(1)

The Commission conducted a study on the implementation of the waste-related provisions of Regulation (EC) No 850/2004. This study identified maximum concentration limits for the purpose of Part 2 of Annex V of Regulation (EC) No 850/2004. Above those limits, risks to human health and the environment could not be excluded.

(2)

The concentration limit for Polychlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxins and dibenzofurans (PCDF/PCDD) is expressed in toxic equivalent concentration (TEQ), using the 1998 World Health Organisation toxic equivalency factors (TEFs). Available data on dioxin like Polychlorinated Biphenyl (PCB) is not sufficient to include these compounds in the TEQ.

(3)

Hexachlorocyclohexane (HCH) is the name of a technical mixture of various isomers. The effort necessary to analyse them completely would be disproportionate. Only alpha-, beta- and gamma-HCH are of toxicological relevance. Therefore the concentration limit should refer to them exclusively. Most commercially available analytical standard mixtures for the analyses of this compound class only identify these isomers.

(4)

The measures provided for in this Regulation are the most appropriate to ensure a high level of protection.

(5)

Regulation (EC) No 850/2004 should therefore be amended accordingly.

(6)

The Committee established under Article 17(1) of Regulation (EC) No 850/2004 has not delivered an opinion following its consultation, on 25 January 2006, in accordance with the procedure laid down in Article 17(2) of that Regulation,

(1)

Regulation (EC) No 3223/94 lays down, pursuant to the outcome of the Uruguay Round multilateral trade negotiations, the criteria whereby the Commission fixes the standard values for imports from third countries, in respect of the products and periods stipulated in the Annex thereto.

(2)

In compliance with the above criteria, the standard import values must be fixed at the levels set out in the Annex to this Regulation,

(1)

Article 32 of Regulation (EC) No 318/2006 provides that the difference between prices on the world market for the products listed in Article 1(1)(b) of that Regulation and prices for those products on the Community market may be covered by an export refund.

(2)

Given the present situation on the sugar market, export refunds should therefore be fixed in accordance with the rules and certain criteria provided for in Articles 32 and 33 of Regulation (EC) No 318/2006.

(3)

The first subparagraph of Article 33(2) of Regulation (EC) No 318/2006 provides that the world market situation or the specific requirements of certain markets may make it necessary to vary the refund according to destination.

(4)

Refunds should be granted only on products that are allowed to move freely in the Community and that comply with the requirements of Regulation (EC) No 318/2006.

(5)

The measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Management Committee for Sugar,

(1)

Article 32 of Regulation (EC) No 318/2006 provides that the difference between prices on the world market for the products listed in Article 1(1)(c), (d) and (g) of that Regulation and prices for those products on the Community market may be covered by an export refund.

(2)

Given the present situation on the sugar market, export refunds should therefore be fixed in accordance with the rules and certain criteria provided for in Articles 32 and 33 of Regulation (EC) No 318/2006.

(3)

The first subparagraph of Article 33(2) of Regulation (EC) No 318/2006 provides that the world market situation or the specific requirements of certain markets may make it necessary to vary the refund according to destination.

(4)

Refunds should be granted only on products that are allowed to move freely in the Community and that comply with the requirements of Commission Regulation (EC) No 951/2006 of 30 June 2006 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of Regulation (EC) No 318/2006 as regards trade with third countries in the sugar sector (2).

(5)

Export refunds may be set to cover the competitive gap between Community and third country's exports. Community exports to certain close destinations and to third countries granting Community products a preferential import treatment are currently in a particular favourable competitive position. Therefore, refunds for exports to those destinations should be abolished.

(6)

The measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Management Committee for Sugar,

(1)

Commission Regulation (EC) No 958/2006 of 28 June 2006 on a standing invitation to tender to determine refunds on exports of white sugar for the 2006/2007 marketing year (2) requires the issuing of partial invitations to tender.

