101012_INNOV_WG_Report_2

Document Sample
101012_INNOV_WG_Report_2 Powered By Docstoc
					                                        DRAFT                           12 October 2010


          Final report of the TCAM Ad hoc Working Group on making
           radio equipment regulation more innovation friendly
                               (INNOV WG)


1.   INTRODUCTION

TCAM 29 of 9-10th March 2010 decided to set up an ad-hoc working group within the
process of reviewing the operation of the R&TTE Directive with regard to the objective
to make the regulatory environment for placing on the market and putting into use radio
equipment more receptive to innovative radio technologies, in particular in order to
facilitate their pre-commercial and early commercial use within the EU market.
In accordance with the terms of reference, the INNOV WG had to provide assistance to
the Commission in the preparation of the revision of the R&TTE Directive regarding the
objective mentioned. The group was assigned to provide input for the R&TTE Impact
Assessment by identifying the problems, the possible objectives, elaborating possible
options for action and assessing in a quantitative way, where possible, their impact.
The working group met five times, four times in Paris, and once in Brussels, on 5 May, 14
June, 6 July, 2 September, 27 and 28 September 2010. Representatives from six
administrations (United-Kingdom, Germany, Switzerland, Romania, Netherland and
France), manufacturers, R&TTE CA, ETSI, Digital Europe and from the European
Commission attended the meetings. The activities of the group were monitored by 23
representatives of various organisations registered in the CIRCA server and by 40
representatives registered on a dedicated emailing list.
The deliverable of the ad hoc working group is the present report to the Commission, who
will make a choice among the assessed options by the working group in the perspective of
including some of them in its future proposals. This could be proposed amendments to the
R&TTE Directive as well as any other legislation or other non legislative action deemed
necessary for innovation. Issues outside the scope of R&TTE Directive should be
reported also to other related Committees (RSC, RSPG) as appropriate.

2.   DESCRIPTION OF THE ISSUE AND PROCESS OF ACTIVITIES

Successful commercial and timely deployment of new radio technologies depends in
practice on access to the market which may be facilitated by the availability of
applicable harmonized standards for the assessment of compliance with the R&TTE
Directive, even if the R&TTE Directive foresees a conformity assessment route, and of
usable spectrum for the use of the equipment. Both aspects (access to the market and
use) are closely linked.
It has to be noted that most participants of administrations believe that the current
regulatory framework (electronic communications network and services Directives,
Radio Spectrum Decision, R&TTE Directive), although rather complex, is satisfactory.
The RSPG “streamlining” opinion was also highlighted to identify possible improvements
based on the recommendations of this opinion.
As regards industry stakeholders, very few written contributions were sent by the
manufacturers on the subject of making the regulatory environment more innovation
friendly, and on the options that could help this objective. It was then difficult to
understand why it can be considered that placing innovative products on the EU market is
difficult and why the current regulatory framework could deter potential investors in the
EU. No real examples of technology which could not be introduced in Europe
because of the current regulatory framework were really given although examples of
overly long regulatory processes exist.
The issue in one specific case was confined in adaptation and derogation to the EU
legislation for existing devices used outside Europe. It was then recalled that international
spectrum regulation (ITU Radio Regulation) is based on a division of the world into three
different parts, Region 1 (which includes Europe), Region 2 and Region 3. Access to the
Region 1 market for equipments already deployed in Region 2 and/or Region 3 is
not a question of innovation and was then considered outside the scope of work of
the working group.
The case of putting into service in the EU near field communications devices (such as
cochlear implants or graphics tablets) was highlighted by some participants but not
considered as an appropriate example of innovation by other participants.
In order to fulfil the mandate given by the Commission, the group decided to take into
account and to review the results of the public consultation launched by the European
Commission in 2007 in relation with making the regulatory framework more innovation
friendly and then decided:
     -     to first work on the definition of the problem encountered in the access to the
           market of new radio products and technologies in the context of the current
           R&TTE Directive and the current EU spectrum framework, and
     -     to identify the objectives to be reached and a list of options to fulfil these
           objectives, and the associated advantages and drawbacks of each proposed option.

3.       2007 PUBLIC CONSULTATION RESULTS

The questionnaire launched in 2007 by the Commission sought the opinion of
stakeholders on how the R&TTE Directive was working, while recognizing links of this
Directive with other policies such as Electronic Communications networks and services
framework and radio spectrum policy. This link is particularly relevant for creating an
innovation-friendly single market for R&TTE equipments.

Annex 1 of this document is the compilation of answers of the public consultation on the
section dedicated to the innovation.

The table below is a summary of the issues and a few options mentioned in the result of
the 2007 consultation. No objective was formulated.

         Issues raised in the 2007 public                    Identify options
              consultation answers
(each with link(s) to source statements in the
Innovation section of the 2007 consultation
results)
 1       The lack of harmonized standard Use ETSI Technical Specifications as
         makes      conformity   difficult Harmonized Standards (1.5_ENCB)
         (1.5_ENCB)
 2       There are differences in availability of A reliable web based information on


                                              2
     information     concerning    national harmonized     bands     is    required
     spectrum     usage    (1.1.1_Cart    ; (1.1.3_Moto)
     1.1.1_Plant)                           Since the 2007 consultation, Decision
                                            2007/344/EC on harmonized availability
                                            of information regarding spectrum use
                                            was adopted (EFIS database).
3    Introducing new technologies requires
     considerable effort in standardization
     and adaptation to spectrum rules
     (1.1.1_Moto)
4    The EU process for defining the legal
     regime (ECC Decisions, EC Decisions
     and harmonized standards) is too slow
     (1.2_ENCB; 1.4_Moto; 1.4_ENCB;
     1.4_PhB;      1.4_LGE;      1.4_Eicta;
     1.7_Ficora; )
5    The process of drafting and referencing
     a new harmonized standard is too long
     (1.1.3_ANFR; 1.2_BERR; 1.4_Cart;
     1.4_Intel; 1.4_LGE; 1.4_Eicta)
6    Notified Bodies lack the technical Public web forum on Notified Bodies
     expertise or information for handling assessments (1.1.1_Moto)
     the cases where there is no harmonized
     standard, and or no compatibility study
     (1.2_BERR; 1.2_ENCB; 1.7_BERR)
7    Spectrum use not harmonized enough
     and too fragmented (1.1.1_BS;
     1.2_Intel; 1.1.4_NSN; 1.7_LME;
     1.7_Sony; 1.7_Moto)
8    There is no single market for radio
     products (1.1.4_PhB, 1.14_NSN)
9    Harmonized spectrum regulations are
     too prescriptive in part. with subclasses
     (1.1.3_Cart; 1.2_BERR; 1.7_Cart;
     1.7_Plan)
10   Innovators are forced outside the EU
     (1.2_BERR)
11   The non harmonized approach for             Since the 2007 consultation, the new EU
     experiments is a problem for some, is       regulatory framework for ECS was
     not a problem for others and on the         adopted, with the possibility to add at
     opposite a harmonized approach could        national level obligations specific to an
     be a problem for some of them (1.5)         experimental use of radio frequencies in
                                                 the conditions which may be attached to
                                                 rights of use for radio frequencies (annex
                                                 B      to      Authorisation     Directive
                                                 2002/20/EC).



