**Before the**

Federal Communications Commission

Washington, D.C. 20554

+----------------------------------+---+------------------------------+
| In the Matter of                 | * | WT Docket No. 04-344         |
|                                  | * |                              |
| Amendment of the Commission's    | ) |                              |
| Rules Regarding Maritime         | * |                              |
| Automatic Identification Systems | * |                              |
|                                  |   |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | ) |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  |   |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | ) |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  |   |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | ) |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
+----------------------------------+---+------------------------------+

second report and order

**Adopted: September 15, 2008 Released: September 19, 2008**

By the Commission:

**TABLE OF CONTENTS**

**Heading Paragraph No.**

[I. introduction and executive summary
1](#introduction-and-executive-summary)

[II. background 2](#background)

[III. discussion 8](#discussion)

[A. Designation of Channel 87B for AIS in Inland Areas
8](#designation-of-channel-87b-for-ais-in-inland-areas)

[1. Need for AIS in Inland Areas 8](#need-for-ais-in-inland-areas)

[2. Existing Licensees on Channel 87B
17](#existing-licensees-on-channel-87b)

[B. AIS Base Station Issues 22](#ais-base-station-issues)

[C. Class B AIS Shipborne Equipment
27](#class-b-ais-shipborne-equipment)

[IV. conclusion 33](#conclusion)

[V. procedural matters 34](#procedural-matters)

[A. Regulatory Flexibility Act 34](#regulatory-flexibility-act)

[B. Peer Review Bulletin and Information Quality Act
35](#peer-review-bulletin-and-information-quality-act)

[C. Congressional Review Act 36](#congressional-review-act)

[D. Paperwork Reduction Act 37](#paperwork-reduction-act)

[E. Further Information 39](#further-information)

[VI. ordering clauses 41](#ordering-clauses)

APPENDIX A - Commenting Parties

APPENDIX B - Final Rules

APPENDIX C - Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis

# introduction and executive summary

1.  In this *Second Report and Order* in WT Docket No. 04-344, we adopt
    additional measures for domestic implementation of Automatic
    Identification Systems (AIS), an advanced marine vessel tracking and
    navigation technology that can significantly enhance our Nation's
    homeland security as well as maritime safety. The decisions we make
    here build on the Commission's earlier efforts in the *Report and
    Order* in this proceeding,[^1] and are consistent with the
    overriding objective of this proceeding, as stated in the *Report
    and Order*, to "ensure that AIS is deployed widely, quickly,
    reliably, and cost-effectively, and in a manner that will maximize
    its capabilities."[^2] Specifically, in this *Second Report and
    Order*, we (a) designate maritime VHF Channel 87B for exclusive AIS
    use throughout the Nation, while providing a replacement channel for
    those geographic licensees that are currently authorized to use
    Channel 87B in an inland VHF Public Coast (VPC) service area
    (VPCSA); (b) determine that only Federal Government (Federal)
    entities should have authority to operate AIS base stations,
    obviating any present need for the Commission to adopt licensing,
    operational, or equipment certification rules for such stations;
    and (c) require that Class B[^3] AIS shipborne devices comply with
    the international standard for such equipment, while also mandating
    additional safeguards to better ensure the accuracy of AIS data
    transmitted from Class B devices. These measures will facilitate the
    establishment of an efficient and effective domestic AIS network,
    and will optimize the navigational and homeland security benefits
    that AIS offers.

# background

2.  AIS is a "maritime navigation safety communications system
    standardized by the International Telecommunication Union (ITU) and
    adopted by the International Maritime Organization (IMO) that
    provides vessel information, including the vessel\'s identity, type,
    position, course, speed, navigational status and other
    safety-related information automatically to appropriately equipped
    shore stations, other ships, and aircraft; receives automatically
    such information from similarly fitted ships; monitors and tracks
    ships; and exchanges data with shore-based facilities."[^4] The IMO
    requires vessels subject to the International Convention for Safety
    of Life at Sea (SOLAS) to carry AIS equipment,[^5] and the United
    States Coast Guard (USCG or Coast Guard), acting pursuant to
    statutory directive,[^6] has imposed an AIS carriage requirement on
    additional classes of vessels.[^7] The ITU international standard
    for AIS equipment[^8] has been incorporated by reference in Part 80
    of the Commission's Rules as the basis for certifying Class A AIS
    equipment.[^9]

3.  At the World Radiocommunications Conference of 1997 (WRC-97), the
    ITU allocated VHF maritime Channels 87B (161.975 MHz) and 88B
    (162.025 MHz) for AIS use in international waters, designating
    Channel 87B as AIS1 and Channel 88B as AIS2.[^10] The ITU's AIS
    equipment standard (and by extension the Commission's) is
    accordingly based on the use of those channels for AIS.
    Notwithstanding the international designation of Channels 87B and
    88B for AIS, however, the ITU *Radio Regulations* leave member
    Administrations with discretion to designate alternative channels
    for AIS within their territorial waters.[^11] In the United States,
    Channel 87B is a non-Federal channel that had been designated by the
    Commission for VPC stations,[^12] while Channel 88B is a Federal
    channel, and thus under the jurisdiction of the National
    Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA).

