Report from the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament - First Progress Report Directive 1999/5/EC (the R&TTE Directive)
Date: 2004-04-22
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: Community certification, activity report, harmonisation of standards, satellite communications, technical standard, telecommunications, telecommunications equipment

COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES 

Brussels, 22.04.2004 
COM(2004) 288 final 

 . 

REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE COUNCIL AND 
THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT 

FIRST PROGRESS REPORT DIRECTIVE 1999/5/EC 
(THE R&TTE DIRECTIVE) 

EN 

   EN 

 
 
 
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 

BACKGROUND  

1. 

2. 

Directive  1999/5/EC  (hereafter  “the  R&TTE  Directive”)  set  out  new  rules  for 
ensuring  the  internal  market  of  Radio  Equipment  and  Telecommunications 
Terminal  Equipment.  It  replaced  Directive  98/13/EC  and  over  1000  national 
approval regulations. 

The  Directive  covers  most  equipment  that  uses  the  radio  spectrum  and  all 
equipment  connected  to  public  telecommunications  networks  (a  market  of 
around  80b€  in  the  EU).  It  covers  amongst  others  GSM  and  UMTS  handsets, 
antennas  used  for  mobile  telephony  networks,  normal  telephones  and  data 
transmission  modems.  It  simplified  the  technical  requirements  and  facilitated 
market  access  for  manufacturers,  who  now  can  assess  the  conformity  of  their 
products themselves. 

OBSERVATIONS 

3. 

The Directive is now applied in the EEA, most of the candidate Member States 
and  Switzerland  and  overall  experience  of  its  simplified  arrangements  is 
positive.  It  has  contributed  to  an  internal  market  for  radio  and  terminal 
equipment  with  relatively  low  market  access  barriers.  No  increase  of  radio 
interference  has  been  observed.  In  addition  it  has  not  affected  the  integrity  of 
telecommunications  networks.  Its  administrative  provisions  are  however  not 
sufficiently  adhered  to,  which  puts  into  question  the  proportionality  of  these 
provisions and the effectiveness of communicating them to the sector. 

4. 

The most frequently raised issues of concern of manufacturing industry are: 

(a) 

user information (marking, labelling & instructions); 

(b) 

bureaucracy  and  lack  of  harmonisation  surrounding  the  notification  of 
radio equipment using non-harmonised spectrum; 

(c) 

lack of published radio interface regulations; 

(d) 

lack  of  harmonisation  of  spectrum  use  and  the  difficulties  in  finding 
information on spectrum use. 

5. 

The  standing  committee  established  by  the  Directive  (TCAM)  has  achieved 
pragmatic  resolution  of  divergent  interpretations  of  the  basic  text  but  the 
Directive  lacks  provisions,  enabling  to  render  such  interpretations  legally 
binding. TCAM has established an Administrative Co-operation Group (ADCO) 
to  deal  with  surveillance  and  other  matters  of  direct  interest  between  Member 
States. The main committee has increasingly identified equivalence of interface 
regulations,  i.e.  national  spectrum  usage  regulations  at  EU  level  and  problems 
with  access  to  and  harmonisation  of  spectrum.  Such  issues  initially  were 
communicated  to  the  Electronic  Communications  Committee  (ECC)  of  CEPT. 

2 

 
 
  
 
6. 

7. 

8. 

9. 

With  the  adoption  of  the  Spectrum  Decision,  which  sets  up  an  appropriate 
framework for the harmonisation of spectrum allocation in the European Union 
in order to satisfy the requirements of Community policies, the Commission can 
now adopt technical implementing measures to address such requirements. 

The  R&TTE  Directive  was  adopted  with  a  view  to  overcome  barriers  to  the 
single  market  for  products.  However,  the  single  market  for  radio  equipment 
continues to be hampered by the fragmentation of the radio frequency spectrum 
and  the  difficulties  in  providing  access  to  harmonised  frequencies  for  new 
devices and services. Despite the efforts of the Member States working within 
CEPT,  and  with  some  notable  exceptions  like  the  bands  for  mobile  cellular 
services, it has proved difficult to truly harmonise the use of the radio frequency 
spectrum  across  Europe  and  to  make  adequate  spectrum  available  for  new 
technologies  in  a  timely  manner.  This  has  prevented  EU  industry  from 
benefiting from early market development and significant economies of scale.  

The rules for obtaining access to spectrum and the decision-making process for 
new allocations have not been harmonised in the EU and processes of decision 
making are unpredictable and lengthy. These hurdles specifically affect smaller 
players  and  stifle  innovation.  The  Commission  observes  that  in  important  new 
areas harmonised decisions in the EU have lagged behind those in other major 
economies.  Within  the  context  of  spectrum  policy,  the  Commission  and  the 
Member  States  must  discuss  how  spectrum  management  decisions  can  be 
streamlined  and  accelerated.  This  should  include  possibilities  for  experimental 
use within the EU to assist spectrum compatibility studies, which until now are 
largely theoretical. 

An  important  aspect  of  such  discussions  would  be  to  address  the  conditions 
under  which  spectrum  use  should  be  regulated  through  explicit  licensing  of 
users  and/or  devices  and  strong  segmentation  of  the  spectrum.  Alternatively, 
generic  licence-free  spectrum  (spectrum  “free  ways”)  with  co-habitation  rules 
(laid down in harmonised standards) to have devices gracefully share spectrum, 
have  proven  to  foster  innovation  in  the  area  of  short-range  devices.  More 
flexible  and  less  technology-dependent  conditions  of  individual  “exclusive” 
licenses  will  also  make  it  easier  for  market  players  to  innovate.  Furthermore, 
new  technological  developments  (cognitive  devices,  Software  Defined  Radio, 
Ultra Wide Band) will allow regulators to be more flexible and to rely more on 
technology to ensure efficient and interference free spectrum use. It is important 
for  the  EU  to  have  a  common  and  permissive  policy  based  on  clear  rules  to 
allow  such  technologies  to  develop  resulting  in  clear  rules  (and  harmonised 
standards) for the construction of products. 

Radio  regulators  in  some  Member  States  display  some  difficulties  in 
implementing the provisions emanating from the basic concepts of the Directive 
and  to  fully  accept  the  role  of  notified  bodies  as  an  appropriate  harmonisation 
tool  to  set  the  technical  conditions  for  operating  equipment.  There  is  also  at 
times  a  tendency  to  maintain  decisions  on  market  access  for  specific 
technologies  as  a  national  radio  regulatory  prerogative.  This  is  counter  to  the 
provisions of the Directive and the principles of the WTO and the Treaty. 

3 

 
 
  
 
10. 

11. 

12. 

13. 

14. 

The European Standardisation Organisations and notably ETSI have responded 
well to the challenge of drafting the harmonised standards for this Directive. A 
comprehensive  list  covering  over  95%  of  equipment  on  the  market  has  been 
published in the OJ to support the operation of the Directive. 

Additional Commission Decisions have been adopted under Article 3(3) (e) and 
oblige  that  types  of  equipment  “support  certain  features  ensuring  access  to 
emergency  services”.  The  other  provisions  of  Article  3(3)  have  not  been 
exercised  to  date.  The  emergency  services  addressed  by  the  Article  3(3)  (e) 
Decisions are perhaps not those that were originally envisaged in the Directive. 
They  relate  to  “safety  of  life”  services  such  as  avalanche  beacons  and  certain 
marine distress radio functions. In some cases there are parallel sector specific 
regulations covering other uses of the same or similar equipment and the need 
for the Directive to regulate them should be reviewed. 

A  simple  equipment  classification  system  has  been  introduced.  Equipment  is 
classified such that “Class 1” equipment has no special mark and may be used 
anywhere  in  the  Community  without  a  licence.  “Class  2”  equipment  bears  an 
“Alert” mark indicating that it is subject to national restrictions related to the use 
of the radio spectrum. It was decided to refrain from creating a special class for 
equipment which is technically harmonised, but for which users need to obtain a 
licence  for  use.  Such  equipment  remains  therefore  in  “Class  2”.  A  study  to 
establish  frequency  bands,  which  have  effectively  been  harmonised  in  the  EU, 
demonstrated less harmonisation than expected. Enlargement will not affect the 
types of equipment in Class 1. 

Despite  a  much-reduced  role,  the  number  of  Notified  (conformity  assessment) 
Bodies has increased since the Directive came into force. This is due in part to 
the correspondingly reduced competencies required and in part to market related 
factors, which attach importance to Notified Body intervention (e.g. outside the 
EU).  The  Annex  IV  (TCF)  procedure  involving  a  Notified  Body  opinion  is 
being  used  on  a  voluntary  basis  on  a  wider  scale  than  expected.  The  Notified 
Bodies  have  established  the  R&TTE  Compliance  Association  to  facilitate 
exchange of information relating to the practical operation of the Directive and 
liaison with TCAM. Co-operation between notified bodies and the national radio 
authorities needs to be improved. 