                                             3
12       Mandating a particular technology Technical & service neutrality should be
         hampers    innovative technologies the rule under R&TTE (1.7_Qual)
         (1.7_Qual)
13       The commercial strategy of the IT A real impact assessment is needed before
         industry creates spectrum waste allocating spectrum (1.6_FT)
         (1.6_FT)
14       The current Directive is not supportive Temporary rights to place on market and
         for withdrawing equipment from the to use would help innovation (13 yes, 11
         market (1.6_FT)                         Not Always; 12 Nos, No opinion: 10).
                                                  Idea of a a priori authorization to placing
                                                  on the market such as in Japan and USA
                                                  (1.7_DGE)
15       Information on national rules not
         always     available (1.1.3_PLAN;
         1.1.3_Cart; 1.7_Cart; 1.1.3_CRE;
         1.7_PLAN, 1.7_BERR)
16       Coexistence between existing and new Spectrum reservation by authorities in
         applications is the main barrier view of hypothetic uses is not a possible
         (1.7_CH;      1.7_ComReg;      1.7_BT; solution.
         1.7_Lenovo; 1.7_Intel), lack of
         support for investments, way the
         software is licensed and limitations in
         licences that prevent from reuse
         (1.7_FT).

The results of the 2007 public consultation were discussed. The working group reached
the conclusion that many statements formulated by the respondents of the public
consultation focused on :
     -    the lack of harmonized standards ;
     -    the role of notified bodies (and their experience on innovative technologies) ;
     -    the availability of spectrum (harmonized or not) ;
     -    the existence of compatibility studies.

4.       DEFINITION OF THE PROBLEM

The aim was to describe the nature and extent of the problem, provided that the main
questions are whether the application of the current set of instruments in the EU (R&TTE
Directive 1999/5/EC for conformity assessment, Radio Spectrum Decision 676/2002/EC
for spectrum harmonisation, national licensing and authorisation regimes based on the EU
electronic communications network and services regulatory framework) raises difficulties
for the introduction of innovative R&TTE products on the market and where the current
system should be improved or clarified to better promote innovation and investment. The
review of the R&TTE Directive offers opportunity to improve this framework taken into
account that new electronic communications network and services regulatory framework
was adopted last year and confirmed the current Radio Spectrum Decision.

The OECD Oslo Manual (3rd Edition, 2005) defines innovation as the implementation of a
new or significantly improved product (good or service), or process, a new marketing
method, or a new organisational method in business practices, workplace organisation

                                              4
or external relations. A product innovation is the introduction of a good or service that is
new or significantly improved with respect to its characteristics or intended uses. This
includes significant improvements in technical specifications, components and materials,
incorporated software, user friendliness or other functional characteristics.
A new product may be hence innovative from a technical point of view and/or by its
usage and/or commercial side.

As it was considered that it would be impossible to cover all kind of innovative products
or technologies for radio devices, it was agreed among the participants not to focus on the
significance of the terms “innovative products” and “innovative technologies” but on the
description of the different situations a manufacturer may face to introduce a new
product on the market in EU, EFTA and associated countries market. This was fully in
line with the OECD definition. The possibility of the use of the innovative product has
also been analysed and reported.

4.1 Process for placing a new radio device on the market 1 and having authorisation of use
in the current framework
The current situation for radio products to access to the market relies not only on meeting
the requirements of Directive 1999/5/EC but also access to frequencies. Technical
conditions of use of frequencies are issued by Member States and may be harmonized
through either binding EC spectrum harmonisation Decisions or through non-binding
CEPT/ECC Decisions and in some cases such as SRDs, through ECC/ERC
Recommendations (e.g. ERC/Rec 70-03). Relevant authorisation regime where the radio
equipment will operate is defined at national level according to the principles of the
Authorisation Directive.

ETSI develops harmonized standards to conform to the Essential Requirements in article
3.2 of the R&TTE Directive, follow a mandate issued by the European Commission after
consultation with the Member States. EC Mandates have to be accepted by the ETSI
Board. Conformity with the Essential Requirements in article 3.2 of the R&TTE Directive
is declared by the manufacturer, and may be based on Harmonized standards published in
the Official Journal of the European Union or using other means. Harmonized standards
are just one way to demonstrate compliance. According to the current R&TTE Directive,
a manufacturer may market equipment without referring to a harmonized standard,
provided that he documents how the essential requirements can be met and an opinion has
been sought from a notified body. However, the RSPG is of the view that notified bodies
are “reluctant to take the risk of giving a positive opinion on conformity with essential
requirements when a harmonized standard has not been applied. This is likely to be even
truer in the case of complex sharing solutions based on cognitive radio”2. Notified bodies
indicate that from their point of view, the real problem is not that pointed out by the
RSPG but to issue an opinion when there are no clear spectrum allocations for the
intended purpose. No examples have been identified where there is clear spectrum
allocation and notified body opinion has failed due to absence of harmonized standard.

Majority of ETSI Harmonised standards are developed in order to avoid interferences and
effective use the spectrum (art.3.2 of the R&TTE Directive). There is an MoU in place
between ETSI and CEPT to ensure a fruitful cooperation between the both organisations.


1EU, EFTA and associated countries market
2Extract from the conformity assessment section of the RSPG opinion on streamlining the regulatory
environment.


                                                5
   In particular, ETSI takes due account of the sharing conditions and technical parameters
   (for spectrum use) developed by the ECC, when developing Harmonized Standards or
   other relevant ETSI deliverables According to the MoU, ETSI may request CEPT to
   conduct compatibility studies as part of the development of harmonized standards (under
   the CEPT/ETSI MoU). The time necessary for this process depends on the complexity of
   the systems being considered and the presence, or not, of existing users of the bands in
   question.

   Outside the scope of the R&TTE Directive is then the issue that innovations may not
   sufficiently fit within existing spectrum allocations and are therefore legally prevented
   from being used.

   The following figure gave a simplified view of the general process for placing a new radio
   equipment on the market and putting it into service.



       Manufacturer                       Notified body



                               Harmoni                                       Equipment   can
         ETSI                  zed                                           now be marketed
                               Standard                                      in the EU




ETSI System                                                                            Equipment can now be
Reference                                                                              marketed and used
Document                                                                               nationally and/or in
                                                                                       the EU




                                                          National
                                                          and/or EU          Equipment      can
                               Report/
         CEPT                                             conditions of      now be authorised
                               Recommendation/
                               Decision                   use through        for use nationally
                                                          authorisatio       and/or in the EU
                                                          n (s)



                          EC




   4.2 Description of the issues for the placing on the market 1 and putting into service
   (without prejudice to applicable authorisation regimes) of a new radio device




                                                 6
The different cases at the time of placing the equipment on the market were studied
according to the existence of an applicable Radio harmonized standard 3 for that
equipment, and a clear spectrum allocation4.

