DIGITALEUROPE POSITION ON THE PROPOSAL FOR A NEW
RADIO EQUIPMENT DIRECTIVE
Revision of the Radio and Telecommunication Terminal Equipment Directive 1999/5/EC
INTRODUCTION
It is the aim of DIGITALEUROPE to support legislators during policy making processes when pursuing
simplification of the regulatory framework and minimise administrative burdens to market access.
Consequently, we welcome the objectives highlighted by the European Commission in the
Explanatory Memorandum of the proposal for a new Radio Equipment Directive: to improve the level
of compliance and increase the confidence of all stakeholders in the regulatory framework; and to
clarify and simplify the Directive so as to facilitate its application and eliminate unnecessary burden for
economic operators and public authorities.
In addition, the European Commission emphasises the Principle of Proportionality as a key element
that has been considered during this Directive revision exercise. DIGITALEUROPE finds essential the
application of this element, especially when assessing to which extend the newly introduced
provisions actually solve the problems which motivated a change in current regulatory framework.
After the publication of the European Commission proposal, DIGITALEUROPE is taking this
opportunity to reiterate our support to authorities in improving current market situation and simplifying
the regulatory framework for Radio Equipment. At the same time, with this paper we would also like to
express our reservations on a number of aspects from the new proposed text where we have
identified a good potential for improvement, and in particular, a more appropriate application of the
principles of Proportionality and Smart Regulation.
-
Comments related to the alignment with the NLF – “Horizontal Issues”
 Article 18.2 on “Translation of the EU Declaration of Conformity (DoC)”
 Proposed new recital on “Single EU Declaration of Conformity (DoC)”
 Annex VII on “Identification of the apparatus vs. identification of the declaration in the
EU Declaration of Conformity (DoC)”
 Article 10.6 and Article 12.3 on “Website address for traceability information”
-
Specific comments related to the revision of the R&TTE Directive (new Radio Equipment
Directive) – “Vertical Issues”
 Article 5 on “Registration of radio equipment”
 Article 10.7 on “Information to users”
 Article 10.9 on “Information available on the packaging”
 Annex II on “Products falling within the definition of radio equipment”
INDUSTRY COMMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Comments related to the alignment with the NLF – “Horizontal Issues”
The revision of the R&TTE Directive 1999/5/EC, resulting in the newly proposed Radio Equipment
Directive, is built on the alignment with the New Legislative Framework (NLF). The same NLF
alignment process has been and is being followed by other European Directives, which are in most
cases also relevant for equipment in the scope of the Radio Equipment Directive.
DIGITALEUROPE
Rue de la Science, 14 >> B-1040 Brussels [Belgium]
T. +32 2 609 53 10 >> F. +32 2 609 53 39
www.digitaleurope.org
Transparency register member for the Commission: 64270747023-20
>> 1 of 8
For this reason, DIGITALEUROPE has been following particularly closely the progress of discussions
on the Goods Package at the European Parliament and European Council in order to be able to allow
harmonisation and consistency on “horizontal issues” already discussed at European level for the
Goods Package (e.g. EMC Directive1, LV Directive2), which are now also included in the Radio
Equipment Directive.
In particular, DIGITALEUROPE presents in this paper 4 “horizontal issues” where it is considered that
there is a good potential for improvement on their wording. The proposed changes below are based
on the related amendments proposed by the IMCO Rapporteur Mrs. Roithová and included in her
report on the Goods Package.
Article 18.2 on “Translation of
Declaration of Conformity (DoC)”
the EU
2. The EU declaration of conformity shall have the
model structure and shall contain the elements set out
in Annex VII and shall be continuously updated. It shall
be translated into the language or languages required
by the Member State in which market the radio
equipment is placed or made available.
[…]
Recommendation from Industry
Modification of Article 18.2:
2. The EU declaration of conformity shall have the
model structure and shall contain the elements set out
in Annex VII and shall be continuously updated. Upon
the request of the market surveillance authorities,
the economic operator shall provide a copy of the
EU declaration of conformity in paper form or by
electronic means, and shall ensure that it is It shall
be translated into the language or languages required
by the Member State in which market the radio
equipment is placed or made available.
