Follow up of Consultations by Written Procedure March 2007-February 2008

EUROPEAN COMMISSION ENTERPRISE AND INDUSTRY DIRECTORATE-GENERAL

Sustainable Growth and EU 2020 Standards for Boosting Competitiveness

Brussels, 14th March 2013

Doc.: 06/2013 EN

COMMITTEE ON STANDARDS

Document title:

Information about recent draft mandates consulted in the 98/34 committee

Document for:

Information  Discussion  Vote 

Status of document:

Draft

Originating department: ENTR/B/5 Official responsible: Roman GRONES

Commission européenne : rue de la Loi, 200 - B-1049 Bruxelles –Belgique – Bureau : B 100 06/06 - Téléphone: (32-2) 299 11 11. Téléphone: ligne directe (32-2) 2960711. Fax (32-2) 2998007 (R. Grones) E-mail: [email protected] Follow up of the 115th meeting of the Standards and Technical Regulations Committee, 15th April 2011 Situation as to 11 March 2013

Agenda Subject of the mandate Versions Date point Reference Mandate transmission 98/34 number to ESOs Committee

5.4 Amendment to mandates M/101 and M/126 13/2011 Amedment 12/02/2013 to M/101 and M/126 DE comments: 1. Reaction to fire (ER 2: 21a - "Reaction to fire"): The requirements in Germany do not refer to the product (window, door,..), but to the material/component (“Baustoff/Bauteil”).

Therefore, the following requirement should be added (corresponding to mandate M/108 for curtain walling: reaction to fire (for the components).

2. Moisture resistance: this is actually not regulated in Denmark. Instead the Danish building code regulates the matter of condensation as "Minimum surface temperature". The temperature span to be taken into account depends on the respective climate conditions (e.g. DK: temp. range of 20°C inside and 0°C outside, DE: 20°C inside and -15°C outside), which is not a product characteristic but an application rule.

Therefore, DE proposes to delete this characteristic.

3. Child safety: The key function of an openable window or door is to provide view, ventilation and/or access. Therefore, they have to be openable. If an open door or window is left unattended in the presence of a small child this may pose a risk to small children. Any technical efforts to protect small children should focus on additional devices (restrictors etc.) instead of requiring that the window or door itself has to be "child safe".

This approach is followed by the Swedish regulations:

“8:231 Windows, doors and similar (BFS 1998:38) In spaces where children can be present, openable windows and glazed panels – e.g. glazed-in balconies – with the bottom of the frame lower than 1.8 m above floor level shall have safety fittings, locking devices or other protection which limits the risk of children falling out. Balcony doors and similar shall have safety fittings and locking devices which prevent children from opening and passing through the door. (BFS 1998:38)” Also, the Swedish study “Child protective products – protective function of socket protectors, hob guards, locks and locking devices” (http://www.anec.eu/attachments/r%26t005-04.pdf) comes to the conclusion that "child protective locking devices for windows" should be used/tested.

Therefore, DE proposes to replace the term "child safety" by "child protective devices for windows and doors" under "Annex A, Family of Products "Building hardware" and to delete "child safety" under "windows" or "doors".

4. Impact resistance: The text now foreseen for M101 (as given in Annex A) does not reflect the "where relevant" restriction mentioned in the Explanatory note. The regulations in Denmark and Germany in regard to "Impact resistance" are only "application rules".

This characteristic should therefore either be deleted or at amended as follows: "43 Impact resistance (where relevant, only for windows and glazed doors with injury risks)."

Commission response: 1. Accepted. The mandate was amended accordingly to refer only to components.

2. Accepted. The CEN/TC in its reply to the amended mandate may refer to “surface temperature” as a proxy characteristic for moisture resistance and use the assessment method suggested in the mandate.

Taking into account the above, this ess. characteristic will not be deleted from the mandate.

3. Not accepted. It seems that it has not been understood that the mandate refers to child safety devices which are incorporated in the windows/doors by the manufacturer before these products are placed on the market.

Therefore “child safety” is one of the essential characteristics of the product to be dealt by the harmonised ENs under the mandate.

4. Accepted. The mandate will be amended accordingly by adding the words "where relevant". FR comments: 1. The Construction Products Regulation (CPR) was published on 4 April 2011 in the Official Journal of the European Union. There are a great many standards relating to this draft amendment to the Mandate, and their revision (mainly EN 14351-1 and EN 13421-6) is a long-term project, which now falls within the CPR only, and no longer the Construction Products Directive.

CEN/TC 33 has just sent an amendment to the revised response to the Mandate, Document No CEN/TC 33 N2461, to the CEN and to the European Commission. However, it has yet to receive a response from the European Commission on the revised response to the Mandate (Document No N2021), which was sent in November 2007, however. How can the European Commission now ask a Technical Committee to produce revised standards by 1 July 2013?

This draft amendment does not include the additional requests (Document No CEN/TC 33 N2021):

 Total solar energy transmittance (g-value) for external blinds, prEN 13561;

 Additional thermal resistance (R-value) and total solar energy transmittance (g-value) for closures and external Venetian blinds prEN 13659;

 Total solar energy transmittance (g-value) for internal blinds, prEN 13120

Page 7 of amended Annex A details the requirements of CEN/TC 33 (Documents Nos N2021 and N2461), on which work has begun.

CEN/TC 33 Resolution No 777 (Skopje – 26/2011) – 13/2011 Consultation 13/2011 of the 98/34 Committee – Draft Amendment to Mandates M/101 and M/126 The CEN/TC 33 draws the Standing Committee on Construction's attention to the following points concerning this draft "amendment to Mandates M101 and M126 to CEN/CENELEC on construction products intended to be used for external and internal doors and windows, roof openings and roof lights (including fire doors and shutters)": - it must take account of CEN/TC 33's requests that have already been accepted by the European Commission, Document No N1300, and the revised response to Mandate M/101 sent to the CCMC (CENELEC Management Centre) on 6 November 2007, cf Document No N2021 and the amendment thereto; - it should not give the solution to which to respond. the CEN – via the TCs concerned, in this case CEN/TC 33 – is responsible for establishing a working programme in response to the Mandate; - it contains some technical errors; - it is a combination of information concerning performance, resources and themes;

Furthermore, the products covered by CEN/TC 33 already comply with a large number of European Directives and the standards concerned are soon to be revised to comply with the CPR, which contains a large part of the content of this draft 13/2011.

The decision was unanimous.

2. As regards reaction to fire – page 2 of the draft Mandate, which specifies that at least one Member State (Germany) lays down reaction-to- fire requirements – as CEN TC 33 secretariat we would draw the European Commission's attention to the fact that the German requirements concern the materials/components ("Baustoff/Bauteil") rather than the products.

In its amendment to the revised response to the Mandate, Document No CEN/TC 33 N2461 sent to the CEN and to the European Commission on 18 April 2011, CEN/TC 33 requests, in respect of doors and windows, the addition of the essential characteristic of "- reaction to fire." (The European Commission has been aware of this for at least two years).

Legal basis: - D: “Musterbauordnung (MBO) 2002, § 26 “Allgemeine Anforderungen an das Brandverhalten von Baustoffen und Bauteilen” (General requirements for reaction to fire of construction materials and components) - NL: Bouwbesluit (Construction Decree) 2003, Article 2.93.1

=> Doc. CEN/TC 33 N2461 [English version only], (Doors) A.1.3/3.8 page 34 and (Windows) A.2.3/3.8 page 38 3.8 Specific requests for additions to the mandate of materials, intended uses or essential characteristics concerning the product:

- reaction to fire is mandated for roof windows only, but regulations may exist for reaction to fire of all windows and doors. Clarification is requested on this issue.

Please refer to our comments submitted prior to the Committee on Standards and Technical Regulations meeting of 15 April 2011: As regards external and internal windows and doors, CEN TC 33 requests this in its draft amendment to the revised response to Mandate M/101, Document No CEN/TC 33 N 2441 submitted for TC 33 approval at the meeting of 14 and 15 April 2011.

As regards closures and blinds, we feel that such a requirement is appropriate (France also has a regulation).

As regards doors and gates, such a requirement is appropriate for doors (France also has a regulation) but not for gates.

As regards hardware, hardware alone – i.e. not mounted on a window or a door – cannot be affected by the characteristic of reaction to fire. It should therefore be specified that this characteristic refers solely to doors, French windows, windows or shutters equipped with their hardware.

3. As regards moisture resistance, the draft Mandate states that at least one Member State (Denmark) has seen fit to introduce a moisture- resistance factor to prevent the frames of energy-efficient windows from becoming very cold.

It should be noted that this is not currently regulated in Denmark:

=> In the Danish building code regulates the matter of condensation as "Minimum surface temperature" which is a much better technical requirement to avoid mould.

The Danish building regulations "Statutory order on the Building Regulations 2010" states under "Provision"

The provision on surface temperature on window frames in outer walls will be reassessed. So the requirement is not "moisture resistance" but "surface temperature of the frame". Also the requirement in DK is set for the temperature range of 20°C inside and 0°C outside As the temperature range is different for each climate condition it is obviously not a product characteristic! The result is depending from the installation and therefore it is an application rule. So this characteristic has to be deleted!

Verification of moisture resistance could be based on "EN ISO 13788: Hygrothermal performance of building components and building elements – Internal surface temperature to avoid critical surface humidity and interstitial condensation – Calculation methods" (EN ISO 13788:2001).

=> We are surprised that the Mandate offers the solution to respond to moisture resistance control.

4. As regards the frame area ratio FF (page 2 of the Mandate): A number of Member States have implemented Directive 2002/91/EC using a calculation method based on "EN ISO 13790 Energy performance of buildings – Calculation of energy use for space heating and cooling". The existing Danish building code includes the calculation of the solar heat gain through windows. To calculate the solar gain it is necessary to know the ratio AreaGlass/AreaWindow or the FF ratio used in this standard or AreaGlass/AreaWindow. The relation between the two ratios is FF = 1 - AreaGlass/AreaWindow.

=> The Danish code concerns implementation rather than products. There is no regulation on products. It would therefore be appropriate to remove this from the draft Mandate. 5. Radiation properties (page 3): Taking account of the solar gain, it is also necessary to know the radiation properties. Mandate M 135 FLAT GLASS, PROFILED GLASS AND GLASS BLOCK PRODUCTS addresses this characteristic, but glass panes can also be produced by the manufacturer of windows without separate CE-marking of the glass panes.

Doc. CEN/TC 33 N 2461 [English version only], (Doors) A.1.3/3.8 page 34 and (Windows) A.2.3/3.8 page 38

3.8 Specific requests for additions to the mandate of materials, intended uses or essential characteristics concerning the product:

- radiation properties (solar heat gain coefficient and light transmittance) for windows and glazed doors. The solar heat gain coefficient and the light transmittance are important characteristic of windows and glazed doors that influence the energy consumption of a building. It is required by national regulation.

6. Impact resistance (page 3):

The injury risk posed by glazed doors is covered by the Mandate. It is quite common to use large windows with the same injury risks as for doors. The Danish building code covers this risk so therefore the characteristic impact resistance is added for windows (where relevant). => The text now foreseen for M/101 (as given in Annex A) does not show the "where relevant" restriction mentioned in the Explanatory note. The regulations in Denmark and Germany in regard to "Impact resistance" are only "application rules". So this characteristic has to be deleted or at least the new text needs to be amended : "43 Impact resistance (where relevant, only for windows and glazed doors with injury risks)."

=> Doc. => Doc. CEN/TC 33 N 2461 [English version only], (Doors) A.1.3/3.8 page 34 and (Windows) A.2.3/3.8 page 38

3.8 Specific requests for additions to the mandate of materials, intended uses or essential characteristics concerning the product:

- impact resistance for windows. Justification: this characteristic was initially included for glazed doors to protect users from injury. It is necessary to extend this safety assessment for windows, as windows can be a safety hazard for users in the same way as glazed doors can.

7. Child safety: At least one Member State (Sweden) has regulation concerning child safety, which affects the construction of doors and windows as well as window hasps and pinching preventers as such (with the child safety requirement) to be included in the related building hardware products list. => The key function of an openable window or door is to provide view, ventilation and/or access. Therefore, they have to be openable. If an open door or window is left unattended in the presence of a small child this may pose a risk to small children. So all technical efforts to protect small children concentrate on additional devices (restrictors etc.) but do not state that the window or door has to be "child safe" by itself.

The Swedish regulations follow this approach: 8:231 Windows, doors and similar (BFS 1998:38) In spaces where children can be present, openable windows and glazed panels – e.g. glazed-in balconies – with the bottom of the frame lower than 1.8 m above floor level shall have safety fittings, locking devices or other protection which limits the risk of children falling out. Balcony doors and similar shall have safety fittings and locking devices which prevent children from opening and passing through the door. (BFS 1998:38) Safety devices need not be provided on windows or French doors at ground level.

General recommendation: Safety fittings refer to fittings with locking capabilities which can lock e.g. a window in a closed position. Locking devices refer to devices with locking capabilities which can prevent e.g. a window from being opened more than 10 cm (free space). Both these devices are constructed so that children cannot remove the locking capabilities. That a device is childproof, has sufficient strength and durability can be tested in accordance with SS 3587 (1) and NT CONS 018. (BFS 1998:38)

Also, the Swedish study Child protective products – protective function of socket protectors, hob guards, locks and locking devices Study commissioned by: ANEC (European Association for Consumer Representation in Standardisation) (http://www.anec.eu/attachments/r%26t005-04.pdf) concludes that "child protective locking devices for windows" should be used/tested.

So "child safety" shall only be listed as "child protective devices for windows and doors" under "Annex A, Family of Products "Building hardware" and "child safety" must be deleted under "windows" or "doors" and not under CPD/CPR but under GPSD, General Product Safety Directive (as already done for EN 13120/prA1 “Internal blinds - Performance requirements including safety” . The amendment to EN 13120 concerns the risk of strangulation with internal blinds. A series of fatal accidents involving internal blinds operated by cords or ball chains happened these last few years. The DG SANCO of the European Commission has decided that internal blinds should be covered by the General Products Safety Directive. In conjunction with the CEN/TC 33/WG 3, draft safety requirements have been produced by DG SANCO and voted by the Commission on February 9th, 2011. The draft safety requirements are now being studied by the Parliament and the Council. CEN/TC 33/WG 3 is waiting for the Mandate that will be given by the Commission to the CEN.)

Consequently, this theme should be removed from the draft amendment to Mandate M 101.

To conclude, if an amendment to the Mandate is to be issued, only amended Annex A, in its proposed form, should be the subject of this draft Mandate. As this corresponds to CEN/TC 33's requests, such an amendment to Mandate M 101 can be issued (the CEN TC 33 already responds to this in Document No N 2461, attached).

Commission response: 1. Accepted. The mandate amended as proposed by the EC services allows under “radiation properties” (of the present mandate amendment) and as a proxy characteristic under “thermal resistance” (of the original mandate) to cover:

 Total solar energy transmittance (g-value) for external blinds, prEN 13561;

 Additional thermal resistance (R-value) and total solar energy transmittance (g-value) for closures and external Venetian blinds prEN 13659;

 Total solar energy transmittance (g-value) for internal blinds, prEN 13120

No further amendment is necessary.

2. Accepted. The mandate will be amended accordingly to refer only to components of doors / windows.

3. Accepted. The CEN/TC in its reply to the amended mandate may refer to “surface temperature” as a proxy characteristic for moisture resistance and use the assessment method suggested in the mandate.

Taking into account the above, this ess. characteristic will not be deleted from the mandate.

4. Not accepted. This is an essential characteristic which is necessary to be taken into account in the calculations according to the building regulations.

5. Accepted. In fact, the FR comments agree with the Commission’s proposal in this point. No further amendment to the mandate is necessary.

6. Accepted. The mandate will be amended accordingly by adding the words "where relevant".

7. Not accepted. It seems that it has not been understood that the mandate refers to child safety devices which are incorporated in the windows/doors by the manufacturer before these products are placed on the market. Therefore “child safety” is one of the essential characteristics of the product to be dealt by the harmonised ENs under the mandate.

PT comments: 1. Document CNRT: 13/2011 (which amends Mandate 101 [M/101] and Mandate 126 [M/126]) was discussed in the meeting of the Standing Committee on Construction held in June 2010, where it received a favourable opinion from several of the EU Member States represented on that occasion (although we cannot judge whether that was a majority opinion).

The extension of M/101 and M/126 with regard to regulatory requirements for doors, windows and related products with fire performance characteristics does, however, raise the question of new conformity assessment systems for such products.

For the purposes of the Construction Products Directive (Directive 89/106/EC) it is not sufficient for product conformity assessment systems solely to be set out in Standardisation Mandates. Such systems may only legitimately be laid down pursuant to a Decision of the European Commission (EC) and, before issuing such a decision, the Commission has to consult the Standing Committee on Construction (SCC).

Thus, while the subject has already been discussed in the SCC, the Commission will have to draw up a decision on new conformity assessment systems (relating to products with fire performance characteristics) and refer that decision to the SCC for a vote. Only then can the decision be validated by the Commission. It is, therefore, not appropriate to issue this Mandate to the European Committee for Standardisation (CEN) before such a decision has been drawn up, voted on in the SCC and validated by the Commission.

2. Another matter is an error at the beginning of the text of the Mandate – in the title and in paragraph No 1 of the Explanatory Note. These refer to "roof openings" and "roof lights". Those products are not covered by M/101 or M/126, but by Mandate 122 (M/122 - Roof Coverings).

Furthermore, we take the view that CEN‘s attention should be drawn to this matter. The fact is that, on the CEN’s site, M/101 is described as referring to "External and internal doors and windows, roof coverings and roof lights (including fire doors and shutters)".