4.2.1 The different cases to consider
Case 1: yes (existence of applicable radio harmonized standard), yes (clear spectrum
allocation)
It was considering that in this specific case “yes-yes”, there is no problem for the placing
the equipment on the market and putting it into service where its use is allowed in the
current framework. The normal rules of the R&TTE Directive apply and the
manufacturer can either apply the harmonized standard, submit the technical
documentation to a notified body or apply a recognised full quality assurance system
assessed by a notified body.

Case 2: yes (existence of applicable radio harmonized standard), no (clear spectrum
allocation)
In this case, there are no allocations at national or European level for the equipment type
or the equipment doesn’t fulfil all the allocation conditions before entering on the market.
Even if this combination doesn’t happen often and can cause other problems such as
legal issues, there is an issue not for placing the equipment on the market but for putting
it into service as there is no frequency band to host the equipment until national allocation
process is completed. It means that the equipment could not be used even if R&TTE
compliant.

Please note that under the MOU ECC-ETSI, no new harmonised standard can be created
and published until there is a clear designation of spectrum by the ECC. The present ETSI
template for generic standards must define all frequency bands which are allowed under
existing generic standards.

The following actions may be undertaken by the manufacturer according to the objective
pursued:
-   to have its equipment authorised to be used for experiments: ask nationally for an
    experimental test licence (as foreseen in Annex B of the Authorisation Directive) ;
-   to place the equipment on the market: apply the harmonized standard, submit the
    technical documentation to a notified body or apply a recognised full quality assurance
    system assessed by a notified body. Inform the user that the equipment must not be
    used ;
-   to have its equipment authorised to be used: ask as soon as possible national
    administrations for national and/or EU allocation. For an EU allocation, Commission
    issues a mandate to the CEPT who delivers CEPT compatibility studies and then EC
    harmonisation Decision based on Radio Spectrum Decision n°676/2002/CE can be
    adopted, or CEPT delivers its own compatibility studies with possible (non
    mandatory) ECC decision. Equipment fulfilling the parameters defined by the


3 covering essential requirements of Article 3.2 of R&TTE Directive
4 The frequency band in which the new equipment should operate is clearly allocated at national and/or
EU level in relation with the foreseen application, the equipment fulfils the technical conditions of use of
spectrum at national and/or EU level and will operate under an authorisation regime defined at national
level


                                                     7
   compatibility studies carried out can not be used before national allocation process is
   completed. The process implies compatibility studies based on inputs from incumbents
   and newcomers. Assessment of suitable frequency bands should also be conducted
   before sharing studies are lead. But small manufacturers could not know well the
   process.
This case can happen when the equipment uses a generic standard.

In the case of RFID, there was quite a long period after the CEPT compatibility work
before the national allocations were available. Once a national administration agrees to
make spectrum available for an application, it has been said by a few members of industry
that it can take up to a year for the formal process of allocation and notification to be
completed. The process generally covers two issues: the update of National Frequency
Allocation Tables to identify the new application in the frequency table and the drafting of
a national authorisation regime where the equipment will operate. This process implies
national consultations ensuring transparency in the development of regulatory regime.
As regards short range devices (SRD), it has to be noted that the EC Decision on SRD is
annually updated on the basis of contributions from CEPT (CEPT report) which lists a
variety of frequency ranges for non specific SRD. Before launching a process to apply for
a new frequency allocation, the entity who wants to place an equipment on the market
should investigate opportunities in these harmonized frequency bands where national
framework are in place offering possibility for investments.

Case 3: no (existence of applicable radio harmonized standard), yes (clear spectrum
allocation)
Theoretically, there are two possible conformity assessment routes for placing the
equipment on the market:
- submit the technical documentation to a notified body. Notified body can act by taking
into account existing services, existing sharing and compatibility studies, ECC and EC
deliverables and radio interfaces specifications published by administrations within EFIS;
- apply a recognised full quality assurance system assessed by a notified body.
However, as mentioned in paragraph 4.1, in practice, notified bodies may be
“reluctant” to take the risk of giving a positive opinion on conformity with essential
requirements when, amongst other reasons, a harmonized standard does not exist. This
can cause difficulties for introducing new equipments on the market.

If the manufacturer(s) or their representatives prefer to go through harmonised standards,
they would need to launch a work item (there is a need to find four supporting ETSI
members) to produce a harmonized standard under the relevant EC Mandate (subject to
acceptance by the ETSI Board), see case 1.

Case 4: no (existence of applicable radio harmonized standard), no (clear spectrum
allocation)
In this case, there are no allocations at national or European level for the equipment type
or the equipment doesn’t fulfil all the allocation conditions before entering on the market.
There is also no applicable harmonized standard. There is an issue for placing the
equipment on the market where there is no frequency band to host the equipment until
national allocation process is completed. In the framework of the revision of the R&TTE
Directive, proposals are under study for restricting access to the market of equipment


                                             8
which has no identified frequency to operate (see activities preparing the review – see
TCAM document (28)28 ; objective 19 option 1).
The following actions may be undertaken by the manufacturer according to the objective
pursued:
-   to have its equipment authorised to be used for experiments: ask nationally for an
    experimental test licence (as foreseen in Annex B of the Authorisation Directive) ;
-   to place the equipment on the market, two cases must be considered, bearing in
    mind that there is a risk for the manufacturer if technical parameters have to be
    changed further:
       Short term:
           must take into account relevant compatibility studies and harmonized
           standards for similar application, however absence of spectrum allocation will
           mean that relevant compatibility studies may not be available ;
           must ask a national authority to start relevant compatibility studies at CEPT
           level; CEPT will provide results of sharing studies to ETSI for development of
           harmonized standards ; Manufacturer should also take initiative within ETSI to
           launch a work item (supported by 4 ETSI members) to draft the relevant HS
           respecting the results of sharing conditions provided by CEPT ;
           must apply a recognised full quality assurance system assessed by a notified
           body or submit the technical documentation to a notified body. The notified
           body may issue an opinion on the conformity of the equipment, but once again
           absence of relevant compatibility studies and related harmonized standard may
           prevent the analysis and issuance of an opinion by the notified body ;
       Long term:
          ask ETSI (needs support of four ETSI members) to launch a work item to
          produce an harmonized standard (the relevant Technical Committee should be
          identified and manufacturer could participate in the development process of the
          harmonized standard) and apply it; ETSI may request CEPT to conduct
          compatibility studies as part of the development of harmonized standards
          (under the CEPT/ETSI MoU). The time necessary for this process depends on
          the complexity of the systems being considered and the presence, or not, of
          existing users of the bands in question ;
           submit the technical documentation to a notified body. The notified body may
           issue an opinion on the conformity of the equipment based on the CEPT
           compatibility studies or the draft harmonized standard ;
           apply a recognised full quality assurance system assessed by a notified body.