[…]
Justification:
Considering that the new Radio Equipment Directive allows the use of a “simplified DoC” (Article
10.8), and also that other applicable Community acts do not require EU DoC to accompany the
product (e.g. LVD and EMC Directive) but has to be provided by manufacturers upon request of a
competent national surveillance authority, an upfront EU DoC translation requirement would create a
disproportional burden for manufacturers without any added value for the EU market (i.e. the original
EU DoC issued in one Community language would need to be translated by the manufacturer into all
Community languages even before any surveillance authority has requested it).
For these reasons, we support the consideration of this translation issue made by the IMCO
Rapporteur in her Report on the Goods Package (e.g. Amendment 23 to the EMC Directive;
Amendment 28 to the LV Directive).The above recommendation goes in line with these IMCO
Amendments, aiming to ensure that the manufacturer is not expected to translate the EU DoC upon
its issuance into all the official languages of the Member States, but rapidly after a request from a
competent national surveillance authority.
New recital 40a on “Single EU Declaration of
Conformity (DoC)”
Recommendation from Industry
Addition of new recital (40a):
(40a) When issuing a single EU declaration of
conformity could cause specific problems due to
the complexity or scope of that single EU
declaration, it should be possible to replace that
single EU declaration by individual EU declarations
1 http://www.europarl.europa.eu/oeil/popups/ficheprocedure.do?reference=2011/0351(COD)
2 http://www.europarl.europa.eu/oeil/popups/ficheprocedure.do?reference=2011/0357(COD)
>> 2 of 8
of conformity relevant for the particular apparatus.
Justification:
Mandatory application of a single EU DoC covering all Community acts will make EU DoC for many
products unnecessarily complex and confusing. Furthermore, it has to be noted that in most cases
enforcement authorities only cover limited sectors of legislation and do not require full product
compliance information.
On the other hand, we acknowledge the intention and interest of the European Commission to have
an “overview” of all applicable acts relevant for a particular equipment, being “one single document”
the proposed way to achieve it. However, it has to be noted that a set of individual DoCs would
equally satisfy this “overview” objective, and at the same time would definitely simplify the
unnecessary burden of merging several individual DoC in one single document.
Therefore, we highly appreciate the consideration of this issue made by the IMCO Rapporteur in her
Report on the Goods Package (e.g. Amendment 2 to the EMC Directive; Amendment 4 to the LV
Directive). We truly believe that the above recommendation (in line with the mentioned IMCO
Amendments) would help to simplify administrative requirements.
Annex VII on “Identification of the apparatus
vs. identification of the declaration in the EU
Declaration of Conformity (DoC)”
Recommendation from Industry
1. No … (unique identification of the radio equipment):
Modification of Annex VII, point 1:
1. No … (unique identification of the radio equipment
Declaration of Conformity):
Justification:
There is a difference between point No.1 in Annex III of the NLF and point No. 1 as in EN ISO/IEC
17050-1, which is the standard on which Annex III is based. Annex III requests a Number as unique
identification of the product, whereas EN ISO/IEC 17050-1 requests a Number as unique
identification of the Declaration.
Considering that the model structure in in Annex III of the NLF already contains sufficient traceability
information, the recommendation above clarifies the text in order to avoid that point 1 of the model
structure “No xxxxxx (unique identification of the radio equipment)” is mistakenly understood as a
requirement to state product serial numbers in the EU Declaration of Conformity.
Article 10.6 and Article 12.3 on “Website
address for traceability information”
Manufacturers shall indicate their name, registered
trade name or registered trade mark and the address
at which they can be contacted on radio equipment or,
where the size or nature of radio equipment does not
allow it, on its packaging, or in a document
accompanying radio equipment. The address must
indicate a single point at which the manufacturer can
be contacted.
