Ref. Ares(2019)748406 - 08/02/2019
Directorate-General for Internal Market, Industry, Entrepreneurship and SMEs
Industrial Transformation and Advanced Value Chains
Advanced Engineering and Manufacturing Systems
Ref: TCAM WG (15)03: minutes of TCAM WG 14
Draft minutes of the 14th meeting of the TCAM WG (Brussels)
31st May – 1st June 2018
Ms Barbara BONVISSUTO (Chairperson on day 1, DG GROW), Ms Birgit WEIDEL
(Chairperson on day 2, DG GROW), Mr Nikos MICHAILIDIS (DG GROW), Mr Pier Francesco
SAMMARTINO (DG GROW), Ms Dorota PAPIEWSKA (DG GROW), Mr Rüdiger MARTIN
(DG CNECT), Mr KAUTZ Christoph (DG GROW). Represented Organisations:
See List of Participants (CIRCABC)
The Chair opened the meeting by welcoming the participants and announcing the programme of
Adoption of the Agenda
The agenda in Doc. TCAM WG (14)01r06 was approved, including under item 2.5 a point
on the creation of the Expert Group on radio equipment, as requested by Italy.
Update of delegations
The Chair asked the participants to communicate to the Commission any update of the list
of delegates in Doc. TCAM WG (14)02r01, if needed.
Minutes of TCAM WG 13
Italy suggested some changes to the minutes, which were agreed as in Doc. TCAM WG
Follow-up of the Action Points in the Minutes of TCAM WG 13
The Commission Services followed up the 4 identified action points as below at the end of
the minutes of the previous TCAM WG meeting:
MS and other relevant stakeholders should report to the Commission their
assessment on (i) the published MoU on the common charger and (ii) the scope and
the content of a possible regulatory option, envisaged technical solutions and/or
performance requirements and policy priorities.
Commission européenne/Europese Commissie, 1049 Bruxelles/Brussel, BELGIQUE/BELGIË - Tel. +32 22991111
Office: BREY 10/162 - Tel. direct line +32 229 80186
On this point the Commission Services reported that no documents were received in
writing and invited MS and stakeholders to provide an opinion under the agenda
Stakeholders can provide comments to Doc. TCAM WG (13)05, 06 and 21 under
well-justified reasons by 10th May 2018.
The Commission Services announced that some comments were received and,
whenever possible, they were included in the new draft.
ETSI should provide a precise time plan for the adoption and delivery of the new
versions of EN 301 908-2 and -13 with suitable OTA requirements.
The Commission Services announced that on 30th May they received the timeplan
for EN 301 908-13 which was promptly made available in Doc. TCAM WG(14)15
and had been inserted under the documents of the agenda point 3.2.
CENELEC should provide an update as precise as possible on the harmonised
standards in preparation for the RED.
The Commission Services announced that CENELEC had sent a new WP for the
RED and the information therein was reported in the Annex II of Doc. TCAM
Implementation and enforcement of the RED 2014/53/EU
The Agenda point 2.2 on Article 3(3)(g) was discussed before the Agenda point 2.1
Relevant Communications or Policy documents (information)
The Commission Services informed the audience on the publication of the Communication
on Artificial Intelligence and the evaluation of the Machinery Directive as in TCAM WG
(14)05 and TCAM WG (14)10. The Staff Working Document accompanying the
Communication on Artificial Intelligence (AI) was also referred to. An OECD external
also presented. The UK asked (i) whether regulations on data-enabled services are to be
expected and (ii) how behavioural sciences may be looked at to design a consumer-safe
product. CH highlighted the challenges of new products with respect to an effective
market surveillance. BEUC announced that they believe that there is a legal void on the
IoT, although the RED has the potential to solve it. BEUC also asked the Commission to
assess better the legislations in place in order to understand which risks are covered by
which legislation and report it in the mapping (TCAM WG (13)08r01) provided by the
Commission. ANEC recalled that a position paper on automated decision making was
about to be published, where also the topic of enforcement would be treated. Orgalime
stressed cybersecurity and AI are more system-based rather than product-based.
The Commission Services replied that the Communication on AI is the first step of the
work on this area and the comments of the stakeholders will be discussed and addressed
progressively. They recalled a series of Expert Groups where the different comments will
be addressed appropriately. Possible gaps will be progressively assessed and addressed by
either sectoral or horizontal legislation. On the mapping, the Commission Services agreed
to take the comments of BEUC into account. The Commission Services also recalled that
in this framework it may be relevant also to consider the evaluation of the Low Voltage
! Action point: COM to improve the mapping on cybersecurity according to the
request of BEUC.