The  expected  increase  in  notifications  of  non-compliant  equipment  following 
the  reduction  of  pre-market  controls  on  radio  equipment  has  as  yet  not 
materialised. This may partly be due to the fact that most Member States are still 
in  the  process  of  developing  market  surveillance  strategies.  A  high  level  of 
administrative  non-compliance  is  being  observed,  without  this  leading  to  an 
increase of interference. Many national actions are not becoming visible at EU 
level or to other Member States. This raises concern on the effectiveness of the 
current system of market surveillance, whereas it furthermore demonstrates that 
the  formal  procedures  for  handling  safeguards  are  overly  complex  and  time 
consuming.  This  calls  for  a  review  of  the  provisions  on  the  handling  of  non-
compliant equipment. 

15. 

The potential harmful effects of exposure to electromagnetic fields are covered 
by the essential requirements of the Directive. The Commission mandated that 

4 

 
 
  
 
the development of harmonised standards be based on the exposure limits set by 
Council Recommendation 1999/519/EC. For GSM handsets such standards are 
available, while standards for base stations are not yet complete. Public concern 
on  this  issue  pertains.  The  Directive  allows  Member  States  to  introduce 
regulations restricting the putting into service of base stations for health reason. 
In  some  of  the  Member  States  substantial  delays  in  the  roll-out  of  mobile 
networks is caused by local legislation and procedures relating to the planning 
of  masts.  Harmonisation  of  health  protection  standards  should  overcome  such 
problems in the future. Many considerations leading to decisions on the location 
of base stations are however scientifically ill founded and do not have the effect 
of reducing the exposure of the public to electromagnetic fields. 

Mutual Recognition Agreements (MRAs) with an annex for R&TTE equipment 
have  been  concluded  between  the  EU  and  certain  third  countries.  These 
recognise  the  competence  of  Conformity  Assessment  Bodies  but  maintain  the 
separate national or regional procedures for placing on the market and/or putting 
into service. They do not foster a level of deregulation in third countries, which 
is  comparable  with  that  in  the  EU,  but  require  substantial  resources  by  the 
Commission and Member States authorities for their implementation. They have 
fostered improved co-operation with regulators in these countries but policies to 
lower market access barriers in 3rd countries need to be reviewed. In the case of 
Switzerland the MRA harmonises the procedures for accessing the Swiss market 
with those of the EEA. With regard to acceding countries, they are expected to 
have transposed the Directive in full at the time of their accession. 

The  Directive  covers  interference  caused  by  radio  transmitters  and  terminal 
equipment  but  the  EMC  Directive  covers  interference  caused  by  other 
equipment. The aim in both cases is the same and one or the other Directive may 
cover  equipment  depending  on  its  specific  application,  in  particular  certain 
broadband access equipment. Equipment may be considered part of the network 
or  a  terminal  depending  upon  the  operator’s  network  demarcation  point  or  a 
decision of a national regulatory authority (NRA). 

16. 

17. 

CONCLUSIONS 

The policy set by the Directive needs to be continued. In order to optimise its operation a 
number of actions are proposed. 

18. 

As  regards  the  Directive  itself,  a  limited  revision  of  its  provisions  should  be 
pursued, addressing the following issues: 

•  Create possibilities for rendering implementing details and interpretations of 

the Directive legally binding through a commitology procedure; 

•  Reconsider the use of Article 3.3 Decisions for “safety of life” purposes and 

consider their inclusion in sector specific regulations. 

•  Discuss the borderline of its scope: coverage of aeronautical equipment, radio 

equipment not used for radiocommunication. 

5 

 
 
  
 
•  Review  the  provisions  on  the  handling  of  non-compliant  products,  so  as  to 
ensure effective market surveillance but avoiding where possible the need for 
Commission opinions; 

•  Rationalise requirements for user information and marking arising under this 
Directive and other New Approach Directives (particularly the Low Voltage 
and EMC Directives) so as to arrive at obligations which are proportional to 
the  objective;  consider  how  to  make  relevant  information  accessible  to  all 
types of users, in particular the disabled, where relevant;  

•  Review  the  provisions  obliging  operators  to  publish  the  characteristics  of 
their  networks  and  consider  whether  certain  provisions  should  be  removed 
for smaller operators; 

•  Consider whether terminal equipment that is not radio equipment should be 
removed from the Directive and thus only be covered by the EMC and Low 
Voltage  Directive.  In  so  doing,  attention  would  need  to  be  paid  to  the 
existence  of  dominant  players,  the  possible  reintroduction  of  national 
regulations  and  bundling  of  equipment  with  network  services  and  the  need 
for stability for manufacturers; 

•  Consider  how  to  ensure  a  coherent  legal  framework  for  avoiding  harmful 

interference from radio and other equipment; 

•  Ensure  coherence  of  the  Directive,  its  provisions  and  terminology  with  the 

Electronic Communications framework. 

•  Consider the application of art 3(3)f to include accessibility requirements for 
certain  types  of  terminals.  This  is  particularly  important  for  emergency 
equipment  where  accessibility  should  be  guaranteed.  To  this  extent 
discussions  should  be  launched  with  the  Member  States  to  clarify  the 
borderline between equipment and networks for issues related to accessibility 
and  to  undertake  joint  actions  to  foster  harmonised  solutions  at  European 
level. 

19. 

As regards the management of the Directive a number of actions are proposed: 

•  the co-operation between notified bodies (R&TTE Compliance Association) 
and the national spectrum regulators should be improved so as to ensure that 
the guidance on innovative products is not contentious. 

•  The  Commission  should  study  the  compatibility  of  technical  provisions  of 

local planning regulations for base stations with the Directive. 

20. 

As regards spectrum harmonisation and management: 

6 

 
 
  
 
•  Migrate  more  equipment  from  Class  2  (subject  to  national  restrictions)  to 
Class  1  (use  anywhere  in  the  Community).  The  Spectrum  Decision1  should 
be  used  to  arrive  at  more  harmonised  spectrum,  especially  for  consumer 
products and short-range devices. 

•  Launch discussions with Member States in the context of the Radio Spectrum 
Decisionon  streamlining 
frequency 
allocations  for  emerging  applications,  including  the  creation  of  possibilities 
for  experimentation  in  the  EU  so  as  to  arrive  at  a  more  permissive 
environment, which fosters competitiveness of EU industry;  

the  decision-making  process 

for 

•  Discuss in the same context the policy benefits of lowering access barriers to 
spectrum and on the potential for new technological developments to reduce 
the need for individual licences and rigid segmentation of the spectrum. 

21. 

As regards international trade: 

•  Given the level of deregulation existing and the substantial resources required 
for  managing  MRAs,  the  real  added  value  of  such  arrangements  for  EU 
manufacturers and certification interests is questionable. The Commission is 
studying  more  effective  ways  to  address  market  access  problems  for  EU 
manufacturers. 

1 

Activities  under  the  Radio  Spectrum  Decision  (676/2002/EC)  since  its  adoption  in  March  2002 
are due to be presented to the European Parliament in the first quarter of 2004, and willinclude a 
further analysis of the relationship of spectrum regulation with the R&TTE Directive. 

7 

 
 
  
 
                                                 
REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE COUNCIL AND 
THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT 

FIRST PROGRESS REPORT DIRECTIVE 1999/5/EC 
(THE R&TTE DIRECTIVE) 

(Text with EEA relevance) 

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

1. 

2. 

2.1. 

2.2. 

2.3. 

2.4. 

2.5. 

2.6. 

2.7. 

2.8. 

3. 

3.1. 

3.2. 

3.3. 

3.4. 

3.5. 

3.6. 

3.7. 

3.8. 

3.9. 

Introduction .................................................................................................................. 9 

Report on the operation of the Directive.................................................................... 10 

State of play implementation...................................................................................... 10 

Operation of TCAM ................................................................................................... 10 

Harmonised Standards................................................................................................ 11 

Commission Decisions............................................................................................... 12 

Notified Body operation............................................................................................. 13 

Market Surveillance ................................................................................................... 14 

Electromagnetic Fields............................................................................................... 16 

Jammers...................................................................................................................... 17 

Appreciation of the effectiveness of the Directive..................................................... 17 

General ....................................................................................................................... 17 

Compliance of radio equipment ................................................................................. 18 

No effects on network integrity.................................................................................. 18 

Problems identified by stakeholders .......................................................................... 18 

Divergences between the Directive’s objectives and provisions and national 
radio regulations......................................................................................................... 19 

Problems in obtaining information on spectrum ........................................................ 20 

Should terminal equipment continue to be regulated under this Directive? .............. 20 

The borderline of the Directive .................................................................................. 21 

Need to review the provisions governing non-compliance ........................................ 21 

3.10.  Relationship and overlaps with other Directives........................................................ 21 

4. 

5. 

International aspects................................................................................................... 22 

Conclusions ................................................................................................................ 24 

8 

 
 
  
 
1. 

INTRODUCTION 

The market for telecommunications and radio equipment accounted for around 80b€ in 2000 . 
After  years  of  growth  a  period  of  stagnation  has  followed,  notably  in  the  area  of 
telecommunications  equipment,  as  many  debt-laden  operators  have  minimised  investments. 
European industry is competitive in certain areas, in particular in the mobile communications 
area, but its continued competitiveness will depend amongst others on an innovation-friendly 
regulatory environment and well-functioning internal market. 