Recommendation from Industry
Modification of Articles 10.6 and Article 12.3:
Manufacturers shall indicate, on the radio equipment,
their name, registered trade name or registered trade
mark and the postal, or, if available, the website
address at which they can be contacted on radio
equipment or, where the size or nature of radio
equipment does not allow it, those details shall be
provided on its the packaging, or in a document
accompanying radio equipment. The address must
indicate a single point at which the manufacturer can
be contacted. The contact details shall be in a
language easily understood by end-users and by
market surveillance authorities.
Justification:
>> 3 of 8
We share the intention of the IMCO Rapporteur on the Goods Package to allow the introduction of a
website address as an alternative to fulfil the traceability information requirements for manufacturers
and importers introduced by the NLF.
Consequently, in order to allow harmonisation and consistency, we would like to propose with the
above recommendation the same text modification as the one included in the IMCO Report on the
Goods Package (e.g. Amendments 12 and 16 to the EMC Directive; Amendments 17 and 19 to the
LV Directive).
Specific comments related to the revision of the R&TTE Directive (new Radio Equipment Directive) –
“Vertical Issues”
The Radio and Telecommunications Terminal Equipment (R&TTE) Directive entered into force in 1999
and has been crucial to achieving an internal market in this area. The European Commission has
considered that the existing regulatory approach remains valid, and therefore there was no need to
perform fundamental changes on the Directive. However, it was also considered that a number of
provisions had still to be modified.
DIGITALEUROPE welcomes this revision of the R&TTE Directive, which is expected to accommodate
the experience gained on its operation over the last decade. We are certain that some of the
modifications will simplify current regulatory framework and contribute to improve current level of
compliance in the EU market.
On the other hand, we also recognise that some new provisions should be reconsidered according to
the key principles of Smart Regulation and Proportionality. For this reason, DIGITALEUROPE
presents in this paper proposal for text modification of 4 “vertical issues”.
Article 5 on “Registration of radio equipment”
Article 5
Registration of radio equipment within some categories
[…]
Recommendation from Industry
Deletion of Article 5:
Article 5
Registration of radio equipment within some
categories
[…]
Justification:
It is understood that the intention of the proposed registration scheme is improving traceability of
products, and consequently, eventually increase the level of compliance in the European Market.
However, DIGITALEUROPE considers that the newly introduced provisions of the NLF (i.e.
traceability information for manufacturers and importers on the product itself) already cover
sufficiently possible traceability problems currently faced by some Market Surveillance authorities.
It shall be noted that it is not envisaged that information uploaded to this compliance database will
be checked before a registration number is granted to a given manufacturer. Consequently, without
a pre-check of information (i.e. type approval), any registration system can still be bypassed by
irresponsible manufacturers. This would only result in a disproportionate burden for responsible
manufacturers, and would definitely not solve the problem which motivated the introduction of this
provision.
DIGITALEUROPE believes that efforts invested by stakeholders should be focused on market
surveillance enforcement and an increase of their resources instead of designing new registration
systems with doubtful benefits.
On the proposal itself, the European Commission has not defined the criteria to be followed when
considering which product categories have to be registered, the actual information to be registered,
or the kind of registration number to be affixed to each product. Without well-grounded criteria, the
>> 4 of 8
introduction of an article allowing a system which has such a big impact on economic operators does
not seem to be justified considering the uncertain added value that it may provide. This uncertainty
on its benefits goes very much in contradiction with the Principle of Proportionality when compared
to the derived costs of a registration scheme for all stakeholders.
Finally, it has to be noted that the “New Approach” and “Self Declaration of Conformity” are key
elements well promoted worldwide by the European Commission. Therefore, a registration scheme
for radio products in EU will send the wrong message to authorities in other regions of the world,
who would follow the same registration approach believing that the European system has failed.
For these reasons, DIGITALEUROPE is of the opinion that this article 5 should be removed from the
text of the new Radio Equipment Directive, since provisions introduced by the NLF already address
traceability issues.