Update on Article 3(3)
• Article 3(3)(a)
The Commission Services recalled the publication of DigitalEurope’s MoU,
explaining that it did not meet completely the Commission and European
Parliament’s expectations. The Commission’s Services also recalled that they
asked for the MS and stakeholders’ assessment of the MoU, yet they did not
receive any. They also announced that, in order to have a thorough understanding
of the problem, a study would be commissioned. This study would also serve as a
basis of a potential Impact Assessment.
ANEC pointed to some weakness of DigitalEurope’s MoU and supported the
adoption of a delegated act pursuant Article 3(3)(a) and recalled the position
papers/letters that had been addressed to the Commission. They also supported the
enlargement of the scope of a possible delegated act to several electronic
equipment, not only smartphones. Lithuania emphasised that some mobile phones
are not smartphones and asked the reasons to limit the MoU to smartphones only.
DigitalEurope replied to Lithuania mentioning that they invited non-smartphones
manufacturers to sign the MoU, yet they refused to.
The Commission Services fostered MS to consult all their relevant National
Services and possible stakeholders and provide their position by the end of June
2018. They also announced that the study would take into account several factors
(scope, safety, interoperability, performance, consumer convenience,
environmental aspects, regulatory instruments, etc).
Germany informed that internal discussions, not yet final, would point to a
preference for a voluntary option but understood that the Commission has
reservations on the final text of the MoU. They recommended to analyse whether
the best option would be to use the available empowerment in Article 3(3)(a) or to
consider another or adapt another legal instrument. The Commission confirmed
that the aim of the study is to assess different options, including the regulatory
! Action point: MS to consult all their relevant National Services and possible
stakeholders and provide their position on the Common Charger by the end
of June 2018.
• Articles 3(3)(d/e/f)
The Netherlands and Germany presented documents TCAM WG (14)07 and
TCAM WG (14)04 respectively. The Commission Services informed the Group
about discussions with the Commission Legal Service on the topic of
cybersecurity and empowerment of the RED. According to these preliminary
discussions, the delegated acts under Articles 3(3)(d), (e) and/or (f) of the RED
appear to be relevant to mandate some cybersecurity requirements. The Services
announced that they would submit the request for a written opinion to the
Commission Legal Service. The Commission Services also pointed to the RED
Guide to clarify some of the requests in the documents of the two MS.
Applia asked for the definition of embedded software within the purposes of the
RED. The Commission Services replied that in the RED the preinstalled software
at the moment of placing on the market is considered a part of the product which
has to be assessed for compliance with the RED. There are however also
provisions in Articles 3(3)(i) and 4 of the RED which refer to uploaded (i.e. non-
embedded at the moment of placing on the market) software.
FR, Lithuania and the UK supported the Dutch and German contributions but
fostered a clear scope for the prospective delegated acts. BEUC asked for a timing
of these delegated acts and informed that MS, e.g. the UK, were proposing
link to page 4
voluntary schemes to improve the cybersecurity of IoT1
. Also ANEC supported
the adoption of delegated acts pursuant Articles 3(3)(e) and (f) of the RED.
The Commission recalled that they proposed 3 initiatives: one under Article
3(3)(a), one under Article 3(3)(e) and (f), one under Article 3(3)(i) and 4. The date
of possible adoption will be a result of the internal discussions, also considering
the approaching end of the mandate of this Commission. The scope of the
initiative on privacy and prevention of frauds was announced to be connected toys
and smartwatches, without prejudice to an enlargement of the scope, which was
requested by different stakeholders. The Commission Services asked also any
stakeholder with additional comments or questions to be checked with the
Commission’s Legal Service to communicate them to the Commission Services by
20th June 2018. ! Action point: Any stakeholder with additional comments or questions to be
checked with the Commission’s Legal Service to communicate them to the
Commission Services by 20th June 2018.
• Article 3(3)(g) – Galileo
The Commission Services of DG GROW.J3 presented an update on the
prospective delegated act on Article 3(3)(g), announcing that with respect to the
last presented document, the present text had only been fine tuned.