Directive  1999/5/EC  (the  R&TTE  Directive)  facilitates  the  creation  of  an  open  and 
competitive market in the Community by establishing a regulatory framework for the placing 
on  the  market,  free  movement  and  putting  into  service  of  radio  equipment  and 
telecommunications  terminal  equipment.  It  covers  a  wide  range  of  equipment,  including 
garage-door  openers,  hand  held  mobile  phones,  normal  telephones,  data  communication 
modems  and  antennas  used  for  mobile  networks.  The  previous  regime  (98/13/EC  ),  mainly 
based  on  mandatory  standards,  was  not  able  to  keep  up  with  changes  in  technology  and 
market  developments.  In  addition,  it  left  a  substantial  proportion  of  the  radio  equipment 
market covered by more than 1000 national regulations in the Member States. 

The  present  Directive  came  into  force  on  7  April  1999  and  its  transitional  provisions  were 
exhausted on 8 April 2001. Member States were required to transpose and apply its provisions 
no later than 8 April 2000. 

It  deals  with  spectrum  harmonisation  issues  to  the  extent  that  there  is  a  common  basis  for 
dealing  with  harmful  interference.  However,  there  is  no  mechanism  in  the  Directive  for 
addressing  the  basic  issue  of  fragmentation  of  spectrum  allocation  and  assignment,  which 
impacts the overall goal of supporting the single market for radio equipment. 

This  report  is  prepared  in  accordance  with  Article  17  of  the  Directive,  which  requires  the 
Commission to review the operation of the Directive and regularly report on its operation to 
the European Parliament and the Council specifically as regards: 

– 

– 

– 

– 

– 

progress on drawing up the relevant standards; 

problems that have arisen in the course of implementation; 

the activities of TCAM; 

progress in achieving an open and competitive market for apparatus; 

development of the regulatory framework for placing on the market and putting into 
service so as to: 

•  ensure a coherent system at Community level for all apparatus; 

•  allow  convergence  of  telecom,  audiovisual  and  information  technology  sectors; 

and 

•  enable harmonisation of regulatory measures at international level. 

9 

 
 
  
 
– 

– 

– 

examination of whether essential requirements are still necessary for all categories of 
apparatus; 

consideration  of  whether  the  procedures  of  Annex  IV  (seeking  a  notified  body 
opinion on a Technical Construction File) are proportionate for apparatus covered by 
that Annex; and 

proposals  for  further  measures  to  achieve  full  implementation  of  the  aim  of 
the Directive. 

Section  2  of  this  report  gives  a  factual  report  on  the  operation  of  the  Directive  since  its 
adoption,  following  which  section  3  appreciates  to  what  extent  the  Directive  has  been 
effective  in  meeting  its  objectives.  Section  4  addresses  international  aspects,  after  which 
section  5  concludes  with  a  number  of  recommendations  in-  and  outside  the  context  of  the 
Directive in order to achieve full implementation of the aim of the Directive. 

2. 

REPORT ON THE OPERATION OF THE DIRECTIVE 

2.1. 

State of play implementation 

The Directive is now applied throughout the EEA, Switzerland and most new Member States. 
Few Member States adopted the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to 
comply  with  the  Directive  before  the  7  April  2000  deadline.  Some  found  it  necessary  to 
introduce interim measures pending a full implementation in national law. 

Screening of the national implementations by the Commission has identified no divergences 
of substance in the basics texts. In large part, this is due to  the Steering Group and  Ad-hoc 
Groups  set  up  by  the  Commission  with  wide  representation  from  administrations,  NRAs, 
industry,  and  experts.  These  helped  in  interpreting  ambiguities  and  studied  key  areas  for 
decision  (essential  requirements,  equipment  classes,  interface  publications  and  surveillance) 
in advance of the first meeting of TCAM. 

Information  about  the  national  implementations  can  be  found  on  the  Europa  website2  .  The 
primary  instruments  appear  to  be  satisfactory  in  all  Member  States  but  the  secondary 
measures  leading  to  publication  of  interface  regulations  (Article  4(1))  and  technical 
specifications for network interfaces (Article 4(2)) do not yet seem to be fully effective. 

2.2. 

Operation of TCAM 

The  Standing  Committee  (Telecommunication  Conformity  Assessment  and  Market 
Surveillance  Committee  or  TCAM)  has  met  on  14  occasions  in  the  first  four  years  of 
operation.  The  committee  has  invited  representatives  from  the  new  Member  States, 
manufacturers,  network  operators,  standards  organisations  and  notified  bodies  to  participate 
as observers but meets in restriction session, when necessary. 

In  an  advisory  role,  the  committee  has  concentrated  on  finding  pragmatic  resolution  of 
ambiguities and interpretations of the basic text of the Directive. The fruits of this work have 
been made publicly available on the Europa website. Many of these issues could be resolved 
by  unanimously  supported  interpretations.  Lack  of  harmonised  implementation  on  certain 

2 

http://europa.eu.int/comm/enterprise/rtte 

10 

 
 
  
 
                                                 
secondary  aspects  of  the  Directive  (e.g.  the  types  of  apparatus  to  be  notified  to  spectrum 
authorities,  the  level  of  information  to  be  provided,  the  list  of  parameters  in  national  radio 
interface regulations) however remain. This complicates the application of the Directive and 
creates uncertainty for manufacturers. This could be avoided by introduction of mechanisms 
in the Directive, which allow for such interpretations to be rendered legally binding. 

In  its  regulatory  role,  the  committee  has  agreed  a  simple  equipment  classification  under 
Article 4(1) and considered a number of proposals for imposing essential requirements under 
Article 3(3) of the Directive. 

There  is  a  need  to  maintain  focus  on  policy  issues  in  the  formal  committee  and  ensure  that 
there is adequate preparatory discussion in suitably constituted sub-groups. Temporary ad-hoc 
groups  have  advised  on  radio  interface  definitions  and  equipment  classification.  A  more 
permanent sub-group, the “Administrative Co-operation Group” (ADCO) deals with matters 
of  direct  interest  between  national  administrations  such  as  surveillance  and  notifications  of 
non-harmonised spectrum use. 

Now  that  early  operational  issues  have  been  addressed,  TCAM  increasingly  focuses  on 
market  access  problems,  which  are  caused  by  lack  of  harmonisation  of  radio  spectrum  use. 
This  provides  opportunity  for  applying  the  Directive’s  provisions  to  identify  areas  where 
spectrum  fragmentation  in  the  Community  exists  and  where  harmonisation  would  be 
beneficial to the single market. In this connection it is important to develop an effective co-
operation  with  the  Radio  Spectrum  Committee  and  with  the  EU  national  radio  regulatory 
administrations. 

2.3. 

Harmonised Standards 

The  standards  organisations,  particularly  ETSI,  have  responded  well  to  the  challenge  to 
develop a set of harmonised standards supporting the Directive. A list of titles and reference 
numbers for relevant harmonised standards is published in the Official Journal and updated at 
approximately quarterly intervals3. 

There is no evidence that absence of harmonised standards is an obstacle to the operation of 
the Directive with, perhaps, the exception of the standards for RF exposure that are required 
to  support  the  Council  Recommendation  1999/519/EC4.  In  general,  some  work  directed 
towards rationalising and reducing the number of standards would be beneficial. 

The  Commission  observes  concerns  of  national  regulators  to  lower  access  barriers  to 
spectrum  by  allocating  more  spectrum  for  licence-free  or  exempt  applications.  There  is  at 
times  a  concern  expressed  by  regulators  for  widespread  “abuse”  of  this  approach  and  of  a 
consequent  unmanageable  situation.  A  trend  towards  introducing  detailed  rules  for  certain 
applications  in  ISM  bands  is  visible  (e.g.  2.4  GHz  band).  In  general  however  these  bands 
demonstrate that low barriers to spectrum foster innovation. A more effective application of 
the Directive and in particular of its Article 3(2) would be achieved by setting more equitable 

3 

4 

http://europa.eu.int/comm/enterprise/rtte/harstand.htm,  standards  published  under  the  “Low  Voltage” 
Directive  (73/23/EEC,  http://europa.eu.int/comm/enterprise/electr_equipment/lv/index.htm)  and  the 
EMC  Directive  (89/336/EEC,  http://europa.eu.int/comm/enterprise/electr_equipment/emc/index.htm) 
may  also  be  used  to  demonstrate  compliance  with  the  relevant  essential  requirements  of 
the R&TTE Directive. 
Council  Recommendation  1999/519/EC  of  12  July  1999  on  the  limitation  of  exposure  of  the  general 
public to electromagnetic fields (0 Hz to 300 GHz), OJ L 199 of 30.7.1999. 

11 

 
 
  
 
                                                 
and clear spectrum  co-habitation rules through harmonised standards. This is an aspect  of a 
wider discussion on lowering barriers to spectrum, addressed later in this report in Section 3. 

No  shortcomings  of  published  harmonised  standards  have  been  formally  identified  under 
Article  5  of  the  Directive.  Deficiencies  that  were  found  could  be  handled  directly  at 
standardisation  level  and  never  required  invoking  the  formal  safeguard  procedure. 
Accordingly, the Commission has not published any guidelines on interpretation or conditions 
of  compliance  as  permitted  under  Article  5(1).  Equally,  no  notices  to  withdraw  harmonised 
standards have been published for this reason. 