4.  In the *Report and Order*, adopted July 20, 2006, the Commission
    designated Channel 87B for exclusive AIS use in the nine maritime
    VPCSAs,[^13] and Channel 88B for exclusive AIS use nationwide.[^14]
    The Commission reasoned that designating the same channels for AIS
    in the United States that are used for AIS not only in international
    waters but virtually globally would permit a seamless worldwide AIS
    network.[^15] This, in turn, would facilitate Coast Guard
    coordination with other nations in tracking vessels,[^16] avoid the
    problems that would attend requiring vessels to switch AIS channels
    upon transiting an AIS "fence" between U.S. and international
    waters,[^17] allow the United States to rely on existing AIS
    standards and infrastructure,[^18] reduce the costs of AIS equipment
    and thus encourage voluntary AIS carriage,[^19] and avoid the
    premature obsolescence of existing AIS equipment that had been
    marketed and installed on vessels in reliance on the existing AIS
    standards.[^20]

5.  As noted, the Commission limited its designation of Channel 87B for
    exclusive AIS use to the nine maritime VPCSAs.[^21] In the *NPRM* in
    this proceeding, the Commission had declined to propose the
    designation of Channel 87B for AIS on a nationwide basis, *i.e*., in
    the thirty-three inland VPCSAs as well as in the nine maritime
    VPCSAs, in large part because there appeared to be little need for
    AIS in inland VPCSAs, given the absence of major navigable waterways
    in those inland areas.[^22] The majority of commenters to the
    *NPRM*, however, favored a nationwide designation of Channel 87B for
    AIS. Commenters argued, for example, that a number of navigable
    waterways are, in fact, located within inland VPCSAs, and that AIS
    enhances navigational safety on inland waterways as well as in
    coastal waters and on the high seas.[^23] Proponents of a nationwide
    AIS designation of Channel 87B also argued that it would promote
    homeland security by expanding the reach of AIS vessel tracking
    capabilities.[^24] In addition, NTIA stated that the Coast Guard was
    exploring the feasibility of using satellites to augment the
    terrestrial AIS network, and that a nationwide designation of
    Channel 87B as well as Channel 88B for exclusive AIS use "may be
    necessary" to accommodate satellite AIS operations.[^25]

6.  In the *Report and Order*, the Commission noted that the subject of
    satellite AIS had been raised for the first time in NTIA's comments
    to the *NPRM*, and that, as a consequence, the record "provide\[d\]
    almost no information regarding the technical feasibility,
    effectiveness or potential benefits of satellite AIS, and no studies
    or analysis of potential interference to or from satellite
    AIS."[^26] The Commission also observed, however, that the potential
    benefits of satellite AIS in expanding vessel tracking capabilities
    counseled against immediate rejection of a nationwide
    designation.[^27] In the *Further Notice*, the Commission
    accordingly sought further comment on the question of whether to
    limit the AIS designation of Channel 87B to the nine maritime
    VPCSAs, or to instead extend it to the thirty-three inland VPCSAs as
    well.[^28] It also requested comment with specific regard to
    satellite AIS, including the question of whether a nationwide AIS
    designation of Channel 87B was needed to accommodate satellite
    AIS.[^29] In addition, the Commission invited further comment on the
    broader issue of whether a nationwide designation of Channel 87B for
    exclusive AIS use would benefit the public interest, offering
    commenters an additional opportunity to provide information
    regarding, for example, "the extent to which vessels on navigable
    waterways in the inland VPCSAs may benefit from AIS on the one hand,
    and VPC services, including maritime public correspondence services,
    on the other."[^30] Finally, the Commission asked whether any of the
    duplex channels in each inland VPCSA set aside for public safety
    interoperability use[^31] should be redesignated for VPC use, as
    essentially replacement spectrum for inland VPCSA licensees, if the
    Commission were to designate Channel 87B for AIS in the inland
    areas.[^32]

7.  The Commission also solicited comment on two additional AIS-related
    issues. First, regarding AIS base stations, commenters were asked to
    consider standards and procedures for authorizing AIS base station
    equipment, and whether the Commission should adopt rules to govern
    the licensing and use of such stations.[^33] Second, the Commission
    requested comment regarding Class B AIS devices.[^34] The Commission
    requested comment specifically on its proposal to incorporate by
    reference IEC 62287-1, the international standard for Class B AIS
    equipment, as the basis for certifying such equipment under Part 80
    of the Rules.[^35] In addition, the Commission requested comment on
    measures it might take to better ensure the accuracy of AIS data
    transmitted via Class B devices, including user-programmed static
    data.

# discussion

## Designation of Channel 87B for AIS in Inland Areas

### Need for AIS in Inland Areas

8.  We conclude, on the basis of the augmented record, that it would
    promote the primary objectives in this proceeding, and would serve
    the broader public interest, to designate Channel 87B for exclusive
    AIS use in the thirty-three inland VPCSAs. Making Channel 87B, like
    Channel 88B, available only for AIS throughout the Nation will serve
    the public interest by expanding the effectiveness and reliability
    of AIS.

9.  Many commenters[^36] argue that Channel 87B should be designated
    exclusively for AIS use in the inland VPCSAs[^37] for reasons
    independent of the need to accommodate satellite AIS. These
    commenters note that AIS offers great benefits as a tool to assist
    vessels in navigating safely on waterways within inland VPCSAs, just
    as it does with respect to vessels in coastal areas and on the high
    seas.[^38] These commenters echo RTCM's assertion, made earlier in
    this proceeding,[^39] that AIS can provide vessel operators with the
    ability to "see" around islands and bends in narrow, obstructed or
    winding waterways in a way that radar cannot.[^40] According to
    RTCM, the unique navigational benefits of AIS will be especially
    important for large passenger vessels, large barge tows and similar
    vessels that have limited maneuverability on these inland
    waterways.[^41]

10. Commenters assert that designation of a channel other than Channel
    87B for inland AIS operations would result in many of the same
    problems that led the Commission to reject the use of a channel or
    channels other than Channel 87B for AIS in the maritime VPCSAs,
    *i.e.*, it would prevent the establishment of a seamless global AIS
    network (and, in this case, even a seamless nationwide AIS network)
    and would require vessels transiting an AIS "fence" between maritime
    and inland VPCSAs to switch to a different AIS channel.[^42] These
    commenters believe, in sum, that a failure to designate Channel 87B
    for AIS use on inland waterways would prevent the United States from
    realizing the full navigational safety and homeland security
    benefits of AIS.[^43]