(2)

Pursuant to Article 8(1) of Regulation (EC) No 958/2006 and following an examination of the tenders submitted in response to the partial invitation to tender ending on 22 February 2007, it is appropriate to fix a maximum export refund for that partial invitation to tender.

(3)

The measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Management Committee for Sugar,

(1)

Article 13 of Regulation (EC) No 1784/2003 and Article 14 of Regulation (EC) No 1785/2003 provide that the difference between quotations or prices on the world market for the products listed in Article 1 of those Regulations and prices for those products within the Community may be covered by an export refund.

(2)

Article 14 of Regulation (EC) No 1785/2003 provides that when refunds are being fixed account must be taken of the existing situation and the future trend with regard to prices and availabilities of cereals, rice and broken rice on the Community market on the one hand and prices for cereals, rice, broken rice and cereal products on the world market on the other. The same Articles provide that it is also important to ensure equilibrium and the natural development of prices and trade on the markets in cereals and rice and, furthermore, to take into account the economic aspect of the proposed exports, and the need to avoid disturbances on the Community market.

(3)

Article 4 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1518/95 (3) on the import and export system for products processed from cereals and from rice defines the specific criteria to be taken into account when the refund on these products is being calculated.

(4)

The refund to be granted in respect of certain processed products should be graduated on the basis of the ash, crude fibre, tegument, protein, fat and starch content of the individual product concerned, this content being a particularly good indicator of the quantity of basic product actually incorporated in the processed product.

(5)

There is no need at present to fix an export refund for manioc, other tropical roots and tubers or flours obtained therefrom, given the economic aspect of potential exports and in particular the nature and origin of these products. For certain products processed from cereals, the insignificance of Community participation in world trade makes it unnecessary to fix an export refund at the present time.

(6)

The world market situation or the specific requirements of certain markets may make it necessary to vary the refund for certain products according to destination.

(7)

The refund must be fixed once a month. It may be altered in the intervening period.

(8)

Certain processed maize products may undergo a heat treatment following which a refund might be granted that does not correspond to the quality of the product; whereas it should therefore be specified that on these products, containing pregelatinised starch, no export refund is to be granted.

(9)

The Management Committee for Cereals has not delivered an opinion within the time limit set by its chairman,

(1)

Article 13 of Regulation (EC) No 1784/2003 provides that the difference between quotations or prices on the world market for the products listed in Article 1 of that Regulation and prices for those products within the Community may be covered by an export refund.

(2)

Commission Regulation (EC) No 1517/95 of 29 June 1995 laying down detailed rules for the application of Regulation (EC) No 1784/2003 as regards the arrangements for the export and import of compound feedingstuffs based on cereals and amending Regulation (EC) No 1162/95 laying down special detailed rules for the application of the system of import and export licences for cereals and rice (2) in Article 2 lays down general rules for fixing the amount of such refunds.

(3)

That calculation must also take account of the cereal products content. In the interest of simplification, the refund should be paid in respect of two categories of ‘cereal products’, namely for maize, the most commonly used cereal in exported compound feeds and maize products, and for ‘other cereals’, these being eligible cereal products excluding maize and maize products. A refund should be granted in respect of the quantity of cereal products present in the compound feedingstuff.

(4)

Furthermore, the amount of the refund must also take into account the possibilities and conditions for the sale of those products on the world market, the need to avoid disturbances on the Community market and the economic aspect of the export.

(5)

The current situation on the cereals market and, in particular, the supply prospects mean that the export refunds should be abolished.

(6)

The Management Committee for Cereals has not delivered an opinion within the time limit set by its chairman,

(1)

Commission Regulation (EEC) No 1722/93 of 30 June 1993 laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulations (EEC) No 1766/92 and (EEC) No 1418/76 concerning production refunds in the cereals and rice sectors respectively (2) lays down the conditions for granting production refunds. The basis for calculating the refund is laid down in Article 3 of that Regulation. The refund thus calculated, differentiated where necessary for potato starch, must be fixed once a month and may be amended if the price of maize and/or wheat changes significantly.