2.4. 

Commission Decisions 

2.4.1.  Additional product requirements 

The  Commission  has  consulted  with  TCAM  over  a  number  of  proposals  to  introduce 
particular  essential  requirements  under  Article  3(3).  Requirements  have  been  agreed  and 
corresponding  Commission  Decisions  5  published  in  relation  to:  avalanche  beacons,  radio 
equipment  used  on  vessels  for  certain  inland  waterways,  certain  equipment  intended  to 
participate in the Global Maritime Distress and Safety System (GMDSS) and equipment for 
the Automatic Identification of Ships (AIS) service. In all cases, the Decisions invoke Article 
3(3)  (e)  in  that  the  equipment  concerned  “supports  certain  features  ensuring  access  to 
emergency  services”.  More  specifically,  they  relate  to  securing  particular  safety  of  life 
services  and  are,  in  that  sense,  peripheral  to  the  original  aim  of  the  Directive.  A  further 
discussion  is  ongoing  on  the  possibility  of  the  Directive  (Article  3(3)  (d)  to  combat  the 
fraudulent use of stolen mobile phones. 

Other proposals for essential requirements under Article 3(3) have proved more controversial. 
Consideration  has  been  given,  for  example,  to  the  provision  of  emergency  access  from 
terminals  under  mains  power  fail  conditions  and  the  sensitivity  of  security  systems  to  false 
alarms.  After  discussions  within  TCAM,  the  Commission  concluded  that  such  requirements 
were not justified and could inhibit innovation. Market forces are such as to allow informed 
choices to be made in these cases.  

Ad-hoc groups were also set up to consider, in particular, Article 3(3) (f) “features in order to 
facilitate  use  by  users  with  a  disability”.  The  group  considered  a  considerable  number  of 
accessibility problems for people with disabilities to telecommunications equipment. Some of 
the issues were at the borderline with networks issues. It was found that: 

– 

– 

a  mandatory  requirement  for  assistive  equipment  to  be  interoperable  in  Europe  is 
needed. 

accessibility must be a requirement in emergency terminals and in public terminals. 

There are no Article 3(3) requirements for telecommunications terminal equipment (that is to 
say,  non-radio  equipment).  In  the  absence  of  Article  18(3)  requirements  (see  below),  this 
means that all essential requirements for such equipment are covered by Article 3(1). For this 
purpose, the standards harmonised under the Low Voltage and EMC Directives suffice. 

5 

A full list of Decisions adopted under the Directive is maintained on: 
http://europa.eu.int/comm/enterprise/rtte/decision/present.htm 

12 

 
 
  
 
                                                 
 
Under Article 18(3), the Commission accepted a request from France for additional technical 
requirements  to  protect  certain  features  of  the  national  voice  telephony  service.  A 
corresponding Commission Decision was published. The Decision is of little current practical 
significance and expired formally on 7 October 2002. No other Member State exercised this 
option. 

2.4.2.  Classification of equipment 

Assignment  of  an  equipment  class  identifier  in  accordance  with  Article 4(1)  proved  to  be  a 
substantive and ongoing task. An ad-hoc group studied the matter and recommended a very 
simple  classification  of  radio  equipment  into  two  categories.  This  was  given  effect  in 
Commission Decision 2000/299/EC6. Class 1 equipment carries no special mark and can be 
placed on the market and put into service anywhere in the Community. Class 2 carries an alert 
symbol signifying that particular national restrictions apply. An enquiry demonstrated that the 
new Member States have adapted their frequency spectrum to be compatible with the current 
Class 1 definitions. The Commission further aims to give legal certainty to the current Class 1 
list and to extend this list, by approving harmonisation technical implementing measures via 
Commission Decisions pursuant to the Spectrum Decision. 

Ongoing  consideration  of  class  identifiers  seems  to  have  served  to  emphasise  differences 
rather than focus on ways of extending Class 1. A proposal for a subdivision of Class 1 for 
equipment  that  is  technically  harmonised  but  for  which  there  are  national  administrative 
arrangements such as individual licence fees was not sustained. However, it was agreed that 
the  Class  2  indicative  list  on  the  Europa  web  site  should  be  annotated  to  show  whether 
notification of such items of equipment under Article 6(4) is required. The lack of alignment 
between  classes  and  the  need  for  equipment  to  be  notified  has  led  to  some  difficulties  and 
needs to be further looked into. There is however a risk that over-complex classification will 
hinder an open and competitive market and be too complex for consumers and manufacturers 
to understand. 

2.5. 

Notified Body operation 

The  role  of  Notified  Bodies  is  significantly  reduced  under  the  Directive.  The  conformity 
assessment procedure based on Full Quality Assurance (Module H of the Global Approach) is 
carried  over  from  the  previous  regime.  Otherwise,  there  are  no  explicit  test  or  certification 
activities.  Notified  Bodies  may  be  required  to  advise  on  appropriate  test  suites  for  radio 
products or to give an opinion on a Technical Construction File. 

Although manufacturers always have the choice of involving a Notified Body, they are under 
no  obligation  to  do  so  for  terminal  equipment  that  is  not  also  radio  equipment  or  for  radio 
equipment  that  is  covered  by  a  harmonised  standard  that  references  appropriate  test  suites7. 
Nevertheless,  the  voluntary  involvement  of  a  Notified  Body  using  the  procedures  of  Annex 
IV (Technical Construction File) is used. This suggests that such involvement might continue 
in the absence  of regulation and calls into question the  need to retain voluntary opinions or 
even  to  retain  mandatory  involvement  in  any  circumstances.  However,  one  aspect  that 

6 

7 

and  Telecommunications  Terminal  Equipment 

Commission  Decision  2000/299/EC  of  6  April  2000  establishing  the  initial  classification  of  Radio 
Equipment 
identifiers, 
OJ L 97 of 19.4.2000. 
In the absence of harmonised standards covering acoustic shock and health risks from electromagnetic 
fields,  a  discussion  developed,  whether  these  requirements  necessitated  notified  body  involvement. 
Such is legally the case, even though the legislator never intended this. 

associated 

and 

13 

 
 
  
 
                                                 
requires  study  is  whether  there  is  sufficient  harmonisation  in  the  way  opinions  are  given. 
There  is  lack  of  transparency  in  the  way  that  notified  bodies  are  appointed  for  this  purpose 
and  the  procedure  for  issuing  their  opinions.  Since  most  products  are  now  covered  by 
harmonised standards, the work of notified bodies can increasingly focus on innovative radio 
products.  Co-operation  between  notified  bodies  and  national  spectrum  regulators  needs  to 
ensure that such guidance is not contentious. 

Harmonised standards are available for most products and so it is perhaps surprising that the 
number of Notified Bodies has increased substantially since the Directive came into force. In 
many cases, organisations that had previously been appointed as Competent Bodies under the 
EMC  Directive  sought  designation  under  the  R&TTE  Directive.  The  explanation  of  this 
increase seems to have two components. 

First, the nature of the Notified Body tasks is simpler and so more bodies are able to perform 
them. The tasks do not necessitate investment in test equipment or other expensive facilities. 
The  Notified  Body  designation  is  therefore  a  marginal  addition  to  an  organisation  already 
active in the field of radio and telecommunications test or certification whether this is in the 
voluntary sphere or in relation to other directives. 

Second there are issues of market forces. For Notified Bodies, designation as a Notified Body 
is  perceived  as  an  advantage  in  a  highly  competitive  market.  Manufacturers  reinforce  this 
view. In so far as a manufacturer may choose to involve a third party in assessing conformity 
of his products, he is likely to choose one that is also able to act as a Notified Body even if 
such action is not required in a particular case. A virtuous relationship is thereby established 
that  encourages  use  of  a  Notified  Body  even  where  there  is  no  legal  obligation  so  to  do.  A 
similar  but  more  extreme  pattern  of  behaviour  has  been  observed  in  relation  to  the  Low 
Voltage  Directive  where  there  is  no  pre-market  conformity  assessment  role  defined  for 
Notified Bodies yet market forces endow value to such appointment. 

From outside the Community, there is a further dimension to this second point. The formally 
documented opinions of Notified Bodies quite often look like earlier type approval certificates 
and have gained some recognition in third countries as replacements for such certificates. 

In  response  to  Document  Certif.  94/68,  the  Notified  Bodies  have  established  the  R&TTE 
Compliance  Association,  which  has  a  liaison  officer  in  TCAM.  The  main  objective  of  the 
Association  is  to  ensure  coherency  between  opinions  issued  by  notified  bodies.  It  invites 
wider  participation  from  manufacturers,  test  laboratories,  and  conformity  assessment  bodies 
in  third  countries  but  reserves  the  possibility  of  notified  bodies  working  as  a  private  group 
with the Commission, if necessary. It is entirely self-funding and meets approximately twice 
each  year.  It  has  published  a  number  of  guidance  documents  to  its  membership  that  can  be 
freely downloaded at the Association’s website9. 