11. Most commenters also believe that non-AIS operations should be
    prohibited on Channel 87B in the inland VPCSAs in order to protect
    the integrity of AIS operations not only in the inland VPCSAs, but
    also in the maritime VPCSAs and even in international waters. NTIA
    contends that the threat of co-channel interference to AIS from
    non-AIS transmissions on Channel 87B in inland VPCSAs is such that
    the Commission's main objective in this proceeding -- to ensure that
    AIS is deployed widely, quickly, reliably, and cost-effectively, and
    in a manner that will maximize its capabilities -- "cannot be fully
    attained unless the Commission designates AIS Channel 87B on a
    nationwide basis."[^44] Commenters note, in this regard, that
    non-AIS transmissions on Channel 87B from transmitters located
    within inland VPCSAs would cause interference to AIS transmissions,
    even on the high seas, due to atmospheric "ducting,"[^45] which can
    cause VHF signals to be received several hundred miles away.[^46]
    Even relatively distant non-AIS transmissions on Channel 87B could
    therefore interfere with and degrade AIS operations, reducing the
    effectiveness of AIS for homeland security as well as navigational
    safety.[^47]

12. MariTEL disputes the other commenters' arguments that non-AIS
    operations on Channel 87B, even in inland VPCSAs, will cause
    interference to AIS operations.[^48] MariTEL contends that the
    Commission previously considered and rejected similar arguments in
    permitting the use of VPC spectrum for land mobile operations
    pursuant to waivers.[^49] In those waiver decisions, according to
    MariTEL, the Commission determined that the use of VPC channels for
    maritime communications would not be compromised if land mobile use
    of the channels occurred sufficiently distant from the coast and
    navigable waterways.[^50] This argument overlooks the fact that the
    referenced decisions by the Wireless Telecommunications Bureau's
    former Public Safety and Critical Infrastructure Division did not
    permit land mobile use of Channel 87B,[^51] and expressly
    conditioned the non-maritime use of the frequencies on there being
    no harmful interference to current or future marine communications,
    including but not limited to AIS.[^52] In addition, the waivers
    granted in those cases were of limited geographic scope. We
    therefore are not persuaded that those waiver decisions contradict
    the consensus view of the commenters other than MariTEL that non-AIS
    operations in inland VPCSAs can cause harmful interference to
    co-channel AIS communications, or that these decisions otherwise
    undermine the rationale for a nationwide designation of Channel 87B
    for AIS.[^53] We therefore conclude that the public interest in
    homeland security and maritime safety would best be served by
    prohibiting non-AIS operations on Channel 87B throughout the Nation
    in order to protect the integrity of terrestrial (*i.e*.,
    non-satellite) AIS communications.

13. In addition, we conclude that non-AIS operations on Channel 87B
    would likely cause interference to satellite AIS communications.
    NTIA says that "\[p\]reliminary reports demonstrate that, with
    specific configurations, it is possible for land-based stations
    reliably to receive AIS signals from approximately 350 nautical
    miles."[^54] The Maritime Transportation and Security Act of 2002
    (MTSA), however, requires the Coast Guard to develop long-range
    tracking capabilities,[^55] and the Coast Guard's goal in
    furtherance of that mandate is to extend AIS coverage to two
    thousand nautical miles from the United States shoreline.[^56] As
    discussed in the *Report and Order* and *Further Notice*,[^57] NTIA
    is therefore exploring the possibility of using a low earth orbit
    communications satellite system to receive, process and relay AIS
    data, and has contracted with ORBCOMM, a mobile satellite service
    licensee, to evaluate satellite detection of AIS signals.[^58] The
    consensus of the commenters[^59] is that satellite AIS, if it proves
    feasible,[^60] will offer significant advantages over terrestrial
    AIS by, for example, expanding vessel tracking capabilities to
    encompass areas of the high seas well beyond the reach of
    non-satellite AIS.[^61]

14. NTIA and other commenters argue that the Commission should bar
    non-AIS transmissions on Channel 87B, even in inland areas, in order
    to avoid disruptions to satellite reception of AIS signals,[^62]
    which could, as ORBCOMM notes, "hinder the U.S. Coast Guard in
    fulfilling its critical homeland security role."[^63] NTIA asserts
    that a report by the Department of Defense Joint Spectrum Center
    (JSC) analyzing technical issues relating to satellite AIS[^64]
    demonstrates that non-AIS co-channel signals "cause\[\] degradation
    in AIS signal detection ... that is both unpredictable and
    unmanageable,"[^65] and that this signal degradation "will
    significantly decrease the effectiveness of the AIS system" to the
    point of defeating the purpose of using satellite AIS to expand
    long-range vessel tracking capabilities.[^66] ORBCOMM concurs that
    there is no current means of controlling non-AIS co-channel
    interference to satellite AIS, explaining that it is developing
    protocols/algorithms that will allow it to address simultaneous AIS
    transmissions from different ships, but that these do not prevent
    interference to AIS communications from non-AIS sources.[^67]

15. MariTEL argues that the Commission should not designate Channel 87B
    for AIS in the inland VPCSAs as an accommodation to satellite AIS
    because "there is no evidence that space-based monitoring will
    provide the Coast Guard with any more information than it would
    otherwise receive from terrestrial monitoring,"[^68] and because,
    even if such space-based monitoring of AIS transmissions on Channel
    87B is deemed beneficial, satellite AIS can co-exist with non-AIS
    operations on Channel 87B in inland VPCSAs.[^69] We find neither
    argument to be convincing. MariTEL does not dispute that satellite
    AIS can greatly enlarge the distance at which AIS transmissions can
    be received and relayed. In addition, MariTEL's argument that an AIS
    satellite should be able to distinguish land mobile radio
    transmissions on Channel 87B in inland VPCSAs from AIS transmissions
    on the channel elsewhere fails to effectively address the comments
    submitted by the entities responsible for implementing satellite AIS
    indicating that it is not currently possible to filter out the
    non-AIS transmissions, and that those non-AIS transmissions would
    likely degrade satellite AIS reception, even with respect to AIS
    transmissions from vessels far from shore.[^70] We therefore
    conclude that non-AIS operations on Channel 87B would likely need to
    be terminated if satellite AIS proves feasible and is fully
    implemented.

