Memorandum submitted by the European Commission
MINUTES OF MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE,
23 FEBRUARY 1999
INFORMATION ISSUES
INCLUDING AWARENESS
RAISING ABOUT
THE NEW
REGULATION AND
THE DG XI WEBSITE
The Chair pointed out the need to raise awareness
among those affected by the new Regulation. One means was the
newly created DG XI ozone website.
Mr Rosenqvist introduced a document setting
out what information would need to be provided to the different
target groups affected by the new regulation.
Member States considered this a useful document.
Germany stressed the need to identify the companies involved and/or
the sectors affected. France asked whether the commission could
prepare a two or three page note for each sector setting out provisions
relevant to them which could then be translated as required.
The Chair asked participants what Member States
had already done in terms of dissemination of information. Austria
and Netherlands reported on successful co-operation and with industry
groups to make sure national legislation was known and adhered
to and stressed the usefulness of industry groups as an information
channel. The United Kingdom intended to start a three-level information
campaign: (a) publication of brochures/leaflets, addressed to
industry; (b) website page; (c) publication of articles in relevant
trade journals.
The Chair asked participants whether they thought
that targeted information, co-ordinated at Community level, would
be useful.
Member States generally agreed that co-ordinated
information sharing was needed, ie best practice in destruction
and recovery as well as availability of alternatives. Financial
aspects/constraints were certainly also an aspect to be considered.
It was agreed that the Commission would prepare two-three page
sector-specific information notes covering the requirements of
the new regulation.[3]
It was also agreed that links should be created
between national web-sites and the Commission zone web-site.
Italy raised the question of CFC/halon quantities
to be destroyed. Did the EU have sufficient destruction capacities
to destroy all CFCs/halons that would be returned? They asked
whether it was possible to calculate the quantities the EU had
to dispose of and noted the need for co-ordination with waste-legislation.
The Chair said that the Commission could consider making such
calculations, dependent on what data MS could provide.
1998 STATISTICS
First, the table on "CFC and halon destruction"
was discussed.
France pointed out the difficulty of gathering
information on quantities destroyed since there were no obligations
to report. Furthermore, they wondered whether a 1992 report on
destruction by UN could be updated as it referred to several destruction
facilities that did not exist.
A "tour de table" was undertaken to
obtain recent data on destruction. As not all Member States/provided
data, it was agreed that an updated table would be circulated
as soon as Member States had reported their 1997-98 data to the
Commission.[4]
The figures reported by Member States with use-bans
in force indicated that only relatively small amounts had been
recovered and destroyed. The Chair concluded that the Community
as a whole could be facing a difficult situation unless more CFCs/halons
were recovered and ways found to avoid unnecessary emissions.
The United Kingdom asked other Member States
with experience of recovery and destruction to provide information
about how their systems worked so that "best practice"
could be identified.
Netherlands stressed the need to consider different
options to cut the costs of disposal of CFCs/halons. They referred
to a technology developed at the Technical university of Delft
and the possibility of exporting recovered CFCs/halons to developing
countries. Sweden described their scheme whereby a destruction
fee was added to import prices. No destruction costs were passed
on to end-users. France asked whether perhaps taxing of HFCs (substitutes)
could be an option to raise funds for destruction of CFCs/halons.
The Chair concluded that there should be further
reflection on a Community strategy/policy for recovery and destruction.
A working group could prove useful in that respect. Member States
with national legislation in force requiring decommissioning were
asked to send information outlining how their scheme worked.
Messrs Rosenqvist and Tierney outlined the import
and essential use statistics for 1998 and highighted once again
the problem with the low return-rate of used licenses.
Member States reported that they had different
procedures for returning those licenses. The Commission asked
Member States to liase with their customs authorities to try to
improve the return rate.
MINUTES OF MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE,
11 OCTOBER 1999
UPDATEABLE NEW
OZONE REGULATION
The Chair gave an overview of the current state
of play. Under the new Amsterdam Treaty, the new regulation would
fall under the co-decision procedure.
On 18 October, the next meeting of the European
Parliament Environment Committee would take place. The rapporteur
would then present her proposals for amendments. Most likely,
the Parliament would eventually propose some amendments and if
so, a conciliation procedure would be necessary, ie Council and
European Parliament would have to negotiate to find a compromise.
The plenary session of the European Parliament would take place
at the beginning of December, which, unfortunately, coincided
with the Beijing meeting.
