RESTRICTED
WORLD TRADE WT/REG21/M/1
4December 1997
ORGANIZATION(97-5320)
Committee onRegional Trade Agreements
AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITY AND THE
FAROE ISLANDS (GOVERNMENT OFDENMARK)
Note ontheMeeting of1October 19971
Chairman: Mr.JohnWeekes (Canada)
1. TheCommittee onRegional Trade Agreements tookuptheexamination oftheAgreement
between theEuropean Economic Community (EC), oftheonepart,andtheGovernment ofDenmark
andtheHome Government oftheFaroe Islands, oftheother part, under Agenda ItemD(II) ofits
Thirteenth Session. Theexamination wasconducted onthebasisoftheStandard Format forInformation
onRegional Trade Agreements andaccordingly followed itslayout.
A. General Statements
B. Section I -Background Information ontheAgreement
- I.2 Type ofAgreement
C. Section II -Trade Provisions
II.1 Import restrictions
- II.5&6 Safeguards, anti-dumping andcountervailing measures
- II.8 Sector-specific provisions
D. Section III -General Provisions oftheAgreement
- III.4 Relation With Other Trade Agreements
A. General Statements
2. TheChairman recalled thattheCommittee agreed inFebruary topostpone theexamination
ofthatAgreement asitwasbeing renegotiated. Hehoped thattheexamination could becompleted
atthatday'smeeting.
3. Therepresentative ofDenmark, speaking onbehalf oftheHome Government oftheFaroe
Islands, stated thatitmight seem strange tosome thattheCommittee should examine anAgreement
between theECandoneofitsMember States. However, although theFaroe Islands werepartofthe
Kingdom ofDenmark, theywere not,andhadnever been, partoftheEC. TheFaroe Islands had
alarge degree ofautonomy under theHome RuleActandwere aseparate customs territory. The
ECandparticularly Denmark were byfarthemost important trading partners oftheFaroe Islands.
Trade relations withtheEChadbeenguided byaformal trade agreement since 1992, when formal
agreements werealsoconcluded witheachoftheEuropean FreeTrade Association (EFTA) countries.
1Themeeting wasconvened inWTO/AIR/684.WT/REG21/M/1
Page2
However, aftertheaccession ofAustria, Sweden andFinland totheEC,ithadbeennecessary tochange
theagreement. TheAgreement before theCommittee entered intoforce on1January 1997. The
Agreement, aswellasitsAnnexes andProtocols, hadbeenmade available forWTO Members inthe
three WTO official languages. Additionally, theParties hadsubmitted initial information under the
Standard Format inorder tofacilitate theexamination andguide thedebate. Heconcluded byexpressing
hishope thattheCommittee could finalize theexamination atthatmeeting, notleastbecause the
Agreement wasprobably notthemost important freetrade agreement intheworld, except perhaps
fortheFaroe Islands.
4. Therepresentative oftheEuropean Communities stated thatthatAgreement wasveryimportant
fortheFaroe Islands andthatitwasimportant togetthateconomic context right. Theevolution of
theAgreement from thatof1992 tothecurrent onealsoreflected thatfeature. TheCommittee was
examining anAgreement entirely inthesense ofArticle XXIV. Ithadaverysubstantial degree of
liberalization already fullyinplace; using 1996figures, 92.6percentoftwo-way tradewasconducted
duty-free. Thatwasafundamental facttobearinmind astheexamination proceeded. Itwasalso
important tobearinmind thattheeconomy oftheFaroe Islands wasverymuch oriented towards fish,
fishproducts andother agricultural products andthatwasreflected inthewaytheAgreement was
constructed. Itwasfairtosaythatproducts which were traded hadbeenbrought within thescope
oftheAgreement insome way, while those forwhich there wasclearly notrade hadinmany cases
notbeenbrought within thescope oftheAgreement. Thatlatter point didnotamount toanexclusion
ofthese products from theAgreement, itsimply amounted toanefficient useofnegotiating time.