Article 10.7 on “Information to users”
Recommendation from Industry
7. […]
Modification of Article 10.7:
The following information shall also be included:
7. […]
frequency band(s) in which the radio equipment
operates;
The following information shall also be included:
radio-frequency power transmitted in the frequency
band(s) in which the radio equipment operates.
frequency band(s) in which the radio equipment
operates;
radio-frequency
power
transmitted
in
the
frequency band(s) in which the radio equipment
operates.
Justification:
DIGITALEUROPE acknowledges that the motivation for this new provision in the Radio Equipment
Directive is contributing to authorities when performing Market Surveillance activities.
However, and although DIGITALEUROPE would support any improvement to surveillance activities,
we are not certain about the need of both “frequency band(s)” and “power” information to be
included in the user manual as proposed by the new text of the Directive. It has to be noted that all
detailed technical specifications can be found in the Technical Construction File of every radio
product, which shall be always made available to authorities anyway upon request.
It is our opinion that information on the standards applied (reflected in the DoC, which has to be
provided with the product) and “frequency band(s)” used by a radio equipment is information enough
for Market Surveillance Authorities to properly start a compliance assessment. Any additional
information requested in Article 10.7 would become unnecessary and redundant.
We certainly believe that “power” information provides very little value to authorities, which would
only be able to know whether a radio equipment is compliant with the applicable power limits by
performing an actual test. Furthermore, an absolute “power value” written in the user manual would
be misleading for users who would mistakenly compare values from different devices without
knowing their meaning or the applicable power limits to be compared with. These misunderstandings
from users are subject to cause severe competition issues and unnecessary complaints to
manufacturers.
Finally, information on absolute “power values” written in the user manual may create confusion and
delays on surveillance activities since manufacturers may be facing complaints from authorities after
not being able to obtain the very same “power value” as stated in the instructions. These kinds of
issues are properly detailed in the Technical Construction File (e.g. measurement
uncertainty/tolerance) and should not be part of user manuals.
>> 5 of 8
Therefore, DIGITALEUROPE proposes to modify Article 10.7 as reflected above by removing the
requirement to include information on “power” in the user manual.
Article 10.9 on “Information available on the
packaging”
Recommendation from Industry
9. Information available on the packaging shall allow to
identify the Member States or the geographical area
within a Member State where radio equipment can be
put into service, and shall alert the user to potential
restrictions or requirements for authorisation of use in
certain Member States. Such information shall be
completed in the instructions accompanying radio
equipment. The Commission may adopt implementing
acts specifying how to present this information. Those
implementing acts shall be adopted in accordance with
the advisory procedure referred to in Article 44(2).
Modification of Article 10.9:
9. Information available on the packaging shall allow,
in cases where there are restrictions to put radio
equipment into service in at least one Member
State, to identify the Member States or the
geographical area within a Member State where that
radio equipment can be put into service,. This
information and shall also alert the user to in case of
potential restrictions or requirements for authorisation
of use in certain Member States. Such information
shall be completed in the instructions accompanying
radio equipment. The Commission may adopt
implementing acts specifying how to present this
information. Those implementing acts shall be adopted
in accordance with the advisory procedure referred to
in Article 44(2).
Justification:
Current R&TTE Directive, as specified in TCAM Decision 13(43), requests the addition of the socalled “geographical information” (i.e. Member States or the geographical area within a Member
State where a radio equipment is intended to be used), and alerting the user to potential restrictions
of use of the radio equipment in certain Member States, only in those cases where there are actual
restrictions to put a radio equipment into service in at least one Member State (i.e. Class 2
equipment).
However, the new wording of the Radio Equipment Directive requests to add “geographical
information” in all cases, even when there are no restrictions of use at all. Consequently,
manufacturers would need to add information on the package (which would also need to be
translated in several languages) to let the user know that there are no restrictions of use. This
provision becomes therefore redundant and very much in contradiction with the principles of “Smart
Regulation” and “Proportionality”.