Finland said that the Finnish Presidency encouraged
the European Parliament to go for an accelerated procedure, but
so far no decisions had been taken. Austria had spoken to Mrs
Fleming, the Austrian vice-rapporteur of the Environment Committee,
to underline their wish to speed up the procedure.
The Chair explained that the Commission was
also taking the necessary contacts with the European Parliament,
in particular with the rapporteur.
There was wide agreement that some clarifications
on definitions were necessary. The question was when these technical
adaptations could best be incorporated into the text. Any wording
leading to misunderstandings or misinterpretations should be avoided.
Germany and Netherlands were wondering whether and to what extent
they would still be involved in the negotiating process and how
they could exert some influence. Finland (Presidency) confirmed
that the Environment Committee would probably want to strengthen
the common position. Any adaptations by European Parliament would
probably be taken up in the conciliation procedure. They will
inform Member States on procedures for conciliation.
ANY OTHER
BUSINESS
Enforcement of the new regulation (Oslo workshop)
Mr Rosenqvist summarised the results of the
Oslo workshop. The topic was the recovery of CFC from domestic
refrigerators where both foams and refrigeration circuits were
concerned. The aim was to establish the best available technology
for recovery. High recovery rates were considered possible, although,
especially for foams, at high costs. A common standard for industry
would be desirable. The result of the workshop was to establish
an industry group to define the best available technology. The
question would also be where such a standard could fit (BAT-notes,
WEEE-directive, etc). Few commented on the topic but various comments
were made concerning the wording of the new regulation and the
definition of use. The Chair agreed that there remained some ambiguity.[5]
MINUTES OF MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE,
1 MARCH 2000
IMPLEMENTATION OF
NEW REGULATION
Progress on the adoption of the new Regulation
Mr Rosenqvist informed about the informal conciliation
going on for the moment (so called "trilogue"). Three
amendments were still outstanding. However, formal conciliation
seemed very likely, which would mean going back to the starting
point. Such formal conciliation would start in April.
The Chair pointed out that the threat of conciliation
might lead to a compromise. If no compromise was reached, that
would entail a heavy procedure.
Clarification of definitions: Proposed structure
and examples
Mr Rosenqvist referred to the table which has
to be considered as a first attempt to list items where clarifications
seem necessary. The aim was to reach a [6][common
view] [shared understanding] on the new Council Regulation. Member
States were invited to provide comments on this table in writing
[by mid March]. In any case, this document would evolve over time.[7]
Member States pointed out that some clarifications
existed already in other documents. In consequence, we should
use existing definitions rather than create new ones. During subsequent
discussion of some of the items, it became clear that there existed
already some different interpretations.
Dr Batchelor pointed out that one expert from
the "Halon Group" would help in clarifying some of the
points.
This document could perhaps be discussed further
when a CFC meeting was convened.
Netherlands raised the point of the substance
Bromochloromethane = Halon 1011. They had sent a letter to the
Commission before Beijing outlining the problem. At the time,
the Dutch authorities were not aware of the important use of this
substance (three major industries which would not be able to replace
the substance immediately). Netherlands was wondering how the
problem could be solved.
It was agreed that the Commission as well as
Netherlands should try to raise this point in future discussions
(Coreper).
The Chair suggested that all companies wishing
to ask for exemptions under the new Regulation could already send
in their anticipated application. This would enable the Commission
to speedily process these requests once the new Regulation had
entered into force.
Discussion then focussed on the concrete date
of application for the new Regulation. Member States argued that
a certain deadline was necessary in order to prepare national
legislations. The Chair emphasised that this point should also
be discussed in the Council.
Implications on users, Member States and Commission.
For this table, too, Member States were invited
to provide comments by mid-March.[8]
MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE, 1 MARCH
2000
Table with clarification/interpretation of potentially
ambiguous articles in the New Ozone Regulation—version 26
April
| Affects this ODS chemical
| Reference in the Regulation | Phrase/subject
| Interpretation/examples | Reason(s)
|
| CFCs/HCFCs | Article 15.1 |
Does recovery obligation on refrigeration, AC and heat pump equipment include any CFCs/HCFCs in insulating forms?
| No | It is the Commission's understanding that the clarification proposed here is in line with the intention of the Council during the negotiations of the new Regulation in Council[9]
|
| All ODS | Article 15.1 |
What are environmentally acceptable destruction methods
| Further assessment required by Commission |
Further assessment required by Commission |
| All ODS | Article 15.3 |
What is to be considered with "practicable"—
Any need for guidelines?
| Further assessment required by Commission |
Further assessment required by Commission |
INFORMAL MEETING JULY 2000 IN GENEVA DURING
THE MEETING OF THE MONTREAL PROTOCOL
No minutes as these were informal discussions.