5. Therepresentative oftheUnited States, while welcoming theuseoftheStandard Format by
theParties, saidthatthefactthatitwasmade available onlyoneweek before themeeting resulted
inthelackoftimeforitsthorough review. Therefore, hiscomments would bepreliminary andnot
comprehensive. Hesought confirmation onwhether, since thetimeoftheoriginal notification ofthe
Agreement inlate-1996, theAgreement hadbeenessentially rewritten. Ifthatwasthecase,hewondered
whether theAnnexes hadchanged. Hewould liketheParties toexplain howtheexisting Agreement
differed fromthetextnotified andwhatwerethesubstance andsignificance ofthechanges. TheStandard
Format indicated thatonlycertain agricultural products andcertain fishandfishproducts wereexcluded
from theAgreement, or,asmentioned bytheEC,subject to"anefficient useofnegotiating time".
Herequested theParties oftheAgreement toindicate which products inthese sectors wereactually
included intheAgreement, whatpercentage ofeachsector wascovered bytheAgreement andwhat
percentage ofeachsector wasactually fullyliberalized.
6. Therepresentative ofCanada thanked theParties forproviding information intheformofthe
Standard Format. Nevertheless, additional information wasneeded fortheCommittee toassess whether
thatAgreement conformed withArticle XXIV. Hehadnodifficulty inproceeding expeditiously with
theexamination aslongasanyofhisquestions besubsequently replied inwriting andthereplies be
satisfactory. Hisquestions would mainly concern thecoverage issue, specially fishproducts. Hewas
intrigued withthefactthatinthetrade statistics forthetwoHSChapters pertaining tofishproducts,
i.e.3and16,there seemed tobeasignificant decline inthetrade withtheFaroe Islands overthelast
three years, anditwould beinteresting toseehowthatmight relate tothenature oftariff concessions
included intheAgreement.
7. Therepresentative ofAustralia thanked theParties fortheinformation provided intheStandard
Format. TheAgreement seemed relatively straight forward. Australia 'strade interests inthese areas
wereverylimited, buthehadsome systemic concerns which would beraised during themeeting, largely
related tothecoverage andtherequirement toeliminate barriers to"substantially allthetrade".
8. Therepresentative ofJapan urged parties toregional trade agreements tosubmit information
ontheiragreements more inadvance oftheexamination meeting.WT/REG21/M/1
Page3
9. Therepresentative ofSwitzerland welcomed theopportunity toexamine thatAgreement. He
thanked theParties forthesubmission, onavoluntary basis, oftheStandard Format. Hisdelegation
hadthetimetoexamine thatdocument which, while being non-mandatory, assisted intheexamination.
Hewasinterested infollowing thatdebate asSwitzerland alsohadfree-trade agreements withboth
Parties ofthatagreement. Hewelcomed theEC'smention thatanextremely highpercentage oftrade
bothways wasduty-free andstated thatthatwasaveryimportant element totakeintoaccount when
discussing thecoverage issue.
10. Replying tothese initial remarks, therepresentative ofDenmark, speaking onbehalf ofthe
Home Government oftheFaroe Islands, stated thattheoriginal 1992 Agreement, notified in1995,
hadbeensuperseded bythenewAgreement asof1January 1997, which wasdistributed inMay1997.
TheStandard Format related tothenewAgreements. While notbeing fullyaware ofallthechanges
between theoldandnewAgreement, heunderstood thatthetrade coverage ofthenewAgreement
hadincreased, alsointheareaoffishproducts. However, theFaroe Islands hadbeeninaneconomic
crisis since theearly 1990s, notleastbecause there hadbeenadecrease inthenumber offisharound
theFaroe Islands dueprimarily toover-fishing. Thathadhadeffects onmostsectors oftheFaroese
economy, firstofallontheexport offish. Thatexplained thedropoffisheries exports totheEC.
ThenewAgreement would havelittlerelevance onthese statistics, which wereonlyuptoSeptember
1996. TheFaroe Islands andDenmark hoped thatexports would increase withthenewAgreement;
however, thefishes hadnotyetcome backinlarge amount andthisremained aproblem.
B. Background Information ontheAgreement
Section I.2-Type ofAgreement
11. Replying tothequestion byJapan onwhether theParties hadanyplantoconvert theAgreement
intoacustoms union, therepresentative ofDenmark, speaking onbehalf oftheHome Government
oftheFaroe Islands, stated thatthatwasnotplanned. Thatwould happen onlyiftheFaroe Islands
decided tojointheEC,andthatwasnotforeseen atthatpoint intime.
