to provide a solid statistically significant relationship for these variables. This would be an extension to this paper and would definitely be interesting, but by the lack of time is not further investigated. The following table should be looked at as follows: First of all, every group received a value (High = 3; Moderate = 2 and Low = 1), next the average on each factor was taken using the distribution in each cross tabulation. For instance the first variable for IMO had a distribution of 14,3% scored high (times 3) + 28,6% scored moderat (times 2) + 57,1% scored low (times 1) = 1,572 (Supplement 7). The averages for each indicator are given in supplement 7.