MINUTES OF MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE, 4-6 OCTOBER
2000
RESPONSIBILITIES OF
MEMBER STATES
AND COMMISSION
IN MEETING
THE REQUIREMENTS
OF EC 2037/2000
The Commission briefly described EC 2038/2000 that allowed
the export of CFC-MDIs and the use of medical drug pumps, and
EC 2039/2000 that established 1999 rather than 1996 as the reference
year for the allocation of HCFC quota allocations for producers
and importers for the years 2001, 2002 and 2003.
Five items on the Clarification Table were discussed, but
the shortage of time prevented others from consideration.
"Existing cargo ships" in Annex VII were interpreted
by at least two Member States as relating to all ships except
passenger ships and possibly fishing vessels, and that halon would
be exempt for all such ships. Other Member States defined "cargo
ships" more narrowly and considered them to be vessels equipped
to carry flammable liquids such as oil tankers, and halon would
only be exempt for these uses. One Member State commented that
the IMO has banned halon systems in all vessels produced after
1994. Some Member States considered Commission clarification helpful
but full legal standing was only possible by modification of the
Annex VII which must be carried out annually. The meeting therefore
supported the Commission producing a draft of the text of the
Annex VII for consideration by the Member States on 25 October.
The Commission described the Legal Service interpretation
of halon exports under Article 11(1)(d). This concluded that exports
under the Regulation would be permitted in cylinders of any size
and number as long as there was evidence that the exports were
to meet critical use needs as defined under Annex VII. Some Member
States may not be able to define the type of cylinders as importing
countries argue that this could convey confidential information
about their military equipment. Some Member States currently have
restrictions on the export of halon (See Table 1, Member States
please send information if not done so already), and the enforcement
of this legislation would depend on the interventions of the national
EC authorities and/or the authorities of the importing country.
The Committee agreed that halon exports should be authorised by
the Commission in the same way that other exports will be authorised.
The Commission will request exporters define the volume of halon
exports by company and destination, and a copy of the information
will be submitted to Member States. This information will be particularly
important at a time when some importing countries consider the
EC is "dumping" unwanted halon. If the halon exports
reach limits not tolerated by importing countries an Amendment
to the Regulation could be considered.
The use of CFCs for calibration of German destruction and
recovery equipment was considered by the Committee to be a Laboratory
Use and exempt control. However, Member States suggested some
other non-ODS method be developed to calibrate such machinery.
The Committee agreed that foam containing CFC was classified
as a "product" rather than an "controlled substance"
and therefore came under Article 16(3) rather than 16(1). Article
16(3) calls for recovery of ODS, if practicable. Some Member States
considered that recovery from foam has been practicable for many
years as CFCs are recovered from both foam and from the cooling
circuit of refrigerators, with about two-thirds of the CFCs recovered
from foam and one-third from the cooling circuit. Large sandwich
panels could be cut into smaller pieces with minimal loss of CFCs
from the foam. BAT/BEP Guidelines were being produced and will
be submitted to the Commission shortly. Therefore, while CFC recovery
from foam may not be practicable in some Member States now, there
was opportunity for CFC refrigerators to be sent to Member States
that currently have CFC recovery capability. In addition, Member
States may wish to encourage CFC recovery through other directives
such as Waste Electrical or by developing other policy initiatives
to encourage the recovery of CFCs.[10]
Finland asked the Committee if it could agree to interpret
the Article 11 exemption for "personal effects" to only
cover such refrigeration equipment which are exported when person
is moving his place of residence outside EU. Other Member States
did not raise objections to this interpretation. It was noted
that the Protocol had discussed Article 5(1) Parties implementing
legislation to prevent such imports, that Poland and other CEITs
had a draft Decision underway for submission in Burkina Faso in
2000, and these were considered by the Committee to be the most
appropriate courses of action.
The Commission requested Member States send any other comments
that they might have in regard to the Clarification Table as soon
as possible.