2.6.  Market Surveillance 

In moving away from a priori type approval schemes, effective market surveillance becomes a 
key  element  of  the  Directive.  Member  States  have  specific  responsibilities  for  dealing  with 
non-compliant  products  and  are  required  to  notify  the  Commission  of  the  authorities 

8 

9 

Framework  for  Co-ordination  and  Co-operation  between  Notified  Bodies,  Member  States  and  the 
European  Commission  under  the  Community  Harmonization  Directives  based  on  the  New  Approach 
and the Global Approach. 
http://www.rtteca.com 

14 

 
 
  
 
                                                 
responsible  for  surveillance  tasks.  However,  the  allocation  of  specific  duties  to  individual 
authorities and the operational detail are national matters. 

In some Member States organising the financing of market surveillance has proven difficult in 
the absence of a possibility to transfer its costs to manufacturers. In other Member States it is 
possible to transfer such costs, where products prove to be non-compliant. 

Against this background, the need for co-operation between administrations to exchange best 
practices  on  handling  non-compliant  products  is  particularly  important.  The  Group  of 
Administrative  Co-operation  under  the  R&TTE  Directive  (ADCO)  was  established  under 
TCAM with this particular aim in mind, even though it initially focused on other matters. To 
some extent, ADCO parallels CEPT ECC working group RR11 that has worked on a report 
on  enforcement  aspects  of  market  surveillance.  The  scope  of  RR11  is  broader  than  market 
surveillance in the context of the Directive. It includes mechanisms to verify compliance with 
licence  conditions,  for  example.  ADCO  and  RR11  increasingly  co-operate,  recently  on  a 
campaign on administrative non-compliance. 

The  results  of  a  survey  supporting  work  on  the  RR11  report  show  a  wide  variety  of 
surveillance practices between the Member States. Some only act on the basis of a complaint, 
others have structured programmes for random and routine surveillance activities. The extent 
of  these  activities  would  typically  be  limited  by  available  budget.  Effective  co-operation 
between the various authorities to ensure an effective and uniform surveillance in the EU has 
not  fully  developed.  Electronic  means  to  exchange  information  has  been  put  into  place,  but 
seem insufficiently effective. 

Given the extent of the changes that the Directive has brought, particularly the reduction of 
pre-market  controls  on  radio  equipment,  it  might  be  expected  that  there  would  have  been  a 
significant  number  of  safeguard  notifications.  However,  this  is  as  yet  not  the  case.  As  per 
1 June 2003 only 20 such actions have been notified by only 3 Member States, out of which 1 
dealt  solely  with  EMC  compliance.  It  is  however  expected  that,  once  stable,  the  amount  of 
safeguards would be comparable to those under the EMC Directive, i.e. between 100-200 per 
year. The campaign on administrative compliance has shown a high level of non-compliance, 
demonstrating  that  manufacturers  are  insufficiently  aware  of  their  obligations  under  the 
Directive, which thus may be too complex. 

Experience  with  the  notified  safeguard  actions  has  clearly  demonstrated  that  the  formal 
procedure of Article 9 is too burdensome and the time to deliver an official opinion too long 
(typically  between  6  to  12  months).  The  provisions  of  the  Directive  are  not  realistic.  They 
oblige the Commission to give an opinion on all notified safeguard actions. Where products 
are not further on the Community market as result of the national action and the manufacturer 
doesn’t object to the action, the added value of such an opinion is questionable. This opinion 
should  further  be  adopted  within  2  months  of  the  notification,  after  having  consulted  the 
standing  committee.  As  in  reality  Member  States  take  also  about  6  to  12  months  to  notify 
national  measures,  this  implies  that  by  the  time  the  Commission  adopts  its  opinion,  the 
product wasn’t on the market anymore for 1-2 years. 

This situation calls for a fundamental review of the purpose and the detail of the procedures of 
the Directive, that aim at ensuring effective market surveillance and an efficient handling of 
non-compliant  products.  This  situation  is  not  specific  to  this  Directive.  The  Council,  in  its 
Resolution  on  the  New  Approach  communication  calls  for  a  horizontal  review  of  such 
provisions. 

15 

 
 
  
 
2.7. 

Electromagnetic Fields 

Council Recommendation 1999/519/EC set a framework to limit the exposure of the general 
public  in  the  range  0  Hz  to  300  GHz.  Prior  to  this,  mandates  had  been  issued  to  CEN, 
CENELEC and ETSI to develop  standards covering the effects of the most commonly  used 
frequency ranges, in particular, those used by GSM equipment. 

The  level  of  public  concern  about  electromagnetic  fields  is  evidenced  by  the  number  of 
parliamentary  questions  raised  on  the  matter  (over  30  written  questions  10  in  the  period  to 
August  2003).  Overall,  questions  about  base  stations  (informally  often  referred  to  as  masts) 
have  been  more  frequent  than  questions  about  handsets,  probably  because  of  the  more 
obvious visible impact of masts. 

Article  3(1)  (a)  of  the  R&TTE  Directive  sets  out  the  following  essential  requirement:  “the 
protection of the health and safety of the user and any other person, including the objectives 
with respect to safety requirements contained in Directive 73/23/EEC11, but with no voltage 
limit12  applying.”  The  essential  requirement  clearly  affords  protection  from  all  apparatus 
covered by the R&TTE Directive including battery operated radio equipment such as mobile 
phones which are not covered by Directive 73/23/EEC itself. 

Progress  under  the  original  mandates  was  poor.  The  mandates  were  updated  in  2000  to 
reference  the  Council  Recommendation  and  the  R&TTE  Directive.  The  urgency  of  the 
harmonised  standards  covering  GSM  handsets,  in  particular,  was  emphasised.  These  and 
became  available  in  summer  2001.  Others  covering  low  power  devices  and  anti-theft  ports 
have since been adopted. 

Standards  for  base  stations  will  address  equipment,  installation  and  in  situ  measurement 
aspects and so should provide complete coverage of exposure effects from mobile masts. In 
the  context  of  the  R&TTE  Directive,  these  standards  give  equipment  a  presumption  of 
conformity  to  the  essential  requirements  “when  it  is  properly  installed  and  maintained  and 
used  for  its  intended  purpose”.  Since  masts  will  often  accommodate  several  items  of 
equipment,  possibly  belonging  to  more  than  one  network  operator,  then  it  is  clear  that 
“putting into service” of each item must take account of the aggregate effect of all equipment. 
Pending the availability of all the relevant standards from CENELEC, Member States are at 
liberty to operate national standards13 interpreting the essential requirements of the Directive. 
Article 7(2) further allows Member States to limit the putting into service of base stations and 
other  radio  equipment  for  reasons  related  to  health.  The  Commission  stresses  that  technical 
aspects  of  such  regulations  must  be  notified  under  Directive  98/34/EC.  Such  regulations 
should not seek to impose more onerous limits than envisaged by the Directive. Many of such 
regulations are issued as planning regulations at local or regional level and it is unclear as to 
whether they must be notified. They typically lay down co-location  obligations to minimise 
the number of masts, minimum distances of masts from the public or the prohibition to build 
masts  close  to  schools  and  hospitals.  The  main  objective  of  these  regulations  is  to  address 

10 
11 

12 
13 

to 

electrical 

http://www.europa.eu.int/comm/enterprise/rtte/questions.htm 
Council Directive 73/23/EC of 19 February 1973 on the harmonization of the laws of Member States 
relating 
limits, 
OJ L 77 p. 29 of 26.3.1973 
The term “voltage” here applies to the supply voltage of equipment. 
See, for example, the Commission’s “Implementation report on the Council Recommendation limiting 
the  public 
at 
fields 
http://europa.eu.int/comm/health/ph/programmes/pollution/implement_rep_en.pdf 

to  300  GHz)” 

electromagnetic 

use  within 

equipment 

exposure 

available 

designed 

(0  Hz 

voltage 

certain 

for 

to 

16 

 
 
  
 
                                                 
public concern on perceived health hazards of masts. With few exceptions exposure from base 
stations is in practice greatly (a factor of 1000-100.000) below the limits recommended by the 
Council,  which  is  considered  to  give  a  high  protection  against  adverse  effects.  It  should  be 
considered however that the positioning of masts at large distances from the public leads to 
higher exposure levels as the power required for communication rises with distance and thus 
runs counter to the objective to lower exposure levels. 

Directorate-General Health and Consumer Protection reviewed the suitability of the Council 
Recommendation as a framework for ongoing standardisation work on electromagnetic fields 
in late 2001. Its Scientific Committee on Toxicity, Ecotoxicity and the Environment (CSTEE) 
issued  an  “Opinion  on  Possible  effects  of  Electromagnetic  Fields  (EMF,  Radio  Frequency 
Fields  (RF)  and  Microwave  Radiation  on  human  health”  in  Brussels  on  30  October  2001. 
They concluded that the additional information that had become available in recent years did 
not justify a revision of the exposure limits set in the Council Recommendation and that there 
was  insufficient  scientific  evidence  to  propose  an  alternative.  A  further  review  of  this 
recommendation is foreseen for 2004. 

2.8. 