C. Trade Provisions
Section II.1-Import restrictions
12. Therepresentative ofCanada indicated thatitwould beuseful tohavetheinformation contained
intheProtocols made available along withtheStandard Format, oratleastwiththebody ofthetext
oftheAgreement, tofacilitate theunderstanding ofthetariff treatment accorded tovarious product
categories. Hewould liketoknow theexact breakdown oftarifftreatment, byHSline,forparticular
fishproducts, mainly Chapters 3and16.Hesought information onwhich tariff lineswerecovered
bythetariffquotas, aswellastheirsize.Healsoquestioned whether therewereMFN tariff-rate quotas
forthecorresponding tariff lineintheECtariff schedule, and,ifso,whether theFaroe Islands had
toexhaust itsownpreferential tariff-rate quotas before using theMFN tariff-rate quota. These would
beuseful toassess thepossible trade impact thatthese preferences might haveonMFN suppliers and,
wasalsorelevant tothetestofArticle XXIV:8 ontheelimination ofallmeasures onsubstantially all
thetrade.
13. Referring totheParties 'statement thatforcovered agricultural products andsome fishproducts
thepreferential dutyrateof0percentwassubject totariff quotas, tariff ceilings andstatistical
surveillance, therepresentative oftheUnited States asked howeachofthese threemeasures operated,
particularly how, andtowhich degree, theylimited preferential treatment. Hewondered whetherWT/REG21/M/1
Page4
preferential treatment would belimited ontwo-way trade oronlytotrade flowing inonedirection,
i.e.intooroutoftheEC,andalsowhich wastherationale foremploying these measures. Indicating
thattheuseofreference price wasofsome concern, herequested theECtoexplain howthatprocess
worked andwhyitwasnecessary fortheexports from theFaroe Islands totheEC.
14. Therepresentative ofAustralia indicated thathisdelegation would liketolookverycarefully
atduties andcharges inthelightofArticle XXIV:8. Hewasconcerned withcompliance withthe
needtoremove barriers tosubstantially allthetrade and,astheUnited States, alsowanted more
information onthequestions oftariff quotas, tariff ceilings andparticularly statistical surveillance.
Itwasalsoconcerned withtheuseofreference price; itwasnotclearhowtoreconcile afree-at-frontier
pricewhich wasatorabove reference prices fixedbytheECauthorities onaannual basis. Hewondered
which were thereference prices, howtheywere fixed andwhatwastheirapplication.
15. Therepresentative ofJapan asked whether, inthelightofArticle XXIV:4 and5(b),theParties
hadraised tariffs inthecontext oftheformation ofthefree-trade area.
16. Responding tothequestions posed andthecomments made, therepresentative oftheEuropean
Communities stated thatthedetailed information ontariff linelevelonfishandfishproducts, aswell
asallofthefactual information requested byCanada, wascontained inProtocol 1,which wasavailable
attheSecretariat. Onthequestion ofcirculation ofinformation, theECcould bearinmind thepoint
made bytheCanadian representative forlateron;nevertheless, thatinformation wasavailable atthe
Secretariat andtherefore todelegations wishing toconsult them. Sofarastheywere aware, there
werenoMFN tariff-rate quotas falling intotheCanadian description, thusthequestion oftheFaroe
filling abilateral quota before moving ontohaveaccess tosome other MFN quota didnotapply.
Asforthequestions posed bytheUnited States, thesource ofthereplies wasProtocol 1.Noparticular
explanation wasneeded ontariff quotas inthatcontext, except toemphasize thattheywere talking
about tariff-quotas andnotabout quantitative restrictions. Tariff ceilings, provided forinArticle 3
ofProtocol 1,amounted toaquantitative ceiling above which theEChadtheoption tointroduce a
fullcustoms dutyonimports oftheproduct concerned. Details onthese ceilings werealsoprovided
intheannexedmaterialwhichMemberscouldconsult.Statisticalsurveillancereferredtokeepingrecords
based onimport figures against particular tariff headings; itwasasufficiently common practice to
require noparticular explanation. Theanswers related toreference prices were found inArticle 2
oftheProtocol onthetarifftreatment andarrangements applicable tofishandfishery products imported
intotheECortheFaroe Islands. Thepreferential dutyratesof0,asindicated intheAnnex, applied
onlyfree-at-frontier price, which wasaprice determined bytheimporting ECMember State, in
accordance withtheprovisions ofoverreaching, found inregulation EEC 3759/92 published inthe
Official Journal of31December 1992 andamended byregulation 3318/94 published on
31December 1994. Thedutyratesapplied onlyifthatfree-at-frontier price wasatleastequal tothe
reference pricefixed, ortobefixed, bytheECfortheproducts under consideration orforthecategories
ofproducts concerned. Reference prices werenecessary because themanagement offishresources,
access tofisheries andthemarketing offishwereextremely sensitive economic, social andpolitical
questions within theECandintheFaroe Islands, asfortheother Members oftheCommittee. The
process ofliberalization provided forintheAgreement went asfarasitcould, given theneedto
maintain, within theECinternal market, arrangements which tookaccount ofthesesensitivities. That
wasareflection oftheparticular features ofthatimportant economic sector onbothsides ofthe
Agreement. They didnotconsider thatitplaced them inaposition where thatAgreement failed to
comply withtherequirements ofArticle XXIV:8(b).