However, as mentioned in paragraph 4.1, in practice, notified bodies may be
“reluctant” to take the risk of giving a positive opinion on conformity with essential
requirements when, amongst other reasons, a harmonized standard does not exist. This
can cause difficulties for introducing new equipments on the market.
-   To have its equipment authorised to be used: ask as soon as possible national
    administrations for national and/or EU allocation. For an EU allocation, as in case 2,
    Commission issues a mandate to the CEPT who delivers CEPT technical conditions to
    use spectrum and then EC harmonisation Decision based on Radio Spectrum Decision
    n°676/2002/CE can be adopted, or CEPT delivers its own compatibility studies with
    possible (non mandatory) ECC decision. Equipment fulfilling the parameters defined


                                            9
      by the compatibility studies carried out can not be used before national allocation
      process is completed. The process implies compatibility studies based on inputs from
      incumbents and newcomers. Assessment of suitable frequency bands should also be
      conducted before sharing studies are lead. But small manufacturers could not know
      well the process.
This case applied to the generic UWB equipments. An overview of the development of
frequency and equipment regulation for generic UWB equipments in the EU is given in
annex 2.
It also happens in the SRD community where new uses in existing spectrum or completely
new applications are developed. The existence of the EC Decision on SRD, the ECC
Recommendation on SRD and the generic EN 300 220/330/440 harmonized standards
help to mitigate this but it doesn’t cover all eventualities. The EC decision (2006/771/EC)
is however revised on a yearly basis enabling to take into account new developments in
SRDs.
For other types of radio system without such generic support this must be quite difficult.

4.2.2 The cases where there is an issue for innovation products to access on the market
and/or putting into service

               Existence of applicable radio           Clear spectrum                    Issue?
                  harmonized standard?                   allocation?
Case 1                        yes                             yes                          no
Case 2                        yes                             no                           yes
Case 3                        no                              yes              no (in theory),possibly
                                                                                     (in practice)
Case 4                        no                              no                           yes


It can be summarized that an innovative radio equipment can face difficulties to access on
the market and/or putting into service if:
-     there is no applicable radio harmonized standard and no clear spectrum allocation for
      that equipment (see footnote n°4) ;
-     there is applicable radio harmonized standard but no clear spectrum allocation for that
      equipment (see footnote n°4) ;
-     there is no applicable radio harmonized standard but clear spectrum allocation for that
      equipment (see footnote n°4), even if in theory, it shouldn’t be a problem, it seems
      that in this particular situation, the notified bodies may have difficulty5 giving positive
      opinions within four weeks as requested in Annex IV of the R&TTE Directive.

It has to be noted that this analysis is valid not only for innovative devices but also for all
radio equipments.




5   This view is not recognised as a generic problem scenario by the notified bodies themselves.



                                                      10
5.   IDENTIFICATION OF THE OBJECTIVES AND OPTIONS

The following objectives and options for facilitating access on the market and/or putting
into service a new equipment were identified, discussed and, as much as possible, assessed
by the members of the INNOV working group.
It has to be noted that there is no link between the numbering of the objectives and the level
of importance of these objectives.

Objective 1
Facilitate trans-national “experimental and demonstration” uses, in order to look at
the possibilities before a product is placed on the market.
What can be done in the current framework?
An individual experimental licence (for electronic communications networks and services)
can be asked nationally (Annex B.9 of the Authorisation Directive in the telecom package)
but it can be considered by some stakeholders that:
- to be granted a temporary licence requires time as any frequency assignment ;
- it can create administrative burden if the way to apply such a licence is not the same in
    all countries;
- it doesn’t allow any flexibility for changes of duration and location (as in any
    individual frequency assignment).
Proposals made by stakeholders
It was suggested by one stakeholder to establish a simplified regime, which allows a
manufacturer to notify the authorities of a temporary use (say for up to 3 months to
allow for extended user tests) with basic information and automatic permission to
operate provided the product has not been placed on the market and the user is aware of
the test nature of the product. There might be some restrictions/limitations, for example if
there are no frequency allocations for that use; or perhaps an agreed maximum number of
units.
As an alternative, it was also asked for a self declared experimental authorisation of use of
frequencies only for equipment that is designed to operate in harmonized bands, allocated
for that application, and designed to operate according to harmonized standards.
Options for the impact assessment studied by the INNOV WG
1.1: if the benefit for a simplified regime for temporary experimental uses based on
declaration by the manufacturer with automatic permission appears as a clear and drastic
reduction of administrative burden for the manufacturer, it presents a very high risk of
harmful interferences including for safety of life equipments. This declaration approach
doesn’t take into account national specific constraints and doesn’t allow public authorities
and national spectrum agencies to manage correctly the risk of harmful interferences.
Such option is outside the scope of R&TTE Directive and should be submitted to
the appropriate committee. Nevertheless, the INNOV WG draw the conclusion that
simplified regime for temporary experimental uses based on declaration by the
manufacturer with “automatic” permission is not a valid option and should be
rejected.


1.2: An other option would be to identify contact points where to send “experimental and
for demonstration” authorisation of use of frequencies from each relevant

                                             11
administration (Spectrum management authorities, regulatory authorities) that could be
hosted at a single point on a website.
Benefit:
- facilitate identification of national points of contact for the manufacturer. This is
   particularly helpful for SMEs.
Drawback:
- the manufacturer still has to contact each administration separately.
Such option is outside the scope of R&TTE Directive and should be submitted to
the appropriate committee.

1.3: an alternative option that could be proposed is an “experimental and for
demonstration” authorisation of use of frequencies requested via an “Internet
portal” (such as One Stop Notification (OSN) portal whose principle is given below) and
further granted by national administrations where all the required information have to
be fulfilled by the person who wants to make the test or demonstration (ie point of contact,
numbers of equipments, duration of the test or demonstration etc.). In this option, no
deadline for granting the electronic authorisation by the national administrations should be
preferably required because more time can be needed to grant a licence in specific
situations, such as if the location of the test or demonstration is on the border which
requires coordination. Availability of experimental rights of use will still depend on current
usage of spectrum at national level.

Example of the principle of the One Stop Notification system:

                       Acknowledgement/Clarification
                                                                                                 National
                               Rules                                                             database
                               management      XML
                                               Email
                                               …              Authority
                                Collecting
     Notifying                                                   Authority
                   Aut. ack.    point and
     party
                                conversion                             Authority

                                                                          Authority

                                                                             Authority
                                  Data
                                  storage
                                                                                         …


Applicant                  ECO/EU (tbd)                  Authorities


                                                       Database access for authorities




Benefits:


                                             12
-   reduction of administrative burden for the manufacturer as only one application is
    needed for all Member States ;
-   the requested information is standardised ;
-   it enhances coordination between the national administrations to identify equipments
    on tests and demonstrations in case of interferences ;
-   the building of such a portal is quite simple because it can be based on the already
    existing One Stop Notification used for the notification according article 6.4 of the
    R&TTE Directive.
Drawbacks:
- the process can take time if no deadline is required from administrations ;
- complexity of spectrum usage where various applications could already coexist in a
   same frequency band and which differ from country to country may cause difficulty to
   draft a standardised application form ;
- administrations which granted individual authorisations for experimental use request
   reporting in their own language ;
- authorisations for experimental use or for demonstration are often limited in location
   and time ;
- location and time request may be specific to each country reducing the benefits of a
   single request application form ;
- bilateral negotiations should still need to be established between administrations and
   manufacturer in order to clarify the scope of authorisations for experimental usage,
   therefore the only time gain is in the first step when initially contacting the
   administrations.
Such option is outside the scope of R&TTE Directive and particularly the
application form and other implementation issues should be drafted by appropriate
ad hoc group.