Responsibilities of Member States and the Commission under
the new Regulation.
Each of the 36 responsibilities were examined and amendments
made to the text on the basis of the discussions. A revised Table
of Responsibilities is attached (Table 2).
MINUTES OF MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE, 25 OCTOBER
2000
ADOPTION OF
PREVIOUS MINUTES
The Commission, United Kingdom and Finland had provided written
comments prior to the meeting which were circulated to the Committee
for consideration. These modifications were accepted without comment.
In addition, Italy requested that "emergency" be changed
to "reserve" in order to be consistent with uses of
these two words in the Protocol. United Kingdom requested that
Article 16(2) be included as well as 16(3) in the Committee's
consideration of whether "foam-containing-CFC" was classified
as a "product" rather than an "controlled substance".
The Chair agreed to consider the United Kingdom's request and
report to the Committee.[11]
Finland requested a change to their submission on "personal
effects" to more accurately report their statement.
Given the agreements above, the Minutes of the First Meeting
of the Management Committee on EC 2037/2000 held 4-6 October were
adopted.
Finland raised the issue of exports of "personal effects"
and requested the Committee consider the following wording that
Finland submitted:
The Committee agreed to the interpretation of Article 11(1)
that the personal effects exempted from the export of "equipment
containing" refers to refrigerant equipment which a person
is exporting only when moving outside the EC or other comparable
situations.
The Committee questioned whether it should specifically relate
to refrigerators or whether Finland would consider making it more
general by, for example, including MDI and air-conditioning equipment.
The Commission thought other comparable situations could pose
difficulties in interpretation and implementation for border authorities.
In addition, the ability of Member States authorities to restrict
the volume of exports of CFC refrigerators varied between Member
States. It was noted that the Protocol was developing a Draft
Decision led by Poland that would allow Article 5(1) Parties to
take steps to limit CFC exports in equipment and that a contribution
to the Draft by the EC in this area could be of benefit.[12]
In addition, Customs Authorities had the competence to take the
most appropriate action, and Finland should work with its own
Customs agency in this regard. The Commission agreed to find a
definition of "personal effects" via the Commission
Customs Authorities that could be helpful to Finland in clarifying
the requirements of this section of the regulation.
MINUTES OF MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE, 13-14
MARCH 2001
EXPORT OF
REFRIGERATORS FROM
THE EC
The Commission thanked Italy, Germany, Netherlands, Finland
and the United Kingdom for returning the completed surveys and
summarised the responses (dpm[13]).
The Commission summarised the ad hoc meeting (dpm) and
described the options that were potentially available to allow
the export of compressors and/or fridge-compressor.[14]
Denmark reported that an export ban was in place and that
CFCs are recovered from the foam and compressor in about 250,000
refrigerators per year, and that any export of refrigerators for
humanitarian purposes would ultimately result in CFC release.
United Kingdom stated that their waste legislation prevented export
of refrigerators to another Member State so shipment to recycling
facilities outside the United Kingdom was not an option. Of the
2.5 million refrigerators disposed of annually, approximately
one million were exported in the past and the remainder were destroyed
without CFC recovery mechanisms in place (recovery mechanisms
will be in place in 2002). Belgium stated that 70,000 refrigerators
were recycled per year and it did not export refrigerators with
CFCs in the foam or compressor.
Germany reported that burning CFC-foam turned copper blue
and was a quick test for CFCs where the manufactured date was
unknown or not reliable, and that it was in possession of a list
that indicated products containing CFCs. Sweden reported that
refrigerators after 1995 did not contain CFCs in the foam, but
that refrigerators from 1993-95 could contain CFCs in the foam
and not the compressor. Germany and Sweden were requested to provide
the Commission with further details on the "CFC-foam test"
and both lists as Member States could find both useful.
France stated that other directives under development such
as the WEE would require recovery of CFCs from foam and therefore
there needed to be a harmonisation of requirements especially,
for example, where Article 16 of EC2027/00 currently clashes with
WEE.
United Kingdom pointed out that a considerable trade appeared
to exist in the EU for exporting used aircraft, valued at some
3.5 billion euros, and asked who would pay the cost if they were
not to be exported. Used military equipment, cars, ships and trains
might also be affected if the regulation was enforced, as these
could not be exported if they contained CFCs in foam. United Kingdom
also asked Commission to clarify what definition applied to "export"
under Regulation EC 2037/2000. In the absence of a definition
in the Regulation or the Montreal Protocol of "export",
use of the definition from the Community Customs Code 2913/92/EEC
might cover even aeroplanes leaving EU territory on a temporary
basis. Commission agreed to look into this and report back.