Yet the CEN has drawn up standards for "roof openings" and "roof lights" under M/122, as may be seen from the excerpt from its site (in the annex hereto).

We take the view that the error originated with the Commission, which from the outset described M/101 as referring to "External and internal doors and windows, roof coverings and roof lights (including fire doors and shutters)" Commission response:

1. Not accepted. The EC services have later verified with experts from the MS regulating on this aspect that the reaction to fire requirements in these Member States refer only to the components of the product and not to the product itself. The EC services agreed to amend the mandate accordingly.

Therefore such Commission Decision as implied by PT is not necessary.

2. Accepted. The mandate will be amended accordingly.

ANEC comments: Among ANEC’s priorities, the accessibility of products and services for consumers with disabilities is a very important sector of our activities. This is why ANEC is actively involved in the execution of M/420 on access to the built environment and public procurement. We also commented on the recently approved mandate on Eurocodes, in order to stress the importance of accessibility requirements.

Moreover, ANEC followed with interest the revision of the Construction Products Directive and we now wonder about the impact of the new Regulation (art. 3 “Basic requirements for construction works and essential characteristics of construction products” and Annex 1.4 “Safety and accessibility in use”) as far as the accessibility of construction products in general, and windows and doors in particular.

Reading the draft mandate on windows and doors which is now circulated to the 98/34 Committee, we understand that it is linked to the implementation of national provisions on energy performance in buildings and other issues such as reaction to fire.

We were wondering however whether it could be extended to cover accessibility requirements in view of the entering into force of the new Construction Products Regulation, bearing in mind that some Member States such as Austria have adopted the class where maximum 25 N is allowed for operating forces for a door in case of usability for persons with disability and elderly frail persons in their national accessibility standard (ÖNORM B 1600). The standard in question is EN 12217:2004 03 01 “Doors - Operating forces - Requirements and classification” (currently under revision).

Of course we also understand that the implementation of the new Construction products Regulation will bring along many other changes and we were also wondering whether you could provide us with some additional information on the status of the six Interpretative Documents with functional requirements under the present Directive. Is it foreseen that additional Interpretative Documents will be adopted under the Regulation and if yes, one should also deal with accessibility requirements? Commission response: Accepted. The harmonised ENs contain already the characteristic “operating force” and allows manufacturers who want to declare the performance of their product concerning this aspect, to do so. This allows products to be used for intended uses where there are regulations on the maximum operating force.

Therefore the mandate does NOT need to be amended to cover this aspect of product performance.

EBC + EUROWINDOW comments: 1. "Reaction to fire"

ER 2: 21a - "Reaction to fire" Reaction to fire: The German requirement is not for the product (window, door,..), but for the material/component (“Baustoff/Bauteil”). It should be added to the requirement as in the mandate for curtain walling (M/108): reaction to fire (for the components), and it must be also listed in Annex A (i.e. M/101 Annex2) under "Family of products: Doors and windows with related products: Doors with or without incorporated shutters and blinds", as well, not only - as present - for "Industrial, commercial garage doors and gates".

2. "Moisture resistance" is actually not regulated in Denmark. In the Danish building code regulates the matter of condensation as "Minimum surface temperature" which is a much better technical requirement to avoid mould.

The Danish building regulations "Statutory order on the Building Regulations 2010" states under "Provision" :

7.4.2(7) The surface temperature on window frames in outer walls must not be lower than 9.3 °C. and 7.4.2(9) Measures that are expected to be introduced in 2015. In connection with the imminent tightening of the energy provisions in 2015, the following requirements are expected to be introduced: 4) The provision on surface temperature on window frames in outer walls will be reassessed.

So the requirement is not "moisture resistance" but "surface temperature of the frame".

Also the requirement in DK is set for the temperature range of 20°C inside and 0°C outside As the temperature range is different for each climate condition (e.g. Germany it is 20°C inside and -15°C outside) it is obviously not a product characteristic! The result is depending also from the installation and therefore it is an application rule. So this characteristic has to be deleted!

3. "Child safety"

The key function of an openable window or door is to provide view, ventilation and/or access. Therefore, they have to be openable. If an open door or window is left unattended in the presence of a small child this may pose a risk to small children. So all technical efforts to protect small children concentrate on additional devices (restrictors etc.) but do not state that the window or door has to be "child safe" by itself.

Swedish regulations for example follow this approach: 8:231 Windows, doors and similar (BFS 1998:38) In spaces where children can be present, openable windows and glazed panels – e.g. glazed-in balconies – with the bottom of the frame lower than 1.8 m above floor level shall have safety fittings, locking devices or other protection which limits the risk of children falling out. Balcony doors and similar shall have safety fittings and locking devices which prevent children from opening and passing through the door. (BFS 1998:38)

Safety devices need not be provided on windows or french doors at ground level. General recommendation: Safety fittings refer to fittings with locking capabilities which can lock e.g. a window in a closed position. Locking devices refer to devices with locking capabilities which can prevent e.g. a window from being opened more than 10 cm (free space). Both these devices are constructed so that children cannot remove the locking capabilities.

That a device is childproof, has sufficient strength and durability can be tested in accordance with SS 3587 (1) and NT CONS 018. ( BFS 1998:38) Also, the Swedish study “Child protective products – protective function of socket protectors, hob guards, locks and locking devices Study commissioned by ANEC (European Association for Consumer Representation in Standardisation) (http://www.anec.eu/attachments/r %26t005-04.pdf) concludes that "child protective locking devices for windows" should be used/tested.

So "child safety" shall only be listed as "child protective devices for windows and doors" under "Annex A. Family of Products "Building hardware" and "child safety" must be deleted under "windows" or "doors".

4. Impact resistance

The text now foresees for M/101 (as given in Annex A) does not show the "where relevant" restriction mentioned in the Explanatory note. The regulations in Denmark and Germany in regard to "Impact resistance" are only "application rules" (use of safety glass for special conditions). There is no legal requirement for impact testing of a window as a product characteristic.

So this characteristic has to be deleted or at least the new text needs to be amended as follows: "43 Impact resistance (where relevant, only for windows and glazed doors with injury risks)."

Commission response: 1. Accepted. The mandate will be amended accordingly to refer only to components of doors / windows.

Taking into account the above, this ess. characteristic will not be deleted from the mandate.

3. Not accepted. It seems that it has not been understood that the mandate refers to child safety devices which are incorporated in the windows/doors by their manufacturer before these products are placed on the market.

Therefore “child safety” is one of the essential characteristics of the product to be dealt by the harmonised ENs under the mandate.

4. Accepted. The mandate will be amended accordingly by adding the words "where relevant". Consultations by written procedure between 117th and 118th meeting of the Standards and Technical Regulations Committee Situation as to 11 March 2013

Date of Subject of the mandate Versions Date consultation Reference Mandate transmission 98/34 number to ESOs Committee

04/06/2012- Reconfigurable Radio Systems 19/2012 M/512 19/11/2012 06/07/2012

PT comments: 1. PT fully support this draft standardization mandate, in particular as RRS constitutes a key cornerstone in the framework of a more efficient and flexible use of the spectrum. Notwithstanding we would like to offer the following comments with a view for this mandate to take them into account, if appropriate:

2. We understand that it is an important step in this mandate, to timely involve the national regulatory spectrum management bodies, in particular through liaison to CEPT. This is relevant as, for instance, the objective B "To facilitate waveform portability and support for intra- border interoperability at national level, cross-border interoperability at the European level ...;" will require such liaison.

3. The Objective C is exploring the potential areas of synergy among commercial, civil security and military; we recognize this as an important milestone. However, we are concerned that a different regulatory framework applies to military versus commercial domain with regard to placing equipment in the market and free-circulation. This may lead to a situation where radio equipment fulfilling the essential requirements in the framework of R&TTE may not fit the purposes of military use (and vice-versa). Therefore we believe that it is important that the standardization activities takes into account this matter aiming to align, if possible, radio equipments in both regimes.

4. The objective A1) refers to "LSA regime"; from a regulatory standpoint we, as spectrum management authority, do not believe that this is a concept that is fully understood and accepted in a spectrum management fora. Other ideas/concepts are currently emerging and proliferating (e.g. CUS, ASA,SSAR) where no agreed taxonomy as been established. In this context, we do not support the reference to "LSA" in this mandate.

5. Finally, we consider that a decision about the licensing regime is crucial in order to give certainty to the work of ETSI/CEN/CENELEC when developing the parameters of the cognitive techniques, namely for the GLDB. Commission response: 1. No comments.

2. The text of the mandate mentions already that: "CEN, CENELEC and ETSI are requested to collaborate with CEPT as necessary during the execution of the standardisation mandate".

3. The proposed alignment is outside the scope of this standardisation mandate.

4. This standardisation mandate aims at requiring the activity enabling the means for the technology capable of (LSA) licensed shared spectrum access to comply with the essential requirements of the R&TTE directive to be made available to the manufacturing companies producing such equipment. Furthermore the EC Services consider that the absence of a coherent standardisation policy and an adequate EN may lead to falling behind in innovation and competitiveness and may cause market fragmentation for such devices.

5. While the decision regarding the licensing regime is very important, the compliance with the essential requirements of the R&TTE is the condition sine qua non the equipment cannot be legally sold in the EU. This is ensured by the 1st point under Objective A: 'To allow CRSs to comply with EU and national legislation on the placing on the market and the use of radio equipment, in particular with the Directive on Radio Equipment & Telecommunications Terminal Equipment (R&TTE Directive )'.

DE comments: 1. Support subject to the following comments:

2. General As regards the military domain in the mandate, the standardisation activities referred to should take place under the leadership of the European Defence Agency (EDA). Careful consideration must be given to the framework conditions for security in the military domain. Cooperation must take place within a controlled environment, where access to information is possible only to a select group of NATO and EDA countries. It is necessary to establish how ETSI, which has members from over 60 countries, can ensure this.

3. Section 2 The draft mandate does not make it clear how Objectives A, B and C are to be coordinated in terms of both content and timing so as to achieve genuine synergies. The Objectives are presented in section 2 and table 1 without any mention of reciprocal influence. Only the early involvement of all stakeholders (commercial applications, civil security and military domain) right from the development stage will make it possible to achieve an integrated solution which can ultimately be used in all fields. The civil security interest groups are not sufficiently taken into account in section 5 of the draft mandate, which lists the ‘ organisations to be involved in the standardisation work’. 4. Section 4 The draft (p.14 of English text) states that the ENs developed should be made available in three languages, namely English, French and German. However, as ETSI is the lead organisation for this standardisation mandate, it should be borne it mind that its only official language is English.

Commission response: 1. The Commission welcomes the support.

2. Point 3) B) 1) foresees the establishment of a "Joint Programming Board" for the programming phase which will enable a controlled environment.

3. This comment seems to contradict the general remark that a a controlled environment is needed. In any case, the word 'objectives' in Table 1 was deleted and changed to "Time Plan", in order to avoid any misunderstanding. A sentence was added that the European standardisation organisations are obliged to involve the relevant civil security interest groups.

4. No comments.

FR comments: 1. France has contributed actively to developing the position statement of the Radio Spectrum Policy Group (RSPG) on intelligent technologies, adopted in early 2011. It sets out the underlying issues surrounding spectrum management and recommends a number of approaches. The French authorities thus support the Commission's initiative, which is a response to one of these recommendations.

2. Necessary cooperation between ETSI and the CEPT In view of the interaction between harmonised standards and rules on the use of frequencies, the development of harmonised standards to meet the mandate's objectives requires cooperation between ETSI (European Telecommunications Standardisation Institute) and the CEPT (European Conference of Postal and Telecommunications administrations) in order to ensure consistency between the two components of the regulatory environment. The French authorities ask that explicit reference be made to this cooperation between ETSI and the CEPT in the mandate, in particular regarding objectives A and C, for dynamic access to the spectrum. The standardisation work must take account of the constraints on frequency use and the resulting rules on shared use (cf RSPG opinion "Streamlining EU regulation").

Indeed, over a number years, the CEPT has worked with dedication on these issues and deals with any specific requests for access to frequencies communicated by ETSI. Furthermore, it will soon initiate deliberations on the problems of implementing a system for shared access under licence on band 2.3 -2.4 GHz, as mentioned in objective A of the mandate, and is working on the regulatory component linked to exchanges between geo-localised databases and intelligent radio equipment in the UHF band.

3. Request for access to white spaces in the UHF band, scarcely perceptible at this stage While deliberations are under way in the UK together with tests on cognitive radio on UHF TV frequency, such a need has not yet emerged to a significant extent in other EU countries. In France, white spaces on UHF TV frequencies are currently used in a general authorisation context by wireless microphone equipment (PMSE). The opportunities for using cognitive radio equipment on these frequencies are restricted, but do not call into question the relevance of this standardisation mandate.

4. Reconfigurable radio: This draft mandate broaches the issue of architecture for the dynamic use of the spectrum resources between the various fields, including via reconfigurable mobile appliances for commercial applications. This standardisation measure must be in line with the conditions for frequency use. This draft mandate also calls for a definition of the European architecture of software-defined radio in the field of defence and civil protection. The discussions and consultations prior to the revision of the R&TTE Directive have highlighted the issues linked to the use of reconfigurable radio systems in the case of commercial applications. It should only be possible to use software with software/platform combinations which comply with the R&TTE Directive. This proposal is essential to guaranteeing that software-defined reconfigurable radio systems do not create detrimental interference. This must be taken into account in the context of the mandate. Indeed, ETSI has engaged in preliminary discussions on dynamic certification. The mandate offers an opportunity to encourage the pursuit of this action via the standardisation of a process which makes it possible to guarantee that only software whose software/reconfigurable platform is declared to comply with the RTTE Directive can be activated on the platform in question. Lastly, the responsibility for ensuring that software-defined reconfigurable equipment meets the requirements of the R&TTE Directive must not fall to the user, but to the producer of the reconfiguration software, where appropriate. This issue must be addressed as part of the revision of the R&TTE Directive, alongside standardisation. The interference currently detected using RLAN 5 GHz equipment, reported to the Commission by the CEPT via a referral to the TCAM (cf. LS ECC), undermines the confidence of frequency users in these new means of spectrum access. In addition to this standardisation mandate, the Commission is asked to carefully look into how to deal with this dossier, in order to prevent the development of future cognitive systems from being curbed. 5. Standardisation which meets civil protection expectations The reflections by the CEPT, in response to the requests for access to the spectrum expressed by ETSI and user organisations, with a view to identifying the frequency resources for very wide band-width PPDR applications, do not cover the intelligent radio component. A standardisation measure, as described in this mandate, focusing on issues of interoperability, does not establish a link with demand for access to frequencies but is a judicious complement to the actions already undertaken in the field of spectrum management. The CEPT will have to be associated with any work on frequencies if bands are identified for innovative methods of sharing between PPDR networks and public mobile networks.

6. Standardisation in the field of defence The French authorities consider that, at present, the implementation of phase 1 of objective B of the mandate within an open structure (such as the ETSI, CEN or CENELEC) does not guarantee that the States participating in the ESSOR project and Germany will keep their control over radio software architecture, yet such control is essential. Measures must be taken to achieve coordination and harmonisation in order to define an SDR standard at European level. These measures should be achieved over the longer term, since it is above all necessary to allow exchanges between the States concerned in order to assess the issues and identify a suitable framework within which to start the standardisation work itself. With this in mind, a working group on SDR standardisation is being created at the behest of the European Defence Agency (EDA).

The proposal submitted through this draft mandate therefore seems to be premature. The European Commission's initiative cannot be supported at present, unless it is possible to adapt the operational rules of the working/standardisation groups to the military environment, particularly with respect to the decision-making process, members' decision-making authority and the inclusion of new members in the working group. In particular, we need to provide a clear answer to the following question: what means are made available to the representatives of the defence ministries for the standardisation of radio software so as not to endanger national programmes? In view of the above, the French authorities recommend withdrawing objective B from the mandate.

Commission response: 1. The Commission welcomes the support and appreciates the involvement of the French authorities in the work on this mandate.

2. The text of the mandate already states: 'CEN, CENELEC and ETSI are requested to collaborate with CEPT as necessary during the execution of the standardisation mandate.'

3. The Commission services consider that the demand will grow due to local factors. The absence of a coherent standardization policy and adequate European standards could stifle innovation and competitiveness by defragmentation of the market for this type of equipment.

4. The standardisation action does fall within the conditions of use of radio frequencies in accordance with point 1 Objective A:

"to allow CRSs to comply with EU and national legislation on the placing on the market and the use of radio equipment, in particular with the Directive on Radio Equipment & Telecommunications Terminal Equipment (R&TTE Directive)"

5. If need be, CEPT can always be associated to the mandated work.

6. Point 3)B)1) foresees the establishment of a "Joint Programming Board" for the programming phase which will enable the creation of a more controlled environment.It is not intented to endanger national programs.

Switzerland comments: 1. Typically ETSI starts with the development of a Harmonized Standard, after having received a System Reference Document (SRD). => Currently no SRD is available.

2. It is common practice that CEPT is consulted before ETSI is tasked to develop a Harmonized Standard. => So far ECC WG FM has not been contacted with regard to this issue (see Agenda Item 9.1 of the minutes of the 31 st ECC-meeting in Tallinn).

3. CEPT SE43 will finalize a series of Reports on White Space Devices in the UHF-band by September 2012. => To date CEPT has not taken any decision about the future regulation and introduction of new White Space Devices.

4. From a regulatory point of view Wireless Radio Microphones (SAB) belong to the category of White Space Devices. Most European Administrations intend to prioritize SAB against other new White Space Devices. => An approach to fulfill this requirement is the use of a national geo-location database.