16. In sum, we agree with commenters such as NTIA that "\[t\]here are
    compelling safety and national security reasons to designate Channel
    87B for AIS on a nationwide basis."[^71] Because the desirability of
    deploying AIS in coastal and international waters applies equally to
    inland rivers and lakes, the optimization of the domestic AIS
    network clearly requires the designation of Channels 87B and 88B for
    inland AIS, and permitting any non-AIS uses of Channel 87B anywhere
    in the Nation would compromise the integrity of the domestic, and by
    extension the global, AIS network.[^72] We also find that
    implementation of satellite AIS[^73] would serve the public
    interest, and that clearing Channel 87B of non-AIS operations would
    be necessary to maximize the effectiveness of satellite AIS
    operations.[^74]

### Existing Licensees on Channel 87B

17. As a consequence of our designation of Channel 87B for AIS in the
    inland VPCSAs, we must establish a framework for clearing the
    channel of non-AIS operations. In the *Report and Order*, the
    Commission held that site-based VPC and private land mobile radio
    (PLMR) licensees in the maritime VPCSAs could continue to operate on
    Channel 87B until the expiration of their current license
    terms,[^75] but authorizations to operate on Channel 87B would not
    be renewed.[^76] In the inland VPCSAs, in contrast, there are no
    site-based VPC licensees and only two site-based PLMR licensees, one
    of which is a public safety entity.[^77] In addition, there is less
    maritime activity in the inland VPCSAs, further reducing the
    short-term potential for Channel 87B licensees in those areas to
    cause interference to AIS operations. Moreover, the full-scale
    implementation of satellite AIS is a longer-term project than the
    implementation of ship-to-ship and ship-to-shore terrestrial AIS
    operations.[^78] Under these circumstances, we conclude that we can
    afford an additional period of grandfathering protection to the
    site-based Channel 87B PLMR licensees in inland VPCSAs.
    Specifically, we will permit them to remain authorized to operate on
    Channel 87B for fifteen years after the effective date of the rule
    amendments adopted herein.[^79] This will provide incumbent
    site-based licensees with an ample period of time to adjust to the
    redesignation of Channel 87B without any disruption to their present
    operations, while at the same time ensuring eventual clearance of
    all non-AIS operations from the channel.

18. With respect to geographic licensees in the inland VPCSAs, the
    Commission noted in both the *NPRM*[^80] and the *Further
    Notice*[^81] that two duplex channel pairs in the VHF maritime band
    have been set aside in each inland VPCSA as public safety
    interoperability channels.[^82] Specifically, Channel 25
    (157.250/161.850 MHz) is set aside in every inland VPCSA, and either
    Channel 84 (157.225/161.825 MHz) or Channel 85 (157.275/161.875 MHz)
    is also set aside in each inland VPCSA.[^83] The Commission's ULS
    database indicates that only four entities are currently licensed
    pursuant to the set-aside.[^84] In the *Further Notice*, the
    Commission noted that it had designated significant additional
    spectrum for public safety interoperability, in the VHF band and
    elsewhere, in the years following the set-aside of these VPC
    channels for that purpose,[^85] and it requested comment as to
    whether, in the event it designated Channel 87B for exclusive AIS
    use nationwide, any of these set-aside channels should be
    redesignated for use by inland VPCSA licensees.[^86]

19. In light of our determination to redesignate Channel 87B for
    exclusive AIS use in those VPCSAs, we find that it is appropriate to
    redesignate one of the public safety set-aside channel pairs in each
    inland VPCSA for use by inland VPCSA licensees. The only commenters
    addressing this issue -- MariTEL, PacifiCorp, and RTCM -- all favor
    redesignation of the channels, at least in the absence of any
    showing that they are needed for public safety interoperability
    communications.[^87] MariTEL argues that "equity demands nothing
    less."[^88] MariTEL also suggests that giving inland VPCSA licensees
    replacement spectrum would make them "whole" for the loss of Channel
    87B.[^89]

20. We therefore redesignate duplex Channels 84 and 85 for VPC
    communications in the inland VPCSAs.[^90] Like incumbent site-based
    PLMR licensees operating on Channel 87B, site-based incumbents
    currently authorized on Channels 84/85 will remain authorized to
    operate on those channels for a period of fifteen years following
    the effective date of these rule amendments.[^91] As noted above
    with respect to incumbents on Channel 87B, a grandfathering period
    of fifteen years should provide affected public safety licensees
    with ample time for transition without any disruption to their
    present operations.[^92] In addition, making these former public
    safety set-aside channels available to inland VPCSA licensees is
    equitable because it will restore the operating capacity of these
    licensees, who, unlike the maritime VPCSA licensees, were under no
    pre-existing obligation to make any of their licensed spectrum
    available for AIS.[^93] This action is also equitable in
    consideration of the fact that the nationwide AIS designation of
    Channel 87B is itself intended to promote public safety.[^94] We
    find that our action will not disserve public safety, especially in
    light of our determination to temporarily grandfather the existing
    public safety use of the channels.[^95]