Objective 2
Reduce the delays for the availability in the Official Journal of the European Union
(OJEU) and improve the visibility on the development of harmonized standards.
2a) Reduce the delays for the availability of harmonized standards in the OJEU
What can be done in the current framework?
It was just considered by some stakeholders that the publication of the harmonized standard
on the Official Journal (OJEU) takes a long time.
Proposals made by stakeholders
It was suggested to reduce the time publication of the candidate harmonized standard, or
to reference individual standards in the OJ following the publication of the standard
(without having to check and republish the whole list) as “new or updated harmonized
standards”. Publication of complete listing would only be done once a year.
Options for the impact assessment studied by the INNOV WG
It was considered that this issue is not really related to innovation because a manufacturer
may already use a harmonized standard before its publication and submit its technical
documentation to a notified body. The Commission representative in the INNOV WG also
informed that a new publication system has been setup and it could be expected that the
publication delays will be reduced in the future.


                                             13
The working group concluded that the process in place between European Standard
Organisations (ESOs) and the Commission from the approval of a candidate
harmonized standard by ESOs to the publication of the harmonized standard in the
OJEU should be accelerated.

It is recommended that ESOs should deliver promptly the proposed harmonized
standard to the European Commission. In case of ETSI, this information is
available on the ETSI portal and is regularly reported to TCAM. Prior to their
publication in the OJEU harmonized standards could serve as a reference for
notified bodies as they deliver conformity opinions. European Commission is also
invited to update the lists of harmonized standard in the OJCE more regularly so as
to limit to three months the maximum delay between the adoption by ESOs and
their citation in the OJEU.

Benefit: reduce the delay of availability of some harmonised standards.

2b) improve the visibility on the development of harmonized standards
What can be done in the current framework?
The Commission after consultation with TCAM prepares mandates for development of
Harmonised Standards. These mandates are subject to approval by the 98/34 Committee
under the Directive on the procedure for the provision of information in the field of
technical standards and regulations and of rules on Information Society services
(98/43/EC).
The TCAM Innov group noted that the EC issued a mandate to ETSI in 1999 (see Annex
4) to establish a first set of Harmonised Standards covering Radio Equipment and
Telecommunications Terminal Equipment to be recognised under Directive 99/5/EC as
giving a presumption of conformity with its requirements. This mandate covered existing
Harmonised Standards under 98/13/EC to be reviewed and technical areas where
Harmonised Standards did not exist under 98/13/EC and to be developed by ETSI.

Proposals made by stakeholders
/.
Options for the impact assessment studied by the INNOV WG
The TCAM INNOV working group considered the following issues:

1) Technical areas where Harmonised Standards did not exist under 98/13/EC (see
EC mandate M 284):
The working group noted that the scope of the current standardisation activity from ETSI
is larger than those areas identified by the mandate M 284 in 1999: Maritime Mobile radio,
Aeronautical radio (ground stations), Private/Professional Mobile Radio (non-trunked),
Trunked Radio, Citizens Band Radio, Commercially-available Amateur Radio Equipment,
Paging Systems, Short Range Devices, Cellular Radio Telephony. In practice, the INNOV
working group noted also that ETSI, under guidance from EC, for those domains, had an
extensive interpretation of those domains identified by the Annex 2 of the M/284 mandate
in order to draft harmonised standards in response to the market need (i.e. Harmonized
EN for IMT-2000, UTRA and Evolved Universal Terrestrial Radio Access developed
under the EC mandate 284 which refers only to Cellular Radio Telephony).




                                            14
While making such proposals, ETSI provides information to TCAM which could
provide guidance if needed on the harmonised standards under preparation. Such
current approach, which very often covers new technologies, could be identified as
one of ways to address innovation needs in the proper time schedule.

2) Ad hoc EC mandates to ETSI/ESOs:
It is also observed that EC issued also a number of ad hoc EC mandates covering radio
equipment since 1999: i.e. M 407 on UWB, M 406 on flexible bands, M 364 on SRR at
24 GHz etc…
This can be seen as a confirmation that there is still a need to address specific policy
objective by ad hoc mandates.

3) Adjacent or transverse areas (ICT/Transports, etc.) needs:
In most recent years, EC issued also a number of EC mandates addressing ICT needs for
adjacent areas due to the convergence between ICT and others sectors. One can forecast
that this phenomenon will develop significantly in the future.

4) Industry initiatives:
Based on the needs expressed by its members, without the prerequisite of or the reference
to a mandate, ETSI may launch new standardisation initiatives. But this can be confirmed
as one other approach to address specific support to EU policy. If this is the case, the
initiative will result in delivering relevant harmonised standards, in accordance with the
EU policy objectives, and also contributing to innovation.

However, where a standardization mandate exists and has been accepted by ETSI, a
situation may occur where ETSI technical bodies consider that there is a need for a
Harmonised Standard that is not covered by the mandate.

In such a situation, ETSI should adopt a work item under the ETSI technical working
procedures. The ETSI Secretariat will present the work item to TCAM with a justification
covering why the Harmonised Standard is required. If regarded as justified, the EC may
decide to modify the mandate or issue a new one. Such decisions require approval by the
Committee established under the terms of Directive 98/34/EC

Consequently, the TCAM INNOV working group recommends that:
   -   EC consults TCAM when preparing mandates for development of
       Harmonised Standards, even in interaction with others sectors ;
   -   EC continues to consult TCAM on interpretation of the scope of the current
       mandates, particularly the M 284 mandate, when the new Directive will
       enter into force ;
   -   EC, when addressing specific EU policy objectives and radio matters,
       continues to address specific mandates to ETSI further to the appropriate
       consultation with TCAM and coordination with RSC.
The TCAM INNOV working group encourages EC to give more visibility to
TCAM/RSC/ETSI/ECC when addressing a mandate dealing with convergence
between ICT and others sectors.

Objective 3


                                            15
Reduce the delays for access to the market
What can be done in the current framework?
Reduce the total Time-To-Market for innovations.
Proposals made by stakeholders
Analyze process steps in ECC and ETSI to more efficiently reduce cycle time for
availability of ECC decisions, Recommendations and ETSI standards.
Analyze national implementation processes and reduce cycle times.