5. In many European countries SAB is running under a regime of license exemption. => The location and time of operation of SAB-equipment is not known. Thus there are great practical problems to capture information about SAB for the geo-location database.

6. The future use of the UHF-band 470 – 790 MHz is under discussion within Europe (WRC-15 Agenda Items 1.2). => It is questionable if it is reasonable to develop a new Harmonized Standard under this condition. For Switzerland it seems premature to mandate CEN, CENELEC and ETSI with the development of a Harmonized Standard for Reconfigurable Radio Systems and therefore does not support the correspondent EC mandate.

Commission response: Thank you for these comments nevertheless they seem to be based on the incorrect assumption that there is a need for a SRD for this mandate. To note that CEPT has been consulted and will be consulted by the ESOs as per the mandate.

CEN/CENELEC comments: General comments:

We express a positive opinion. Nevertheless, We offer the following comments to be considered for inclusion in the final version of the mandate.

Technical comments:

1. Clause 1.2.1, 1st paragraph The CENELEC TC65X related market of industrial automation is not explicitly mentioned. This market is interested in creating standards on this topic. Add industrial automation so that it reads: " the area of commercial communications including industrial automation communications in order to exploit the potential of RRS technologies".

2. Clause 1.2.1, end of 1st paragraph There are also relevant IEC/EN documents available that should be referenced. Add at the end of 1st para (see R10,11, ... see IA refs comment).

3. Clause 1.3, list bullets Also projects that are relevant of industrial automation exists. Add

-nWiDia -FlexWARE -KOSYS see details below: Flexible Wireless Automation in Real-Time Environments (flexWARE)

Within this project the research team Wireless Industrial Communication was responsible for the verification of the project results. Test scenarios have been developed for the specially addressed application area in order to prove and assess the characteristics of the flexWARE system. The tests have been specified, prepared, executed and the results were evaluated. In addition the team was involved in the requirement analysis as well as the system design.

Industrial Wireless Diagnosis System (inWiDia)

Methods and basic technologies will be investigated in order to develop a unique assessment of the quality of service of industrial wireless systems. A concept of a diagnosis and failure analysis system shall be developed that can be used by end users or service providers to support the commissioning and operation of wireless networks. Physical parameters and telegram parameters are gathered directly from the installed wireless solutions but also indirectly by additional equipment. Thus, independent of the wireless technology the user shall get easy to understand information about the quality of the installed wireless solutions. Upcoming problems shall be detected quickly so that failure analysis and recovery measures can be carried out before the entire wireless system and so the automation system fails.

Coexistence Optimized Industrial Radio Systems (KOSYS)

Heterogeneous radio systems for industrial applications suffer to a certain degree from coexistence limitations. To avoid these impairments this research project deals with the investigation of coexistence optimized radio systems based on cognitive strategies. Coexistence optimized cognitive radio systems achieve always the best system performance in each environment, i.e. data transmission with best quality- of-service parameters and minimal interference to other radio systems.

4. Clause 2, objective A The CENELEC TC65X related market of industrial automation is not explicitly mentioned. This market is interested in creating standards on this topic. Add industrial automation, so that it reads: "area of commercial applications including Industrial Automation, to enable the deployment.

5. Clause 4, 3rd paragraph below table 1 IEC, especially TC65, has a lot of experiences in communications. Add IEC, so that it reads: "The standardisation work shall include the necessary coordination with international standardisation bodies, in particular with ITU-T, IEC.

6. Annex 1, list There are also relevant IEC/EN documents available that should be referenced. Add the following references: - IEC/EN 62591 Industrial communication networks - Wireless communication network and communication profiles - WirelessHART™ - IEC/EN 61784-1 Industrial communication networks - Profiles - Part 1: Fieldbus profiles - IEC/EN 61784-2 Industrial communication networks - Profiles - Part 2: Additional fieldbus profiles for real-time networks based on ISO/IEC 8802-3

Commission response:

The Commission welcomes the support and encourages all CENELEC working groups to participate as appropriate.

The explicit mention of particular applications was avoided where possible.

Regarding projects mentioned, we have observed that while these are projects relevant to industrial automation they seem to be less so to the RRS. The industrial automation as a possible application of the RRS are very welcome to participate in the working groups suitable to their standardisation activities. Date of Subject of the mandate Versions Date consultation Reference Mandate transmission 98/34 number to ESOs Committee

27/06/2012- Construction Products – Amendment to M/106 (Gypsum Products) 21/2012 Amendment 1 17/12/2012 03/08/2012 to M/106 DE comments: 1. Support subject to the following comments:

2. General remarks The aforementioned draft mandates require the standards to be made available no later than 12 months after completion of the test specifications for dangerous substances in CEN/TC 351 (in accordance with M/366). This does not seem practicable. The period should be extended to 24 months.

Commission response: 1. No comments.

2. Feedback from CEN and industry has indicated that the timeframe is feasible (in particular taking into account that preparation work can start with the availability of CEN TS in 2013).

NL comments: Asbestos to be included in the lists of dangerous substances in the Amendments.

Missing substances: As explained in their explanatory notes, the amendments on the relevant product mandates aim at harmonisation of construction product standards for uniform and transparent performance declaration of dangerous substances, where European and/or national threshold values exist. The product standards provide the tools for harmonised performance declaration, which also have to be implemented or accepted by the relevant European and national legislation. However the approach foresees the standards to follow the relevant European and national legislation with regard to determination of the substances and threshold values to be taken into account.

In those amendments, the Netherlands ‘Soil Quality Decree’ is taken into account, since this decree requires performance declarations on release and content of a number of substances which have to meet the limit values of the decree for protection of soil, groundwater and surface water.

In the lists of substances, as now included in the amendments with regard to the Soil Quality Decree, the reference to requirements on asbestos are not included.

We urgently ask the commission to repair this omission.

Explanation: In REACH, annex 17, it is prohibited to add intentionally asbestos to new products.

For environmental protection and for the market of construction materials and products it is essential to set unambiguous and transparent requirements and limit values on impurities of asbestos that is not added intentionally. In a number of cases this concerns use of primary raw materials. In many more cases this concerns the market of use of secondary materials from which asbestos is prevented and/or removed as much as possible before reuse. However without a clear, measurable level it will be impossible to create or maintain a recycling market as developed now in the Netherlands and as urgently required by European policy and regulations. The limit values include that if remaining impurities stay below an unambiguously specified strict level, the material or product is determined as ‘not containing asbestos’.

Commission response: Not accepted. The Commission agrees in principle with the Dutch concerns, However, since the Dutch comments are covering a wider area of how to address impurities in recycled materials this discussion has been moved to a general level concerning REACH and the Waste Directive. For the time being, asbestos will not be addressed till a solution has been found. Based on this result an additional amendment could be introduced to cover this specific aspect.

Bundesverband der Gipsindustrie comments: a) VOC, Trichlorethylene, benzene, 2-ethylhexyl phtalate, dibutyl phtalate, formaldehyde, acetaldehyde, toluene, tetrachloroethylene, xylene, trimethylbenzene, dichlorobenzene, ethylbenzene, butoxyethanol and styrene.

Question 1: Could these substances be included in products covered by mandate M/106 and in all existing harmonised product standards or harmonised product standards under development?

Gypsum products are produced using organic substances or products including, for example, starch, fruit acids, cellulose, melamine sulphonate, tensides and paper.

VOC concentrations and the level of individual substances can therefore also be determined in test chambers using the available existing standardised procedures such as ISO 16000.

However, it must be pointed out that the concentrations found in the tested gypsum products are consistently lower than the lowest limit values in the cited regulations and fall within the lowest defined emission class.

Question 2: Is it probable that these substances are released from the above-mentioned products, and are these emission levels close to existing limit values in regulations referred to in this mandate?

Cross-sectional studies on VOC emissions have shown the latter to be consistently below the concentrations in the AgBB table for the evaluation of building products, which also contains individual substance evaluations to determine the lowest relevant concentrations of individual substances (NIK values), calculated from limit values established on medical grounds by factoring in additional safety factors and taking account of damage to health.

Reports are available at the following addresses: http://www.gips.de/wp-content/uploads/downloads/2012/08/Forschungsvorhaben_AiF_15282N1_Schlussbericht_ Kurz.pdf http://www.gips.de/wp-content/uploads/downloads/2012/01/VOC-GWP-Fraunhofer-farbig-151010.pdf

Question 3: Are data available, in particular where national authorities or bodies have already checked whether the above-mentioned products contain or release such substances?

National authorities (Bundesanstalt für Materialforschung und –prüfung [BAM, Federal Institute for Material Research and Testing] for the Umweltbundesamt [Federal Environment Office]) tested a plasterboard pursuant to EN 520 (plasterboard, sample No 3546), with no critical findings.

The report by the Bundesanstalt für Materialforschung und –prüfung has been published at the following address: http://www.umweltdaten.de/publikationen/fpdf-l/3197.pdf

The report includes a summary table 3546-2 the data (plasterboards have a higher content of organic matter than all other listed standardised gypsum products) in which also show that there is no need for the product mandate to specify VOC concentrations or concentrations of individual substances.

We propose classifying gypsum products as regards VOC and individual substances as WT / WFT, since there are no indications to date that the standardised products exceed the limit values set out in the national regulatory provisions. b) For EN 14190 “products with decorative laminate comprising plastic sheeting”: additional requirement concerning the “declaration of active use of carcinogenic and mutagenic substances (classes 1A and 1B)”

These substances are not systematically added to the product group in question.

Furthermore, we assume that most carcinogenic substances will in future be identified in REACH as SVHC substances (substances of very high concern). As these are products, it would then be necessary for content from 0.1% by weight to be automatically declared; this applies among other things to coating material already sold by suppliers, which can then be rapidly excluded from use in the production of gypsum products.

In short, at present there are no findings/measurements or requirements for an additional normative provision for carcinogenic or mutagenic substances in classes 1A and 1B for gypsum products.

Commission response: Not accepted. The questions raised were already discussed within the Expert Group on Dangerous Substances where representatives of CEN TCs were also present. The argument of low emissions should be laid down in the work programme with references to data available to support this claim. Based on the work programme, the Commission might decide to exclude requirements for testing/declaration for specific substances. Date of Subject of the mandate Versions Date consultation Reference Mandate transmission 98/34 number to ESOs Committee

27/06/2012- Construction Products – Amendment to M/112 (Structural Timber 22/2012 Amendment 1 17/12/2012 03/08/2012 Products and Ancillaries) to M/112 DE comments: 1. Support subject to the following comments:

3. Specific points Please make the amendments to the draft mandate indicated in Annex 1.

Commission response: 1. No comments.

2. Feedback from CEN and industry has indicated that the timeframe is feasible (in particular taking into account that preparation work can start with the availability of CEN TS in 2013).

3. Accepted. Amendments added in mandate M/112.

NL comments: Asbestos to be included in the lists of dangerous substances in the Amendments.

In the lists of substances, as now included in the amendments with regard to the Soil Quality Decree, the reference to requirements on asbestos are not included.

We urgently ask the commission to repair this omission.

Explanation: In REACH, annex 17, it is prohibited to add intentionally asbestos to new products.

DK comments: When defining the presence of chemical substances in a product, it is of importance to define not only the nature of the substance, the qualitative content, but also to accompany this information with the concentration of the said chemical substance, the quantitative content. For the manufacturers as well as for the end users of the CE-marked products it is of importance to know the content of substances by name and/or CAS-numbers, but for manufacturers a measurable content of the substances are needed as a basis for the declaration of product performance of a CE-marked product.

In the documents received (structural timber products and ancillaries (M/112) and wood based panels (M/113)) the word “content” is not defined as covering the qualitative content or the quantitative content, but is used arbitrarily.

To establish future standards, not depending on the development of the technique for analysis of chemical substances, but on negotiated and agreed rules between the CEN member states, a more specific use of the word “content” is needed.”

Commission response: Clearer definitions for the term "content" are covered in the standardisatiion work of CEN TC 351 under mandate M/366. Therefore, a more detailed definition was not considered as necessary in the amended product mandates. Date of Subject of the mandate Versions Date consultation Reference Mandate transmission 98/34 number to ESOs Committee

27/06/2012- Construction Products – Amendment to M/113 (Wood Based Panels) 23/2012 Amendment 1 17/12/2012 03/08/2012 to M/113 DE comments: 1. Support subject to the following comments:

3. Specific points Please make the amendments to the draft mandate indicated in Annex 2.

Commission response: 1. No comments.

2. Feedback from CEN and industry has indicated that the timeframe is feasible (in particular taking into account that preparation work can start with the availability of CEN TS in 2013).

3. Accepted. Amendments added in mandate M/113.

NL comments: Asbestos to be included in the lists of dangerous substances in the Amendments.

In the lists of substances, as now included in the amendments with regard to the Soil Quality Decree, the reference to requirements on asbestos are not included.

We urgently ask the commission to repair this omission.

Explanation: In REACH, annex 17, it is prohibited to add intentionally asbestos to new products.

27/06/2012- Construction Products – Amendment to M/116 (Masonry Products) 24/2012 Amendment 1 17/12/2012 03/08/2012 to M/116 DE comments: 1. Support subject to the following comments:

3. Specific points The number of the notification for the Ordinance of the Minister of Health and Social Welfare* of 12 March 1996**(PL) needs to be added. The source in TRIS needs to be named and/or the national legislation needs to be disclosed so that it can be checked.

For these reasons, it is not possible to conduct a final review of the draft mandates, including of the parameters listed in column ER 3 ("Requirements").

Commission response: 1. No comments.

2. Feedback from CEN and industry has indicated that the timeframe is feasible (in particular taking into account that preparation work can start with the availability of CEN TS in 2013).

3. The Polish regulations have been accepted during the accession negotiations and are therefore not part of the notification procedure of the 98/34 Directive. However, a translation is available on CIRCA and was therefore also available to the representatives of Germany in the Commission's Expert Group on Dangerous Substances.

NL comments: Asbestos to be included in the lists of dangerous substances in the Amendments.

In the lists of substances, as now included in the amendments with regard to the Soil Quality Decree, the reference to requirements on asbestos are not included.

We urgently ask the commission to repair this omission.

Explanation: In REACH, annex 17, it is prohibited to add intentionally asbestos to new products.

27/06/2012- Construction Products – Amendment to M/121 (Wall and Ceiling 25/2012 Amendment 1 17/12/2012 03/08/2012 Finishes) to M/121 DE comments: 1. Support subject to the following comments:

3. The number of the notification for the Ordinance of the Minister of Health and Social Welfare* of 12 March 1996**(PL) needs to be added. The source in TRIS needs to be named and/or the national legislation needs to be disclosed so that it can be checked.

For these reasons, it is not possible to conduct a final review of the draft mandates, including of the parameters listed in column ER 3 ("Requirements").

4. Specific points Please make the amendments to the draft mandate indicated in Annex 3.

Commission response: 1. No comments.

2. Feedback from CEN and industry has indicated that the timeframe is feasible (in particular taking into account that preparation work can start with the availability of CEN TS in 2013).

NL comments: Asbestos to be included in the lists of dangerous substances in the Amendments.

In the lists of substances, as now included in the amendments with regard to the Soil Quality Decree, the reference to requirements on asbestos are not included.

We urgently ask the commission to repair this omission.

Explanation: In REACH, annex 17, it is prohibited to add intentionally asbestos to new products.

In case these requirements on asbestos would not be included in the product standards, this would mean that this part of the Soil Quality Decree would fully have to stay intact which would lead to the necessity of a double system of product performance declaration on dangerous substances. Such a double system is not desirable. Commission response: Not accepted. The Commission agrees in principle with the Dutch concerns, However, since the Dutch comments are covering a wider area of how to address impurities in recycled materials this discussion has been moved to a general level concerning REACH and the Waste Directive. For the time being, asbestos will not be addressed till a solution has been found. Based on this result an additional amendment could be introduced to cover this specific aspect.

FR comments: General comment on Mandates M/121 and M/122: There was no reference to the Order issued by the Polish Minister for Health and Social Protection of 12 March 1996 (PL) in the latest version of the amended mandates and no notification reference (TRIS) is given in respect of these provisions in accordance with Directive 98/34/EC. However, those national rules must be made available for examination by the other EU authorities. In the absence of such information, a review of the substances listed in the mandates cannot yet be finalised.

As regards Mandate M/121 on wall and ceiling finishes: It should be recalled that roofing tiles in compliance with standard EN 1304 are used in external and internal roofing. Proposal: the range of use of roofing tiles in compliance with standard EN 1304 must be extended to include ‘internal use’.

The Order of 30 April 2009, notified under 2009/034/FR, and not 2009/104/FR, refers only to trichloroethylene. The text was amended by the Order of 28 May 2009 notified under 2009/104/FR, which added three substances: ethylhexyl phthalate, dibutyl phthalate and benzene. Proposals: reference to the Order of 28 May 2009 (2009/104/FR) should be added to the regulations. It is necessary to correct the notification number of the Order of 30 April 2009 concerning trichloroethylene, which should be 2009/034/FR.

The Decree relating to the labelling of construction and decorative products in respect of their volatile pollutant emissions, notified under 2009/701/F, requires the use of a label but does not refer to substances. Pursuant to that Decree, the Order of 19 April 2011, notified under 2009/702/F, focuses on the following substances for indoor air: formaldehyde (CAS: 50-00-0), acetaldehyde (CAS: 75-07-0), toluene (CAS: 108-88-3), tetrachloroethylene (CAS: 127-18-4), xylene (CAS: 1330-20-7), 1,2,4-trimethylbenzene (CAS: 95-63-6), 1,4-dichlorobenzene (CAS: 106-46-7), ethylbenzene (CAS: 100-41-4), 2-butoxyethanol (CAS: 111-76-2), styrene (CAS: 100-42-5), total organic volatile compounds (TVOCs). Proposal: reference to the Order of 19 April 2011 (2009/702/FR) should be added to the list of regulations and total volatile organic compounds (TVOCs) should be added to the list of substances.