21. In order to provide a transition period for inland VPCSA geographic
    licensees to switch from Channel 87B to Channels 84/85, we will
    permit inland VPCSA geographic licensees to continue to operate on
    Channel 87B for up to two years after the effective date of these
    rules, while allowing them to modify their licenses to replace
    Channel 87B with Channel 84 or Channel 85, as appropriate, any time
    after the effective date.[^96] This transition period should be
    ample to avoid any disruption of existing operations by inland VPCSA
    licensees, and should not otherwise prove onerous to the
    licensees.[^97] At the same time, this limited relief for existing
    inland VPCSA licensees should not compromise efforts to implement
    AIS in the United States as quickly and broadly as possible. At the
    end of the two-year transition period, we will modify any inland
    VPCSA licenses that were not previously modified to replace Channel
    87B with Channel 84 or Channel 85, as appropriate.[^98]

## AIS Base Station Issues

22. In the *Further Notice*, the Commission, noting that the
    International Electro*-*technical Commission (IEC) was in the
    process of developing AIS base station equipment standards, asked
    interested parties to address standards and procedures for
    authorizing AIS base station equipment under Part 80, and sought
    comment on whether the Commission should adopt rules for the
    licensing and use of AIS base stations.[^99] After reviewing the
    record, we conclude that AIS base stations should be operated only
    by Federal entities, and, as a consequence, that the Commission need
    not adopt any rules pertaining to AIS base station equipment
    certification, licensing, or operation.

23. Almost all of the commenters addressing this question believe that
    private sector entities should not be licensed to operate AIS base
    stations.[^100] NTIA states that control of AIS base stations is "an
    inherently federal government function."[^101] According to NTIA,
    AIS base stations control all aspects of the AIS network, and can
    override certain shipborne AIS functions.[^102] It explains, "Base
    stations manage the AIS VHF Data Link by managing communications
    traffic on AIS through various means to provide for the safety of
    navigation, to obtain information necessary for VTS \[Vessel Traffic
    Services\] and national security purposes, to transmit safety
    related messages, and to serve as an aid to navigation."[^103] RTCM
    adds, "This power of AIS Base Stations to affect the operating
    characteristics of AIS systems should only be available to federal
    agencies with responsibility for navigational safety and
    security."[^104]

24. Alone among the commenters, MariTEL asserts that AIS base stations
    should also be permitted to conduct commercial operations.[^105]
    MariTEL also argues that a determination not to permit private
    sector entities to be licensed for AIS base stations means that
    Channel 87B will in fact have been reallocated for exclusive Federal
    use, not the shared Federal/non-Federal use to which the Commission
    said the channel was being reallocated in the *Report and
    Order*.[^106] We disagree because, in making this argument, MariTEL
    ignores the existence of ship-to-ship AIS communications, which do
    not directly involve AIS base stations, and are authorized under
    Part 80 of the Rules pursuant to Commission-issued ship station
    licenses.[^107]

25. We agree with NTIA and the other commenters who argue that the
    responsibilities of operating AIS base stations should be undertaken
    only by Federal entities. AIS base stations will query and send
    commands to vessels. They will have the capability of overriding
    certain shipborne AIS functions through remote control. They will
    serve as aids to navigation, in a fashion similar to lighthouses.
    They will be responsible for maritime traffic management. Given the
    critical role played by AIS base stations in the global AIS network,
    it would be inappropriate to permit private sector entities, or even
    state or local government entities,[^108] to operate such stations
    in the United States. Permitting non-Federal entities to control AIS
    base stations could potentially jeopardize maritime domain awareness
    and maritime safety by diffusing responsibility and accountability
    for AIS base station operations.

26. It follows from this determination -- that only Federal entities
    should operate AIS base stations -- that the Commission should not
    promulgate rules for the licensing and operation of AIS base
    stations.[^109] The Commission is statutorily prohibited from
    licensing Federal Government radio stations.[^110] There is likewise
    no reason for the Commission to adopt rules to govern the
    certification of AIS base station equipment, because the Commission
    plays no role in certifying equipment for Federal Government
    stations.[^111] Although most commenters favor the international
    standard, IEC 62320-1, as the basis for equipment certification
    rules for AIS base stations,[^112] the comments do not account for
    the fact that radiofrequency equipment used in Federal Government
    radio stations is subject to certification by NTIA, not the
    Commission.[^113] In any event, we have no reason to expect that the
    Federal Government will employ AIS base station equipment that is
    not compatible with the international standards. We therefore
    decline to adopt any rules pertaining to the licensing, operation,
    or certification of equipment for AIS base stations.[^114]

## Class B AIS Shipborne Equipment

27. The final set of issues presented in the *Further Notice* involved
    standards for certifying Class B AIS shipborne equipment, and
    further measures the Commission might adopt to ensure the accuracy
    of data transmitted from such devices.[^115] As the Commission noted
    in the *Further Notice*, Class B AIS devices are generally intended
    for use by vessels that are not subject to a mandatory AIS carriage
    requirement, and provide a less expensive alternative to Class A
    devices to encourage voluntary AIS carriage.[^116] For reasons
    discussed below, we conclude that we should base Part 80
    certification of Class B AIS devices on compliance with the
    pertinent international standard for such devices, IEC
    62287-1,[^117] as proposed in the *Further Notice*.[^118] We
    therefore add a new Section 80.231 and revise Section 80.1101(c)(12)
    of the Commission's Rules[^119] to incorporate IEC 62287-1 by
    reference as the Commission standard for certifying Class B AIS
    equipment. As suggested by some commenters, however, we adopt
    additional requirements as safeguards to better ensure that Class B
    AIS devices will transmit accurate static data, including the
    correct Maritime Mobile Service Identity (MMSI) number.[^120]