17. Therepresentative oftheUnited States stated that,based ofthereply given, hisdelegation
continued tobelieve thatexcluding virtually anentire sector fromtheAgreement, inthatcaseparticular
sectors which wereimportant foreachoftheParties, didnotsatisfy therequirements thatsubstantially
allthetrade becovered bytheAgreement.WT/REG21/M/1
Page5
18. Therepresentative ofAustralia requested some clarification ontheresponses given. Ifthe
preferential dutyratesubject totariff quotas was0percent, hewondered whatwasthetariff ceiling
and,ifitwasanout-of-quota rate,howthatapplied. Itwould stillbeuseful toobtain information
onprecisely whatwould bethesizeofthequota. Asforthereference prices, hefound theexplanation
veryinteresting anditmight wellbehelpful tounderstand howthathadoperated inthepast. Inlight
oftheprevious statement bytherepresentative ofDenmark, according towhom thevarious agreements
notified were pretty much thesame, presumably thesystem ofreference prices hadalready beenin
place forsome time. Ifthatwasthecase,thenpresumably information could beprovided astowhether
ithadactually beenimplemented, i.e.whether there hadbeencases where theFaroe Islands exports
offishandfishproducts hadnotenjoyed free-at-frontier pricebecause theywerebelow reference prices.
Pending further examination ofthat,heshared theconcerns expressed bytheUnited States.
19. Therepresentative ofCanada stated that,astheprevious twospeakers, hehadfollowed very
closely theexplanation given forperhaps some sortofmanagement oftradeontheimportant fishsector.
Thatraised animportant issueinterms ofconsistency withArticle XXIV:8(b), where therequirement
quite clearly applied totheelimination ofduties andother restrictive regulations ofcommerce on
substantially allthetrade. Itwould beuseful ifsome further detailed information beprovided onhow
much trade wasactually duty-free, howmuch wassubject totariff quota, howmuch wassubject to
tariffceilings andhowmuch wassubject tostatistical surveillance. These werethreesetsofrestrictive
measures thataccording totheterms ofArticle XXIV:8(b), weretobeeliminated onsubstantially all
thetrade, butwhich, forthereasons provided, werestillinexistence inthatAgreement. Additional
tradeinformation would behighly desirable before afinalassessment could bemade astotheconsistency
oftheAgreement totheWTO.
20. Replying tothequestion byJapan, therepresentatives oftheEuropean Communities andof
Denmark, speaking onbehalf oftheHome Government oftheFaroe Islands, stated thatneither of
theParties hadincreased MFN rates. Therepresentative oftheEuropean Communities stated that
thefishsector wasnotexcluded fromtheAgreement andthushedidnotshare theconclusion reached
bytherepresentative oftheUnited States. Concerning thequestion ofAustralia oninformation on
reference prices overtime, indeed thefundamental regulation entered intoeffect on31December 1992
andthesystem hadbeeninoperation forsome time. Hewould lookforadditional information and
submit ittotheCommittee. There hadbeen, andthere might stillbe,cases where imports fromthe
Faroe Islands intotheEChadentered withprices lower thanthefree-at-frontier price, thusnotenjoying
duty-free treatment. They would taketheopportunity tocheck, quantify andcomment onthat. As
fortheoperation oftariffceilings, theProtocol referred toreference ceilings instead oftariff ceilings,
asdrafted intheStandard Format, andthatwould beamore useful andhelpful term. Thereference
ceilings werespecified atatariff linelevelintheAnnex totheProtocol, which wasavailable atthe
Secretariat. These reference ceilings were established intheAgreement, andtheProtocol provided
that"should imports ofthese products exceed thereference ceiling, theCommunity mayintroduce
thefullcustoms duty." Commenting onthis,heemphasized theoptional nature oftheprovision by
stating thattheECmight, andnotshould, introduce thefullcustoms dutyandindicated thatthefull
customs dutywastheMFN rate.