Jammers 

With the widespread deployment of mobile services, notably GSM, the need has arisen to deal 
with  social  problems  caused  by  inappropriate  use  (irritating  ring  tones  and  usage),  but  also 
with security and safety concerns (in prisons or hospitals, for instance). Although in general 
one relies on voluntary mechanisms to deal with such problems (signs forbidding use, social 
controls,  banning  of  handsets),  some  interested  parties  have  expressed  the  desire  to  address 
them  by  preventing  the  communications  through  technical  means.  This  development  has 
given  rise  to  major  concerns  in  the  standing  committee  and  other  regulatory  fora.  Such  an 
approach  would  legalise  the  sales  and  uncontrolled  deployment  of  so-called  “simple 
jammers”. These could have the effect of creating a large number of holes in GSM coverage 
and  associated  reduction  of  quality  of  service  and  access  to  emergency  services,  as  well  as 
voiding part of the coverage legally granted to operators via licences. 

For  the  time  being  (November  2003)  these  devices  remain  illegal  as  no  Member  State  has 
introduced  a  concrete  regulation,  which  specifies  the  conditions  under  which  they  can  be 
used.  It  is  also  imperative  for  public  authorities  in  the  EU  to  engage  in  an  informed  debate 
with  those  organisations,  which  seek  to  ban  generic  GSM  communications  in  some  places. 
Solutions  need  to  be  found  which  are  effective  in  achieving  this  goal,  but  which  do  not 
undermine the widespread availability of mobile communications. 

3. 

APPRECIATION OF THE EFFECTIVENESS OF THE DIRECTIVE 

3.1. 

General 

The  experience  with  the  Directive  is  positive.  The  single  market  for  radio  equipment  and 
telecommunication  terminal  equipment  has  improved  substantially  with  the  removal  of 
divergent national administrative procedures and increased reliance on harmonised standards 
instead of national type approvals. The simplified procedures reduce administrative work for 
manufacturers, administrations and certification agencies. The consequent consolidation in the 
EU certification industry has given rise to some job losses but this is not significant compared 
with other major economic factors that have affected the telecommunications industry. 

17 

 
 
  
 
3.2. 

Compliance of radio equipment 

No increase in harmful radio interference has become apparent. Initial surveillance results do 
demonstrate  some  technical  non-compliance,  but  there  are  no  indications  that  this  is  higher 
than under previous regimes. At the end of 2002 a special market surveillance campaign was 
started  in  a  number  of  Member  States,  which  focused  on  administrative  non-compliance 
(incorrect  marking,  information  provision,  etc.).  This  campaign  demonstrated  a  high  rate  of 
non-compliance, although it does not seem that such administrative non-compliance correlates 
either  with  technical  non-compliance  and  increased  interference  or  with  problems  for 
consumers.  This  puts 
these  provisions.  Some 
manufacturers seem to incorrectly assume that a notified body opinion is not required in the 
absence of harmonised standards covering health and safety requirements. 

the  proportionality  of 

into  question 

3.3. 

No effects on network integrity 

The  integrity  of  public  telecommunication  networks  has  not  been  compromised  and 
accordingly  it  has  not  proved  necessary  to  impose  interworking  requirements  on  terminal 
equipment. There are indications that some network operators introduced former conformity 
assessment  requirements  as  part  of  their  procurement  specifications  or  position  the  network 
demarcation  point  so  as  to  maintain  certain  equipment within the network itself.  Notably in 
the mobile area a development of bundling of equipment with (notably multimedia) services 
becomes visible, which risks affecting consumers choice. 

3.4. 

Problems identified by stakeholders 

A  fact-finding  exercise  in  TCAM  identified  problems  observed  by  the  Member  States  and 
other  stakeholders.  The  most  frequently  raised  issues  were  user  information  (marking, 
labelling  &  instructions)  under  Articles  6(3);  notification  of  radio  equipment  using  non-
harmonised spectrum under Article 6(4) (which some Member States consider a superfluous 
obligation) and notification of interfaces under Article 4 of the Directive. A large number of 
comments were also made about various aspects of the conformity assessment procedures but 
without any single issue prevailing. 

Points  raised  on  Article  4(1)  relate  mostly  to  administrations’  concerns  about  potential 
overlap with similar obligations to notify technical regulations under Directive 98/34/EC. The 
points  on  Article  4(2)  come  from  the  much  smaller  representation  of  manufacturers  and 
operators who have concerns about disclosure of proprietary information, its required content 
and the potential impact on commercial advantage. In consideration of these latter points and 
noting  that  not  all  Member  States  have  ensured  publication  of  all  network  interfaces,  the 
publication  of  network  interface  information  by  operators  of  public  telecommunications 
networks is seen as disproportionate for smaller operators. It should be discussed whether this 
should be restricted to those operators having significant market power. Manufacturers wish 
those to be readily available, where possible on the Internet. 

A small number of linguistic deviations in the Directive texts in the official languages were 
noted and corrected. 

The  issues  of  user  information  (which  are  not  considered  as  proportional  by  some)  and 
conformity assessment are of a horizontal nature and are best addressed in the overall review 
of  New  Approach  Directives.  For  apparatus  that  is  not  radio  equipment,  there  are  no  other 
issues. 

18 

 
 
  
 
For  radio  equipment,  the  TCAM  exercise  did  identify  issues  of  practical  significance  and 
these  do  impair  the  full  positive  benefits  of  the  Directive.  For  the  most  part,  they  involve 
secondary  measures  in  national  implementations  and  matters  outside  the  strict  scope  of  the 
Directive such as national spectrum planning and associated restrictions. 

3.5. 

Divergences  between  the  Directive’s  objectives  and  provisions  and  national 
radio regulations 

Harmonised  standards  developed  by  ETSI  do  take  account  of  compatibility  studies  and  an 
MoU between ETSI and the CEPT ECC ensures that radio regulatory elements are taken into 
account in them. Radio regulators in some Member States have nonetheless difficulties with 
the  role  of  standardisation  and  harmonised  standards  as  an  element  in  the  radio  regulatory 
environment.  A  number  of  interface  regulations  were  notified  to  the  Commission  under  the 
procedures set by Directive 98/34/EC, which regulated matters covered by the Directive and 
on  which  the  Commission  had  to  issue  observations  or  detailed  opinions.  In  a  number  of 
cases,  such  regulations  put  into  place  usage  conditions,  which  were  conflicting  with 
requirements  in  harmonised  standards.  Some  radio  regulators  seem  to  have  insufficient 
confidence in the standardisation infrastructure, resulting in a tendency to maintain decisions 
on  market  access  for  specific  technologies  as  a  radio  regulatory  prerogative.  This  generates 
tension with the aims of the Directive, which envisages transparent spectrum usage rules and 
an innovation friendly environment. 

Rules for obtaining access to spectrum and the decision-making process for new allocations 
have  historically  not  been  harmonised  in  the  EU.  Obtaining  spectrum  for  new  technologies 
currently  requires  substantial  investments  in  “lobbying”  efforts,  technical  compatibility 
studies, time and sometimes usage or access fees. These hurdles specifically affect Small and 
Medium sized Enterprises and stifle innovation. The Commission observes that in potentially 
important new technological domains, the development of harmonised regulatory decisions in 
Europe  allowing  access  to  the  radio  spectrum  have  lagged  behind  those  in  other  major 
economies. There is a risk that an inflexible regulatory framework will make the EU appear 
less  attractive  for  innovative  products  than  the USA,  where  there  is  a  more  transparent  and 
integrated procedure for rule making, and a greater degree of urgency to let new technologies 
be  validated  in  the  marketplace.  The  Commission  has  set  up  an  advisory  Radio  Spectrum 
Policy  Group14  which  may  be  the  appropriate  forum  to  have  a  policy  discussion  on  how 
decision-making  can  be  streamlined  and  accelerated.  This  should  include  possibilities  for 
experimental  use  within  the  EU  to  assist  compatibility  studies,  which  until  now  are  largely 
theoretical,  and  the  development  of  more  transparent  procedures  leading  to  EU  harmonised 
decisions on spectrum access.  

An important aspect of such discussions will be under which conditions spectrum use should 
be regulated through explicit licensing of users and/or devices and strong segmentation of the 
spectrum in terms of different technology-specific regulation of spectrum use in the different 
Member  States.  Experience  in  ISM  bands  has  demonstrated  that  making  available  generic 
licence-free spectrum (spectrum “free ways”) with co-habitation rules (the “traffic rules” laid 
down  in  harmonised  standards)  to  have  devices  gracefully  share  spectrum,  can  foster 
innovation. This certainly applies to short-range devices, which form an increasing part of the 
radio  equipment  market.  At  the  same  time,  an  issue  for  consideration  is  the  possibility  to 
make  greater  use  of  more  flexible  and  less  technology-dependent  conditions  for  use  of 

14 

http://europa.eu.int/information_society/topics/ecomm/doc/ 
shortcuts/radiospectrum/word/radio_spectrum_policy_ group_decision/en.doc 

19 

 
 
  
 
                                                 
licensed  spectrum  bands.  New  technological  developments  (cognitive  devices,  Software 
Defined Radio, Ultra Wide Band) will allow regulators to be more flexible and to rely more 
on  technology  to  ensure  efficient  and  interference-free  spectrum  use.  It  is  important  for  the 
EU to have a common and permissive policy to allow such technologies to develop, resulting 
in clear rules (and harmonised standards) for the construction of products.  