Commission response: The Polish regulations have been accepted during the accession negotiations and are therefore not part of the notification procedure of the 98/34 Directive. However, a translation is available on CIRCA and was therefore also available to the representatives of France in the Commission's Expert Group on Dangerous Substances. References to specific regulatory requirements have been made according to the input of each MS. Therefore, adding requirements to standards (as proposed for specific NL regulations) have to be made by the Member State responsible for this law.

The comments regarding the French regulations have been accepted and amendments in the new version have been made accordingly. Date of Subject of the mandate Versions Date consultation Reference Mandate transmission 98/34 number to ESOs Committee

27/06/2012- Construction Products – Amendment to M/122 (Roof Coverings) 26/2012 Amendment 1 17/12/2012 03/08/2012 to M/122 DE comments: 1. Support subject to the following comments:

3. Regarding the amendment to M/122 (Doc. 26/2012):

The number of the notification for the Ordinance of the Minister of Health and Social Welfare* of 12 March 1996**(PL) needs to be added. The source in TRIS needs to be named and/or the national legislation needs to be disclosed so that it can be checked.

For these reasons, it is not possible to conduct a final review of the draft mandates, including of the parameters listed in column ER 3 ("Requirements").

4. Specific points The column "Outdoor use" should be added to the Table in Annex 1. The last column should be renamed "Requirements". With respect to "Clay roofing tiles and fittings" under EN 1304 for "roof coverings", M/122 should be amended so that the area of use is restricted to "Outdoor use" and "Indoor use" is deleted.

The regulations on indoor air and the relevant parameters, such as the "Arrêté" of 30 April 2009 and the Ordinance of the Minister of Health (PL), should therefore also be deleted.

Reason: Clay roofing tiles and fittings under EN 1304 for the roof coverings referred to in M/122 are used exclusively outdoors.

Also: We note that EN 14351-1 is not listed in Annex 1 to the draft mandate. Annex ZA.1 "Scope and relevant characteristics" to European Standard 14351-1 states: "Parts of this European Standard have been prepared under Mandates M/101 Doors, windows, shutters, gates and related building hardware, amendments M/126, M/130 and M/122 Roof coverings, rooflights, roof windows and ancillary products, given to CEN by the European Commission…".

The sections of European Standard 14351-1 referred to in Annex ZA comply with the requirements of mandates M/101, M/122, M/123 and M/130 issued under the Construction Products Directive (89/106/EEC).

We would therefore ask you to check whether EN 14351-1 should also be taken into account in mandate M/122. Construction products could release or contain substances classified as "dangerous substances" in EU Directives and national legislation (Chemikalien-Verbotsordnung / Chemicals Prohibition Ordinance).

At the same time, further requirements (e.g. transposed European legislation and national legislation, legal provisions and administrative requirements) could be taken into account in draft mandates concerning sections which relate to dangerous substances.

Commission response: 1. No comments.

2. Feedback from CEN and industry has indicated that the timeframe is feasible (in particular taking into account that preparation work can start with the availability of CEN TS in 2013).

4. Comments regarding specific amendments have been accepted and amendemnts in the new version have been made accordingly.

NL comments: Asbestos to be included in the lists of dangerous substances in the Amendments.

In the lists of substances, as now included in the amendments with regard to the Soil Quality Decree, the reference to requirements on asbestos are not included.

We urgently ask the commission to repair this omission.

Explanation: In REACH, annex 17, it is prohibited to add intentionally asbestos to new products.

As regards roof coverings, Mandate M/122 states that the product standards for prefabricated metal accessories (EN 516/517) or metal sheets for roofing (EN 14782/14783) must not be subject to environmental restrictions for products in contact with rainwater.

However, the Netherlands Soil Quality Decree (2006/496/NL) states that ‘[it] is intended to establish environmental health parameters for construction materials in order to protect the soil and surface water. The intention is to prevent as far as possible the release of heavy metals into the environment and a number of other common elements having an unfavourable environmental impact.’ Proposal: the rules covered by notifications 2006/496/NL and 2006/557/NL should be applied to all products for the same purpose.

The Order of 30 April 2009 notified under 2009/104/FR covers indoor air: it does not therefore come within the scope of Mandate M/122. Proposal: the references to the Order of 30 April 2009 (2009/104/FR) should be withdrawn and ‘trichloroethylene’, ‘ethylhexyl phthalate’ and ‘dibutyl phthalate’ should be deleted from the list of substances.

References to specific regulatory requirements have been made according to the input of each MS. Therefore, adding requirements to standards (as proposed for specific NL regulations) have to be made by the Member State responsible for this law.

27/06/2012- Construction Products – Amendment to M/135 (Glass) 27/2012 Amendment 1 17/12/2012 03/08/2012 to M/135 DE comments: 1. Support subject to the following comments:

3. Specific points Please make the amendments to the draft mandate indicated in Annex 4.

We would also point out that glass blocks and glass pavers are composed of soda-lime silicate glass. The surfaces which are used are no different from the basic products referred to in EN 572-9. No special requirements should therefore be laid down for glass blocks and glass pavers pursuant to EN 1051-2.

Commission response: 1. No comments.

2. Feedback from CEN and industry has indicated that the timeframe is feasible (in particular taking into account that preparation work can start with the availability of CEN TS in 2013).

3. References to specific regulatory requirments have been made according to the input of each MS. Therefore, adding requirements to standards (as proposed for specific NL regulations) have to be made by the Member State responsible for this law. The arguments brought forward by Germany can be added in the work programme provided by the relvant CEN product TCs for further clarification with the NL authorities.

NL comments: Asbestos to be included in the lists of dangerous substances in the Amendments.

In the lists of substances, as now included in the amendments with regard to the Soil Quality Decree, the reference to requirements on asbestos are not included.

We urgently ask the commission to repair this omission.

Explanation: In REACH, annex 17, it is prohibited to add intentionally asbestos to new products.

FR comments: The proposal to revise the mandate seems correct, apart from standard EN 1051-2, glass blocks and pavers. The products that this standard applies to are all-glass blocks and pavers, used on their own and not built in to concrete slabs, for example.

The glass blocks and pavers are considered inert and will never release the substances listed in column 3. They must be treated the same as other all-glass products, 'float' type, patterned glass etc., to which no national legislation on dangerous substances applies.

Therefore we request that you remove the list of substances in column 3 and the reference to the Dutch standards in column 6, which are not applicable to these products.

Commission response: References to specific regulatory requirements have been made according to the input of each MS. Therefore, adding requirements to standards (as proposed for specific NL regulations) have to be made by the Member State responsible for this law. Date of Subject of the mandate Versions Date consultation Reference Mandate transmission 98/34 number to ESOs Committee

13/07/2012- Construction Products – Eurocodes Amendment 28/2012 M/515 18/12/2012 31/08/2012 FR comments: Support subject to the following comments:

1. A vertical approach to the general Eurocodes should be taken when applying Eurocodes to existing work by drawing up new specific parts in relation to this, and a horizontal approach should be taken to the material Eurocodes by means of additions and amendments to the requirements for new work. We are hoping that this application will not call into question the reliability of existing work whose proper operational behaviour is validated by experience. We would also like the detailed requirements to be set out in order to adapt the level of reliability to the challenges being faced.

2. Annex 1 sets out the same work and assessment programme for the framework Eurocodes as for the material Eurocodes. It would be advisable to specify the work programmes for the framework Eurocodes and the material Eurocodes, and to provide further details of the actions planned. The programmes’ current level of comprehensiveness makes it impossible to define the objectives with sufficient precision in the standardisation committees involved.

3. We would like the mandate to refer to basic requirement (7) ‘the Sustainable Use of Natural Renewable Resources’ set out in the new Construction Products Regulation and the Eurocodes in order to provide guidance in the future as to their application.

4. Regarding point 5.2(c), the issue of arrangements for ‘collaboration with the JRC’ requires further clarification.

5. Improving the ‘ease of use’ (referred to in 5.2(d) and 6.2(p)) must not be done at the expense of either security or scientific rigour and technique. We also believe that the publication in separate documents of the Eurocodes, the amendments, the corrigenda and their country- specific annexes makes reading these standards difficult. This is why we would like the mandate to include the launch of a consultation process on possibly publishing these – by country – in a single document. Representatives from the national standardisation bodies, such as AFNOR in France’s case, could be invited to take part in this consultation process.

6. The drafting of standards for implementation at national level is required for Eurocode 7. These standards, enabling the practical implementation of this Eurocode throughout the profession, will be published in France in 2013, which is somewhat faster than other countries. It is therefore essential that the review of Eurocode 7 take into account this aspect, which it should be possible to address during the implementation of the ‘planned actions’ 5.2(c) (evaluation and drafting of nationally determined parameters) and 5.2(h) (feedback on the implementation of Eurocodes).

In addition, two particular features of EN1998 appear unmanageable in the planned definition of the mandate.

(1) The standardisation operation guided principally by the users/applicators is ill-suited to the seismic design (Work package I) because: * user feedback is extremely slow (several decades, possible errors before it is supported by experience); * the responsibility of the designers/constructors is not directly linked to the consequences that result from their choices because of compulsory insurance schemes for external financing against ‘natural disasters’ and the time-lag between putting systems in place and the actual earthquake.

(2) Updating the structural material Eurocodes (Work package II of the Mandate) could create a need to re-evaluate a number of requirements in EN1998 which frequently crop up in relation to dimensioning criteria in the conditions of the EN materials: for example, if an increase in the elongation limits of steels in ultimate fatigue limit states above 0.1% is considered in EN1992 (i.e. already 4-5 times the elongation limit of quasi-reversibility), relaxing this condition could be justified for standard load conditions which are broadly the same but not necessarily for ultimate limit state criteria under quasi-alternating loading cycles.

The mandate for EN1998 must include the re-evaluation of the impact of the changes made to the other Eurocodes, which has implications for the timetable.

Commission response: Not accepted. While the comments are valid, they are addressing the internal work of CEN and have therefore to be addressed in the work programme not in the mandate.

IT comments: Support.

Commission response: No comments.

FI comments: The Programming mandate M/466 has been addressed to CEN in the field of structural Eurocodes (8th of June, 2011) and there is the CEN (CEN TC 250) replay to this mandate. Some Member States have sent their comments on the CEN reply. The draft mandate which is now under written procedure (D o c. 2 8 / 2 0 1 2 – EN) has not been discussed at Standing Committee on Construction (SCC) nor at any another meeting under the SCC with Member States. As structural design belongs to the competence of Member States we do not consider this kind of procedure appropriate. The content of the draft mandate should be discussed with the competent authorities of construction of the Member States before taking the issue to 98/34-committee procedure. This is the good practice, which has been applied until now and will be applied according to article 7 of the coming European regulation on standardization.

In the draft mandate there is a requirement on technical report on requirements for climate change. What does the Commission expect from the report? What does the Commission mean by sustainability concepts from CEN TC 250? These very specific questions should rather be discussed and understood by the the Committee set up by the corresponding act of Union harmonisation legislation, as such a committee now exists.

The following chapter has been mentioned three times. "Adoption, where relevant, of ISO standards to supplement the Eurocodes family (currently identified potential issues are atmospheric icing of structures and actions from waves and currents on coastal structures)" This belongs only to Work package I, not Work package IIa and IIb.

According to the draft mandate CEN should send its proposal for a detailed standardisation work programme. It is important that the Commission will discuss this standardization work programme with the competent authorities of the Member States.

Commission response: The Standing Committee on Construction (SCC) was a comitology committee for addressing issues regarding the Construction Products Directive (CPD). Eurocodes are not covered by the CPD. Therefore, there is no legal link between this mandate and the SCC that would justify that the SCC has to discuss this mandate.

However, a special working group (the Eurocodes National Correspondance Group) has received the mandate for comments. Wherever relevant these comments were included.

AT comments: Point 2 ('Grounds') touches on the issue of improved practical application of the Eurocodes, which would especially assist SMEs. However, point 3 of the draft places too little emphasis on the establishment of a more user-friendly approach in existing and future Eurocodes.

In point 3 ('Execution of the mandate'), user-friendliness and ease of use should therefore be given higher priority. In place of the current wording, which lists only three subpoints, a separate subpoint should be devoted to user-friendliness. The third paragraph of point 3 should therefore read as follows: "CEN is requested to provide: • the development of new standards or new parts of existing standards (vertical approach); • the incorporation of new performance requirements and design methods (horizontal approach); • the establishment of a more user-friendly approach in existing and future standards (horizontal approach); and • a technical report on how to adapt the existing Eurocodes and the new Eurocode for structural glass to take into account the relevant impacts of future climate change."

Points 5.2 (d) and 6.2 (p) of Annex I specify only 'refinement' to improve ease of use. This alone is not, in our view, sufficient. The wording "Improved 'ease of use' of Eurocodes by practical users" should therefore be used. The requirement in point 6.2 [sic] "(aa) Use of clear language and structure to aid the ‘ease of use’ of Eurocodes by practical users" should apply not only to certain Eurocodes, but to all existing and future standards, and should therefore also be incorporated into point 5.

To improve ease of use, it is essential that stakeholders in the field of design (e.g. Chambers of Engineers) particularly affected by the use of standards and therefore by the implementation of Eurocodes are also more closely involved in standardisation work. Annex I, point 5.2, subpoints (e) and (f) specify only that the results of international studies by scientific and technical associations are to be taken into account. In addition to international studies, practical experience on the part of those involved in design should be taken into account in further development work in connection with the application of existing Eurocodes. We therefore propose that a further subpoint be included under points 5.2, 6.2 und 6.3, which should read: "Incorporation of practical experience on the part of stakeholders affected, in particular in the field of design and dimensioning".

The reference to "industry specific standards" in Annex I, package II could lead to misunderstandings and be interpreted as standardisation influenced solely by the industry. That is potentially inconsistent with point 1.1 'Policy framework' in relation to creating the conditions for more competition. Wording should therefore be used which makes it clear that, whilst these are material-specific standards, there is to be balanced involvement of other stakeholders as well as the industry.

Finally, we would comment that Annex I of the mandate creates the impression that the latest scientific research is to be equated with the technical state of the art in connection with standards. That is to be avoided, as standards should reflect the technical state of the art, but, in the absence of sufficient experience in practice, not the latest scientific research (there are model codes for that purpose).

Commission response: Comments were included in the new version of the mandate (the need for guidance documents will be evaluated by the Commission based on the work programme where their development and use should be clrearly described).

DE comments: Support subject to the following comments:

General remarks The Eurocodes must be developed in a way that consistently takes account of the principle of 'improved applicability and practicability = principle of a user-friendly and practicable approach'.

Fundamentally, standards must reflect the current technical state of the art. However, the latest research (in so far as this does not refer to research results that help provide solutions for improved applicability and practicability) should not (yet) be taken into account in standards without testing under real conditions.

With regard to the incorporation of sustainability aspects into Eurocodes, CEN should seek to ensure that a uniform approach is taken, and that the concept is understood in the same way, by the standardisation bodies. Otherwise, it is to be feared that the concept of 'sustainability' could be interpreted too broadly within the context of Eurocodes. Furthermore, here too the principle of 'applicability and practicability' should be applied, taking account of the technical state of the art.

Detailed points The principle of 'improved applicability and practicability' should therefore be more clearly emphasised in relation to certain points.

Point 2/page 3 2. GROUNDS

– ´Based on the CEN reply to the framework mandate M/4661, it is foreseen that at least one additional structural Eurocode and substantial additions to the existing codes directly taking account of, and implementing, the principle of a more user-friendly and practicable approach shall be developed as part of the action at European level.'

Point 3/page 4 3. EXECUTION OF THE MANDATE

'CEN is requested to provide:

• the development of new standards or new parts of existing standards (vertical approach), taking account of the principle of a user-friendly and practicable approach;'

Annex I/page 6 Work Package I: FRAMEWORK/ASSESSMENT EUROCODES: EN 1990, EN 1991, EN 1997, EN 1998 5.2. Further development

'(e) Incorporation of recent results of international studies from scientific and technical associations and results from research programmes relevant to innovation (including the performance-based and sustainability concepts in design and construction), taking account of the principle of a user-friendly and practicable approach;

(f) Incorporation of recent results of international studies from scientific and technical associations and results from research programmes relevant to contribution of structural design to sustainability, taking account of the principle of a user-friendly and practicable approach;'

Work package II/page 7:

OTHER EXISTING EUROCODES: EN 1992-1996 AND NEW EUROCODE ON GLASS IN CONSTRUCTION

6.2 Work package IIa): Further development

'(q) Incorporation of recent results of international studies from scientific and technical associations and results from research programmes relevant to innovation (including the performance-based and sustainability concepts in design and construction), taking account of the principle of a user-friendly and practicable approach;

(r) Incorporation of recent results of international studies from scientific and technical associations and results from research programmes relevant to contribution of structural design to sustainability, taking account of the principle of a user-friendly and practicable approach;'

6.3 Work package II b: Glass

Fundamentally, CEN should ensure that, in drawing up a new Eurocode, knowledge acquired and systems developed in connection with work packages I und IIa with a view to improving 'ease of use by practical users' are consistently applied.