Options for the impact assessment studied by the INNOV WG
3.1: establish a temporary and reversible regime for R&TTE Art. 3.2 conformity (nota:
still needs authorisation of use of spectrum).
This regime would enable if needed temporary area(s) where placing on the market and/or
putting into service is allowed, quantitative limitations to placing on the market and/or
putting into service and temporary duration and schedule for placing the product on the
market and/or putting into service.
Benefits:
- introduces faster access to the market ;
- gives regulators additional tool for managing the potential risk of innovative products
   (in particular when they face aggregation phenomena).
Drawbacks:
- increases risk of harmful interference especially with mobile usage where interferences
   can be sporadic and go undetected ;
- is difficult to recall or cope with existing equipment already in use in case of
   withdrawal ; temporary regime is a delicate topic as equipments placed on the market
   and/or put into service would probably be used till the end of their lifecycle ;
- principle of temporary use would incriminate the end-users and take the burden off the
   industry ;
- reversible regime is not easily enforceable by market surveillance authorities that have
   no capacity to control or inhibit use of equipments that were placed on the market ;
- spectrum authorisations might also take a few months to be granted at national level ;
- if authorisations are granted for equipment on a case by case basis, this could lead to
   competition distortion ;
- creates uncertainty for the investment and high risk for the manufacturer if the
   equipment has to be withdrawn ;
- creates uncertainty for the investments of current spectrum users (interferences may
   occur) ;
- creates risk of disputes between incumbents and new entrants.
- Compatibility studies are still required. CEPT is responsible for establishing the
   technical conditions for the use of spectrum. Any other new body carrying out such
   tasks would create confusion and uncertainty on respective responsibilities (with no
   certainty of representing all stakeholders).

Given the benefits and drawbacks, a temporary and reversible regime for R&TTE
Art. 3.2 conformity is not supported by the INNOV WG.



                                            16
3.2: Facilitate access to the market and putting into service for ultra low power devices
(means devices incapable of generating or contributing to radio emissions which generate
harmful interferences to any radio and electronic communications equipment and other
equipments to operate as intended) by developing a generic harmonised standard for these
devices.
The technical conditions for such generic standard would have to be defined by CEPT to
make sure that all potential impacted users would be sufficiently protected and reflected in
such generic harmonised standard developed by ETSI.
What can be done in the current framework?
This proposal can already be implemented in the current framework.

Proposals made by stakeholders
Within the current framework, develop harmonized standard and EU spectrum
harmonisation for such devices.

Options for the impact assessment studied by the INNOV WG

CEPT could define a power level depending on the frequency under which the level is so
low that the risk of interference is inexistent. Based on the CEPT results, ETSI may
develop a generic harmonised standard. The process may be started by a SRDoc (System
Reference Document) from ETSI on a case by case basis for separate frequency ranges.
The Commission could, based on these results, issue a harmonisation decision.

Note that for SRDs (short range devices) for some frequency ranges, this has been
established by the ECC (range from 9 kHz to 30 MHz). According to the current EC
mandate (with regard to the 4th update of the SRD Decision), ECC should study generic
power limits for SRD above 30 MHz. In line with CEPT Report 35, this should be done
on a case by case basis for separate frequency ranges.

Benefits:
-   can be implemented quite rapidly because it fits in the current framework without
    deviating from it;
-   simplify the discussions had in the past on such equipments;
-   solve the question on “benign equipment” avoiding long discussions on what can be
    considered as “benign”;
-   accelerates “time-to-market”.

Drawbacks:
-   The power levels in such generic standards are often low so that some applications
    require derogations to the generic limits (example of UWB where many application
    specific regulations have been requested).
-   It is more valuable to have more specific spectrum designations which are tailored to
    specific classes of equipment.
-   The process of deriving the power levels would involve extensive compatibility studies
    for bands that in the end might not be used by these ultra low power devices.




                                             17
-   This issue was already studied in CEPT report 35. Generic levels not taking into
    account mitigation techniques leads to worst case situation not leaving any room for
    SRD applications in practice.

Such option is outside the scope of R&TTE Directive and should be submitted to
the appropriate committee. Nevertheless, the INNOV WG draws the conclusion that
this could be a valid solution but with little practical value outside designated SRD
frequency ranges.

Objective 4
Reduce the delay to have its equipments authorised to be put into service (by using
existing compatibility studies).
What can be done in the current framework?
Manufacturer is invited to take contact with national administration(s) as soon as possible
to initiate the process and not to wait until the development of its product is completed.
Proposals made by stakeholders
The process for creating a new ETSI standard, establishing (or amending) radio
regulations as well as implementing ECC decisions into national regulations are too long
with excessive "time-to-market" periods.
Reduce the delay of each step necessary to be granted rights of use of frequencies (such as
CEPT studies, EC Decisions etc.), with deadlines to set.
Options for the impact assessment studied by the INNOV WG
Reduce the delay of each step of the process to grant rights of use of frequencies with
deadlines to set.
Benefit:
-   the delay to be granted rights of use of frequencies would be managed and reduced;
Drawbacks:
- there is a risk of overflow if many simultaneous requests are formulated ;
- it is very difficult to set a common deadline for compatibility studies which may be
   complex according to the equipment and frequency band considered ;
- the process is contributions driven and progress as fast as contributions are received;
- deadlines are already set in EC mandates to CEPT
- ECC implemented new measures subsequently to CEPT reform taking into account
   relevant recommendations to support innovation and reduce delays for developing
   deliverables (by implementing electronic working methods, using ECO forum).
- EC already monitors the implementation of EC Decision by Member States.
- Delays of each steps cannot be simply reduced such as development of national
   implementation measures which requires a public consultation;
- Competition issues may imply disputes between spectrum users and delay
   implementation of EC decisions.

The INNOV WG recommends to TCAM to invite ETSI to address the issue of
timing for ETSI standards.
The INNOV WG recommends also TCAM to invite RSC to address with ECC the
timing of ECC Decisions and Recommendations and with Member States the timing
of their national implementation processes in view reducing cycle times.


                                            18
Objective 5
Make known the process to have its equipments authorised to be used.
What can be done in the current framework?
Not relevant.
Proposals made by stakeholders
Improve communication on the regulatory framework.
Options for the impact assessment studied by the INNOV WG
Improve communication and knowledge on the regulatory framework.

5.1: Commission should improve communication on the regulatory framework.
Better communication of CEPT and ETSI towards small and medium enterprises
would also be helpful (ETSI and ECC have drafted a leaflet designed for this
purpose, see Annex 3).

5.2: Increase the level of knowledge of the regulatory framework by stakeholders
and encourage them to take it into account as early as possible in the development
of new products, especially if the product is innovative.

The INNOV working group recommends these two proposals.

Objective 6
Improve assessment by all Notified Bodies
What can be done in the current framework?
Manufacturers can find out which Notified body is in the position to best handle innovative
technologies, monitors and participates to the latest developments in ETSI and ECC.

Proposals made by stakeholders
Notified bodies could gain knowledge and handle new technologies and innovations from
the beginning, by participating regularly in the ETSI standards and ECC rule making
groups.

