FINAL REPORT - Stakeholders - Ofcom

A non harmonised frequency band is considered to be the complement of a harmonised
band. Information on whether a band is harmonised or not is expected to be included in
national frequency tables. The R&TTE Directive imposes the obligation on EU Member
States to publish their National Frequency Plans. Where bands are harmonised, the
Commission will identify those and include them in the group of interfaces for Class 1
bands. This list is maintained in consultation with the Member States and published on
the Web.
In non harmonised frequency bands such as the radiodetermination bands, a
manufacturer is required to notify an administration before placing the equipment on the
market. Administrations in turn issue ‘interface requirements’ with any specific national
requirements. It could be argued that if spectrally efficient requirements were introduced
by the UK to avoid harmful interference to current and future services then this would be
in accordance with the Directive. On the other hand difficulties might arise if UK
requirements were such that CE marked or IEC compliant equipment designed for the
band in question and accepted by other Member States were not acceptable in the UK.
Again the UK interface requirement or a licence condition might include a ‘voluntary
national measure’ where R&TTE compliant equipment, which met more strenuous
spectral efficiency targets, could receive favourable fees treatment under an AIP regime.
Of course in both SOLAS and non SOLAS cases proportionality would be the key to
achieving favourable treatment by the Commission and other Member States. It might
also be advisable to discuss ‘voluntary national measures’ with the Commission before
introducing such concepts.
The application of Pricing
Pricing could be used to modify the behaviour of the maritime user in this instance. The
cost of replacing a radar with a newer version such as would be required in order to
reduce the emitted bandwidth could be encouraged by the application of AIP to the
appropriate element of the maritime radio licence. The magnitude of the likely cost of
modifications to each radio user (i.e. circa £2,500) is such that appropriate licence costing
could have an impact on users’ behaviour.
Recommendation 4.3: Introduce additional sharing, in particular with PMSE in the 3 and
9 GHz maritime bands.
An alternative to reducing the amount of spectrum allocated to maritime radars would be
to increase the amount of sharing with other services. As has been shown in the 5 GHz
band, sharing of maritime radars with other, compatible services, can take place.
However an ITU study into possible sharing with aeronautical radar determined that
sharing with any service was not practicable. The largest issue concerning increased
sharing is that of the impact of the interference from the sharers into radars. A small
increase in the background noise yields a significant reduction in the range and potential
accuracy of a radar. The 9 GHz band is obviously the most sensitive to such effects as
devices such as SARTs are used for safety of life purposes.
Nonetheless, the opportunity for increased sharing in the 3 and 9 GHz bands with
maritime radar services appears feasible. As with the comments under option (1), this
position is aided due to the nature of maritime radar services.
Socio-Economic Issues
In principle, carefully selected sharing between maritime radars and other users should
have minimal or little impact on the maritime users, either operationally or financially. It is
therefore difficult to quantify the economic effects of such sharing. Only in the event that
such sharing required modernisation of existing radars would there be a financial impact,
insofar as the need to modify existing radars.
Page 143