3.6. 

Problems in obtaining information on spectrum 

From  a  manufacturer’s  perspective  information  on  spectrum  use  is  not  easily  accessible.  It 
took  until  2003  to  harmonise  the  format  of  notifications  for  equipment  that  uses  non-
harmonised spectrum in accordance with Article 6(4). There is a reluctance to apply internal 
market  principles  to  such  matters.  Many  spectrum  plans  have  been  published  but  are  not 
providing  information  essential  for  equipment  design  and  placing  on  the  market  such  as 
licensing  conditions.  Furthermore,  there  is  a  lack  of  harmonisation  in  technical  licensing 
conditions. This has resulted in manufacturers “probing” Member States with notifications of 
their intention to place equipment on the market in order to obtain spectrum information and 
legal  certainty.  Although  the  notification  procedure  thus  serves  as  a  method  for  providing 
information  for  manufacturers,  this  demonstrates  that  attempts  to  make  information  on 
spectrum usage rules available at European level (notably through the EFIS15 project) have as 
yet not been sufficient. 

Only  a  limited  list  of  harmonised  frequency  bands  where  there  is  no  need  for  equipment 
notification has been established. Progress is hampered by diverging details in spectrum usage 
rules, even where the frequency band itself is harmonised. There is a need for a mechanism to 
compare  each  notified  regulation  with  the  regulation  of  other  Member  States  and  a  need  to 
effectively  render  specific  CEPT  spectrum  harmonisation  measures  mandatory  in  the  EU 
through the Radio Spectrum Decision16. This Decision itself establishes the need to improve 
the  delivery  of  information  on  spectrum  usage  conditions  in  the  EU,  and  a  constructive 
synergy between the information requirements of these two acts will be beneficial. 

In any event, a relative lack of information does make it difficult for manufacturers to identify 
all the conditions that must be met before a product can be used in a particular Member State. 

3.7. 

Should terminal equipment continue to be regulated under this Directive? 

The absence of any essential requirements under Article 3.3 for telecommunications terminal 
equipment  that  is  not  radio  equipment  and  the  expiry  of  the  opportunity  for  special 
requirements  for  such  equipment  under  Article  18.3  mean  that  the  only  relevant  essential 
requirement for such equipment are those of Article 3.1. This article directly cross-references 
the protection requirements of Directives 73/23/EEC and 89/336/EEC. The question therefore 
arises whether telecommunications terminal equipment could be removed from this Directive 
and  handled  under  general  competition  law  and  the  horizontal  LVD  and  EMC  measures 
(assuming that the lower voltage limit of the LVD will be removed during its revision). In so 
doing,  note  must  be  taken  that  there  are  still  dominant  players  in  this  market  and  that 
administrative  provisions  of  these  Directives  differ  from  those  of  the  R&TTE  Directive. 
Attention  would  have  to  be  given  to  preventing  the  reintroduction  of  national  terminal 
regulations,  the  need  for  stability  for  industry  and  the  bundling  of  equipment  with  network 

15 
16 

http://www.efis.dk/search/general  
Decision 676/2002/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 March 2002 on a regulatory 
framework  for  radio  spectrum  policy  in  the  European  Community  (Radio  Spectrum  Decision) 
OJ L 108 of 24.4.2002. 

20 

 
 
  
 
                                                 
services,  e.g.  by  maintaining  existing  obligations  on  the  publication  of  network  interfaces 
under  services  regulations.  This  will  be  offset  by  the  further  liberalisation  of  this  class  of 
equipment  and  removal  of  the  ambiguity  that  arises  in  respect  of  equipment  that  has 
application  both  as  a  terminal  and  as  component  of  a  public  telecommunications  network 
infrastructure17. 

Another  issue  to  consider  before  deciding  to  exclude  telecom  terminal  equipment  from  the 
R&TTE  is  whether  accessibility  that  could  be  fostered  via  the  application  of  article  3(3).f 
could be properly safeguarded by the use of other directives instead. 

3.8. 

The borderline of the Directive 

The  application  of  the  Directive  to  equipment  that  operates  in  aeronautical  bands  must  be 
reviewed.  The  exclusions  of  annex  I  are  ambiguous  and  are  interpreted  differently  between 
Member  States.  The  Commission  has  made  proposals  to  the  Council  to  handle  such 
equipment in separate Directives. 

The  restriction  of  the  Directive  to  only  cover  “radio  communications”  equipment  has  given 
rise to discussions on coverage of e.g. jammers, radars and radar detectors. Even though the 
application  of  the  Directive  was  clarified  for  such  equipment,  defining  its  coverage  as 
“equipment, capable of emitting and/or receiving radio waves” would facilitate the operation 
of the Directive. 

3.9. 

Need to review the provisions governing non-compliance 

Proper  operation  of  the  Directive  depends  on  an  efficient  and  effective  market  surveillance 
system  uniformly  applied  in  Member  States.  This  has  yet  to  be  fully  developed  and  a  clear 
picture  of  market  surveillance  activity  and  its  findings  to  emerge.  Non-enforcement  of  the 
surveillance  aspects  of  the  Directive  risks  undermining  the  level  of  compliance,  notably  of 
radio  products.  The  overall  review  of  the  New  Approach  Directives  will  look  at  the 
generalities  of  this,  but  as  yet  the  mechanisms  supporting  day  to  day  co-operation  are 
insufficient. 

3.10.  Relationship and overlaps with other Directives 

For historic reasons a distinction is made in the regulatory treatment of interference caused by 
intentional radio transmitters (now covered by the Directive, in the past by national approval 
regulations) and by interference of non-intentional radiators (covered by the EMC Directive). 
The  main  aim  of  both  Directives  is  to  avoid  interference  to  radio  and  telecommunication 
services.  The  question  arises  whether  the  diverging  provisions  in  the  two  Directives  are 
justified.  The  present  situation  is  not  favourable  to  the  development  of  the  market  for  low 
power  radio devices.Medical equipment and  notably inductively coupled medical  devices at 
175 kHz are a case in point. TCAM asked the ECC group in CEPT to address this matter and 
to find a general solution for such type of devices in April 2001. Progress was made with the 
inclusion of changes in ECC Recommendation 70-03 in July 2002. At the date of this report 

17 

Infrastructure equipment (other than radio equipment) used in telecommunications networks is not in 
the scope of the Directive and should not be regulated beyond the requirements of the Low Voltage 
Directive (73/23/EEC) and the EMC Directive (89/336/EE). However, one Member State tolerates a 
national approval regime for non-radio infrastructure equipment. This fragments the market for 
xDSL broadband access modems, in particular. 

21 

 
 
  
 
                                                 
implementation of that recommendation in some Member States is however pending, reason 
for which a solution using the Radio Spectrum Decision provisions should be considered. 

Some Member States have started to introduce national regulations to deal with interference 
caused by cables used in telecommunication networks using Power Line Telecommunication, 
xDSL,  coax  cable  or  Local  Area  Network  technologies  outside  the  context  of  the  current 
R&TTE or EMC Directives. After discussion, it was agreed that these are EMC phenomena, 
which  are  already  covered  by  the  existing  Directives.  Setting  appropriate  harmonised 
standards  under  these  Directives  has  proven  to  be  a  difficult  and  even  contentious  exercise. 
The  Commission  is  pursuing  discussions  on  this  issue  with  Member  States  in  all 
appropriate fora18. 

The  impact  of  the  regulatory  framework  for  electronic  communications  services  on  this 
Directive  is  as  yet  unclear.  That  framework  goes  beyond  the  traditional  scope  of  public 
telecommunications, which still remains the basis for the R&TTE Directive. The abolition of 
the  term  public  telecommunications  network  and  the  non-harmonised  treatment  of  new 
technologies  by  Member  States  were  identified  by  industry  as  potential  issues.  The  next 
review  of  the  regulatory  framework  for  electronic  communications  2006  provides  for  an 
opportunity to address these issues. 

There  is  overlap  in  coverage  of  requirements  under  this  Directive  and  the  Directive  on 
electromagnetic compatibility of equipment intended for use in motor vehicles (95/54/EEC). 
The Commission intends to address these issues in a review of that Directive. 

4. 

INTERNATIONAL ASPECTS 

Article  16  of  the  Directive  addresses  matters  relating  to  placing  on  the  market  in  third 
countries. These barriers consist of a mix of conformity assessment, administrative and tariff 
barriers.  Several  policies  have  been  pursued  so  as  to  lower  market  access  barriers  for  EU 
industry. 

Protocols to the Europe Agreements on Conformity Assessment and Acceptance of Industrial 
Products  (PECAs)  aim  at  integrating  the  markets  of  candidate  Member  States  prior  to 
accession. Under the PECAs, the candidates should approximate their legislation to that of the 
Community.  Even  though  a  number  of  PECAs  under  negotiation  included  R&TTE  only  a 
single agreement includes R&TTE (Malta). 

A  special  Mutual  Recognition  Agreement,  based  on  the  R&TTE  Directive,  has  been 
concluded with Switzerland that integrates its regime with the arrangements in the EU. 