We therefore propose the following additions:

'(x) Incorporation of recent results of international studies from scientific and technical associations and results from research programmes relevant to innovation (including the performance-based and sustainability concepts in design and construction), taking direct account of results obtained from work packages I und IIa with a view to applying the principle of a user-friendly and practicable approach; (y) Incorporation of recent results of international studies from scientific and technical associations and results from research programmes relevant to contribution of structural design to sustainability, taking direct account of results obtained from work packages I und IIa with a view to applying the principle of a user-friendly and practicable approach;'

Guidance documents:

5.2 (h)/page 6 and 6.2 (t)/page 8:

'Developing auxiliary guidance documents to facilitate feedback from stakeholders and the practical local implementation wherever necessary.' The development of guidance documents of this kind must not complicate the system (by requiring another document to be taken into account).

The Eurocodes should, rather, be revised in such a way as to ensure that they are able to be applied and are self explanatory and that there is consequently no need for additional explanatory remarks. At the same time, standards cannot claim to be 'scientific textbooks'. There may therefore be cases in which guidance documents of this kind are appropriate during the transitional period. It should, however, be ensured that more resources are not committed to guidance documents of this kind than to achieving the objective of improving the practicability and applicability of Eurocodes.

Commission response: Accepted. Comments were included. However, since the user-friendliness of the Eurocodes has been explicitly mentioned in a very promintent position (chapter 3) the Commission does not consider a repeating reference as neccessary. Nevertheless, this aspect will be of high importance when evaluating the work programme.

DK comments: “The Danish Association of Consulting Engineers has had the priviledge of reading the proposed mandate for amending existing Eurocodes (doc. 28/2012).

Consulting engineers are frequent users of Eurocodes, and subsequently it most important:

- That the Eurocodes are written in a way, which is easily understandable as well as designed for practical use.

- That the documentation is well planned and tested. The current Eurocodes are at times complex and have contradictions built in.

- That alle Eurocodes and attached documentation e.g. standards for materials and performance standards are verified against one-another. - That the number of Eurocodes is reduced. Even for skilled professionals it seems impossible to have the necessary overview.

Generally any simplification of the Eurocodes is appreciated.

This includes reducing the number of NDP’s, which in an international competition will be counterproductive. However, the previous experience has made it clear that only if the database reflects real life, will development be successful. Sadly this has not been the case previously.”

Commission response: Accepted. Follow up of the 118th meeting of the Standards and Technical Regulations Committee, 3rd October 2012 Situation as to 11 March 2013

Agenda Subject of the mandate Versions Date point Reference Mandate transmission 98/34 number to ESOs Committee

5.1 Low voltage electrical equipment 37/2012 M/511 18/11/2012

DE comments: DE supports the subject matter of the mandate. However, DE would like to submit comments to several parts of the draft:

• Section 2: Policy and legal framework DE would like to change the scope of paragraph 7, because the reasons for providing additional information such as safety objectives should not be limited to safety risks or technical issues.

The Mandate does not request the information referred to in the previous paragraph for past (existing)standards, unless they are have been amended due to other reasons in order to address a safety risk(i.e. technical issue), for a number of reasons. This is because firstly, …

• Section 4:Indication of safety objectives covered by harmonised standards DE suggests to delete the word “new“ in the beginning of section 4 (In case of new standards, prepared under section 3 (b)). DE fully supports the further wording.

• Section 5: Reservations The reference to section 3 (c) is not clear, because 3 (c) is missing in the draft mandate. Please correct this.

• Section 6: Execution of the mandate Section 6 points out to consider SME interest during the preparation of the standard. It further states that the titles of the harmonised standards shall be provided in all the official languages of the EU. this is a prerequisite for the publication in the official journal and thus the presumption of conformity. A major part of electrotechnical industry is SMEs. A continuous updating of the official journal is essential for SMEs. Missing translations of title can lead to delays in updating and create disadvantages. Therefore, DE suggests to develop solutions for cases, where single translations of titles are missing for a specific period of time, in order to strengthen SMEs market position and to accelerate technological progress. • Section 7: Organisations to be involved DE supports the involvement of several organisations. Regarding the low voltage directive DE suggests to consider also issues concerning the interplay between European energy, water and environmental policy.

As an example, DE would like to point out electrical equipment in the water supply system such as connector to water supply installation. Therefore, DE proposes to add EUREAU (European Federation of National Associations of Water and Wastewater Services) to the list of organisations to be involved.

Commission response: Based on the comments received and as agreed during the meeting of the 98/34 Committee of 3 October 2012:

-the word 'new' was deleted from section 4 (beginning). -first paragraph of section 5 now refers to section 4 (instead of referring to section 3c) -the second paragraph of section 5 now refers to section 3 (instead of referring to section 3a) -the expression 'and other relevant organisations' was inserted in section 7 (Organisations to be involved).

It is noted that the following comment was not taken board:

-modify the scope of section 2 (paragraph 7) The reason is that the scope of the mandate concentrates only on safety aspects because the legal basis of the Mandate is the Low Voltage Directive which relates only to safety.

With respect to the suggestion on continuing publishing the titles in the Official Journal of the EU in order to strengthen the SMEs position, the Commission takes note of the suggestion. In the meantime the HAS system has been established which aims at improving the process for publishing the titles of harmonised standards in the Official Journal of the EU.

PL comments: Initial note: The title of Mandate could be shorter, e.g. as above. Some details could be contained thereafter in the text of document. This would be more practicable.

In the draft received, it is seen generally adequate approach within current legal European system. The optimizing of this system in direction of “smart regulation” is known as separate wide activity initiated also by the very EU organs.

The formal, procedural statements seem to be the result of current situation and it is believed that are proper and right. It is seen that European Commission definitely insist on indication of safety objectives covered by harmonized standards. The past discussion on this EU requirement seems to be not real now. However the problem of traditional standardization process integrity remains. May be the precise analysis and demonstrating the standardization processes complexity could be helpful in future optimizing of such European uppermost authorities cooperation.

One question by the way appears (may be explicitly stated in regulations): Who would be responsible for the harmonized standard adequacy if it was entirely based on essential requirements of Directives. And how this issue looks when the standard is partly based on essential requirements?

As to the time schedule of the Mandate execution in Section 6, it is assumed that European Standards Organizations could have many restrictions and problems due to present processes complexity. So their opinion would be of highest importance. In that Section, particularly difficult could be alignments with equivalent activities of IEC and ISO bodies. These world standard organizations do not deal with their document relations to documents like European Directives. May be it is a potential source of some additional problems to ESOs (?).

As the representative of part of Polish Medical Industry (Silesian Commission for Standardization and Technical Problems of Medical Industry SCSTP), we are glad to see the EU postulates to invite to cooperation, by ESOs, the organizations of standards users. Of course in bilaterally possible conditions. It could be advantageous especially when these user’s organizations cooperate closely with their national Standards Committees (like e.g. SCSTP and PKN in Poland).

Commission response: The following comments were taken on board: - title has been shortened - the expression 'and other relevant organisations' was inserted in section 7 (Organisations to be involved).

It is noted that the detailed procedure for not publishing the references of standards (or withdrawing the references) if they are not adequate and do not fulfil the safety objectives, is set out in the new standardisation regulation. The new Low Voltage Directive would contain cross references to the relevant provisions of the new Standardisation regulation. So, it is not for a mandate to deal with this issue.

FR comments: 2. Policy and legal framework 6th paragraph Considering the obligations of the Commission, as set by the new Standardisation Regulation, in ensuring compliance of harmonised standards with this Mandate and to enable effective publication of titles of harmonised standards in the OJEU, each harmonised standard should indicate clearly all the safety objectives of the new Directive plus — given the objectives supposed to be covered — the parts of the standard concerned or details of the non-relevance of certain objectives in relation to the standard. Where appropriate, the aspects which are covered by a harmonised standard but do not support a safety objective of the new Directive shall also be indicated.

4. Indication of safety objectives covered by harmonised standards In case of new standards, prepared under section 3 (b) of this Mandate and published 12 months after the date of application of the new Directive, ESOs shall indicate, unless it is not feasible and possible for a given standard, which safety objectives of the new Directive those harmonised standards are supposed to cover. For each of the safety objectives of the new Directive, Annex Z to the standard shall specify, depending on the case: * the relevant sections in the standard, accompanied where necessary by appropriate reservations; or * the reasons why the objective is not covered by the standard (not relevant, covered by a different standard, etc.). Where appropriate, the aspects which are covered by a harmonised standard but do not support a safety objective of the new Directive shall also be indicated.

Commission response: Section 4 of the Mandate was formulated in accordance with the procedure and practice followed in other new approach directives. The important is to indicate in Annex Z whether a particular standard - if related to LVD - responds to the safety objectives of the LVD

A number of standards are not prepared specifically for LVD but also for other directives or even they are made for other purposes and so is impossible to indicate in Annex Z of every standard which aspects are not covered.

CEN/CLC comments: CENELEC welcomes the draft mandate in its present format. We would however like to draw your attention to the text under chapter 5 ‘Reservations’. The first sentence refers to section 3(c). This section is not mentioned in the mandate. Could you please clarify?

Commission response: Based on the comments received and as agreed during the meeting of the 98/34 Committee of 3 October 2012:

-first paragraph of section 5 now refers to section 4 (instead of referring to section 3c) -the second paragraph of section 5 now refers to section 3 (instead of referring to section 3a)

Agenda Subject of the mandate Versions Date point Reference Mandate transmission 98/34 number to ESOs Committee

5.2 HCl 37/2012 M/513 03/12/2012

DE comments: Support subject to the following comment:

The procedures that shall be standardised within this mandate require the validation of methods. Therefore, DE suggests to carry out validation tests while developing the standard.

Commission response: Accepted. The Commission acknowledges the support and shares opinion that the procedures that shall be standardised within this mandate require validation of methods. The validation has been foreseen in the Standardisation mandate to CEN, CENELEC and ETSI under Directive 2010/75/EU for a European standard method for the automatic determination by measurement of the concentration of gaseous hydrogen chloride (HCl) in waste gases emitted by industrial installation to the air.

UK comments: Support.

Commission response: No comments.

FR comments: Support subject to the following comment:

FR has a preference for option 3 (test on a bench able to simulate, with real matrices, the three different plants and one field test on one incinerator), and then option 2 (test on a bench able to simulate, with real matrices, the three different plants).

Commission response: Not accepted. The position of FR on the option preferences concerning on site/on a bench test is taken into account however Commission would like to keep all the 3 options open for further experts discussion. Agenda Subject of the mandate Versions Date point Reference Mandate transmission 98/34 number to ESOs Committee

5.3 VOC 39/2012 M/514 03/12/2012

DE comments: Support subject to the following comment:

The procedures that shall be standardised within this mandate require the validation of methods. Therefore, DE suggests to carry out validation tests while developing the standard.

Commission response: Accepted. The Commission acknowledges the support and and shares the opinion that the procedures that shall be standardised within this mandate require validation of methods. The validation has been foreseen in the Standardisation mandate to CEN,CENELEC and ETSI under Directive 2010/75/EU for a European standard method to determine fugitive and diffuse emissions of volatile organic compounds (VOC) from certain industrial sources to the atmosphere.

Consultations by written procedure after 118th meeting of the Standards and Technical Regulations Committee Situation as to 11 March 2013 Date of Subject of the mandate Versions Date consultation Reference Mandate transmission 98/34 number to ESOs Committee

27/06/2012- Construction Products – Amendment to M/132 (Premix Glass Beads) 46/2012 Amendment 1 12/02/2013 03/08/2012 to M/132 FR comments: Support.

Commission response: N/A. Date of Subject of the mandate Versions Date consultation Reference Mandate transmission 98/34 number to ESOs Committee

27/06/2012- Construction Products – Amendment to M/124 (Road Construction 47/2012 Amendment 1 12/02/2013 03/08/2012 Products) to M/124 FR comments: The French authorities do not approve of the plan to amend mandate M/124 for the following reasons: The Coordination Group for Earthworks and Carriageways of the Bureau for Standardisation of Roads, Transport and Associated Construction, mirror group of CEN/TC 227 'Road Materials', restates its formal opposition to this mandate. The aggregates for untreated materials – the only components of unbound mixtures and of which certain unbound mixtures are a component – are to be given CE marking on the basis of harmonised standard EN 13242. Therefore a new harmonised standard specific to unbound mixtures is of no use. According to this group of experts, the draft amendment to mandate M/124 should be changed to take the following points into account:

 In 2) the table should state the required characteristics for unbound mixtures as defined in the corresponding product standard: EN 13285 'Unbound Mixtures – Specifications'. The performance characteristics associated with the presence of water-soluble sulphate and resistance to fragmentation should be removed. These characteristics are already laid down for aggregates in standard EN 13242 'Aggregates for unbound and hydraulically bound materials for use in civil engineering work and road construction', which itself is referred to in standard EN 13285.  In 3), there is a reference to Directive 89/106/CEE, which is out of date. The text should refer to the 'Construction Products Regulation 305/2011' which has been in force since spring 2012.

Additionally, there is an important error in the French translation of document 47-2012: the exact translation of the English 'unbound mixtures' is the French term 'graves non traitées'. The term 'enrobés sans liants' should not be used here. Commission response: Concerning the general FR comment: the mandate covers unbound road mixtures which are ready to be used as such for road construction. These mixtures are made by mixing various aggregates (which may be covered by EN 13242). The difference is that the mixture has a completely different performance than the various aggregates which are the constituents of the mixture. Therefore the Standing Committee on Construction has agreed with the proposed mandate.

Concerning point 2) of the FR comments: The characteristics included in the table have been identified by all the EU Member States and EFTA as relevant for these products. The CEN/TC which will undertake the standardisation work under the fnal mandate can justify in its reply to the mandate if the TC considers that something must be amended considering one ess. characteristic.

Concerning point 3) of the FR comments: The FR opinion is simply wrong. The Directive 89/106/EEC continues to be fully applicable till 30/06/2013. Furthermore, Art 68. of the Regulation 305/2011 foresees that the provisions on standardisation will start to be applicable from 01/07/2013. Date of Subject of the mandate Versions Date consultation Reference Mandate transmission 98/34 number to ESOs Committee

27/06/2012- Construction Products – Amendment to M/119 (Floorings) 48/2012 ______03/08/2012 Comments are under consideration by the Commission services. Date of Subject of the mandate Versions Date consultation Reference Mandate transmission 98/34 number to ESOs Committee

27/06/2012- Construction Products – Amendment to M/106 (Gypsum Board Partition 49/2012 Amendment 2 12/02/2013 03/08/2012 Kits) to M/106 DE comments: Please check whether Commission Decision 98/213/EC on the procedure for attesting the conformity of construction products pursuant to Article 20(2) of Council Directive 89/106/EEC as regards internal partition kits has been taken into account in Mandate 106/Doc. 49/2012. If not, we would be grateful if you could provide a brief explanation.

Under the Commission Decision cited above, internal partitions are classed according to their different uses (Decision 98/213/EC Annex III). The classification according to reaction to fire, fire compartmentation, dangerous substances, safety in use and other uses as found in Annex III ought also to be reflected in the revised mandate to CEN.

Commission response: Not accepted. A new Commission Decision has been adopted after proper consultation of the Member States for these products. This is the Decision 2012/201/EU published in the OJEU L109 on 21.04.2012.

AT comments: AT believes that the point 4b) requires a linguistic precision. Therefore AT proposes that the English version is amended as indicated below to correspond with the German and French versions. Further, the German version should be amended as indicated below, i.e. „ETZ- Zulassung“ should be replaced by „ETZ-Leitlinie“ in the second sentence of the point 4b).

EN DE 4b) For the elaboration of the harmonized standards for 4b) Für die Erarbeitung der harmonisierten Normen für Bausätze für gypsum board partition kits, the responsible CEN Technical Gipsplattentrennwände wird der zuständige Technische Ausschuss Committee is requested to consider the already existing beauftragt, die bereits bestehende, von EOTA erstellte ETZ-Leitlinie zu ETA Guideline on Internal Partitions Kits elaborated by Innentrennwandbausätzen zu berücksichtigen. Bei der EOTA. Concerning product assessment, Produktbewertung ist der Technische Ausschuss des CEN nur dann nicht the CEN Technical Committee is only in such cases not an die ETZ-Leitlinie Zulassung gebunden, wenn dies aufgrund des obliged to follow the said ETA Guideline, only if where this konsolidierten technischen Wissens und der Erfahrung gerechtfertigt ist. can be justified by the consolidated knowledge of the Zu allen die Produktbewertung betreffenden Punkten, bei denen der product and experience. For all points concerning product Technische Ausschuss des CEN der ETZ-Leitlinie nicht zu folgen assessment for which the CEN Technical Committee intends beabsichtigt, übermittelt der Technische Ausschuss des CEN der not to follow the said ETA Guideline, the CEN Technical Kommission rechtzeitig eine ausführliche Begründung.“ Committee shall timely send to the Commission a detailed justification."

Commission response: Comments accepted. The suggested amendments will be introduced in the final mandate texts. Date of Subject of the mandate Versions Date consultation Reference Mandate transmission 98/34 number to ESOs Committee

15/10/2012- Facilities and Equipment for Interpretation Services 50/2012 M/516 23/01/2013 16/11/2012 DE comments: Support subject to the following comments:

In Germany there is little interest in the activities described in the draft mandate for facilities and equipment for interpretation services.

It should be noted that the scope of the draft mandate is vast; it addresses numerous standardization subjects, which should be assigned to different bodies. The Commission could therefore consider to limit the draft mandate, e.g. to the development of general provisions concerning interpretation booths, as well as special provisions regarding acoustic aspects.

Nevertheless, the decision to review the ISO 2603 and ISO 4043 standards mentioned in the draft mandate falls to the competent international organisations and not to the ESOs.

