DOC

09 - ETSI STF budget 2005 - ETSIOCG25(05)09 - ETSI STF budget

By Catherine King,2014-12-13 09:16
12 views 0
09 - ETSI STF budget 2005 - ETSIOCG25(05)09 - ETSI STF budget

    R&TTE Steering Committee for STF 279 „Review and Revision of ETSI‟s

    Harmonised Standards‟ - Funding for stage 2

    Status: Proposed for approval OCG#26 / Board#52

    Date: 04 July 2005

    Last updated by: Alberto Berrini

    (updated overspend Stage 1)

TB/WG: OCG R&TTED SC

Responsible person: Olly Wheaton Chair R&TTE Steering Committee

Budget line: Funded Work Programme (FWP)

Priority: High/Medium

Subject: STF 279 Stage 2

History:

    Stage 1 for STF279 was agreed, based on the concerns expressed by Members States in the TCAM Committee that not all of ETSI‟s harmonised standards published in the Official Journal follow a common format and in some cases there is a lack of consistency. (TCAM is the Member States‟

    Committee established under the R&TTE Directive).

    It was also noted that „Type Approval Notices‟ issued by bodies such as the RTTE CA, which have no legal basis under the R&TTE Directive, should be replaced by a notification under Article 5 of the Directive where the legal provision exists.

    The review activity is seen as an essential part of ETSI‟s quality process. The review has covered the ETSI guidance documents for the preparation of Harmonized Standards and identified the necessary revision required of that and of existing ETSI Harmonised Standards, this latter task has been undertaken on the basis of giving priority to specific standards where concerns have been expressed, and hence will not be completed without the Stage 2 activity.

The issue of consistency between all of the ETSI technical bodies‟ responsible for the preparation of

    Harmonized Standards has been discussed in some depth by the R&TTE Steering Committee meeting, and the preferred solution is to amend the ETSI drafting rules to provide specific instructions for preparing Harmonized Standards that will then be monitored by editHelp because of the

    regulatory implications (cf. TBRs).

A fundamental requirement is that all ETSI Harmonized Standards use a common „Requirements

    Table‟ irrespective of the source technical body. (EN-RT)

Scope:

    A follow up to the Recommendations made in Stage 1, offering a revision of Harmonized Standards (HSs) where this has been identified as urgent and cannot be undertaken within a reasonable timescale on a voluntary basis, by the responsible Technical Body (TB).

Deliverables to be produced:

    STF279_021 recognises 6 priorities for reviewing and revising existing Harmonized Standards (HSs):

    ; Priority 1: The four HSs specifically identified by TCAM and others which the STF‟s Terms of

    Reference require them to revise (subject to approval by TBs).

    ; Priority 2: Those relevant HSs in the development phase which are being prepared for sending to

    EC for consideration for publication in Official Journal.

; Priority 3: Those relevant HSs schedule for revision for technical reasons.

    ; Priority 4: Those relevant HSs which currently lack a EN-RT and which are not currently

    scheduled for revision for technical reasons, to at least include a EN-RT of the proposed format.

    ; Priority 5: Those HSs which only require the EN-RT to be cast in the proposed format.

; Priority 6: All other relevant HSs not scheduled for withdrawal.

    HSs with Priority 1 are to be addressed during Phase 1 of STF279 and should not need consideration in Phase 2.

    Priority 5 and 6 do not merit effort from STF279 Phase 2 as they should be handled by the TBs without need for further support.

Figures from STF279_021 are as follows:

    HS “Family” Total HSs Priority 1 Priority 2/3 Priority 4

    considered

    Automotive 2

    Broadcast 11 7 3

    Cordless telephones 2 2

    IMT-2000 12 2

    Maritime (Art 3.2) 14 2 5 2

    Maritime (Art 3.3e) 10 1 4

    PMR 11 10

    SRD 7 1 1 3

    UWB 6 6

    Other ERM(exc EMC) 10 3 4

    SMG 6 5

    SES 14 1 12

    BRAN/DECT/TETRA 4 1

    TM4 8 3 1

    Total 117 4 33 42

STF279_021 counted 33 standards with priorities 2 and 3 and 42 with priority 4. However, that

    paper recognised that for various reasons these figures might be an overestimate and it is assumed

    that the actual number which will be agreed to be revised will be two thirds of these figures, namely 22

    and 28.

Resource Estimates:

    Support/training for the 10 TBs and Technical Officers likely to be responsible for 15 days

    the amending of HSs and for general record keeping and progress monitoring

    Technical editing of HSs with priority 2 and 3 to propose modifying EN-RT to 55 days

    new format (22@2.5 days)

    Support to TBs for drafting EN-RT for HSs of priority 4 (28*1days) 28 days

    Total 98 days

However, if the STF were to assist the TB in drafting the first two standards and then undertook a

    overview/supporting role for the others, and if the was no other support for the TBs which would come

    from the Technical Officers alone then the estimates could be reduced to:

    Discussion with Technical Officers likely to be responsible for the amending of 7 days

    HSs (2days) and for general record keeping, project management and progress

    monitoring (5days)

    Technical editing of HSs with priority 2 and 3 modifying EN-RT to new format : 43 days

    First two HSs in each affected TB (14@2.5days) + support for subsequent

    priority 2 or 3 HSs (8@1day )

    Support to TBs for drafting EN-RT for HSs of priority 4 (8@1day plus 18 days

    20@0.5day)

    Total 68 days

    A disadvantage of this „minimal‟ plan would be that removing inconsistencies in existing HSs will progress more slowly and so some standards being updated for other reasons might need updating again to comply with the new requirements for Harmonized Standards.

