NoC19/36 OfficialJournaloftheEuropeanCommunities 25.1.93
St.BernardandPyreneestunnels,thetunnelunderthe
Scheldt,theTancavillebridge,theDartfordcrossing
andthebridgeovertheLiffeyinDublin.Otherschemes
arealsounderwayorinthepipelineintheUKand
France.
Thisshowsthatcapitalcanbeattractedforreliable
investments ,andthatuserstooarereadytofinance
infrastructure .
1.7.3.TheCommunitymustbeinventiveandshould
assessthefeasibilityofusing'authorities'tolookaftertheconstructionandadministration ofmajorinfra­
structurewhichthenpaysforotherinfrastructure .
1.8.Inconclusion,theCommitteesupportstheCom­
missionproposalsandnotesthattheyarepartofa
broaderintermodaltransportpolicythatcanonlybe
fullyeffectiveoncethenetworksforalltransport
modes—includingmaritimetransportandinfrastruc­
ture—havebeendealtwith.TheCommitteehopesto
havethechancetogiveitsviewsonthisintermodal
policy,whichwillobviouslybeincludedintheCom­
mission'sforthcomingwhitepaper.
DoneatBrussels,24November1992.
TheChairman
oftheEconomicandSocialCommittee
SusanneTIEMANN
Opinionon:
—theproposalforaCouncilDirectiveontheFrequencyBandstobedesignatedforthe
coordinatedintroductionofRoad-Transport TelematicSystems(RTTS)intheCom­
munityincludingRoadInformationandRoute-Guidance Systems,and
—theproposalforaCouncilDirectiveonCommonFrequencyBandstobedesignatedfor
thecoordinatedintroductionoftheTerrestrialFlight-Telecommunications System(TFTS)
intheCommunity(*)
(93/C19/12
On13August1992and18August1992theCouncildecidedtoconsulttheEconomicand
SocialCommitteeunderArticle100AoftheTreatyestablishingtheEuropeanCommunity
ontheabovementioned proposals.
TheSectionforTransportandCommunications whichwasresponsibleforpreparingthe
Committee'sworkonthesubjectadopteditsOpinionon18November1992.TheRapporteur
wasMrBell.
Atits301stPlenarySession(meetingof24November1992)theEconomicandSocial
CommitteeadoptedthefollowingOpinionunanimously .
(RTTS)intheCommunityincludingRoadInformation
andRoute-Guidance Systems,andtheharmonization of
frequenciesforanAeronauticalPublicCorrespondence
SystemthroughoutEuropemoregenerallyknownasthe
TerrestrialFlight-Telecommunications System(TFTS).1.Introduction
1.1.Theseproposalsdealwiththeharmonization of
frequenciesforRoad-Transport TelematicSystems
(!)OJNoC222,29.8.1992,p.10.

25.1.93 OfficialJournaloftheEuropeanCommunities NoC19/37
1.2.Recentyearshaveseengreatgrowthinservices,
bothpublicandprivate,wishingtomakeuseofthe
radiospectrum.Efficientadministration andinparticu­
largreatcareintheallocationoffrequenciesisneeded
toensurethatgreatbenefitscanbederivedfromthe
finiteresourcesoftheradiospectrum.beingmadeinthedevelopmentoftheRTTSwitha
viewtoachievingthefollowing :
a)CompletionofasingleEuropeanstandardfor
RTTS.Thiswillinvolveastandardsettingprocess
oftheEuropeanTelecommunication Standards
Institute(ETSI).
b)ThecoordinatedintroductionoftheRTTSappli­
cationsthroughouttheCommunitywhichwill
improveroadsafety,maximizeroad-transport
efficiencyandminimizetheadverseenvironmental
impactoftransport.
c)TheoperationofRTTSonapan-European basis
becauseoftheavailabilityofcommonEurope-wide
frequencies .
d)ThedevelopmentofEurope'stransportinfrastruc­
turethroughtheunrestrictedcarriageandoperation
ofRTTScommunications equipmentthroughout
theCommunity .
e)ThecreationofalargeEurope-widemarketfor
RTTStogivemanufacturers andoperators
increasedconfidence .1.3.Becausefrequenciesarealimitedresourceand
becausethereareagreatmanycompetingneedstouse
frequencies ,bothmilitaryandcivil,publicandprivate,
itisclearthatharmonization offrequencyallocation
onaninternational levelwillassistinensuringthe
maximumefficiencyinexploitingtheradiospectrum.