Finland pointed out that the environmental hazard from CFCs
released from a refrigerator remained the same globally whether
the refrigerator was exported or stayed in the EC. Finland was
disappointed to find itself in non-compliance on this issue when
it had made considerable effort in successive meetings to get
clarification.
Denmark, Sweden and France said they would be returning the
questionnaire with further details shortly.
The Commission thanked Member States for their comments and
agreed to include their useful comments made at this meeting in
its paper, to send it for comment to Member States and then to
seek legal advice where necessary.
CFC AND HALON
DESTRUCTION.
Not discussed at the meeting.
MINUTES OF MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE, JUNE
2001
BAN ON
EXPORT OF
CFC REFRIGERATORS AND
FREEZERS
The Commission introduced its paper which had been tabled
at the meeting.
Denmark commented that compressors can be retrofitted with
non-CFC gases and questioned whether the change included the charge
with new refrigerant. The Commission stated that the extent of
the conversion proposed in its paper was within the competence
of the Member States to enforce.
Italy considered that the regulation should be enforced with
no exports of refrigerators with CFCs permitted. United Kingdom
pointed out that CFCs would be present in insulating foam but
not in flexible foam and semi-rigid integrated foam. France thought
integral-skin foam could contain CFCs. Finland explained that
the WEE Dir 1602/11 comes into force 1 January 2002 which will
then classify CFC, HCFC and HFC as hazardous wastes and therefore
what is required is an integration of Articles 11 and 16 in EC2037/00.
Based on further discussion, the Commission proposed the
following wording as an amendment to Articles 11 of the regulation
in the section on exemptions:
Products containing CFC rigid insulating foam or integral
skin foam other than domestic refrigerators and freezers.
Most Member States agreed that an amendment that focused
on the exemption was most likely to meet with approval rather
than any adjustment to the header text in Article 11. Denmark
was concerned that the proposed change did not open up a loophole
for the export of CFC-containing products. The Commission agreed
to circulate the legal text for comment by Member States as soon
as possible.
Following from a request at the March meeting, the Commission
confirmed on the basis of consultations with its legal service
that a product leaving the EU temporarily such as an aircraft
flight could not be considered "export", whereas selling
an aircraft would be considered "export". The United
Kingdom considered this definition differed from the one provided
by their legal service. The Commission agreed to provide the definition
in writing to the Member States for their further consideration.
FREQUENTLY ASKED
QUESTIONS
The Commission called for comments on this paper that sought
to clarify parts of the regulation so as to allow its uniform
implementation. Italy questioned the value of such a document
as it considered the document to be without legal standing as
it could not be enforced in a court of law. The Commission considered
that a judge would be interested in the Commission's view and
was responding to previous requests by Member States to assist
with guidelines where possible. It was not a legal document but
the Commission did consult with legal services, and it was therefore
important to make best endeavours in clarification. There was
a balance that had to be reached between guidance and changing
the intent of the regulation or being too prescriptive—the
Commission hoped that Member States would be of assistance in
this area.[15]
Discussions were held on all questions except 19 which is
subject to release as a draft Decision by written procedure (see
3. Annex VII—Critical Uses of Halon). Responses to questions
5, 7, 8, 9, 11, 12, 16 and 17 remain unchanged. Responses to questions
1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 10, 13, 14, 15 and 18 were changed as a result
of discussions.
Regarding the definition of equipment for refrigeration and
air-conditioning produced after 31 December 2000, the following
elements, subject to confirmation, shall be agreed:
1. The retrofit of a system utilising CFCs with HCFCs
is possible;
2. The replacement of an essential part or component,
generally only once, is possible provided that this neither gives
rise to an increase in refrigerant capacity, nor an increase in
emissions nor a significant increase in the size of the system.
Some Member States thought replacement was generally only once
as they were concerned about issues such as the possibility of
technical failure in new components which would require them to
be replaced again.
Belgium stated that it intends to send further questions
to the Commission on foams (Q10), based on a special group that
is being established, as two pages of clarification supplied by
the Commission are not sufficient. The Commission agreed to respond
to the questions as soon as they are sent, and added the existing
text is based on advice from the TEAP subcommittee. Belgium also
asked for a copy of the citations to support the general ineffectiveness
of virtually impermeable films which the Commission will supply
from the TEAP report.