28. The commenters addressing this issue generally favor the
    Commission's proposal to incorporate by reference IEC 62287-1 as the
    standard for certifying Class B AIS equipment under Part 80.[^121]
    As ACR Electronics explains, the incorporation by reference of IEC
    62287-1 is the option most consistent with the paramount goals of
    this proceeding to facilitate speedy and widespread deployment of
    AIS equipment.[^122] Given that, as ACR Electronics also notes,
    there currently is no alternative basis for certifying Class B AIS
    equipment,[^123] rejection of IEC 62287-1 as the standard for
    certifying Class B AIS devices would necessitate the development of
    a different standard, which would result in a substantial and
    unacceptable additional delay before Commission certification of
    Class B AIS devices could begin.[^124] Further, reliance on the
    existing IEC standard will reduce the cost of Class B AIS devices,
    and thus promote voluntary AIS carriage.[^125] It will also moot any
    concerns regarding interoperability of Class B AIS devices both
    domestically and on a worldwide basis.

29. We disagree with MariTEL's contention that the Commission should
    delay certifying Class B AIS equipment until the Commission
    determines whether IEC 62287-1 ensures that Class B AIS devices do
    not cause interference to VPC operations in adjacent spectrum.[^126]
    The Commission already has determined, after reviewing an extensive
    record that included separate technical studies submitted by MariTEL
    and NTIA,[^127] that "the interference impact of wideband simplex
    AIS on VPC operations can be effectively mitigated through
    commercially reasonable means,"[^128] and MariTEL has not adduced
    any evidence to suggest that Class B AIS devices would pose a
    greater interference threat to VPC operations than Class A AIS
    devices, or that adopting rules for the certification of Class B AIS
    devices otherwise requires revisiting that earlier
    determination.[^129] We find, in sum, that certification of Class B
    AIS equipment in accordance with the established international
    standard for such equipment would serve the public interest for the
    same reasons that underlie the Commission's earlier determination to
    certify Class A AIS equipment in accordance with the established
    Class A international standard.[^130] We therefore amend our rules
    as proposed to incorporate by reference IEC 62287-1 as the standard
    for certifying Class B AIS equipment under Part 80.[^131]

30. We also agree in principle with those commenters who believe that
    the Commission should adopt additional measures, beyond reliance on
    IEC 62287-1, to ensure the accuracy of MMSIs and other static data
    programmed into Class B AIS devices.[^132] We have reviewed the
    proposals to that end in the record, some of which are very detailed
    and extensive.[^133] As discussed below, we adopt three measures to
    provide better assurance that Class B AIS devices will be programmed
    with the correct static data, and in particular the correct
    MMSI.[^134] None of the measures we adopt conflicts with IEC
    62287-1, and none should be burdensome for either equipment
    manufacturers or end users. It is unnecessary, and might be
    counterproductive, to prescribe more complicated processes, as some
    comments contemplate.

31. First, as urged by NTIA,[^135] we prohibit any person from knowingly
    entering an incorrect MMSI or other static data in a Class B AIS
    device. Although this is a very basic measure, we think that it
    ensures and clarifies that the Commission may impose the full range
    of sanctions at its disposal for the willful or knowing entry of
    false data.[^136] We would view any violations of this requirement
    as very serious, because the transmission of inaccurate static data
    could result in the misidentification of vessels, thus compromising
    the Coast Guard's ability to use AIS to full effect on behalf of its
    maritime domain awareness efforts. Second, we require that the
    static data, including MMSI, be entered by sellers and professional
    installers of Class B AIS devices, not the end users. As commenters
    note,[^137] IEC 62287-1 prohibits end users from altering MMSIs,
    once programmed in the unit, but does not prohibit end users from
    entering the numbers initially.[^138] Thus, this requirement would
    go further than IEC 62287-1 by requiring professional entry of the
    MMSI number at the point of sale or installation. NTIA proposes such
    a requirement,[^139] and it is consistent with the comments of ACR
    Electronics, RTCM and the Task Force asking the Commission to
    require persons that sell and install Class B AIS units to ensure
    that the appropriate static data is entered, or at least to
    encourage them to enter the data themselves.[^140] Third, and also
    as recommended by NTIA, as well as by RTCM,[^141] we require
    manufacturers to include a conspicuous label on Class B AIS devices
    explaining how to enter and confirm static data, and warning that
    inputting an MMSI that has not been properly assigned to the end
    user, or otherwise entering any improper or inaccurate static data,
    is prohibited. Manufacturers also will be required to include this
    information in the user's manual. As RTCM notes, IEC 62287-1
    contains only minimal guidance on the contents of manuals and user
    instructions, so adoption of this requirement does not conflict with
    the standard.[^142] NTIA believes that these three measures together
    provide a significant safeguard to ensure that the static data
    transmitted from Class B AIS devices, particularly MMSIs, are
    accurate and reliable.[^143] We therefore adopt these
    measures.[^144] We also adopt our proposal, unopposed by any
    commenter, that applicants for Commission certification of a Class B
    AIS device first obtain Coast Guard certification of the device,
    consistent with the Commission's procedures for Class A AIS
    devices.[^145]

32. Finally, we note that, while the *Further Notice* was pending,
    equipment manufacturers requested waivers to permit the
    authorization and use of Class B AIS transponders.[^146] The
    Wireless Telecommunications Bureau's Mobility Division sought
    comment on the waiver requests,[^147] and the commenters support
    authorizing Class B AIS devices before the conclusion of this
    proceeding.[^148] They assert that allowing voluntary vessels to fit
    the lower-cost Class B AIS devices as soon as possible will improve
    maritime security and safety of navigation.[^149] We agree that it
    is in the public interest to allow the use of Class B devices prior
    to the effective date of the rules adopted herein. Therefore, we
    grant the waiver requests to the extent that we will certify Class B
    equipment that meets the requirements adopted in this *Second Report
    and Order* prior to the effective date of the new rules.[^150]