Theeliminationofconflictingfrequencyallocationat
adomesticlevelisthereforeessential.Inaddition,the
harmonization offrequencyallocationthroughoutthe
Communitywillassistincreatingapan-European mar­
ketforRTTSandTFTSuncomplicated bynational
boundariesandinconsistentfrequency-allocation poli­
cies.
1.4.Theneedforinternational coordination offre­
quencyallocationhasbeenrecognizedformanyyears
andimplementedonalargescaleatboththeInter­
nationalTelecommunications UnionandtheEuropean
Radiocommunications Committee (ERC)oftheCon­
ferenceofEuropeanPostalandTelecommunications
Administrators (CEPT).(Thecountrieswhosetelecom­
municationsadministrations participateinCEPTare
thetwelveMemberStatesoftheCommunityandthe
followingothercountries:Albania,Austria,Bulgaria,
Croatia,Cyprus,Czechoslovakia ,Finland,Hungary,
Iceland,Liechtenstein ,Lithuania,Malta,Monaco,Nor­
way,Poland,Romania,Sweden,Switzerland ,Turkey,
theVaticanCityandtheRepublicofSanMarino.)
TheCommitteesupportstheprincipleofpan-European
coordinationoffrequencyallocationasrecognizedby
theCouncilResolutionof28June1990,howeverthis
issubjecttothecommentsonthequestionofhowthat
coordinationshouldbeimplementedthatappearbelow.
2.TheRTTSproposal3.TheTFTSproposal
3.1.TheTFTSproposalsetsoutprovisionswhereby
theMemberStatesoftheEuropeanCommunitiesare
requiredtoallocatefrequencybandsindicatedbythe
ERCandtheWorldAdministrative RadioConference
1992(WARC92)(notably1670to1675MHzground
toairand1800to1805MHzairtoground)forthe
TFTS.
3.2.Theobjectiveoftheproposalistoassistthe
developmentoftheTFTSbyspecificallyallocating
frequencybandstoit.
Thisshouldaddmomentumtotheprogressalready
beingmadeinthedevelopmentoftheTFTSwitha
viewtoachievingthefollowing:
a)CompletionofasingleEuropeanstandardfor
TFTS.Thisinvolvesastandardsettingprocessof
ETSIscheduledtobecompletedduring1992.In
additionaircraftfitstandardsarebeingdeveloped
bytheEuropeanAeronauticalElectronicsCom­
mittee(EAEC)andstandardsforairline-cabinsys­
temsandonboardtelecommunication servicesare
beingdevelopedbytheAirlineElectronicEngineer­
ingCommittee (AEEC).
b)ThecoordinatedintroductionoftheTFTSthrough­
outtheCommunity .
c)TheoperationofTFTSonapan-European basis
becauseoftheavailabilityofcommonEurope-wide
frequencies .2.1.TheRTTSproposalsetsoutprovisionswhereby
theMemberStatesoftheEuropeanCommunitiesare
requiredtoallocatefrequencybandsindicatedbythe
CommunityResearchandDevelopmentProgramme
(Drive)(DedicatedRoadInfrastructure forVehicle
SafetyinEurope),andtheEuropeanRadiocommunica­
tionsCommittee (ERC)(notably5,795-5,805GHz(with
possibleextensionto5,815GHz),63-64GHzand76­
77GHz)fortheRTTS.
2.2.Theobjectiveoftheproposalistoassistthe
developmentoftheRTTSbyspecificallyallocating
frequencybandstoit.