(2)

The production refunds fixed in this Regulation should be adjusted by the coefficients listed in the Annex II to Regulation (EEC) No 1722/93 to establish the exact amount to be paid.

(3)

The Management Committee for Cereals has not delivered an opinion within the time limit set by its chairman,

(a)

EUR/tonne 0,00 for starch from maize, wheat, barley and oats;

(b)

EUR/tonne 0,00 for potato starch.

(1)

Article 13(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1784/2003 and Article 14(1) of Regulation (EC) No 1785/2003 provide that the difference between quotations or prices on the world market for the products listed in Article 1 of each of those Regulations and the prices within the Community may be covered by an export refund.

(2)

Commission Regulation (EC) No 1043/2005 of 30 June 2005 implementing Council Regulation (EC) No 3448/93 as regards the system of granting export refunds on certain agricultural products exported in the form of goods not covered by Annex I to the Treaty, and the criteria for fixing the amount of such refunds (3), specifies the products for which a rate of refund is to be fixed, to be applied where these products are exported in the form of goods listed in Annex III to Regulation (EC) No 1784/2003 or in Annex IV to Regulation (EC) No 1785/2003 as appropriate.

(3)

In accordance with the first paragraph of Article 14 of Regulation (EC) No 1043/2005, the rate of the refund per 100 kilograms for each of the basic products in question is to be fixed each month.

(4)

The commitments entered into with regard to refunds which may be granted for the export of agricultural products contained in goods not covered by Annex I to the Treaty may be jeopardised by the fixing in advance of high refund rates. It is therefore necessary to take precautionary measures in such situations without, however, preventing the conclusion of long-term contracts. The fixing of a specific refund rate for the advance fixing of refunds is a measure which enables these various objectives to be met.

(5)

Taking into account the settlement between the European Community and the United States of America on Community exports of pasta products to the United States, approved by Council Decision 87/482/EEC (4), it is necessary to differentiate the refund on goods falling within CN codes 1902 11 00 and 1902 19 according to their destination.

(6)

Pursuant to Article 15(2) and (3) of Regulation (EC) No 1043/2005, a reduced rate of export refund has to be fixed, taking account of the amount of the production refund applicable, pursuant to Commission Regulation (EEC) No 1722/93 (5), for the basic product in question, used during the assumed period of manufacture of the goods.

(7)

Spirituous beverages are considered less sensitive to the price of the cereals used in their manufacture. However, Protocol 19 of the Act of Accession of the United Kingdom, Ireland and Denmark provides that the necessary measures must be decided to facilitate the use of Community cereals in the manufacture of spirituous beverages obtained from cereals. Accordingly, it is necessary to adapt the refund rate applying to cereals exported in the form of spirituous beverages.

(8)

The Management Committee for Cereals has not delivered an opinion within the time limit set by its chairman,

(1)

Article 32(1) and (2) of Regulation (EC) No 318/2006 provides that the differences between the prices in international trade for the products listed in Article 1(1)(b), (c), (d) and (g) of that Regulation and prices within the Community may be covered by an export refund where these products are exported in the form of goods listed in Annex VII to that Regulation.

(2)

Commission Regulation (EC) No 1043/2005 of 30 June 2005 implementing Council Regulation (EC) No 3448/93 as regards the system of granting export refunds on certain agricultural products exported in the form of goods not covered by Annex I to the Treaty, and the criteria for fixing the amount of such refunds, and the criteria for fixing the amount of such refunds (2), specifies the products for which a rate of refund is to be fixed, to be applied where these products are exported in the form of goods listed in Annex VII to Regulation (EC) No 318/2006.

(3)

In accordance with the first paragraph of Article 14 of Regulation (EC) No 1043/2005, the rate of the refund per 100 kilograms for each of the basic products in question is to be fixed each month.