Since in essence the workplace is concerned as well (air conditioning, lighting, ergonomics, conference rooms…) occupational health and safety should be listed amongst the bodies to be associated.

Proposed amendment: 6. Bodies to be associated: (…) Such groups include: (…) representatives of occupational health and safety.

In various places the mandate refers to subjects having regard to occupational health and safety (lighting, ergonomics, air conditioning etc.). According to article 153 TFEU occupational health and safety is subject to national rules. For this reason the European Union directives having regard to occupational health and safety only establish minimum requirements. When transposing these into national legislation, each member state has the right to introduce more stringent measures, which may differ from those of other member states.

The rules regarding European standardization therefore state that requirements having regard to occupational health and safety can, generally speaking, not be laid down in standards. In the services sector, the service provider must instead comply with the relevant national health and safety regulations. That is why the requirements regarding the occupational health and safety of service providers cannot be part of standards (e.g. requirements for wearing personal protection equipment, the equipment of the workplace to protect against certain risks.)

It should therefore be ensured that only technical requirements are addressed in standards, and not aspects of occupational health and safety.

Commission response: The German remarks are acceptable. Because the scope is vast, it might be advisable to develop several standards with a more limited scope. Date of Subject of the mandate Versions Date consultation Reference Mandate transmission 98/34 number to ESOs Committee

29/10/2012- Horizontal Service Standards 52/2012 M/517 24/01/2013 30/11/2012 DE comments: 1. Germany generally welcomes the stepping-up of service standardisation activities with a view to boosting the Single Market and reducing fragmentation in Europe. However, it rejects the draft mandate for the development of horizontal service standards in its current form on the grounds that it is not market-oriented. It is recommended that the development of a standardisation roadmap for services and the drafting of individual service standards should follow an open, holistic approach based on a defined market need.

2. The umbrella organisations of the German craft trades industries, capital goods industry, liberal professions, haulage and logistics sector, care and medical services and tourism industry are generally critical towards the drawing-up of horizontal service standards. It is felt that the horizontal service standardisation approach is not in keeping with the diversity of the different service branches.

Standards should be characterised by relevance to the market and usefulness to industry and consumers. This also applies to mandates (top-down approach), so that standardisation results gain wide acceptance. However, the important criterion ‘market relevance’ or ‘market need’ is not defined in the present draft mandate and therefore remains unclear.

Furthermore, the advance identification of specific subjects for which horizontal service standards should be drawn up in phase 2 of the mandate is an obstacle to an open, market-oriented standardisation process.

Germany therefore proposes a different approach to the preparation of a standardisation road-map for services which is more open in terms of subjects. The criterion ‘market relevance’ and the definition thereof will then have top priority.

Commission response: Not accepted.

• The mandate does follow an open, holistic approach, based on market needs.

• Even though there might be specific stakeholders who could be critical towards drawing-up of horizontal service standards, the CHESSS study came to the conclusion that such mandate would be feasible and desirable. • The present mandate has been drafted with inputs from ESOs and relevant stakeholders. The standardisation process itself is also, by definition, following an inclusive and transparent procedure with inputs from all relevant stakeholders. Market needs are, therefore, automatically taken into account.

• Furthermore, Annex 1 will serve only as guidance (what is clear from the text) and specific subjects for which horizontal service standards will be drawn up in phase 2 will be chosen on the basis of an open, market-oriented standardisation process.

FR comments: The French authorities support this draft mandate, which follows up the provisions adopted in the new regulation extending standardisation to services.

Nevertheless, it would be useful to make it clear that the scope of the standards subject to a European Commission mandate cannot include the areas which fall under the exclusive jurisdiction of the Member States (cf. recital (11) of the new Regulation on health and social security systems and the establishing of general conditions for the management, financing, organisation and performance of services provided in connection with these systems).

However, concerning the procedures, the areas and subjects listed in Annex 1 (‘Design’ area) draw two essential comments:

- ‘Risk assessments on the service’.

This wording, which is too general, must relate to evaluation of the risks of all services provided, and especially products. As suggested by the new Regulation (recital (10)), the distinction between services and products is becoming less clearly defined; the adoption of a standard which includes products in practice confers a safety guarantee on products. This analysis is confirmed by the experience with certain standards currently being drafted, whether at European level (e.g. services involving sunbed-associated exposure) or at national level (beauty treatment and wellness – treatment provided using beauty care and wellness equipment). In this connection it is necessary to replace ‘Risk assessments on the service’ by ‘Risk assessments on services and combinations of products and services provided’.

- Concerning ‘Applicable compliance requirements identification’: along the same lines as above, it is essential to refer to ‘Applicable compliance requirements identification, all existing regulations and applicable standards’.

Commission response: • "It is important to state that the mere existence of legislation (be it local, territorial, national or regional) applicable to a service sector does not represent an obstacle to the existence of voluntary standards in that sector. (CEN GUIDE 15:2012 (E), page 13). However, the mandate is clear that " ESOs are invited to ensure that the deliverables developed are in full compliance with the acquis communautaire (European legislation and jurisprudence). " This requirement clearly takes into account the fact that voluntary European standards may have limitations in case of issues not harmonised at Union level and that ESOs have to consider these limitations during development process. It is in the interest of ESOs to respect any legal national limitations as otherwise standards would not be accepted by the market – this is normal in all cases of European standardisation.

• On point 2, it is important to note that Annex 1 does not have an obligatory status but it will serve only as guidance and it is based on CEN Guide 15. Subjects for which horizontal service standards will finally be drawn up in phase 2 will be chosen on the basis of an open, market- oriented standardisation process.

AT comments: Austria would like to see a separate Annex to this mandate listing the areas for which a preliminary programme of horizontal service standardisation (Phase I) is not required.

As things stand, these areas would include:

– Drinking water supply and sewage disposal – Transport services – Financial services

------

The following extracts from reactions received provide further details.

1. Reactions from the Federal Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry, Environment and Water Management include: We regard the outcome of the negotiations on the Service Concessions Directive as the decisive basis for identifying those areas for which horizontal service standards could be developed. Standardisation should in no way anticipate results.

We therefore ask for drinking water supply and sewage disposal to be explicitly removed from those areas.

2. Reactions from the Austrian Economic Chambers (WKÖ) include:

Austria already has legislation in some of the subject areas listed in Annex I, e.g. billing and contact information in e-commerce. An additional standard for subjects already regulated does not seem to serve any purpose and harbours the danger of overregulation. There might also be a potential for conflict between such standards and company-specific contract procedures (general terms and conditions of business). When the Services Directive was adopted, it was recognised that transport services were excluded from its scope (Article 3(2)(d)). We therefore assume that the present draft standardisation mandate on horizontal service standards is not relevant to transport services, either.

In the field of financial services, there are already comprehensive and detailed provisions which are largely based on Community law and regulate the provision of such services. This legislative area is also kept under close scrutiny by the surveillance authorities (FMA and OeNB ). Hence there is no need to regulate credit institutions in the subject areas referred to. On the other hand, there is a danger that general standards applicable to all service-providers will lead to contradictions or to a fall in their currently high level in the field of financial services. Financial services should therefore be explicitly removed from the intended scope.

Commission response: Not accepted.

• The mandate is clear that "ESOs are invited to ensure that the deliverables developed are in full compliance with the acquis communautaire (European legislation and jurisprudence). "

• As clearly stated in clause 2, ESOs are invited to develop voluntary European standards. In case a European standard contains provisions regulated by national non-harmonised legislation, relevant national standardisation body may ask for an A-deviation to be included in relevant European standard.

• On transport and financial services: this mandate asks for voluntary European standards fulfilling the market needs and not for standards linked to specific legislation.

DK comments: Comments from the Danish Business Authority

The Danish Business Authority (DABA) finds it positive that the Commission recognises the positive effect of standards for European growth. DABA therefore supports the Commission’s proposal for the development of new European standards for services by a horizontal approach.

DABA generally welcomes initiatives that will support and strengthen the use of standards in the Single Market while recalling that standards should remain a market driven and voluntary tool.

As for this specific mandate, DABA recognises the need to reinforce the Single Market for Services through the development of horizontal service standards. DABA supports the use of this horizontal and two-phased approach as well as the intent to facilitate cross border provision of services.

DABA would like to underline that service standards, including horizontal service standards, should be developed within the framework of the Standardisation regulation (1025/2012/EU), while respecting the competences of the Member States – especially in relation to the labour market. From the current draft, the scope is not sufficiently clarified as for the division of competences.

Therefore, DABA calls for further clarification of the mandate in this respect, especially keeping in mind the Standardisation regulation recital 12 and the Services Directive art. 1, para. 6 and para. 7, concerning Member States’ autonomy concerning labour laws and the right to conclude collective agreements.

Finally, similar to all other standards, it is important that European standards for services will be developed in an inclusive and transparent procedure with inputs from all relevant stakeholders.

Comments from Danish stakeholders

- Confederation of Danish Industries (DI):

DI agrees with the objectives of the mandate, i.e. to contribute to an increase of cross border provision of services, and to establish a clear program for the development of horizontal European service standards.

Furthermore, DI supports the decision not to develop a single, all-inclusive horizontal service standard, considering the fact that services are of a very diverse character which would make such a standard too complex.

DI also supports the approach, i.e. to start with a thorough analysis of existing international and national standards, including to which extent they are being used by market players and meet market needs.

It is indeed important that standardization efforts are focused on areas where there is a market need. The mandate should therefore also include a demonstration of such market needs when selecting topics. A market need is not demonstrated just by the fact that there is no existing standard covering the topic in question.

It is equally important that a study of possible legislation is included in the analysis as the areas specified in Annex I cover issues of legal relevance.

An area which might need special attention is e-commerce, including e-invoicing. - Danish Standards Foundation (DS):

The mandate concerns an activity in two phases – one analytical phase which will result in the identification and prioritisation of a number (6- 7) of specific suggestions for horizontal service standards, one phase with the implementation of specific horizontal standardisation activities within the identified prioritised subjects. DS supports this gradual approach to standardisation of services. As opposed to one all-inclusive service standard, horizontal service standards concerning different aspects of services, including complaint handling, contact and communication with the client etc., suit the purpose.

Furthermore, it is important that the standardisation activities will be market driven and initiated in fields where the market sees a specific need. Therefore, the analytical phase is important to identify topics and subjects with a market driven need for standardisation. In this phase it is important, in order to avoid duplicating previous work, to draw on experience from previous analysis of service standards, for example “Mapping services standardisation in Europe” (Danish Enterprise and Construction Authority, 2010) and “Study on the implementation of service standards and their impact on service providers and users” (CEN, 2012).

The activities outlined in the mandates are in line with the approach and the considerations in the recent CEN Strategic Advisory Group on Services (SAGS). Very few European service standards have been developed and only few of these have been implemented and are currently in use by the industry. Therefore, SAGS attempts to practice the two-phase-approach to standardisation of services; by analyzing which standards have gained market uptake and can be used as sources of inspiration for new initiatives, and by focussing on horizontal standards within different service elements.

On this basis, DS can support the mandate.

- The Danish Consumer Council

The Danish Consumer Council welcomes and generally supports the Draft Mandate for the Programming and Development of Horizontal Service Standards and has the following few remarks:

Our European organization on consumer influence on standardization, ANEC has already given some informal comments in the phase of discussion between the ESOs and the Commission;

Consumers generally agree that in the current situation the mandate is a good starting point, and expect to be involved in the further process.

Consumers support the 2 phase approach of an analysis followed by concrete activities in prioritized areas.

We agree that the areas chosen should be market driven – but NOT in the narrow sense. Market should include societal needs in the broadest sense. etc.

We support that the draft acknowledges the need for a modular approach in services standardization.

Consumers, however, still call for a general EU legal framework as a basis for safety of Consumer Services. We therefore look forward to the Green Paper on the topic from DG SANCO expected either late this year or early next year.

Standards should support and not replace the development of service-specific legislation. See ANEC comments to CHESSS and to the Commissions consultation on the implementation of the services directive.

- Danish Chamber of Commerce

General remarks Overall the Danish Chamber of Commerce welcomes the initiative of the Commission to look at the development of European services standards in light of the revision on the standardisation regulation in context of the European standardisation bodies. The Danish Chamber of Commerce shares the view of the Commission that such standards has a great potential for opening up the Internal Market for services, and further integrating the services sectors in Europe.

Specific remarks

Ad. 1(3) Mandate M/371 “Second Programming mandate addressed to CEN in the field of services” The Danish Chamber of Commerce welcomes the idea of ‘narrower’ services standards, as they are key to the European wide uptake of standards in the sector. Especially within the services sectors business models differentiate widely. Therefore, it is crucial that standards are not holistic, but become flexible tools improving the uptake of the individual ‘narrower’ standards suiting the purposes of very diverse businesses.

Ad. 2 Objectives of the Mandate The Danish Chamber of Commerce can accept the scope of the mandate, acknowledging that specific sector-level (NACE-level) (associations, organisations, individual businesses etc.) participation is crucial for the final success of the work; voluntary uptake of developed standards.

The Chamber also encourages to keep in mind that developing and setting ‘gold-standards’ (in-creasing quality etc.) may be very desirable, but that it should not – taken the infancy of services standards uptake in general – lead to a situation of general low uptake of standards. The goal must first and foremost be to ensure that services standards gain relevance in the EU. At a later stage when the former has been achieved, services standardisation may move into a second face where standards become ‘gold- standards’. Without such prioritisation we risk that services standards will never become the drivers of integration of the Internal Market.

Ad. 3 Description of the Mandate work During phase 1 the ESOs are asked to identify six or seven possible international or national standards and examine whether they are used by businesses. The Chamber welcomes this approach.

The Chamber also find that most of the proposed options in Annex are suitable for standardisation, but with the remark that some are not evaluated as appropriate. This goes for such things as description of what customer can expect. Expectations are subjective. Descriptions of what customers receive, such as the amount of bacteria per square inch after cleaning, are more appropriate. Thus, standards should remain objective if possible.

The Danish Chamber of Commerce supports the concrete deliverables described in this chapter, and welcomes the organising of a conference consulting the wider public on these. It goes without saying that the Chamber supports phase II.

Commission response: Not accepted.

• The Standardisation regulation (1025/2012/EU) has not yet entered into force, so the mandate is not given on the basis of Article 10 of this regulation, but it will, of course, be directly applicable for ESOs during the execution of standardisation work.

• This mandate asks for the development of voluntary European standards to fulfill market needs and to be suitable with any legal constraints

– i.e. standards suitable to be used at national level in all Member States. Voluntary European standardisation needs always to reflect these issues – it is a core fact for successful European standardisation.

• The mandate contains the need to reflect market needs. Various stakeholders will be consulted in the course of the execution of the mandate, this is why the market need will be demonstrated.

• Market needs should include societal needs – this was modified in the mandate.

• It is important to note that Annex 1 does not have an obligatory status but it will serve only as guidance and it is based on CEN Guide 15. Subjects for which horizontal service standards will finally be drawn up in phase 2 will be chosen on the basis of an open, market-oriented standardisation process. SE comments: Overall remarks – legal status, process and feedback to Member States

1. The Draft mandate is not clear on the process after a standard is developed, that is possibilities for Member States to react on the final deliverables and standards. No details are provided in the draft.

2. What is the legal status of the end result, that is the developed final standard given the article in the Services Directive? Will the standard be published in the Official Journal?

3. It would be of great interest also to see a compilation of other MS opinions on this important mandate.

 These items (no 1 and 2) need to be clarified and specified in the draft mandate.

Specific remarks on the substance and focus of the draft mandate

1. The most important aspect from a Swedish point of view is to target the service activity rather than the service provider. The opposite approach might otherwise risk impeding the service activity from taking place on the whole. The target must therefore be the actual service in itself.

2. One recent example of a standard encompassing sensitive labour law and aspects on health and safety at work, hence targeting the wrong aspects (namely the services provider and not the service in itself), is the recently adopted standard on Airport Security Services. This standard covers terms and conditions of employment (section 6.2.4.4 of the standard) as well as breach of terms and conditions of employment and more specifically what should constitute a breach in terms of grounds of dismissal (section 6.2.4.5). These are aspects that are normally regulated in collective agreements between the parties in the labour markets in Sweden and should therefore not be included in any future standards at European level.

3. As regards the actual text of the draft mandate on horizontal service standards and more specifically the section on “Service providers”, we would like to bring to your attention the unfortunate inclusion of aspects regarding the service provider. Especially the elements “Human resources” and “facilities and equipment” might risk targeting something else than the actual service activity in itself. Sweden suggests that this part is deleted from the scope of the mandate.

4. To this end - and with reference to article 1, point 6 of the Services Directive and recital (12) of the recently adopted Regulation on European Standardisation (Regulation (EU) No 1025/2012 OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL of 25 October 2012) - Sweden also suggests an inclusion of a statement in the draft mandate as follows: "Any future standards must not target or affect labour law, that is any legal or contractual provisions concerning employment conditions, working conditions, including health and safety at work and the relationship between employers and workers, or the right to negotiate, conclude and enforce collective agreements." (Article 1, point 6 of the Services Directive).

5. In the same light, education and training aspects are intimately related to the service provider and not to the service in itself. According to recital (12) of the new Regulation on European Standardisation and protocol no 26 on Services of General Interest annexed to the Treaty on European Union (TFEU) and to the TFEU in accordance, the education and training sector constitutes exclusive competence of Member States. Education and training of the service provider and educational services in general should therefore be excluded from the scope of the draft mandate.

 In sum, the standards should target the service activity in itself and NOT the service provider. This needs to be clarified in the draft mandate. Labour law, health and safety issues and educational aspects should be explicitly excluded from the scope of the standardization exercise.