Relation with other activities and why the work is urgently needed:

    The Italian Administration raised a number of concerns at TCAM 15 and 16 over the interpretation of current Harmonized Standards which resulted in a number of misunderstandings.

This lack of coherence was considered such that:

    ; Manufacturers, in the absence of a unique interpretation may need to seek the opinion of a

    Notified Body and risk different interpretations from said bodies.

    ; In the case of Market Surveillance testing a risk exists that the Market Surveillance Authority

    takes action against a manufacturer for a non conformance, due to alternative interpretations

    of the HS.

Timing:

    This is stage 2 of a running STF, to facilitate completion of the planned work continuity is recommended. Overall the timescale is 6 to 9 months subject to the availability of STF experts and the need to co-ordinate with the relevant TBs.

Preferred start date: July 2005

Proposed finish date: March 2006

Estimated cost for ETSI

    Three budget models for stage 2 of STF 279 were originally identified and after due consideration the „middle option‟ model 2 was selected. Models 1 and 3 are included in the Annex for information only.

Model #2 Revised Budget

    Stage 2 Indicative Work Programme:

Resources:

; The budget is based on 4 missions, travel budget 3 600 EUR

    ; Support offered to Technical Officers and rapporteurs who will be responsible for the amending of

    HSs and for general record keeping, project management and progress monitoring

    9 days

; Technical editing of HSs with priority 2 and 3 modifying EN-RT to new format plus revision of two

    HSs in each affected TB and the provision of support for subsequent priority 2 or 3:

    45 days

; Support to TBs for drafting EN-RT in the new format plus general support for HSs of priority 4:

    20 days

    ; Support to the R&TTE Steering Committee and participation in R&TTE Steering Committee

    meetings:

    6 days

Budget Summary

    Travel budget = Euro 3 600

    Human resource budget = 80 days @ 600 Euro per day = Euro 48 000

    Total Budget = Euro 51 600 plus Euro 900 (overspend on Stage 1) = Euro 52 500

    Risks

    ; Change of venue/date of venue or late booking of travel could incur additional travel budget.

Mitigation

    ; Man-days available will mean that R&TTE Steering Committee will need to ensure that

    priorities are set for STF 279 re. the Harmonized Standards to be re-drafted by the STF, and

    that the work programme is compatible with the timescales of the technical body.

    ; TB‟s that have adequate voluntary resource available will be asked by the R&TTE Steering

    Committee to re-draft of their own products, with assistance from STF 279, similarly for new

    work items.

    ; Use of two experts who have experience of drafting standards is recommended.

    ; Travel and meal costs can be minimised with the assistance of technical bodies by their

    retaining existing meeting schedules and not requiring the STF members to participate in

    „exotic‟ locations.

Additional Voluntary Funding:

    Individual technical bodies will need to collaborate with the STF and the R&TTE Steering Committee as indicated above, but no specific voluntary funding for this activity is expected some Commission

    monies might be available, but not within the preferred timeframe.

Comment:

    The R&TTE Steering Committee will need to work with all of the ETSI technical bodies that have generated Harmonized Standards to finalise the work programme for the STF. An early meeting of the R&TTE Steering Committee thus needs to confirm or otherwise which of the 3 experts used in Stage 1 should continue to Stage 2, or indeed if a new team should be selected.

Annex

Earlier Budget Models 1 and 3

Model #1

    Travel Budget = E 3 600

    Human resource budget = 70 Days @ E600 Per day = E 42 000

    Total Budget = E 45 600

    Synopsis

    ; Based on 4 missions.

Risks

    ; Change of venue/date of venue or late booking of travel could incur additional travel budget.

Mitigation

    ; Stable TB‟s already existent could carry out re-draft of their own products, where appropriate,

    as new work items.

    ; Where meals are available at venue savings are made on meal allowance.

    ; Use of just two experts with experience of drafting standards.

    ; Colleagues attending mission meeting may be able to provided free transport to and/or from

    destination Airport.

Model #3

    Travel Budget = E 4 500

    Human resource budget = 90 Days @ E600 Per day = E 54 000

    Total Budget = E 58 500

    Synopsis

    ; A fairly flexible budget.

    ; Based on five missions.

Risks

    ; Change of venue/date of venue or late booking of travel could incur additional travel budget.

Mitigation

    ; Human resource budget can be “traded” for travel budget if necessary.

    ; Stable TB‟s already existent could carry out re-draft of their own products, where appropriate,

    as new work items.

    ; Depending on flight times, maximum allowance for meals may not be taken.

    ; Where meals are available at venue savings are made on meal allowance.

    ; At least one expert should have experience of drafting standards.

    ; Colleagues attending mission meeting may be able to provide free transport to and/or from

    destination Airport.

Report this document

For any questions or suggestions please email
cust-service@docsford.com