Austria commented that in Question 14, about 200,000 refrigerators
were recycled per year. Of this volume, only 1-3 per cent leaves
Austria as personal effects, and therefore the major effort should
be placed on recycling and recovery.
Questions 15 and 17 related to the recovery of used ODS,
in particular CFCs contained in foam parts of refrigeration and
air-conditioning equipment. The Commission considered that Articles
16(1) and 16(2) required the recovery of CFC from any foam contained
within refrigeration and air-conditioning equipment. This would
include sandwich panels used to insulate large refrigeration units
and domestic refrigerators and freezers. Article 16(3) then required
the recovery, if practicable, of used ODS from products and equipment
that did not fall within the scope of Articles 16(1) and 16(2).[16]
The United Kingdom stated that it was prepared to accept,
if this was the consensus view, that Article 16(2) required the
recovery of used ODS from both the compressor and the insulating
foam. The United Kingdom stressed, however, that the interpretation
of Article 16(2) should be the same as for Article 16(1) for larger
refrigeration and air-conditioning equipment. Based on experience,
the United Kingdom stated that was not always technically possible
to recover used ODS from the foam in larger equipment and asked
whether other Member States faced similar difficulties. Some Member
States (Austria, Sweden, Italy) stated that they had enterprises
that cut up sandwich panels to destroy the CFCs in the foam, usually
by incineration in the process of recovering the metal. Other
Member States were not sure of their activities to recover CFCs
from foam in their respective countries.
The United Kingdom also considered that it was not technically
possible to recycle and reclaim CFCs as required by 16(1) which
meant that the CFCs had to be recovered during servicing and maintenance
or before dismantling or [before] disposal of equipment. Italy
and the Commission commented that enterprises can extract the
CFC then destroy it or incinerate the CFCs in the foam simultaneously,
and it was therefore practical to do this.
The Commission considered recovery of ODS from foam applied
equally to 16(2) and 16(1) and it believed that some Member States
were already recovering ODS from foam in equipment listed in 16(1).
The Commission noted that by 1 January 2002 the United Kingdom
will have in place facilities to recover ODS from domestic refrigerators
which would include recovery of ODS from the foam. The Commission
also noted that, unlike 16(3), there was no "if practicable"
clause in 16(1) and 16(2) and did not consider that any component
of the equipment listed was excluded from the mandatory of recovery/destruction
of used ODS.
The Commission agreed to further discuss the issues relating
to 16(1), 16(2) and 16(3) in Montreal with Member States. In order
to make the best use of the time on this issue in Montreal, the
Commission asked all Member States to write by 29 June with information
on their experiences relating to the implementation of Article
16.
On Question 18 related to inspection of refrigeration systems,
the Commission stated that Member States should communicated to
it the minimum standards required and are required to do so by
31 December 2001. Based on these communications, the Commission
would then be in a position to comment and provide an overview,
as mandated in the regulation. The Commission understands the
Netherlands and Sweden already have standards in place and looks
forward to hearing about these and other standards in due course.
Denmark requested that the FAQ document be translated into
Member States languages. The Commission said that this would be
possible once the answers had been finalised.
3
See note A in the Chronology of Communications, Ev 71. Back
4
See note B in the Chronology of Communications, Ev 71. Back
5
See note C in the Chronology of Communictions, Ev 71. Back
6
Footnote written 20 February 2002: Square bracketed text would
normally be removed after the Minutes have been approved and adopted.
They have been inadvertently left in these Final Minutes. There
was neither discussion nor dispute of the text in square brackets. Back
7
See note D in the Chronology of Communications, Ev 72. Back
8
See footnote E in the Chronology of Communications, Ev 72. Back
9
See footnote F in the Chronology of Communications, Ev 72. Back
10
See note G in the Chronology of Communications, Ev 73. Back
11
See note H in the Chronology of Communications, Ev 73. Back
12
See note I in the Chronology of Communications, Ev 74. Back
13
Footnote written 20 February 2002: Distributed Prior to Meeting. Back
14
See note J in the Chronology of Communications, Ev 74. Back
15
See note K in the Chronology of Communications, Ev 74. Back
16
See note L in the Chronology of Communications, Ev 74. Back
| 