Uncertainty as to the demarcation of the developed standards in relation to other Community law instruments and to the non-harmonised area in the field of consumer protection

1. On the Annex and the specific topics proposed, under the subject ‘information provision to customers’, elements such as content and delivery of the service, contact information, dispute resolution methods, channels and response times, marketing and awareness and content of the agreement are to a large extent already regulated at EU level by for example the Consumer Rights Directive, the Directive on Unfair Commercial Practices, the Directive on Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts, the Package Travel Directive and the future Alternative Dispute Resolution Directive. The question therefore arises whether these topics should be the subject of a standardization process at all. Business operators need to abide by these rules in any case. And what is then the case with aspects not subject to full harmonization but to minimum harmonization? Are Member States possibilities to deviate from the minimum level then constrained if standards are developed in this field?

2. On Annex 1: What would happen if a future voluntary service standard is met by businesses while at the same time the service activity is contrary to national legislation on product safety (take the General Product Safety Directive as an example)? It is imperative that Member States have a room to manoeuvre when it comes to regulating services that are not covered by the acquis. This possibility should not be constrained by standards developed by market operators.

 These items (no 1 and 2) need clarification in the actual text of the Draft mandate.

Commission response: • As clearly stated in clause 2, ESOs are invited to develop voluntary European standards. Member States may participate in development process of voluntary European standards though national standardisation bodies. National transposition of voluntary European standards is subject to internal rules of ESOs. In case a European standard contains provisions regulated by national non-harmonised legislation, relevant national standardisation body may ask for an A-deviation to be included in relevant European standard. If a Member State wants to act against voluntary European standards, it may do it though relevant national standardisation body (e.g. to propose staring revision process).

• Standards developed under this mandate will be "normal" voluntary European standards and not "harmonised standards", therefore they will not be published in the OJEU.

• A compilation is of MS opinions is always sent to the member of the Committee.

• Service standards should ideally target the service activity rather than the service provider. A definition of service standards (CEN Guide 15) was inserted into the mandate.

• "It is important to state that the mere existence of legislation (be it local, territorial, national or regional) applicable to a service sector does not represent an obstacle to the existence of voluntary standards in that sector. (CEN GUIDE 15:2012 (E), page 13). The mandate is clear that "ESOs are invited to ensure that the deliverables developed are in full compliance with the acquis communautaire (European legislation and jurisprudence). " This requirement clearly takes into account the fact that voluntary European standards may have limitations in case of issues not harmonised at Union level and that ESOs have to consider these limitations during development process. It is in the interest of ESOs to respect any legal national limitations as otherwise standards would not be accepted by the market – this is normal in all cases of European standardisation. As this mandate asks developing voluntary European standards it is the task of ESOs and NBSs to draft standards which would be acceptable as national standards considering any national non-harmonised legal restrictions (whether national legislation or legally binding other measures).

• It is important to note that Annex 1 does not have an obligatory status but it will serve only as guidance and it is based on CEN Guide 15. Subjects for which horizontal service standards will finally be drawn up in phase 2 will be chosen on the basis of an open, market-oriented standardisation process. The mandate is clear that "ESOs are invited to ensure that the deliverables developed are in full compliance with the acquis communautaire.

• This mandate asks for the development of voluntary European standards to fulfill market needs and to be suitable with any legal constrains – i.e. standards suitable to be used at national level in all Member States. Voluntary European standardisation needs always to reflect these issues –it is a core fact for successful European standardisation. This mandate does not ask for European standards giving any legal interpretations and for that reason the comment are not relevant.

• This mandate does not restrict Member States regulating services neither it asks to develop standards providing compliance with any legislation. The comment and the example are irrelevant.

NORMAPME comments: NORMAPME welcomes the EC efforts to aim at market driven service standards.

We appreciate the preference expressed in the draft mandate for narrower standards covering particular elements of a service instead of all- inclusive horizontal service standards. It is essential that the market needs are explicitly demonstrated in this exercise.

NORMAPME stresses that service standards, as any product standard, should only follow a bottom-up approach. If not market driven, service standards would risk creating further burdens for SMEs. Services are already subject to numerous national regulations in the different Member States; hence, if new standards are introduced, they will produce further confusion and additional costs to companies without benefitting them. The draft document mentions that the potential overlap with national regulations needs further assessment. NORMAPME believes that such an assessment should be prior to any standardisation work.

Concerns of market relevance have been expressed, inter alia, by SME representatives in the following TCs: (a) ISO TC 228 on tourism services; (b) ISO TMB/WG SR - Social Responsibility; CEN/TC 389 - Innovation Management.

Commission response: The Commission took note of NORMAPME comments. Date of Subject of the mandate Versions Date consultation Reference Mandate transmission 98/34 number to ESOs Committee

30/10/2012- Solid State Lighting 53/2012 M/519 12/03/2013 30/11/2012

HU comments: The motivation of the mandate is fully supported (Chapter 1).

Key areas where new or enhanced performance standards are required identified by the mandate correctly (Chapter 2).

However following technical comments are offered for evaluation:

1. If a standardisation area is strictly related to a technology (here LED), the standardisation inevitable will be technology specific. “LED luminaire lifetime specification” or “Acceptable colour shift or power consumption over the lifetime of an LED luminaire” are a good examples. It is right to mandate to develop technology specific standards for those areas.

2. If a standardisation area is related to applications of light (for example colour quality assessment, office lighting levels, street lighting levels), the standardisation must be independent from the technology is used. The quality of the lighting applications must be taken into account independently from the technology used for generating light. That is the only way, how lighting technology can compete on a fair basis and that will assure the consumer will receive lighting quality regardless technology used. This approach also assures that applications standards do not need to upgrade if a new technology arrives. Standardisation areas fall in this category are: Enhanced quality of light metric definitions, Standards for flicker and stroboscopic effects. (Please note that it is suggested to remove LED form the title, which makes it applicable any kind of technology, including LED.)

3. In Chapter 2, some areas are combined to one category, although they are not linked to each other and it is suggested to separate them for clarity. It is also proposed a type of the standard expected by the mandate. The proposed structure is:

• LED luminaire lifetime (product standard) • Acceptable colour shift an LED luminaire(product standard) • Power consumption shift an LED luminaire (product standard) • Enhanced quality of light metric definitions (performance standard) • Reduction of lighting levels in street lighting due to the favourable power • Spectral densities (PSD) of the light source (performance standard) • Standards for limitation flicker and stroboscopic effects (safety standard)

As technology develops very fast and consumers in EU want to benefit from the new technology in terms of both increased lighting quality and energy saving, so development of those standards must be speed up as much as possible.

Commission response: The Commission response to the comments sent by Hungary (HU) is as follows:

(1) No comments on HU comment 1.

(2) On HU comment 2: the suggestion to remove the word "LED" from the heading on "Standards for LED flicker and stroboscopic effects" is accepted and the mandate text modified accordingly.

(3) On HU comment 3: the suggestion to separate some areas in Section 2 of the draft mandate and the proposal for a new structure are not accepted. It will be up to the European Standards Organisations to propose a structure in the detailed work programme.

DE comments: We do not support the idea of assigning an equal standardisation mandate to CEN, CENELEC and ETSI. The shift to LED technology will place new demands on light-technology standards and the previous boundaries between the fields of electronic technology and light technology will change. For example, the light source can no longer be considered as an independent physical component, but is instead part of an electronic component with which it interacts physically (temperature management, etc.). If the mandate were to be assigned to all of the organisations named, there would be a risk of uncoordinated standardisation activities.

The main part of the mandate relates to light-technology standardisation, which is organised by CEN. We therefore suggest that CEN and CEN/TC 169 be given a coordinating and steering role. A joint working group (CEN/TC 169/JWG 14) has already been established within CEN/TC for this purpose.

A series of initiatives on the points listed in the draft mandate already exist around the world. It is therefore imperative that the outcomes of international research and standardisation are taken into account in the standardisation activities.

To ensure a correct and clear description of the mandate and the correct use of light-technology terminology, we ask that the following changes be made: ‘LED device’ (page 4) should be clarified by adding ‘LED package, LED module, LED lamp’ and on page 3 the unit ‘lumen’ should be replaced with the corresponding parameter ‘luminous flux’.

Commission response: The Commission response to the comments sent by Germany (DE) is as follows:

(1) The comments made regarding the issuing of the standardisation mandate to all three European Standards Organisations CEN, CENELEC and ETSI and the proposal to assign a coordination and control role for CEN and CEN/TC 169 are not relevant for the text of the mandate.

This subject shall be discussed between CEN, CENELEC and ETSI.

(2) The request to fully take into account international research and standardisation results in the standardisation actions is accepted. Section 2 (Description of the Mandated Work) has been modified accordingly. The 1st sentence of the 1st paragraph has been changed from:

"The Commission requests CEN, CENELEC and ETSI to address gaps and open areas still to be covered, enhanced, or transposed from international to European level, on the basis of a complete overview of (i) international and European standards and regulations in place for LEDs and (ii) LED lighting related international and European research results and ongoing standardisation activities, that need to be fully taken into account."

(3) The proposal to further explain "LED device" is accepted. The text has been changed from "component, LED device and LED arrays" to "components and LED device (e.g. LED package, LED array (module), LED lamp, LED light engine)"

(4) The proposal to replace on page 3 the Unit "lumen" by "luminous flux" cannot be considered, as there is no instance of the word "lumen" on that page. On page 2, the word "lumen" has been replaced by "luminour flux" in the following occurence under the heading "Enhanced quality of light metric definitions": "For example, LED lighting has been shown in some US studies to offer the potential to reduce the actual lumens for street lighting ...", which has been changed to "For example, LED lighting has been shown in some US studies to offer the potential to reduce the actual luminous flux for street lighting ..." FR comments: The French authorities are pleased that a mandate is being considered for filling in gaps in the standardisation applicable to LED lamps and luminaires.

The extremely promising nature of this technology, which has for many years been the subject of very substantial technological progress, makes it necessary to ensure, in particular, that the expectations of users and consumers are taken into account whether it be in relation to performance, safety or accuracy of information provided to them.

In line with the description from the mandate, according to which 'the Commission requests CEN, CENELEC and ETSI to address gaps and open areas still to be covered, enhanced, or transposed from international to European level, on the basis of a complete overview of international and European standards and regulations in place for LEDs', the French authorities believe that the draft mandate should adequately take into account all the issues relating to LEDs and be improved in relation to issues of photobiological security.

In order to address the current gaps in standardisation, this mandate should cover all photobiological risks, including those resulting from blue light, and provide for appropriate procedures for informing consumers about this topic.

The mandate should therefore target the necessary information about risks in the form of warnings aimed at the end consumer, and more specifically the most vulnerable groups of people (children, people with eye diseases). The aim would be to take into account the recommendations of the SCENHIR, which indicates in its report 'Health effects of artificial light' of 19 March 2012 that "It may be advisable to make sufficient information on the emitted spectrum for individual lamp models available to the healthcare professionals and the patients to allow them to choose their lighting solutions optimally."

In conclusion, the French authorities propose:

- the replacement of the sentence 'this mandate does not cover development of harmonised standards supporting European Directives on Low Voltage (LVD), Electromagnetic Compatibility (EMC) and Eco-design of Energy-Related Products (ECO-design) or European standards under the General Product Safety Directive (GPSD)', at least in relation to the LVD and GPSD directives;

- the addition of the following to the mandate objectives:

• revision of the classification of photobiological risks represented in EN 62471 'Photobiological safety of lamps and lamp systems' to adapt it for LEDs and LED systems;

• definition of the information and warnings to be provided to consumers about photobiological risks, particularly the most vulnerable groups of people (children, people with eye diseases), and revision of the respective standards to integrate these new demands, particularly standards EN 60598 'Luminaires' and EN 62031 'LED modules for general lighting - safety specifications'.

Commission response: The Commission disagrees with the comments sent by France (FR) for the following reason:

This mandate is designed to be complementary to existing or planned mandates for the development of harmonised standards supporting European directives. The referenced standards EN 60598, EN 62031 and EN 62471 are listed as harmonised standards under the Low- Voltage-Directive (see Commission communication OJ C245/01 of 14/08/2012). The proposed additions are therefore outside the scope of this mandate. Date of Subject of the mandate Versions Date consultation Reference Mandate transmission 98/34 number to ESOs Committee

31/10/2012- Mycotoxins in food 54/2012 ______07/12/2012 DE comments: 1. Subject to the points made in section 2 of this letter being taken into account, Germany supports the draft mandate for standardisation of methods of analysis for mycotoxins in food.

2. Specific points

 Project 1 Fully validated processes successfully established using different measuring methods already exist. Specifying LC-MS/MS is an unnecessary restriction.  Project 4 Zearalenone should be added, as it is often detected in cereals in association with trichothecenes.  Project 5 Patulin should be removed, as it is inappropriate from an analysis point of view. Furthermore, taking account of the different analysis requirements (e.g. sensitivity of detection, extraction efficiency), this project should be developed as a screening process.  Project 10 This project should be deleted, as no reference substances are available, meaning that it will not be possible to develop the process in the foreseeable future.  Project 11 This process cannot be achieved by 2017, as basic analytical preparatory work will be needed. Commission response: All comments have been taken into account.

However as regards topic 10: the dertermination of phomopsin A has been kept as there is evidence of the availability of a reference standard for that mycotoxin.

As regards topic 11: following the call for tender it can then be seen if the target date of December 2017 is achievable but for the time being it is premature to change the deadline.

FR comments: The French authorities are in favour of this draft mandate for standardisation of methods of analysis for mycotoxins in food.

They approve the approach taken, of having categories of matrices rather than specific matrices (which restrict the use of methods). They note, however, that this draft still proposes a specific matrix for refined maize oil, whereas a broader approach would also be desirable in oils.

All these methods will be of considerable interest. It remains to be seen whether the deadlines announced, which may be somewhat tight, will enable all the projects on the list to be successfully completed.

Commission response: The scope of topic 3 has been extended.

The number of topics in the mandate has been already discussed with the CEN TC 275 WG 5 secretariat and the feasibility whilst maintaining a high level of quality was confirmed. The Commission is confident that this is indeed feasible. Date of Subject of the mandate Versions Date consultation Reference Mandate transmission 98/34 number to ESOs Committee

31/10/2012- Animal nutrition – part 1 55/2012 ______07/12/2012 DK comments: Danish Veterinary and Food Administration

"As competent authority we are in general in favour of standardisation of methods, but only for voluntarily use. Sometimes more efficient and precise methods can be developed and these should be possible to use."

Commission response: Accepted. The EU legislation on the use of the methods for analysis for official control provides for the necessary flexibility. Standardised methods of analysis are very useful in case of dispute. It is important that standards are regularly reviewed and eventually updated to ensure that the standards represent state of the art.

FR comments: The French authorities approve the Commission's plan to adopt these standardisation mandates for analysis methods in the animal feed sector for the period 2015-2017. In particular, they support the approach of developing standardised analysis methods at Community level for determination of T2 and HT2 toxins, mineral oils, melamine and organochlorine and pentachlorophenol pesticides in animal feed.

Commission response: No comments.

DE comments: Preliminary discussions on the draft mandates now on the table were already held by the competent committee, CEN/TC 327, in 2008. Germany made the point that laboratories, standardisation bodies and the NSBs responsible for the different official language versions should not be overloaded with too many parallel projects. Instead, the processes/standards should be developed over a realistic period of time so as to ensure good quality. The deadlines should also take account of the need to verify, by means of ring testing, the new test procedures to be developed.

The DIN therefore suggests that the various deadlines laid down should be reconsidered. If possible, the packages of standards projects to be dealt with at the same time should not exceed a total of five projects. We also have the following comments on the wording: - In the Annex to Doc. 55-2012 DE, the title of project No 2 should be changed to ‘Bestimmung der Probiotika, Lactobacillus, Enterococcus, Pediococcus und Bacillus in Futtermitteln’ (no change to title in English).

Commission response: The number of topic in the mandate has been already discussed with the CEN TC 327 secretariat and they have confirmed the feasibility whilst maintaining a high level of quality. The Commission is confident that this is indeed feasible. The editorial comment has been taken into account. Date of Subject of the mandate Versions Date consultation Reference Mandate transmission 98/34 number to ESOs Committee

31/10/2012- Animal nutrition – part 2 56/2012 ______07/12/2012 DK comments: Danish Veterinary and Food Administration

Specific comments: Table in the annex:

3 - Guidelines for DNA-based methods for the species-specific identification of processed animal proteins in materials and compound feed. It should be noted that, at its meeting on 18 July, the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health (SCFCAH) – Animal Health Section, adopted a text amending Regulation (EC) No 152/2009 laying down the methods of sampling and analysis for the official control of feed. The aim of this amendment was in particular to introduce into this Regulation an analysis method based on the PCR method to allow processed animal proteins to be identified in animal feed. Pursuant to Regulation (EC) No 882/2004 on official controls performed to ensure the verification of compliance with feed and food law, animal health and animal welfare rules, and in particular Article 11 thereof, official laboratories must as a priority follow the analysis methods set out in Community rules.

The French authorities therefore consider that it would be better to detail all the specifications for the methods concerning determination of processed animal proteins in animal feed in Regulation (EC) No 152/2009.

5 - Criteria approach for methods of analysis for mycotoxins and heavy metals in feed At present, CEN methods can be used to individually measure mycotoxins and heavy metals. The aim of this mandate is to specify the performance criteria (repeatability, reproducibility, accuracy, margin of error, etc.) which must be met by the methods for analysing these undesirable substances so as to allow the development of alternative "screening" or confirmation methods.