Options for the impact assessment studied by the INNOV WG
6.1: create a category of “super” notified bodies directly in charge to deal with innovative
products.
Benefit:
-   these notified bodies should be used to deal with innovative products and then could
    give more easily positive opinions on conformity with essential requirements when a
    harmonized standard has not been applied.
Drawbacks:
- creation of a super notified body may duplicate studies that are the remit of CEPT
   without having access to the same type of expertise (from administrations and
   industry) ;
- there could be a problem of competition between notified bodies ;



                                             19
-   probably not enough workload to ensure competition between several “super”
    bodies and ensure maintenance of required expertise;
-   difficulty to guarantee that the interests of all stakeholders are taken into account.
-   may not be compatible with the current NLF (would require adaptation of the NLF for
    the criteria for the designation of Notified Bodies).

6.2: create a network inside notified bodies of people used to deal with innovative
products whose aim would be to share similar experiences on innovative products. This
could be done through RTTE CA (compliance association).
Benefit:
- this network of people should be used to deal with innovative products and then could
   give more easily opinions on conformity with essential requirements when a
   harmonized standard has not been applied.
Drawbacks:
- these people may duplicate studies that are the remit of CEPT without having access
   to the same type of expertise (from administrations and industry) ;
-   difficulty to guarantee that the interests of all stakeholders are taken into account.

6.3: increase cooperation between CEPT and Notified Bodies (this has already started).
CEPT will send a representative to the RTTE CA meetings (that are scheduled twice a
year). The ECC will establish suitable internal procedure to develop a response to the
requests from RTTE CA distinguishing between cases were fast response can be provided
and case requiring further sharing studies.
ECO could produce a web based listing of studies/frequencies and the applicable Project
Teams (perhaps on similar lines to EFIS) to facilitate the flow of information (the minutes
of WGSE and ECC are publicly available and give a detailed view of work at CEPT).

Benefits:
-   Notified Bodies should be more aware of the compatibility studies undertaken by the
    CEPT.
-   Knowing the project teams would more easily allow notified bodies to enquire after
    further information (status/timescales etc).

6.4: increase cooperation between ETSI and Notified Bodies on test suites
ETSI could create a template and guidelines document to help notified bodies formulate
specific test suites. Many ETSI radio standards include the same structure and the same
coverage in terms of fundamental emissions, out of band emissions and spurious emissions.
Although the detail is different for different frequencies and applications, the general basis
is taken from standard ECC/CISPR etc. documents. Thus it would be easier for a notified
body to take the results of a compatibility study and plug those into a template to create
the applicable test suite.

ETSI could produce a web or bulletin based summary of the standards work in progress
by frequency/application together with information on the Project Team to facilitate the
early flow of information.
Benefits:




                                              20
-   Notified Bodies should be more easily able to create a test suite which includes the
    necessary areas and provides a common format for the work.
-   Linked to information from the CEPT project teams this would improve notified
    bodies’ ability to take information from compatibility studies and use it within the
    template.
-   ETSI Draft standards could also form the basis for test suites.
Drawbacks:
- A generic template cannot fit every need so there is a possibility of incorrect
application of parameters
-   A judgement would still be needed if the results of compatibility studies were used.
The INNOV recommends that a stronger relationship is established between ETSI,
CEPT and notified bodies in order to ensure that notified bodies are familiar with
the technical sharing conditions and standardisation work.

Objective 7
Clarification of Art 3.2 of R&TTE Directive to ease its enforceability.
What can be done in the current framework?
The current Article 3.2 is the following one:
Article 3
Essential requirements
2 … radio equipment shall be so constructed that it effectively uses the spectrum
allocated to terrestrial/space radio communication and orbital resources so as to avoid
harmful interference.
Proposals made by stakeholders
Propose a clear formulation of what is required under Art 3.2 of R&TTE Directive and
clarify in particular its borderline with Art. 3.1.b. (EMC requirements).
Two different aspects were mentioned:
    In its third meeting, TCAM endorsed the interpretation of the Commission that radio
equipment, which is not intended for use in the European Union, can be marketed,
provided that the manufacturer abides by the rules of the R&TTE Directive as regards
marking, information to the user and notification of spectrum authorities (source: TCAM
3 (08) 16).
    The question of how to address the essential requirements in the field of EMC (art.
3.1.b) and effective use of the spectrum (art. 3.2) was asked in a case of a radio module
embedded in a non radio equipment .
Innovation should not only be seen as related only to “pure” radio products but should
also include non radio products including radio products.
Options for the impact assessment studied by the INNOV WG
7.1: it is not clear to all parties involved (national authorities, market surveillance
authorities, manufacturers, Notified Bodies) how equipment can be in conformity with art
3.2, if not one single EU member states has allocated spectrum for the use of this
equipment.
Because of the lack of clarity in this situation, the R&TTE Directive is not adequately


                                                21
enforceable for national market surveillance authorities, Notified Bodies could have
problems with giving opinions and manufacturers lack a clear guidance as to what to do to
show compliance.
Proposal
To make the R&TTE Directive better enforceable, the solution would be to clarify the
interpretation of Art. 3(2) of the R&TTE Directive in such a way that if equipment
cannot be used anywhere in the European Union means that this equipment cannot
comply with this essential requirement and therefore cannot be placed on the
market or put into use in the European Union.
The text or the interpretation of Art 3.2 should be changed accordingly.

7.2: today more and more non R&TTE products include radio parts. The main function of
these products is not to communicate, and communication is used to enhance the final
product (e.g. blue-ray reader equipped with a wireless connection to be connected to a
TV, a lift equipped with a GSM module to enable communication with the service center,
etc…).

A guide to the production of Harmonized Standards for application under the R&TTE
Directive ETSI EG 201 399 is published by ETSI. ETSI respects the results of CEPT
sharing conditions when developing harmonised standards.

Addressing the EMC and R&TTE requirements for the whole equipment (non radio
equipment including radio equipment) may introduce various levels of interpretation and
could delay innovation.

It could occur that e.g. a wash machine equipment with a WLAN module has to fulfill
stringent emissions limit than the same wash machine without WLAN, this only because
the spurious emissions limits of the receiver part of the WLAN.

This situation is confusing more and more market players and market surveillance
authorities.

The INNOV working group recommend that this question should be deeper
analyzed by an ad-hoc expert group open to all economic operators and market
surveillance authorities and leaded by ETSI. CENELEC should also be associated.

Objective 8
Reduce the delay in agreeing on spectrum harmonisation.
Proposals made by stakeholders
Rely more on qualified majority voting within CEPT/ECC, which currently works through
consensus (2007 public consultation results).
Options for the impact assessment studied by the INNOV WG
Adopt qualified majority voting rules within CEPT/ECC, which currently works through
consensus.
Benefits:
-   could reduce the delay for adoption of the harmonisation decisions.
Drawbacks:


                                            22
-   qualified majority voting had been investigated and rejected during the last CEPT
    reform (2008);
-   could introduce difficulties of implementation (if no implementation by countries
    having negatively voted);
-   one of the main goals of ECC is to avoid interference. A majority type decision
    mechanism would not properly ensure the protection of incumbent users.