(4)

Article 32(4) of Regulation (EC) No 318/2006 lays down that the export refund for a product contained in goods may not exceed the refund applicable to that product when exported without further processing.

(5)

The refunds fixed under this Regulation may be fixed in advance as the market situation over the next few months cannot be established at the moment.

(6)

The commitments entered into with regard to refunds which may be granted for the export of agricultural products contained in goods not covered by Annex I to the Treaty may be jeopardised by the fixing in advance of high refund rates. It is therefore necessary to take precautionary measures in such situations without, however, preventing the conclusion of long-term contracts. The fixing of a specific refund rate for the advance fixing of refunds is a measure which enables these various objectives to be met.

(7)

The measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Management Committee for Sugar,

(1)

An invitation to tender for the refund for the export of common wheat to certain third countries was opened pursuant to Commission Regulation (EC) No 936/2006 (2).

(2)

Article 7 of Commission Regulation (EC) No 1501/95 of 29 June 1995 laying down certain detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1766/92 on the granting of export refunds on cereals and the measures to be taken in the event of disturbance on the market for cereals (3), and in particular Article 13(3) thereof,

(3)

On the basis of the criteria laid down in Article 1 of Regulation (EC) No 1501/95, a maximum refund should not be fixed.

(4)

The measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Management Committee for Cereals,

(1)

Commission Regulation (EC) No 38/2007 of 17 January 2007 opening a standing invitation to tender for the resale for export of sugar held by the intervention agencies of Belgium, the Czech Republic, Spain, Ireland, Italy, Hungary, Poland, Slovakia and Sweden (2) requires the issuing of partial invitations to tender.

(2)

Pursuant to Article 4(1) of Regulation (EC) No 38/2007 and following an examination of the tenders submitted in response to the partial invitation to tender ending on 21 February 2007, it is appropriate to fix a maximum export refund for that partial invitation to tender.

(3)

The measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Management Committee for Sugar,

(1)

Articles 3(2)(i)(d) and 4(2)(i)(d) of Regulation (EC) No 2037/2000 prohibit the production, import and placing on the market of methyl bromide for all uses after 31 December 2004 except, among others (2), for critical uses in accordance with Article 3(2)(ii) and the criteria set out in Decision IX/6 of the Parties to the Montreal Protocol, together with any other relevant criteria agreed by the Parties. Exemptions for critical uses are intended to be limited derogations to allow a short period of time for the adoption of alternatives.

(2)

Decision IX/6 states that methyl bromide should qualify as ‘critical’ only if the applicant determines that the lack of availability of methyl bromide for that specific use would result in a significant market disruption; and that there are no technically and economically feasible alternatives or substitutes available to the user that are acceptable from the standpoint of environment and health and are suitable to the crops and circumstances of the nomination. Furthermore, the production and consumption, if any, of methyl bromide for critical uses should be permitted only if all technically and economically feasible steps have been taken to minimise the critical use and any associated emission of methyl bromide. An applicant should also demonstrate that an appropriate effort is being made to evaluate, commercialise and secure national regulatory approval of alternatives and substitutes; and that research programmes are in place to develop and deploy alternatives.

(3)

On 18 January 2006, the Commission received a request from Greece for critical uses of methyl bromide that totalled 113 081 kg for the period 1 January to 31 December 2006.

(4)

The Commission applied the criteria contained within Decision IX/6 and Article 3(2)(ii) of Regulation (EC) No 2037/2000 in order to determine the amount of methyl bromide that is eligible to be licensed in Greece for critical uses in 2006. The Commission found that adequate alternatives were available in some circumstances and that 46 771 kg of methyl bromide could be used in 2006 to satisfy critical uses in Greece. The critical use categories are similar to those defined for Greece in Table A of Decision XVII/9 agreed at the Seventeenth Meeting of the Parties to the Montreal Protocol (3).