Due to the above, DIGITALEUROPE proposes to modify the legal text as recommended in this
section in order to clarify that manufacturers shall add “geographical information” and alert the user
to potential restrictions of use on the package only in those cases where restrictions of use exist.
Annex II on “Products falling within the
definition of radio equipment”
Recommendation from Industry
Addition of equipment under point 2.:
(c) "inductive cooking appliances"
(d) "inductive power transfer"
Justification:
Inductive applications cover a very large number of mass market applications which were not
subject to the R&TTE Directive. Inductive applications include for example electric motors, electrical
transformers, inductive cooking stove and electric toothbrush chargers. Inductive applications use a
localized magnetic field to serve their purpose. This equipment is widely available on the market and
used extensively without creating any interference. As such, it is inconsistent with the 'Principle of
>> 6 of 8
Proportionality' to impose new restrictions on these devices.
Digital Europe requests the inclusion of “inductive power transfer” and “inductive cooking
appliances” in Annex II.2, which are two categories of products of specific interest to
DIGITALEUROPE members, while recognising that many other inductive applications would
probably face the same issue. DIGITALEUROPE stresses that “inductive power transfer” and
“inductive cooking appliances” are adequately regulated by the EMC Directive and its corresponding
emission limits.
>> 7 of 8
ABOUT DIGITALEUROPE
DIGITALEUROPE represents the digital technology industry in Europe. Our members
include some of the world’s largest IT, telecoms and consumer electronics companies and
national associations from every part of Europe. DIGITALEUROPE wants European
businesses and citizens to benefit from digital technologies and for Europe to grow, attract
and sustain the world's best digital technology companies.
DIGITALEUROPE ensures industry participation in the development and implementation of
EU policies. DIGITALEUROPE’s members include 60 global corporations and 33 national
trade associations from across Europe. In total, 10,000 companies employing two million
citizens and generating €1 trillion in revenues. Our website provides further information on
our recent news and activities: http://www.DIGITALEUROPE.org
THE MEMBERSHIP OF DIGITALEUROPE
COMPANY MEMBERS:
Acer, Alcatel-Lucent, AMD, APC by Schneider Electric, Apple, Bang & Olufsen, BenQ
Europa BV, Bose, Brother, Canon, Cassidian, Cisco, Dell, Epson, Ericsson, Fujitsu, Hitachi,
HP, Huawei, IBM, Ingram Micro, Intel, JVC Kenwood Group, Kodak, Konica Minolta, Kyocera
Document Solutions, Lexmark, LG, Loewe, Microsoft, Mitsubishi Electric, Motorola Mobility,
Motorola Solutions, NEC, Nokia, Nokia Siemens Networks, Océ, Oki, Optoma, Oracle,
Panasonic, Philips, Pioneer, Qualcomm, Research In Motion, Ricoh International, Samsung,
SAP, Sharp, Siemens, SMART Technologies, Sony, Sony Ericsson, Swatch Group,
Technicolor, Texas Instruments, Toshiba, TP Vision, Xerox, ZTE Corporation.
NATIONAL TRADE ASSOCIATIONS:
Belgium: AGORIA; Bulgaria: BAIT; Cyprus: CITEA; Denmark: DI ITEK, IT-BRANCHEN;
Estonia: ITL; Finland: FFTI; France: SIMAVELEC; Germany: BITKOM, ZVEI; Greece:
SEPE; Hungary: IVSZ; Ireland: ICT IRELAND; Italy: ANITEC; Lithuania: INFOBALT;
Netherlands: ICT OFFICE, FIAR; Poland: KIGEIT, PIIT; Portugal: AGEFE, APDC;
Romania: APDETIC; Slovakia: ITAS; Slovenia: GZS; Spain: AMETIC, Sweden:
IT&Telekomföretagen; United Kingdom: INTELLECT
Belarus: INFOPARK; Norway: IKT NORGE; Switzerland: SWICO; Turkey: ECID, TESID,
TÜBISAD; Ukraine: IT UKRAINE.
>> 8 of 8