This INNOV WG draw the conclusion that this proposal should not be kept.

Objective 9
Increase visibility of technical conditions on use of spectrum.
What can be done in the current framework?
Since the 2007 consultation, Decision 2007/344/EC on harmonized availability of
information regarding spectrum use was adopted (EFIS database).
Proposals made by stakeholders
A reliable web based information on harmonized bands is required (2007 public
consultation results)
Options for the impact assessment studied by the INNOV WG
Implementation of Decision 2007/344/EC on EFIS database gives the requested visibility
of use of spectrum in EU.

This proposal has not to be considered relevant further as Decision 2007/344/EC on
harmonized availability of information regarding spectrum use was already adopted
(EFIS database).

Objective 10
Improve notified body route.
What can be done in the current framework?
Not relevant.
Proposals made by stakeholders
Better monitoring by national administrations creating more transparency on the opinions
issued and obliging conformity assessment bodies to keep technical files available for
inspection by public authorities (2007 public consultation results).
Options for the impact assessment studied by the INNOV WG
Recommendation 47 of the report on “Alignment with NLF” provides more transparency
on the work of notified bodies.




                                           23
6.   CONCLUSION

6.1 Proposed amendments to the R&TTE Directive
The two following proposals were considered by the INNOV working group being
worthy to be proposed in the revision of the R&TTE Directive. Details, advantages and
drawbacks of each of them are listed in the previous section.
Proposal A: clarify the interpretation of Art. 3.2 of the R&TTE Directive in such a
way that if an equipment cannot be used anywhere in the European Union it means
that this equipment cannot comply with this essential requirement and therefore
cannot be placed on the market or put into use in the European Union (option 7.1).
Proposal B: apply Recommendation 47 of the report on “Alignment with NLF”
which provides more transparency on the work of notified bodies (option 10).

6.2 Non legislative actions in the scope of the R&TTE Directive.
The seven following proposals and recommendations were considered being worthy to be
formulated:
Recommendation C: the process in place between European Standard
Organisations (ESOs) and the Commission from the approval of a candidate
harmonized standard by ESOs to the publication of the harmonized standard in the
OJEU should be accelerated. It is recommended that ESOs should deliver promptly
the proposed harmonized standard to the European Commission. In case of ETSI,
this information is available on the ETSI portal and is regularly reported to TCAM.
Prior to their publication in the OJEU, harmonized standards could serve as a
reference for notified bodies as they deliver conformity opinions. European
Commission is also invited to update the lists of harmonized standard in the OJCE
more regularly so as to limit to three months the maximum delay between the
adoption by ESOs and their citation in the OJEU (option 2a).
Recommendation D: the Commission should consult TCAM when preparing
mandates for development of Harmonised Standards, even in interaction with
others sectors. The Commission should continue to consult TCAM on interpretation
of the scope of the current mandates, particularly the M 284 mandate, when the
new Directive will enter into force. The Commission, when addressing specific EU
policy objectives and radio matters, should continue to address specific mandates to
ETSI further to the appropriate consultation with TCAM and coordination with
RSC. The Commission should give more visibility to TCAM/RSC/ETSI/ECC when
addressing a mandate dealing with convergence between ICT and others sectors
(option 2b).
Recommendation E: TCAM should invite ETSI to address the issue of timing for
ETSI standards, and TCAM should invite RSC to address with ECC the timing of
ECC Decisions and Recommendations and with Member States the timing of their
national implementation processes in view reducing cycle times (option 4).
Proposal F: create a network inside notified bodies of people used to deal with
innovative products whose aim would be to share similar experiences on innovative
products; this could be done through RTTE CA (compliance association) but has to
be further investigated (option 6.2).



                                           24
Proposal G: create an ad-hoc expert group open to all economic operators and
market surveillance authorities and leaded by ETSI to address the issue of
interpretation of R&TTE requirements for non radio equipment including radio
equipment. CENELEC should also be associated (option 7.2).
Proposal H: increase cooperation between CEPT and Notified Bodies (to support
the process that has already started) (option 6.3).
Proposal I: increase cooperation between ETSI and Notified Bodies on test suites
(option 6.4).
A stronger relationship should be established between ETSI, CEPT and notified bodies in
order to ensure that notified bodies are familiar with the technical sharing conditions and
standardisation work (options 6.3 and 6.4).

6.3 Issues outside the scope of R&TTE Directive
Three proposals and two recommendations, although outside the scope of R&TTE
Directive, were considered useful to be examined by the appropriate ad hoc group or
committee. There are the following:
Proposal J: identify national contact points where to send “experimental and for
demonstration” authorisation of use of frequencies from each relevant
administration (Spectrum management authorities, regulatory authorities) that
could be hosted at a single point on a website (option 1.2).
Proposal K: develop an Internet portal (such as One Stop Notification portal) for
“experimental and for demonstration” authorisation of use of frequencies further
granted by national administrations where all the required information have to be
fulfilled (ie point of contact, numbers of equipments, duration of the test or
demonstration etc.). In this proposal, no deadline for granting the electronic
authorisation by the national administrations should be preferably required because
more time can be needed to grant a licence in specific situations, such as if the
location of the test or demonstration is on the border which requires coordination.
Availability of experimental rights of use will still depend on current usage of
spectrum at national level. The application form and other implementation issues
should be drafted by an appropriate ad hoc group (option 1.3).

Proposal L: As already included in the EC mandate on SRD, invite CEPT to
consider a power level depending on the frequency under which the level is so low
that the risk of interference is inexistent. Based on the CEPT results, ETSI may
develop a generic harmonised standard. The process may be started by a SRDoc
(System Reference Document) from ETSI on a case by case basis for separate
frequency ranges. TCAM INNOV noted that this issue is already included in the EC
mandate on SRD and should have little practical value outside designated SRD
frequency ranges (option 3.2).
Recommendation M: Invite Commission to improve communication on the
regulatory framework (R&TTE and ECN&S). Invite CEPT and ETSI to improve
communication towards small and medium enterprises (ETSI and ECC have
drafted a leaflet designed for this purpose, see Annex 3) (option 5.1).
Recommendation N: stakeholders should be encouraged to take the regulatory
framework into account as early as possible in the development of new products,
especially if the product is innovative (option 5.2).



                                            25
6.4 Others proposals not considered relevant by the INNOV working group
- Simplified regime for temporary experimental uses based on declaration by the
manufacturer with “automatic” permission (option 1.1) ;
-   temporary and reversible regime for R&TTE Art. 3.2 conformity (option 3.1) ;
-   qualified majority voting rules within CEPT/ECC (option 8).




                                         26

				
DOCUMENT INFO
Shared By:
Categories:
Tags:
Stats:
views:12
posted:11/24/2011
language:English
pages:26