(5)

Article 3(2)(ii) requires the Commission to also determine which users may take advantage of the critical use exemption. As Article 17(2) requires Member States to define the minimum qualification requirements for personnel involved in the application of methyl bromide and, as fumigation is the only use, the Commission determined that methyl bromide fumigators are the only users proposed by Member States and authorised by the Commission to use methyl bromide for critical uses. Fumigators are qualified to apply it safely, rather than for example farmers or mill owners that are generally not qualified to apply methyl bromide but who own properties on which it will be applied. In addition, Member States have put in place procedures to identify fumigators within their territory that are permitted to use methyl bromide for critical uses.

(6)

Article 4(2)(ii) states that, subject to Article 4(4), the placing on the market and the use of methyl bromide by undertakings other than producers and importers shall be prohibited after 31 December 2005. Article 4(4) states that Article 4(2) shall not apply to the placing on the market and use of controlled substances if they are used to meet the licensed requests for critical uses of those users identified as laid down in Article 3(2).

Therefore, in addition to producers and importers, fumigators that are registered by the Commission in 2006 would be allowed to place methyl bromide on the market, and to use it for critical uses, after 31 December 2005. A fumigator typically requests an importer for both the importation and supply of methyl bromide.

(7)

Fumigators registered for critical uses by the Commission in 2005 would be permitted to carry over to 2006 any remaining methyl bromide that had not been used in 2005 (referred to as stocks). The European Commission has put in place licensing procedures to deduct such stocks of methyl bromide before any additional methyl bromide is imported or produced to meet the licensed requests for critical uses in 2006. Decision IX/6 states that production and consumption of methyl bromide for critical uses should be permitted only if methyl bromide is not available from existing stocks of banked or recycled methyl bromide. Article 3(2)(ii) states that production and importation of methyl bromide shall be allowed only if no recycled or reclaimed methyl bromide is available from any of the Parties. In accordance with Decision IX/6, Article 3(2)(ii) and information provided to the Commission by Greece, stocks of methyl bromide are not available in Greece for critical uses.

(8)

The Commission approved in Commission Decision 2006/350/EC (4) a quantity of 1 607 587 kg of methyl bromide for critical uses in eight Member States for the period 1 January to 31 December 2006, based on applications received from those Member States in July 2005. The quantity of methyl bromide approved for Greece in this Decision takes into consideration the quantity necessary to satisfy critical uses for the period 1 June to 31 December 2006.

(9)

The measures provided for in this Decision are in accordance with the opinion of the Committee established by Article 18 of Regulation (EC) No 2037/2000,

(1)

The occurrence of infectious salmon anaemia (ISA) in the Faroe Islands led to the adoption of Commission Decision 2003/71/EC of 29 January 2003 on certain protective measures in respect of infectious salmon anaemia in the Faroe Islands (3). That Decison is to apply until 31 January 2007.

(2)

Decision No 2/2005 of the EC-Faroe Island Joint Committee of 8 December 2005 amending Decision No 1/2001 laying down provisions to implement the Protocol on veterinary matters supplementing the Agreement between the European Community, of the one part, and the Government of Denmark and the Home Government of the Faroe Island, of the other part (4) approves a contingency plan submitted by the Faroe Islands for certain fish diseases, including fish infected with infectious salmon anaemia, in accordance with Article 15 of Council Directive 93/53/EEC of 24 June 1993 introducing minimum Community measures for the control of certain fish diseases (5) (the contingency plan).

(3)

The contingency plan includes a withdrawal scheme in accordance with Article 6 of Directive 93/53/EEC and a vaccination procedure. Vaccination is still used as a control strategy. To prevent the spreading of the disease to non-infected areas, the protective measures provided for in Decision 2003/71/EC should remain applicable as long as vaccination is applied.

(4)

Council Directive 2006/88/EC of 24 October 2006 on animal health requirements for aquaculture animals and products thereof, and on the prevention and control of certain diseases in aquatic animals (6) provides that the transposition measures adopted by the Member States pursuant to that Directive are to apply from 1 August 2008. Accordingly, Decision 2003/71/EC should be reviewed before that date.

