Virtual CB Forum Conclusions Nov 13-March 14 PG Criterion who issued deadline 1 Hard Coverings Scope Estonia 26/11/2013 17/12/2013 2 Printed Paper Deinkability CE/Intergraf 27/11/2013 18/12/2013 3 Laundry Detergent Performance test Germany 05/12/2013 03/01/2014

MgO building boards within the scope of "Hard Coverings" (Decision 2009/607/EC) as agglomerated stones ? CONCLUSIONS: Question 1: Do you think MgO building boards fall within the product group scope of Hard Coverings- agglomerated stone? Answer 1: It depends on how they are manufactured. Only if they fulfill the norm JWG 229/246 EN 14618 they can be defined as such. Question 2: In case of a positive answer, how should it be proved if the product falls within the "agglomerated stone" category or not? Answer 2: The applicant should sign a declaration that their product is compliant with norm JWG 229/246 EN 14618 and should add a declaration by an independent accredited laboratory proving the same. The product must then live up to all the relevant criteria for this product group. No further answers from accredited labs in Italy

Printed Paper -Commission Decision 2012/481/EU- Criterion 3: Recyclability DEINKABILITY (on final product or on paper?) . CONCLUSIONS: Question 1: How do you interpret this criterion regarding de-inkability? Would you test the specific ink used on the final product on 3 different type of paper: uncoated, coated and surface -sized paper? Answer 1: The test should be performed on the final product using the specific ink used by the printing house. Printing houses should test their typical final products with all different specific inks they really use or ask for test results from their ink suppliers after having provided them with a "realistic product" they intend to Ecolabel. Once the test is performed on the final product the request of using 3 different type of paper (uncoated, coated, surface sized) becomes pleonastic. Question 2: Would you agree to perform "generic de-inking tests" with a combination of a specific ink with a specific kind of paper as suggested by Intergraf? Answer 2: Considering how much the deink test can be affected by the composition of the ink, by the specific type of paper chosen, and that some inks (UV) need to be tested on the final product anyway, it seems precautionary not to perform generic de-inking tests at the moment. This topic can be discussed in the next criteria revision. Question 3: Do you agree that for toners it doesn't make sense to test on the requested 3 types of paper? Answer 3: According to answer 1, testing the final product would overcome this problem.

Performance Test for Laundry detergents - Commission Decision 2011/264/CE- error in footnote 13/page26 While in the former published performance test, and in the round-robin test for this performance test, the following colour inhibitor was used: “Sokalan HP 56 K (PVPVI, 30%) the Footnote 13 reported : "Polyvinylpyrrolidone. CAS : 117197-37-2. Active substance 45%“ Question 1 Do you agree that the reference on footnote 13 page 26 of the “Performance test for laundry detergents” version 10/02/2011 is not correct and that the correct reference should be “Sokalan HP 56 K (PVPVI, 30%)” instead? Answer 1 YES The Commission has corrected the reference on the doc.