ANEC reported that some consumers with disabilities would like to have a “real-
time and total conversation” requirement related to access to emergency services
and asked whether this request was addressed in this delegated act. The
Commission Services of DG GROW.J3 mentioned that they would look into this
issue, noting however that under the RED this would probably fall under Article
3(3)(h) which was not the legal basis used for this delegated act.
ETSI asked whether the standardization can be carried out under the current
standardization request M/536 and whether the Commission has specific
requirements that would like to see in a prospective harmonised standard. The
Commission Services of DG GROW.J3 pointed to the relevant recital. The
Commission Services of DG GROW.C3 mentioned that they may be in contact at
a later stage, e.g. when the delegated act is adopted providing guidance on what is
expected from one or more possible harmonised standards.
Finland and Germany highlighted that making Wi-Fi mandatory in smartphones is
a bit too restrictive and would like to have a more flexible wording also at the
light of innovative products. The Commission Services of DG GROW.J3
mentioned that the issue was discussed internally and the Commission Services of
DG CNECT fostered the inclusion of Wi-Fi technology only. Enlarging it to other
technologies would make the obligation wider. In any case the Commission
Services of DG GROW.J3 would look into this and undergo a second step of
reflection. Lithuania recalled that the specific inclusion of Wi-Fi is due to indoor
location, where Wi-Fi is the most dominant technology.
DigitalEurope asked how the connection between the mobile phone and the
emergency service will be ensured. The Commission Services of DG GROW.J3
recalled that 14 MS have a technical solution in place.
• Articles 3(3)(i) and 4
The Commission Services provided a general overlook of the work of the Expert
Group on Reconfigurable Radio Systems EG 03413 and recalled that the
documents of the Expert Group E03413 had been made publicThey also stressed
that in the discussions of the Group several Experts, in particular MS, fostered a
broad scope (i.e. almost all radio equipment) of the possible delegated acts. It was
1 After the meeting the UK shared the code of conduct on cybersecurity of IoT, which can be
also announced that the discussions in the group highlighted the existence of
technical solutions for demonstrating compliance with the possible future essential
requirements, when/if delegated acts would be adopted.
At the request of Lithuania, the Commission Services confirmed that, if and when
the delegated acts under Article 3(3)(i) and 4 are activated, the compliance at the
upload of new software would concern all the applicable essential requirements.
The Agenda point 3.1 was discussed before the Agenda point 2.3
RED Guide and applicability of the RED
The Commission Services proposed a new draft RED Guide for endorsement, announcing
that the received comments were included in TCAM WG (14)13 and 14. DigitalEurope
and Orgalime objected the part of the guide related to the distribution of information
documents in paper format for the purposes of Articles 10(8) and 10(10) and asked to
include the possibility of distributing documents electronically. The Commission Services
recalled previous discussions on the matter, also related to legal aspects of the Directive,
and the position of the MS against this possibility.
It was therefore concluded that the current text would be kept. The new version of the
RED Guide was consequently adopted.
Instructions and safety information
MWF presented document TCAM WG (14)09. France recalled that this document could
be seen as a reaction to National Decrees, which received already MWF comments in its
public consultation. The Commission Services recalled that in parallel there was an
ongoing notification process from France to the Commission on this subject.
Orgalime provided the information that the EMF harmonised standards typically refer to
the worst-case scenario. They also added that the imposition of reporting information on
SAR under different configurations (as in the National Decrees) could only lead to
additional costly test, because currently only the worst-case scenario is examined.
Lithuania questioned that SAR should be reported in the information to consumers
according to Article 10(8) and the compliance with the harmonised standards, when
applied, would suffice. DigitalEurope agreed with Lithuania and MWF adding that the CE
marking is enough to ensure consumers about safety. France and the Commission Services
asked the group whether they believed that the CE marking would be a sufficient
indication for the purposes of the SAR or not. ANEC asked for the SAR information to be
communicated to consumers, especially when products are intended for children. They
would also welcome any additional safety information which could be provided to the
consumers. ANEC also recalled that safety by design and safety information are two
different concepts and CE marking is an indicator of safety by design, yet consumers
should be informed, as also required by the law.