(5)

Decision 2003/71/EC should therefore be amended in order to extend its period of application from 31 January 2007 until 31 July 2008.

(6)

The occurrence of infectious salmon anaemia (ISA) in Norway led to the adoption of Commission Decision 2003/70/EC of 29 January 2003 on certain protective measures in respect of infectious salmon anaemia in Norway (7). That Decision applied until 1 February 2004. For the sake of clarity, that Decision should be expressly repealed.

(7)

The measures provided for in this Decision are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health,

(1)

The European Council has recognised the significant contribution to growth and jobs by building a fully inclusive information society, based on widespread use of information and communication technologies (ICTs) in public services, SMEs and households (2). With the i2010 initiative, the Commission emphasised ICT as a major driver of competitiveness, growth and jobs (3).

(2)

The creation of an open and competitive single market for information society equipment and media services within the Community is critical to ICT uptake. The Community regulatory framework for electronic communications services and equipment can enhance competitiveness and foster competition in the ICT sector, inter alia by ensuring the timely introduction of new technologies.

(3)

Ultra-wideband technology, typically characterised by very low power radiation over a very large radio bandwidth, could provide a host of communications, measurement, location, medical, surveillance and imaging applications of benefit to various Community policies, including the information society and the internal market. In this context, it is important to establish regulatory conditions which will encourage the development of economically viable markets for applications of ultra-wideband technology as commercial opportunities arise.

(4)

The timely deployment and uptake of applications using ultra-wideband technology within the Community will be assisted by harmonising radio spectrum use rules across the Community, thus establishing an effective single market for these applications, with consequent economies of scale and benefits to the consumer.

(5)

Although ultra-wideband signals are typically of extremely low power, the possibility of harmful interference with existing radiocommunication services exists and needs to be managed. Therefore, the regulatory framework for use of the radio spectrum for ultra-wideband technology must respect the rights to protection against harmful interference (including access to the radio spectrum by radio astronomy, earth exploration satellite and space research systems) and balance the incumbent services’ interests against the overall policy objective of providing favourable conditions for the introduction of innovative technologies for the benefit of society.

(6)

The use of spectrum is subject to the requirements of Community law for public health protection in particular Directive 2004/40/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the minimum health and safety requirements regarding the exposure of workers to the risks arising from physical agents (electromagnetic fields), (4) and 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) (5). Health protection for radio equipment is ensured by conformity of such equipment to the essential requirements pursuant to Directive 1999/5/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 9 March 1999 on radio equipment and telecommunications terminal equipment and the mutual recognition of their conformity (the R&TTE Directive) (6).

(7)

Pursuant to Article 4(2) of the Radio Spectrum Decision, the Commission has given three mandates (7) to the European Conference of Postal and Telecommunications Administrations (hereinafter referred to as the CEPT) to undertake all necessary work to identify the most appropriate technical and operational criteria for the harmonised introduction of ultra-wideband-based applications in the European Union.

(8)

This Decision is based on the technical studies undertaken by the CEPT under EC mandate. These compatibility studies include, inter alia, the presumption that equipment using ultra-wideband technology will be operated predominantly indoors and that it will cease transmission within 10 seconds unless it receives an acknowledgement from an associated receiver that its transmission is being received. Furthermore, video signals will be transmitted using predominantly high-efficiency coding.

(9)

Outdoor use of equipment using ultra-wideband technology covered by this Decision should not include use at a fixed outdoor location or connected to a fixed outdoor antenna or in vehicles. The potential interference caused by such uses requires further study.

(10)

Equipment using ultra-wideband technology covered by this Decision falls within the scope of the R&TTE Directive. Nevertheless, the use of frequency bands by equipment using ultra-wideband technology for air traffic management communications in aircraft and safety-of-life applications in ships does not fall under the R&TTE Directive and any use of such equipment in these safety-of-life environments should be determined by appropriate sector-specific regulation.