Thisshouldaddmomentumtotheprogressalready

NoC19/38 OfficialJournalof(theEuropeanCommunities 25.1.93
d)ThedevelopmentofEurope'stransportinfrastruc­
turethroughtheunrestrictedcarriageandoperation
ofcommunications equipmentthroughouttheCom­
munity.
e)ThecreationofalargeEurope-widemarketfor
TFTStogivemanufacturers andoperators
increasedconfidence .aftertheDecisionbeingapprovedbytheERCadvising
whetherornottheycommitthemselvesto
implementingtheDecision.
4.5.TheERC,atits7thmeetingon20-23October
1992endorsedthesemeasuresfortheimplementation
ofERCDecisions.Inaddition,atthatmeetingtheERC
adoptedaDecisioninrespectofthedesignationof
frequencybandsforRTTSandTFTS.
4.6.TheERCDecisionproposestheallocationof
thesamefrequenciesforRTTSandTFTSasarepro­
posedintheproposal.
4.7.ItisarguablethatmeasurestakenbytheERC
haveadvantagesoverthosetakenbytheCommission
inthisregardbecausetheyaredirectlyrelevanttoa
largergroupofcountries(includingall12Member
StatesoftheCommunity )andaremoreflexiblethan
CouncilDirectives,beingmoreeasilyrevisedor
amended.Accordingly ,itisarguablethattheERCisa
moreappropriateforumforthecoordinationoffre­
quencyallocation.
4.8.However,theCommitteeconsidersthatthe
enforceabilityofERCDecisionsisopentoquestion.If
aMemberStateadministration weretofailto
implementanERCDecision(eventhoughithadagreed
tobeboundbyit),enforcementwouldbedependent
upongeneralprinciplesofinternationallawwhich,if
effectiveatall,wouldbelong-windedanddifficultto
achieve.Bycontrast,ifaMemberStateoftheCom­
munityweretofailtoimplementaDirective,anaction
wouldbebroughtagainstitintheEuropeanCourtof
Justice.Thiswouldnotbeaswiftenforcementaction,
butitwouldbeclearandpreciseandwoulduseawell­
triedlegalmechanism .
4.9.Inconclusion,therefore,whiletheCommittee
hassympathywiththeviewthatmattersoffrequency
allocationshouldbedealtwithbytheERCratherthan
theCommunity ,ittakestheviewthat,becauseofthe
greatercertaintyregardingtheenforcementofCom­
munitymeasures,theproposalsshouldbesupported.4.Generalcomments
4.1.TheCommitteefullysupportstheintroduction
oftheRTTSandtheTFTSandisalsoinfullagreement
withtheprincipleoftheallocationofcommonfre­
quencybandsfortheirestablishment .TheCommittee
hasconsideredwhethertheCommission'sactionin
proposingtheseDirectivesisnecessary,giventhefol­
lowingreasons.
4.2.Thecoordinationoffrequency-band allocation
inEuropeisalsoadministeredbytheERCofCEPTas
wellasbytheCommission .
4.3.IntheExplanatoryMemorandums tothePro­
posalstheCommissionnotesthattheERChascurrently
identifiedthemostsuitablefrequencybandsforRTTS
tobeexactlythesameastheareaitproposes,namely
5,795-5,805GHz(withapossibleextensionto5,815
GHz),63-64GHzand76-77GHzandtheTFTStobe
exactlythesameastheareaitproposes,namely1670­
1675MHz(groundtoair)and1800-1805MHz(air
toground).
4.4.Todateithasbeenacommoncriticismthat
ERCmeasuresonfrequency-band allocationswerenot
sufficienttogivemanufacturers confidence,because
theyonlyconstitutedaRecommendation andwere
thereforenotbinding.TheCommitteenotes,however,
thattherehasbeenarecentchangeinERCprocedures .
AtitssixthmeetingtheERCagreedtotheprincipleof
morebindingmeasurestobecalledDecisionsandto
adoptawrittenprocedurewherebyCEPTmembers
wouldwritetotheERCChairmanwithintwomonths
DoneatBrussels,24November1992.
TheChairman
oftheEconomicandSocialCommittee
SusanneTIEMANN