MWF recalled that their members made publicly available the EMF values on the MWF
website. The main reason behind document TCAM WG (14)09 relates to possible
discrepancies between the reported information in the instructions and the results of the
tests of Market Surveillance Authorities, with risks of litigation. They also pointed to a
key question, i.e. whether the SAR would be a relevant information to report to the
consumers, as provided for in Article 10(8) of the RED.)? The Commission concluded that
it would provide its assessment of the French measure under the relevant notification
Forthcoming Expert Group
At the request of Italy, the Commission Services informed the Group that the call would
be launched shortly. The Commission Services also recalled the general rules for
establishing and running Expert Groups.
CENELEC presented an update of recent work, including the publication of a renewed
Work Program (that the Commission summarised in Annex II of TCAM WG (14)06r04). 4
standards were announced to be awaiting the HAS consultant assessment. They also
announced ongoing work on standards affected by the “80-80” rule or “performance
ETSI presented documents TCAM WG (14)08r02 and 15. The Commission Services
presented documents TCAM WG (14)06 and 11. The Commission Services stressed that
through the deployment of the HAS consultant, in parallel with the provided checklists,
the Commission aimed to improve the quality and the efficiency of the review of standards
and described the new procedures that they would follow on their side. Spain and
Germany asked to have a feedback in the next meetings with respect to the work and the
benefits of the consultant’s scheme.
On the mapping of the receiver parameters, i.e. document TCAM WG (14)11, ETSI
recalled the ongoing discussions with ECC SE21, which are expected to lead to a report in
2020. ETSI recommended the TCAM WG to get in touch with SE21 or to wait for the
draft report in 2020. The Commission Services recalled that receiver parameters are
requested by the law and the Commission’s Services should be provided with the
necessary information to understand which receiver parameters are needed for complying
with the RED and to which extent they are coherent and justified across all ETSI
standards. CEPT/ECC confirmed that SE21 was working on a report and a possible
decision on receiver parameters. At the request of Orgalime on accessories, the
Commission recalled and read the minutes of the previous TCAM WG meeting,
mentioning that radio equipment, when it is placed on the market by means of harmonised
standards, shall comply with the specifications of the harmonised standard. In other words,
the harmonised standard cannot mandate the installation of accessories ex post
in order to
comply with its specifications. ETSI recalled that slide 7 of document TCAM WG
(14)08r02 already took these discussions into account, generalising the outcomes of
TCAM WG (13). At the request of MWF, the Commission Services answered that Article
7 is an obligation for Member States, not manufacturers. At the request of ETSI, the
Commission Services recommended to inform the Technical Committees that harmonised
standard should not mandate the installation of accessories after the placing on the market
to comply with the specifications therein contained. In any case, the Commission Services
recalled that a case-by-case analysis for specific standards might always be considered,
although the general rule was clear and expected to be followed.
For equipment below 9 kHz CEPT gave an update on the developments from the spectrum
At the request of Applia, the Commission Services clarified that “intended use” has to be
preferred to “intended use as defined by the manufacturers”. This would be in line not
only with the general RED framework but also with previous discussions under the LVD. 3.3
Summary report from the Commission
This point was treated in the previous two agenda points. No additional discussion took
Co-operation of notified bodies
Report from REDCA
The ADCO RED Technical Secretary of REDCA recalled a recent workshop on risk
assessments, SAR and 5G which attracted a significant attendance from the stakeholders.
The preparation of a Technical Guidance Notes on risk assessment and radio modules was
announced. The latter was mentioned to be on hold until the approval and publication of
the new RED Guide so to avoid conflicts. Also the update of four TGNs was announced.
Switzerland asked REDCA to pay attention to the definition of “radio modules”, so to
maximize the coherency with the Directive and avoid potential misunderstandings.
REDCA reassured that this would be looked at.
The Commission Services provided the group with the link for accessing the publicly available
documents of the EG RRS and confirmed that the changes asked by Italy to the minutes of the
previous meeting would be uploaded shortly.
Prospective Meeting Calendar
The prospective meeting calendar was announced, without prejudice to changes due to the actual
availability of the meeting rooms.
• TCAM 49 + TCAM WG 15:
3rd – 4th December 2018
Closing of the Meeting
The Chairperson thanked the participants and the interpreters and closed the meeting.
Summary of Action Points
COM to improve the mapping on cybersecurity according to the request of BEUC and NL.
MS to consult all their relevant National Services and possible stakeholders and provide
their position on the Common Charger by the end of June 2018.
Any stakeholder with additional comments or questions to be checked with the
Commission’s Legal Service to communicate them to the Commission Services by 20th