21. Commenting onreference ceilings andtheEC'sstatement thatitcould increase theduty, the
representative ofJapan stated thatthelegalrequirement forthederogation from theMFN principle
forfree-trade areas wasthatduties among Parties should bezero. Ifthere wasaprovision thatwhen
theduties exceeded thereference ceiling theECcould increase dutyoverzero,thatwould beinprinciple
inconsistent withtheWTO provisions.
22. Responding tothatcomment, therepresentative oftheEuropean Communities emphasized
thatthereferenceceilingswereexpressedinquantityandthattheProtocolprovidedthat,incircumstances
where thatquantity wasexceeded, theECmight, notshould, introduce theMFN rate. While hewasWT/REG21/M/1
Page6
notexactly clear onthepoint made bytheJapanese delegation onArticle XXIV:8(b), hereiterated
thattheParties didnotshare thefundamental conclusion thateither thesector wasexcluded orthat
thearrangements theyhadputtheminaposition where theoverall requirements ofArticle XXIV:8(b)
were notmet.
23. Therepresentative ofAustralia stated thathehadunderstood therepresentative oftheECsaying
thattariff quotas were notatrade restriction andthatthatsubject waswidely discussed. Replying
tothatpoint, therepresentative oftheEuropean Communities stated thathedidnotsaythat,butrather
hesaidthattariff quotas were notaquantitative trade restriction.
Section II.5&6 -Safeguards, anti-dumping andcountervailing measures
24. Therepresentative ofJapan stated that,while itwasastandard question which applied for
customsunions,hewouldlikeaconfirmationthatthePartieswouldnotautomaticallyextendsafeguards,
anti-dumping orcountervailing measures without individual investigation, orinconsistently withthe
corresponding WTO Agreement. Therepresentative oftheEuropean Communities stated that,as
indicated bytheJapanese delegation, thatwasnotacustoms union andtheParties remained separate
customs territories andweretherefore subject tomultilateral rulesseparately. TheAgreement contained
arrangements oncommercial defence measures asbetween theParties, butthatdidnotaffect the
obligations which arose inrespect oftheWTO Agreements. Responding tothat,therepresentative
ofJapan stated that,eveninafree-trade area, itwaspossible theoretically orpractically foraparty,
e.g.Denmark orFaroe Islands, toautomatically apply thesame similar safeguard oranti-dumping
duties astheEC. Therepresentative ofDenmark, speaking onbehalf oftheHome Government of
theFaroe Islands, confirmed thatthere wasnoautomaticity andthatanydecision onapplying anti-
dumping, safeguards orcountervailing measures should betaken separately.
Section II.8-Sector-specific provisions
25. Noting thatbothParties reserved theirrights inrespect ofthepetroleum sector andassuming
thattrade wasatthattimefree,therepresentative ofAustralia inquired whatpossible changes might
beenvisaged under thatArticle oftheAgreement. Therepresentative oftheEuropean Communities
replied thatArticle 14oftheAgreement provided forareservation oftherights offirstly theECand,
inaseparate paragraph, oftheFaroe Islands tomodify arrangements applicable toparticular products,
listed intheAgreement under theirparticular headings, upon"adoption ofdecisions under thecommon
commercial policy forpetroleum products oronestablishment ofacommon energy policy." That
simply reserved therights oftheECinparticular circumstances which hadnotarisen andpreserved
adegree offreedom oraction inthatcontext. There wasasimilar reservation oftheFaroe Islands
rights tomatch that.While itdidnotamount toverymuch, theParties feltitwasimportant tomention
itintheStandard Format fortheseekofcompleteness.