(11)

Pursuant to the R&TTE Directive, the European Commission has given a mandate (M/329) to the European standardisation organisations to establish a set of Harmonised Standards covering ultra-wideband applications to be recognised under this Directive, and resulting in a presumption of conformity with its requirements.

(12)

In response to mandate M/329 from the EC, the ETSI is developing European standards such as Harmonised Standard EN 302 065 for ultra-wideband technology which will take account of potential aggregate effects, if such effects could lead to harmful interference, and of the compatibility studies of the CEPT. Harmonised Standards should be maintained and evolve over time to ensure protection of emerging services for which bands as yet have not been designated.

(13)

Furthermore, when a Member State considers that equipment using ultra-wideband technology within the scope of the R&TTE Directive and of any Harmonised Standards adopted pursuant thereto does not comply with the requirements of the abovementioned Directive, safeguard measures may be applied in accordance with Articles 9 and 5 of the Directive respectively.

(14)

The use of radio spectrum by equipment using ultra-wideband technology under this Decision is to be allowed on a non-interference and non-protected basis and therefore should be subject to Article 5(1) of Directive 2002/20/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 March 2002 on the authorisation of electronic communications networks and services (8).

(15)

For the purpose of ensuring the continued relevance of the conditions specified in this Decision and given the rapid changes in the radio spectrum environment, national administrations ought to monitor, where possible, use of the radio spectrum by equipment using ultra-wideband technology, so as to subject this Decision to active review. Such review should take into account technological development and changes in the market situation and verify that the initial assumptions concerning the operation of equipment using ultra-wideband technology in the frequency range specified in this Decision are still relevant.

(16)

In order to ensure adequate protection of existing services, this Decision should lay down conditions that are deemed adequate to protect currently operating services.

(17)

Appropriate mitigation techniques (including detect-and-avoid or low-duty-cycle approaches) studied and specified by CEPT and ETSI under the respective EC Mandates, should be included in Harmonised Standards under the R&TTE Directive once stable and proven to provide equivalent protection to the emission levels identified in this Decision.

(18)

The conditions in the 4,2 to 4,8 GHz band for equipment using ultra-wideband technology without appropriate mitigation techniques should be time limited and be replaced by more restrictive conditions beyond the date of 31 December 2010, because there is an expectation that equipment of this type should operate exclusively above 6 GHz in the longer term.

(19)

The measures provided for in this Decision are in accordance with the opinion of the Radio Spectrum Committee,

1.

‘equipment using ultra-wideband technology’ means equipment incorporating, as an integral part or as an accessory, technology for short-range radiocommunication, involving the intentional generation and transmission of radio-frequency energy that spreads over a frequency range wider than 50 MHz, which may overlap several frequency bands allocated to radiocommunication services;

2.

‘non-interference and non-protected basis’ means that no harmful interference may be caused to any radiocommunication service and that no claim may be made for protection of these devices against harmful interference originating from radiocommunication services;

3.

‘indoors’ means inside buildings or places in which the shielding will typically provide the necessary attenuation to protect radiocommunication services against harmful interference;

4.

‘automotive vehicle’ means any vehicle as defined by Council Directive 70/156/EEC (9);

5.

‘railway vehicle’ means any vehicle as defined by Regulation (EC) No 91/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council (10);

6.

‘e.i.r.p.’ means equivalent isotropic radiated power;

7.

‘mean e.i.r.p. density’ means the mean power measured with a 1 MHz resolution bandwidth, a root-mean-square (RMS) detector and an averaging time of 1 ms or less;

8.

‘peak e.i.r.p. density’ means the peak level of transmission contained within a 50 MHz bandwidth centred on the frequency at which the highest mean radiated power occurs. If measured in a bandwidth of x MHz, this level is to be scaled down by a factor of 20log(50/x)dB;

9.

‘maximum e.i.r.p. density’ means the highest signal strength measured in any direction at any frequency within the defined range.