Other  (MRAs)  have  been  concluded  between  the  EU  and  Australia,  Canada,  Japan,  New 
Zealand  and  the  USA.  Each  of  these  includes  a  Telecommunications  sectoral  annex  that 
allows  for  certain  conformity  assessment  procedures  of  the  respective  third  country  to  be 
undertaken  by  designated  organisations  (Conformity  Assessment  Bodies,  CABs)  in  the  EU 
and  vice-versa.  On  the  part  of  the  EU,  the  procedures  in  question  are  those  of  the  R&TTE 
Directive. In the third countries, they are the respective national procedures. 

18 

Proceedings of a recent workshop on this matter can be found on 
http://europa.eu.int/comm/enterprise/electr_equipment/emc/plcworkshop.htm 

22 

 
 
  
 
                                                 
The EU has managed to secure recognition of a number of CABs under these agreements and 
thus  to  facilitate  access  to  these  third  country  markets.  However,  the  MRA  approach  has 
shown severe limitations. Principally, they underline the differences in technical regulations 
with  little  opportunity  for  harmonisation  even  where  there  is  technical  compatibility. 
Sustaining these differences is resource intensive both for the Commission and the Member 
States. 

This is compounded by the contrast between the totally integrated approach for safety EMC 
and radio compliance under the R&TTE Directive and the separate provision of all or some of 
these in third country legislation. This means that for telecommunication products entering the 
third country from Europe it is necessary to apply more than one of the Sectoral Annexes of 
the MRA (typically Safety and EMC in addition to telecommunications). A particular case in 
point is the USA where discussion with the Occupational Health and Safety Agency (OSHA) 
on  implementation  of  the  Safety  Annex,  which  is  equally  required  for  telecommunications 
equipment,  has  been  suspended.  The  considerable  efforts  and  success  in  bringing  the 
telecommunications arrangements to the operational phase are therefore frustrated for exports 
from the EU to the USA. 

In contrast, the R&TTE Directive approach is integrated and straightforward. Deregulation in 
some  other  markets  such  as  Australia  and  New  Zealand  has  substantially  reduced  market 
access barriers and calls into question the usefulness of further work on MRAs. On the other 
hand,  de-facto  voluntary  technical  requirements  and  certification  schemes  such  as  VCCI  in 
Japan can present barriers outside the scope of an MRA. 

For reasons such as these, the direct real added value of the agreements for EU manufacturers 
and certification interests remains to be demonstrated. An indirect effect of the MRAs is that 
it  fosters  harmonisation  through  exchange  of  good  practices  and  a  better  understanding  of 
problems caused by the differences between the legal systems. Various systems have already 
been simplified, partially resulting from such contacts. Unfortunately, lack of resource on the 
part of the Commission and the regulators in the EU has meant that it has not been possible to 
make an appropriate allocation to pursue of the MRA dossiers. 

Outside the context of the MRAs, the World Trade Organisation has put in place a Non-Tariff 
Measures Work Programme in the context of the Information Technology Agreement (ITA). 
This embraces not only conformity assessment and other technical measures but also issues 
such as customs procedures, import licensing, government procurement etc. On the technical 
measures,  an  in-depth  study  of  EMC  issues  has  been  performed,  demonstrating  that  market 
access barriers are mainly related to conformity assessment procedures and less to diverging 
technical standards. 

The  United  Nations  Economic  Commission  for  Europe  has  a  Working  Party  on  Technical 
Harmonisation and Standardisation policies. It provides opportunity to exchange information 
on implementing various regulatory and standardisation policies and makes recommendations 
for harmonising policies. Initiatives have been taken to apply their proposed global model on 
conformity  assessment,  with  which  the  New  Approach19  is  compatible,  to  a  certain  set  of 
R&TTE products. 

19 

http://www.unece.org/trade/tips/docs/wp6_01/model-17r4e.doc 

23 

 
 
  
 
                                                 
The OECD has performed a study on “Standards-Related Barriers and Trade Liberalisation: 
Telecommunications  Sector”20.  It  has  been  found  that  regulatory  simplification  could  be 
achieved  by 
interoperability 
requirements  especially  for  radio  interfaces  and  reliance  on  suppliers’  declaration  of 
conformity for conformity assessment. 

international  standards,  removal  of 

increasing  use  of 

Strategies to lower trade barriers for EU industry need to be reviewed. The current focus on 
MRAs seems ineffective. 

5. 

CONCLUSIONS 

The  Directive  has  successfully  achieved  its  original  objectives.  However,  the  creation  of  an 
internal market for Radio & Telecommunications Equipment, which promotes innovation and 
fosters  competitiveness  continues  to  be  hampered  by  matters  beyond  its  scope.  Further 
progress  in  achieving  these  objectives  depends on  harmonising  and  facilitating  the  rules  for 
getting access to spectrum for new applications and for using the radio spectrum. 

The nature of the difficulties experienced in operating this Directive does not justify a change 
in policy. Some observed deficiencies and experiences however merit a limited revision of its 
legal provisions: 

•  Possibilities  should  be  created  for  rendering 

implementing  details  and 
interpretations of the Directive legally binding through a commitology procedure; 

•  It  should  be  studied  whether  sector  specific  regulations  should  not  replace  the 
current use of Article 3(3) Decisions for “safety of life” and other public interest 
purposes. 

•  Its application to aeronautical equipment should be clarified, whereas it should be 
considered  whether  radio  equipment  that  is  not  used  for  radiocommunication 
should be included. 

•  The  provisions  on  the  handling  of  non-compliant  products  must  be  improved.  It 
needs to be ensured that these provisions ensure efficient market surveillance, that 
the use of resources is optimised that formal Commission opinions are only called 
for in contentious cases of non-compliance; 

•  Requirements  for  user  information,  marking  and  other  administrative  provisions 
arising under this Directive and other New Approach Directives (particularly the 
Low Voltage and EMC Directives) should be reviewed and aligned. Obligations 
in  this  respect  must  be  proportional  to  the  objective;  consider  how  to  make 
relevant  information  accessible  to  all  types  of  users,  in  particular  the  disabled, 
where relevant; 

•  There is a need to review whether certain provisions obliging operators to publish 

the characteristics of their networks could be removed for smaller operators; 

•  It  should  be  considered  whether  terminal  equipment  that  is  not  radio  equipment 
could be removed from the Directive and thus only be covered by the EMC and 

20 

http://www.olis.oecd.org/olis/2001doc.nsf/LinkTo/td-tc-wp(2001)11-final  

24 

 
 
  
 
                                                 
Low  Voltage  Directives.  In  so  doing,  attention  would  need  to  be  paid  to  the 
existence of dominant players, the possible reintroduction of national regulations 
and  bundling  of  equipment  with  network  services  and  the  need  for  stability  for 
manufacturers; 

•  It should be considered how to ensure a coherent regime governing interference to 

the radio frequency spectrum from both radio and other products; 

•  Ensure  that  the  provisions  and  terminology  of  the  Directive  are  rendered 

compatible with the Electronic Communications framework. 

Consider the application of art 3(3).f to include accessibility requirements for certain types of 
terminals. This is particularly important for emergency equipment where accessibility should 
be  guaranteed.  To  this  extent  discussions  should  be  launched  with  the  Member  States  to 
clarify the borderline between equipment and networks for issues related to accessibility and 
to undertake joint actions to foster harmonised solutions at European level.Within the context 
of  the  current  Directive,  a  number  of  actions  are  proposed  with  the  aim  to  improve  its 
application: 

•  The co-operation between notified bodies (R&TTE Compliance Association) and 
the national spectrum regulators should be improved so as to ensure that guidance 
on innovative products is not contentious. 

•  The  Commission  should  study  the  compatibility  of  technical  provisions  of  local 

planning regulations for base stations with the Directive. 

As further measures to achieve full implementation of the aim of creating an internal market 
for  Radio  &  Telecommunications  Equipment,  which  promotes  innovation  and  fosters 
competitiveness the following actions are proposed: 

•  More equipment should be migrated from Class 2 (subject to national restrictions) 
to Class 1 (use anywhere in the Community). The Spectrum Decision should be 
used to arrive at more harmonised spectrum, especially for consumer products and 
short-range  devices,  where  single  market  benefits  for  manufacturers  and 
consumers would be substantial. 

•  Discussions should be launched with Member States in the context of the Radio 
Spectrum  Decision  on  streamlining  the  decision  making  process  for  frequency 
allocations  for  emerging  applications,  including  the  creation  of  possibilities  for 
experimentation in the EU so as to arrive at a more permissive environment aimed 
at  fostering  the  competitiveness  of  EU  manufacturing  industry  and  the  societal 
benefits within the EU; 

•  In the same  context, discussions  should be launched with Member States on the 
policy  benefits  of  lowering  access  barriers  to  spectrum  and  the  opportunities  of 
new  technological  developments  in  terms  of  reducing  the  need  for  individual 
licenses and rigid segmentation of the spectrum. 

As regards international aspects, the real added value of the current set of MRAs needs to be 
studied.  The  Commission  should  study  more  effective  ways  to  address  market  access 
problems for EU industry. 

25