D. General Provisions oftheAgreement
Section III.4-Relation With Other Trade Agreements
26. Therepresentative oftheUnited States noted thatthereappeared tobeaMFN clause forfree-
trade areas andinquired howthatwasapplied andwhether ithadbeenused. Therepresentative of
theEuropean Communities replied thataccording tohisknowledge ithadnotbeenusedandifthat
reply wasnotcorrect hewould make acorrigendum later. While itwould seem neattocallthata
MFN clause forfree-trade areas, itmight leadtoadangerous simplification. ThetextintheStandard
Format came close toactually quoting thetexts. Thatprovision didnotreally work asanMFN clause
because itdidnotprovide forautomatic extension ofbenefits under oneagreement toParties ofanotherWT/REG21/M/1
Page7
agreement. Itprovided forthepossibility ofoneorother party requesting thatconsideration begiven
totheextension ofconcessions toother specific thirdParties and,assuch, wasaconsultation anda
bestendeavours arrangement. Itneatly incorporated thefactthatthearrangements between theEC
andtheFaroe Islands, between theFaroe Islands andtheEFTA countries andbetween theECand
theEFTA countries amounted toaclose commercial engagement, which wastherefore reflected in
thatconsultation uponrequest formofprovision intheAgreement. Thatwasaninteresting provision
butitremained tobeseenwhat, ifany,application itwould haveinpractice, anduntiltheParties
hadhadsuchexperience itwasdifficult togobeyond theexplanation provided.
27. TheChairman stated thatthediscussion hadconcentrated onpredictable lines. TheEChad
indicated thatitwould come backwithsome additional information, particularly under theheading
ofimportrestrictions.Withthatinformation,theCommitteemighthaveexhausteditsfactualexamination
ofthatAgreement. Further work wasneeded ontheconclusions, andinapreliminary sense there
seemed tobesome differences ofviews about theconclusions thatmight bedrawn fromtheexamination
oftheAgreement. Heurged theParties toprovide therequested replies assoonaspossible andasked
theSecretariat tobegin preparing thefactual record ofthediscussion andconsidering theelements
ofthedraftconclusions oftheexamination. Itappeared thatthere wasnoneedforafurther meeting
todealspecifically withtheexamination. TheCommittee would obviously revert tothatAgreement
foraddressing theconclusions. Anyadditional points ofexamination which remained tobeconcluded
could bedealtwithatthatpoint intime.
28. Responding totheChairman 'ssuggestions, therepresentative oftheUnited States saidthat
hiscomments hadonlybeenpreliminary because ofthelatearrival ofthedocumentation andthathis
delegation might needanother opportunity toraisefurther questions. TheChairman urged Members
toprovide expeditiously anyfurther questions inwriting andtheParties toprovide theneeded replies
alsoexpeditiously, without theneedfortheCommittee tomeetagain toaddress these. Supporting
theproposal made bytheChairman, therepresentative ofSwitzerland proposed, inlightofwhathad
beendoneinother examinations, thesetting ofadeadline forquestions andreplies sotoexpedite the
work oftheCommittee. Inlightofthefactthattherehadbeenalotofdiscussion onduties andcharges
andthatseveral delegations feltitwashardtoproceed without more information, therepresentative
ofAustralia argued thatadditional questions could notbeformulated untiltheParties provided the
basicinformation ontheoperation oftariffquotas, tariffceilings, statistical surveillance andreference
prices. TheChairman wondered whether some targets should beestablished forthese additional
information. Healsorecalled Members that,while theStandard Format hadonlybeendistributed
aweek before themeeting, theAgreement itself, which wasstraight forward, hadbeendistributed
inMay. Therepresentative oftheEuropean Communities suggested thatonemonth fromthecirculation
oftheStandard Format begiven toMembers forasking additional questions andfortheParties to
provide thefactual information requested. TheChairman concluded thatdiscussion byindicating that
bythe26October theParties andtheMembers endeavoured tosubmit totheSecretariat respectively
theadditional information requested atthatmeeting andadditional questions. Ifthereplies provided
bytheParties gave place toadditional questions from Members, these should beformulated as
expeditiously aspossible andtheParties would aimtoreplytothemwithin onemonth fromtheirreceipt.
Thatmight givesome prospect oftrying tobring thefinalpartofthediscussion oftheconclusions
andanyfinaldetails ofexamination fortheCommittee 'smeeting inDecember, sothatthatAgreement
could beadded tothelistofagreements which hadconcluded thefactual examination.
29. TheCommittee tooknoteofthecomments made.