The French authorities are not against the development of such guidelines, but draw the Commission's attention to the need to ensure the convergence of the results between the existing methods already validated by the CEN and the methods which would correspond to the criteria indicated in this CEN document. Otherwise, official results obtained using methods on the same level of the regulatory structure of Regulation (EC) No 882/2004 could lead to different conclusions, thereby creating an obstacle to the harmonised application of legislation between the Member States and to the movement of goods in the European Union.

Commission response: Following the first comment made, the topic on guidelines for DNA based methods to detect animal proteins in feed has been withdrawn.

In answer to the second comment it can be confirmed that it will be ensured that the performance criteria will be in accordance with the already existing standardised methods of analysis

The DIN therefore suggests that the various deadlines laid down should be reconsidered. If possible, the packages of standards projects to be dealt with at the same time should not exceed a total of five projects. We also have the following comments on the wording: - In the Annex to Doc. 56-2012 EN, the title of project No 4 should be changed to ‘Determination of organic acids in feed materials and compound feed by HPLC or IC with electrical conductivity detection (IC-ECD) and/or ultraviolet detection (ICUVD)’.

Commission response: Partially agree (editorial comment), partially disagree (on the number of topics to deal with)

The number of topics in the mandate has been already discussed with the CEN TC 327 secretariat and they have confirmed the feasibility whilst maintaining a high level of quality. The Commission is confident that this is indeed feasible.

The editorial comment has been taken into account. Date of Subject of the mandate Versions Date consultation Reference Mandate transmission 98/34 number to ESOs Committee

31/10/2012- Animal nutrition – part 3 57/2012 ______07/12/2012 DK comments: Danish Veterinary and Food Administration

Specific comments: Table in the annex:

8 - Analysis of free gossypol in feed materials and compound feed. Regulation (EC) No 152/2009 already sets out an analysis method for free gossypol, which must therefore be applied by official laboratories. The French authorities question whether it is appropriate to develop a new analysis method for this undesirable substance, given that preliminary studies appear to indicate that it would be more expensive, and this undesirable substance does not pose a risk to consumer safety or a serious risk to animal health. Commission response: Recent research has proven that the current official method for the determination of free gossypol generate in some cases not reliable results. It is therefore the intention of the Commission to propose at the first review of Regulation (EC) 152/2009 to delete the current method. Given that Directive 2002/32/EC establishes maximum levels of free gossypol in feed materials and compound feed, it is appropriate to develop a standard in order to have a reliable standard available to control the provisions as regards free gossypol.

We also have the following comments on the wording: - In the Annex to Doc. 57-2012 DE, the title of project No 10 should be changed to ‘Bestimmung der Radionuklide Iod-131(I-131), Cäsium- 134 (Cs-134) und Cäsium-137 (Cs-137) in Futtermitteln’ (no change to title in English).

Commission response: The number of topics in the mandate has been already discussed with the CEN TC 327 secretariat and they have confirmed the feasibility whilst maintaining a high level of quality. The Commission is confident that this is indeed feasible.

The editorial comment has been taken into account. Date of Subject of the mandate Versions Date consultation Reference Mandate transmission 98/34 number to ESOs Committee

06/11/2012- Pyrolysis Oils from Biomass 58/2012 ______07/12/2012 DE comments: 1. Germany supports the ambitious aims of the Renewable Energy Directive. However, we would make the point that manufacturers of systems in which pyrolysis oils are to be used as fuel impose the same demands on them as on mineral oil products, owing to the technical requirements. Standards corresponding to the state of the art already exist for mineral oils.

2. The subjects (a) – (e) listed on page 7 (EN text) already provide an indication of the areas in which pyrolysis oils are to be used. For use in heating, in electricity production and as a biofuel component for shipping and aviation, there are strict standards and statutory requirements which a pyrolysis product must comply with, like any other component used in this sector, first and foremost for safety reasons.

Should additional standardisation activities be initiated nevertheless, the corresponding technical bodies for fuels from the fields of standardisation, research and application technology must be involved, so that the approval tests needed before a product is given the all- clear can be observed as soon as possible. Only in this way can suitability for these areas be ensured. At the same time, the after-treatment and cleaning methods needed for subsequent applications should be thoroughly investigated and, if appropriate, developed. In particular, processes should be developed which can provide organic raw materials for chemical synthesis, in order to promote the substitution of substances hitherto manufactured by petrochemical processes.

Commission response: The Commission response to the comments is under consideration of the respective Commission services. AT comments: 1. In the opinion of the Austrian industry, there is no need for standardisation in this respect. In the case of semi-finished products it seems that specification is not easily possible or meaningful, and the analysis options in the case of the various pyrolysis processes give rise to difficulties. Defining quality requirements for pyrolysis oils is also fraught with difficulty, as they depend on the biomass used. It is probably too early for standardisation, as the subject is still only at the research stage.

2. If a mandate were to handed down despite the above, account should be taken of the following situation in connection with sustainability. The draft mandate to the CEN refers to sustainability characteristics. In the European Union, and also at national level, there are various provisions ensuring sustainable production of agricultural raw materials. Furthermore, there are several CEN committees (e.g. CEN/TC 383, CEN/TC 411) responsible for drawing up uniform standards on biomass sustainability. It is therefore not necessary to undertake further standardisation in the field of sustainability.

Commission response: The Commission response to the comments is under consideration of the respective Commission services. Date of Subject of the mandate Versions Date consultation Reference Mandate transmission 98/34 number to ESOs Committee

20/11/2012- ATM Master Plan 59/2012 ______14/12/2012 ES comments: Section 1, para. 3:

Sometimes military should use civil standardisation. On the other hand, some military standards should be useful for civilian.

In order to avoid duplications, standardisation should be a civil-military work.

It is necessary to include a new sentence with the following objective:

"Participation from the “defence” sector in the technical standardisation activities shall be ensured, being driven by joint civil-military standardisation bodies".

Section 3, para. 1:

Coordination with the military through EDA.

Section 4.2, para. 1:

Civil stakeholders should know about military standards because some military solutions could be useful for them (two-way relationship).

Therefore, it is proposed to included:

"Military through EDA shall be consulted in order to have a real civil-military interoperability."

Section 4.4:

A report every 12 months when the work will last 24 months is too scarce. To let a proper follow-up, it is proposed to reduce the time between reports to 6 months. If any deviation is detected, there will be time to solve it.

Section 4.6, para. 2:

To ease the implementation, it is proposed to have the whole standard (not only the title but also de body and annexes) in all the official languages.

Commission response: Section 1, para 3; Section3, para 1; Section 4.2, para 1 - The Union has no competence in Military standardisation. The Military is at liberty to involve itself in ESO work and may choose to exercise this through the EDA.

Section 4.4 - A reporting period more frequent than 12 monthly would dramatically increase the burden on the ESOs and, as the tasks in the annex will continue for a number of years, the stated frequency will produce an accurate picture of progress. Section 4.6, para 2 - CEN/CENELEC has 3 working languages (French, German and English), ETSI only one (English); it is the responsibility of the ESOs to produce their material in the form they desire, and the EU must respect that process.

DE comments: Support subject to the following comments:

Practical implementation issues may mean that further European standards based on EUROCAE documents – which in turn can only be finalised in line with advances in the SESAR project – need to be drawn up. At the same time, section 4.2 of the draft mandate calls for a work programme to be submitted that includes: ‘a precise overview of the standardisation work referred to in the Annex’. This work programme, which is to be submitted within 3 months of the acceptance of the mandate, can only be interpreted as a first version of a ‘living’ document, to be extended in line with developments in the SESAR project and ensuing EUROCAE work. This first version can therefore only make accurate reference to projects where the accompanying documentation is already or is soon to be finalised.

We would also like to draw your attention to the fact that the annex to the mandate calls for the drawing up of the following two standards for aircraft on-board systems: ‘Surface management integrated with arrival and departure (Step 1): Update of minimum performance standard for airborne head up display for Enhanced Vision (EV)’ and ‘Surface management integrated with arrival and departure (Step 2 ): Update of minimum performance standard for airborne Synthetic Vision (SV)’. The previous European Commission standardisation mandates on ATM referring to on-board systems led to jurisdiction debates. This often made it impossible for the ESOs to find experts in these fields. We therefore suggest deleting these two projects from the annex to the mandate.

Commission response: Comment at Section 4.2, second bullet is accepted - the word 'precise' is deleted.

The comment related to the contents of the Annex is rejected; it has been amended in accordance with technical advise from the ICB's Interoperability Sub-Group; it is accepted as a 'living document' and is closely associated to the ATM Master Plan which will identify the need for, and production of, additional Standards as the programme develops.

DK comments: “ With regard to section 3 of the document Doc. 59/2012-EN of 20th November 2012: We cannot see that representatives from user organizations like IATA and representatives from the service providers organizations like CANSO invited to take part in the standardization work. I that is correct we find that problematic since these are the ones that are going to use the new ATM-systems.

Below you find some specific proposals for changes in the text only for clarifications (marked with red):

4.1 should be changed to: The ESO shall within 1 month of the issue express its acceptance or rejection of the mandate.

Part of 4.2 should be changed to: The Commission shall within 1 month express its acceptance or rejection of the proposed work programme and it shall agree with the relevant ESO on any changes identified.

4.4 should be changed to: The relevant ESO shall report no later than every 12 months after the acceptance of this mandate on the execution of the work programme until all the work items identified in the mandated work programme have been published as European standards or, failing that, as other European standardisation deliverables. Reporting shall enable easy follow up of deadlines as agreed with the Commission.”

Commission response: Not accepted. CANSO and IATA (and others) are automatically associated with the work of the ESOs. Reporting frequency of 12 monthly places the minimum additional burden on the ESOs.

FR comments: The French authorities support this draft mandate. Nevertheless, it is essential to make clear the link between the production of standards and the realisation of implementing measures relating to interoperability in the future deployment of the SESAR project. To this end, the French authorities request the following changes to the wording in point 2 - Description of the mandated work, cf. attached document: - Addition of paragraph: Within this list of European standards, the structures put in place for the deployment of SESAR will identify the standards necessary for the joint SESAR deployment projects and the anticipated timetable for the availability of these standards.

- changes to the wording of points 2.1 and 2.2 (cf. attached document):

2. DESCRIPTION OF THE MANDATED WORK The ESOs are requested to produce European standards referred to in the Annex that satisfy the essential requirements of the interoperability Regulation (EC) No 552/2004.

Such list of European standards is consistent with the Standardisation Road Map for the implementation of the ATM Master Plan and addresses the standardisation activities based on EUROCAE documents.

Since the ATM Master Plan will be periodically updated, the ESOs shall amend accordingly the list of European standards in coordination with EASA, in cooperation with EUROCAE and after consultation of the Commission.

Within this list of European standards, the structures put in place for the deployment of SESAR will identify the standards necessary for the joint SESAR deployment projects and the anticipated timetable for the availability of these standards.

2.1 Deliverables Development of the European standards considered necessary for the joint SESAR deployment projects.

2.2 Timeline The European standards concerned shall be available at the latest 24 months after the release of the related EUROCAE documents or depending on the anticipated timetable for the availability of these standards.

Commission response: The Annex to this mandate is accepted as a 'living document' and is closely associated to the ATM Master Plan which will identify the need for additional Standards as the programme develops. It will naturally set timescales in that process.

SE comments: - The proposed standardisation tasks described in the ”Draft standardisation mandate to European standardisation organisations (ESO) on air traffic management (ATM) interoperability for the ATM Master Plan” are in line with the ATM Master Plan. - The majority of the standardisation tasks included in the proposed Mandate deals with exchange of digital information between systems on- board aircraft and systems on ground via datalink and how this information should support the operational services. Latest discussions and development in the European aviation community indicates that there is an obvious risk that capabilities of the technical components included in the proposed EC Mandate will not meet the operational demand from the emerging new services. This issue (initiated by an European Working Paper) was discussed and well received by the 12th ICAO Air Navigation Conference (AN-Conf/12) in November 2012. The conference recommended that ICAO "organize a multidisciplinary review of air traffic control communication requirements and issues" and that States "explore multi-modal solutions when appropriate to overcome transition issues". The purpose is to take maximum advantage of already developed technologies while developing new more capable solutions. This recommendation to States should also be applicable to the EC. Thanks to strong European support, several modes of VHF data links have been developed. The ANS provider in Sweden has through a EC sponsored project demonstrated how a "VHF Multilink Radio" (VMR) can operate on-board aircraft. The demonstrated VMR includes a VHF voice radio, ACARS (FANS data link), VDL Mode 2 and VDL Mode 4 in one single radio set operating concurrently. This capability is missing in the proposed Mandate and Sweden is therefore proposing that the following task is added in the Mandate:

- System interoperability with air-ground data sharing (Step 1): VHF Multilink Radio (VMR) including DSB/AM voice, Multi-frequency VDL Mode 2, VDL Mode 4 and FANS 1/A ACARS.

- The already referenced "EUROCAE Working Group and Documents" for Multi-frequency VDL Mode 2 and FANS 1/A are applicable together with EUROCAE and ETSI specifications for VDL Mode 4. Full documentation also exist for VHF DSB/AM voice.

Addition to the extra capacity, VDL Mode 4 in the VMR is providing unique capability to support time critical exchange of data, utilisation of IP protocol and its generic functions (like secure communications, mobility etc). The traditional approach in aviation is to develop own unique solutions and systems. The VMR opens up for the possibility to take advantage of communication solutions developed outside aviation that are also fully compliant with the latest developments in ICAO.

Commission response: The Annex to this mandate has been amended in accordance with technical advise from the ICB's Interoperability Sub-Group; it is accepted as a 'living document' and is closely associated to the ATM Master Plan which will identify the need for additional Standards as the programme develops. Date of Subject of the mandate Versions Date consultation Reference Mandate transmission 98/34 number to ESOs Committee

23/11/2012- Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment (WEEE) 60/2012 M/518 24/01/2013 21/12/2012 DE comments: 1. Subject to the points made in section 2 being taken into account, Germany supports the draft programming mandate in the field of waste electrical and electronic equipment.

2. The schedule set out under point 5 ‘Execution of the mandate’, according to which the first standard should be published within 12 months of acceptance of the mandate with the involvement of technical circles and interest groups, is deemed to be too short. To ensure that the standards to be developed continue to be of a high quality, the reworking of existing standards and the creation of new standards should be assigned to ‘Publication of a first suite of standards’ (24 months after acceptance of the mandate).

Commission response: The deliverable "12 months after acceptance" has been deleted.

FR comments: The French authorities support this draft mandate. 1) However, they have reservations concerning the reference to batteries in paragraph 2 (page 6) of point 4 – Description of the mandated work. Is this mandate really the right framework for battery standardisation? The recycling of batteries and accumulators is covered by a Directive other than Directive 2012/19/EU and is implemented by companies authorised to collect and treat these specific types of waste. WEEE operators and qualified operators for batteries and accumulators do not do the same job. As is the case for refrigerants or capacitors, WEEE operators must remove them and send them to these qualified operators. 2) In addition, it would be appropriate to add an organisation representing WEEE treatment operators (EUROMETREC) to the bodies to be associated (point 8 of the mandate). Commission response: Partly agree.

Comment 1) on batteries has been partly taken on board by clarifying that the standard would serve to ensure compliance with the Batteries Directive. As batteries are in some cases collected and treated with WEEE, batteries should be covered by the standard(s) to this degree.

Comment 2) on Eurometrec not taken on board, because the mention of this association would imply the need to also mention many other relevant specific associations, which is not general practice for such mandates.

SE comments: It is essential that the Commission in the standardization mandate takes note of the WEEE Directive, Article 2 8 5) and design the mandate so that the standards that will be the result of the mandate, can be used or referred to in an coming implementing act under the WEEE directive.

We think that the standardization mandate is unclear. As a consequence the Commission in a later stage might judge the standard not sufficient and then defining rules based on the standard and use them as implementing act instead. That may have the consequence that the standardization organization’s work is very unnecessary and that knowledge of those who have the practical knowledge in the art are not considered. This would be unfortunate.

Therefore, it is essential that the mandate will be designed in a way that make it clear that an Implementing Act could lead to a harmonization of prepared standard (s) or reference to elaborate standard (s).

In the standardization mandate a link to the market surveillance and enforcement is missing.

It must be clear for the Standardization body what the Commission expect of the standards. Therefore it should be made clear in the mandate if there are some parameters or aspects of the treatment of WEEE Commission specifically would like to address in the standard.

We find the wording of paragraph 5 of the Mandate "In order to faciliate .... of Directive 2012/19EC" unclear, partly in relation to the assignment and partly in relation to the WEEE which is a minimum directive. Since the WEEE 2 is a minimum directive the interplay between legislation and standards is critical in order to achieve a harmonized implementation of recycling of waste electrical and electronic equipment. Therefore, we suggest that the wording of this paragraph will be amended to make it clear that:

- The standards shall be designed so that they present a clear set of requirements for how the treatment of WEEE should be done in the different EU countries. The reason for this is the importance of achieving a common level of recycling of WEEE in the EU. - The standards shall show which requirements that are of an informative nature and that should be used by operators in the recycling chain in order to be able to verify compliance with the requirements in the standards.

- The standards – that is the requirements and the information demands must be designed so that inspection and market surveillance by the recycling industry are facilitated.

In summary, these standards have a very significant impact on how the recycling of waste electrical and electronic equipment will be done within the EU, and ultimately a very significant impact on the environment.

Commission response: Partly agree. Comment on "informative nature" versus "able to verify compliance" taken on board. (2nd bullet point of the SE comment).

Other comments not taken on board, because this standard cannot lead to harmonisation/presumption of conformity, and an Implementing Act cannot replace the relevant text in the Directive which could lead to such harmonisation/presumption of conformity.