# conclusion

33. The potential benefits of AIS for maritime domain awareness and
    maritime safety can hardly be overstated. It is critical that the
    Commission take appropriate measures to facilitate and encourage the
    widespread implementation of AIS in all navigable waterways within
    the territorial jurisdiction of the United States, both coastal and
    inland. We adopt such measures here. The actions we take in this
    *Second Report and Order* in WT Docket No. 04-344 will permit the
    Coast Guard, other first responders, and the maritime community in
    general to reap, in full, the unique advantages that AIS offers for
    our Nation's safety and security, while ensuring that the United
    States remains a full partner in the seamless global AIS network
    that has emerged in recent years. We look forward to continuing to
    work with NTIA, the Coast Guard, and other stakeholders in the
    maritime community to ensure that advanced communications
    technologies are brought to bear in furtherance of our goal of
    promoting the safety of vessels, the integrity of marine
    environments, and the detection and defeat of waterborne terrorist
    threats.

# procedural matters

## Regulatory Flexibility Act

34. As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA),[^151] the
    Commission has prepared a Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
    (FRFA) of the rules adopted in this *Second* *Report and Order*. The
    FRFA for the *Second* *Report and Order* is contained in Appendix C.
    The Commission's Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau, Reference
    Information Center, will send a copy of the *Second* *Report and
    Order*, including the FRFA, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the
    Small Business Administration. In addition, the Commission will send
    a copy of the *Second* *Report and Order*, including the FRFA, in a
    report to Congress pursuant to the Congressional Review Act.[^152]

## Peer Review Bulletin and Information Quality Act

35. The Commission conducted a peer review of a study on which this
    *Second* *Report and Order* relies in part, in compliance with the
    Peer Review Bulletin issued by the Office of Management and Budget
    (OMB).[^153] The peer review report is discussed in this *Second*
    *Report and Order* in Section III.A.1.[^154] All of the materials
    related to this peer review -- the study, the charge statement, the
    peer review report, and the Commission staff response -- are
    disseminated on the Commission's website.[^155] This *Second*
    *Report and Order* also complies with the Information Quality
    Guidelines promulgated by the Commission.[^156]

## Congressional Review Act

36. The Commission will send a copy of this *Second Report and Order* in
    a report to be sent to Congress and the Government Accountability
    Office pursuant to the Congressional Review Act, see 5 U.S.C.
    801(a)(1)(A).

## Paperwork Reduction Act

37. This document contains new information collection requirements
    subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), Public Law
    104-13. It will be submitted to the Office of Management and Budget
    (OMB) for review under Section 3507(d) of the PRA. OMB, the general
    public, and other Federal agencies are invited to comment on the new
    or modified information collection requirements contained in this
    proceeding. In addition, we note that pursuant to the Small Business
    Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, Public Law 107-198, *see* 44 U.S.C.
    3506(c)(4), we previously sought specific comment on how the
    Commission might "further reduce the information collection burden
    for small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees."

38. In this present document, we have assessed the effects of
    establishing labeling requirements for manufacturers of Class B AIS
    devices, and find that the labeling requirements adopted herein
    would not impose an undue burden or excessive cost on such
    manufacturers, including those that have fewer than 25 employees. We
    also find that the public interest in ensuring that Class B AIS
    devices transmit accurate static data, including the correct MMSI
    number, which is the underlying purpose of the labeling
    requirements, outweighs the incremental compliance cost on
    manufacturers, including those that have 25 or fewer employees.

## Further Information

39. For further information, contact Jeffrey Tobias, Mobility Division,
    Wireless Telecommunications Bureau, (202) 418-1617, or TTY (202)
    418-7233, or via electronic mail at jeff.tobias@fcc.gov.

40. To request materials in accessible formats for people with
    disabilities (Braille, large print, electronic files, audio format),
    send an e-mail to <fcc504@fcc.gov> or call the Consumer &
    Governmental Affairs Bureau at 202-418-0530 (voice), 202-418-0432
    (tty). This *Report and Order* can also be downloaded at:
    http://www.fcc.gov/.

# ordering clauses

41. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to the authority of Sections
    4(i), 303(r), and 403 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended,
    47 U.S.C. §§ 154(i), 303(r), 403, that Parts 2, 80 and 90 of the
    Commission's Rules ARE AMENDED as set forth in the attached Appendix
    B, effective thirty days after publication in the Federal Register.

42. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, pursuant to Sections 4(i), 303(r), and
    403 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. §§
    154(i), 303(r) and 403, this *Second* *Report and Order* in WT
    Docket No. 04-344 IS HEREBY ADOPTED.

43. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the late-filed comments of Chris Carver,
    J.H. Daugherty II, and the National Telecommunications and
    Information Administration ARE ACCEPTED.

44. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Motion to Strike the reply comments
    filed by Warren Havens, Telesaurus VPC LLC, Telesaurus Holdings GB
    LLC, AMTS Consortium LLC, and Intelligent Transportation &
    Monitoring Wireless LLC, filed by MariTEL, Inc. on December 21,
    2006, IS GRANTED.

45. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that new applications to use Channel 84
    (157.225/161.825 MHz) or 85 (157.275/161.875 MHz) pursuant to Part
    90 of the Commission's Rules SHALL NOT BE ACCEPTED as of the release
    date of this *Second Report and Order*.

46. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the requests for waiver filed by ACR
    Electronics, Navico UK, SevenStar Electronics Ltd., and Software
    Radio Technology, plc ARE GRANTED to the extent described in
    paragraph 32, *supra*, and the Part 80 Rules ARE WAIVED to the
    extent necessary to permit the certification of Class B AIS
    equipment pursuant to the rules adopted herein prior to the
    effective date of those rules.

47. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Commission's Consumer Information
    Bureau, Reference Information Center, SHALL SEND a copy of this
    *Second* *Report and Order*, including the Final Regulatory
    Flexibility Analysis, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small
    Business Administration.

48. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the proceeding in WT Docket No. 04-344 IS
    TERMINATED.

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

Marlene H. Dortch

Secretary

**APPENDIX A**

**Commenting Parties**

[Comments]{.underline}:

ACR Electronics, Inc. (ACR Electronics)

American Pilots' Association (APA)

American Waterways Operators (AWO)

Carver, Chris (Carver)

Daugherty, J.H., II (Daugherty)

International Association of Marine Aids to Navigation and Lighthouse
Authorities (IALA)

MariTEL, Inc. (MariTEL)

National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA)

Nautical Institute, The (NI)

ORBCOMM, Inc. (ORBCOMM)

Radio Technical Commission for Maritime Services (RTCM)

Shine Micro, Inc. (Shine Micro)

Task Force for the Implementation of the Global Maritime Distress and
Safety System (GMDSS) (Task Force)

United States Boating Institute, The (USBI)

[Reply Comments:]{.underline}

MariTEL

ORBCOMM

PacifiCorp

**APPENDIX B**

**Final Rules**

For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Federal Communications
Commission amends 47 C.F.R. parts 2, 80 and 90 as follows:

**I. PART 2 \-- FREQUENCY ALLOCATIONS AND RADIO TREATY MATTERS;\
GENERAL RULES AND REGULATIONS**

The authority citation for part 2 continues to read as follows:

**AUTHORITY: 47 U.S.C. 154, 302a, 303, and 336, unless otherwise
noted.**

1.  Section 2.106, the Table of Frequency Allocations, footnote US399 is
    amended as follows:

**§ 2.106 Table of Frequency Allocations.**

UNITED STATES (US) NOTES

\* \* \* \* \*

US399 The frequency bands 161.9625-161.9875 MHz (AIS 1 with its center
frequency at 161.975 MHz) and 162.0125-162.0375 MHz (AIS 2 with its
center frequency at 162.025 MHz) are allocated to the maritime mobile
service on a primary basis for Federal Government and non-Federal
Government use, and shall be used exclusively for Automatic
Identification Systems (AIS). However, in VHF Public Coast Service Areas
(VPCSAs) 1-9, site-based stations licensed prior to November 13, 2006,
may continue to operate on a co-primary basis in the frequency band
161.9625-161.9875 MHz until expiration of the license term for licenses
in active status as of November 13, 2006. Also, in VPCSAs 10-42,
site-based stations licensed in the frequency band 161.9625-161.9875 MHz
prior to **\[INSERT EFFECTIVE DATE\]** may remain authorized to operate
on a co-primary basis in that frequency band until **\[INSERT DATE
FIFTEEN YEARS AFTER EFFECTIVE DATE\]**, and geographical stations
licensed in the frequency band 161.9625-161.9875 MHz prior to **\[INSERT
EFFECTIVE DATE\]** may continue to operate on a co-primary basis in that
frequency band until **\[INSERT DATE TWO YEARS AFTER EFFECTIVE DATE\]**.
[See]{.underline} 47 CFR § 80.371(c)(1)(ii) for the definitions of
VPCSAs, and geographic license.

\* \* \* \* \*

**II. PART 80 \-- STATIONS IN THE MARITIME SERVICES**

2.  The authority citation for Part 80 continues to read as follows:

**AUTHORITY: Secs. 4, 303, 307(e), 309, and 332, 48 Stat. 1066, 1082, as
amended; 47 U.S.C. 154, 303, 307(e), 309, and 332, unless otherwise
noted. Interpret or apply 48 Stat. 1064-1068, 1081-1105, as amended; 47
U.S.C. 151-155, 301-609; 3 UST 3450, 3 UST 4726, 12 UST 2377.**

3.  Part 80 is amended by adding Section 80.231 to read as follows:

**§ 80.231 Technical Requirements for Class B Automatic Identification
System (AIS) equipment.**

\(a\) Class B Automatic Identification System (AIS) equipment must meet
the technical requirements of the International Electro-technical
Commission (IEC) 62287-1 International Standard, "Maritime navigation
and radio communication equipment and systems -- Class B shipborne
equipment of the Automatic Identification System -- Part 1: Carrier --
sense time division multiple access (CSTDMA) techniques," 2006. The
Director of the Federal Register approves this incorporation by
reference in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR Part 51. Copies
of this standard can be inspected at the Federal Communications
Commission, 445 12th Street, SW., Washington, DC (Reference Information
Center) or at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA).
For information on the availability of this material at NARA, call
202--741--6030, or go to:
*http://www.archives.gov/federal_register/code_of_federal_regulations/ibr_locations.html.*
IEC publications can be purchased from the International
Electro-technical Commission, 3 Rue de Varembe, CH-1211 Geneva 20,
Switzerland, or from the American National Standards Institute (ANSI),
25 West 43^rd^ Street, New York, NY 10036, telephone (212) 642-4900.

\(b\) In addition to the labels or other identifying information
required under §§ 2.925 and 2.926 of this chapter, each Class B AIS
device shall include a conspicuous label that includes: (i) instructions
on how to accurately enter into the device and confirm static data
pertaining to the vessel in which the device is or will be installed;
and (ii) the following statement: "WARNING: It is a violation of the
rules of the Federal Communications Commission to input an MMSI that has
not been properly assigned to the end user, or to otherwise input any
inaccurate data in this device." Instructions on how to accurately enter
and confirm static data in the device shall also be included in the
user's manual for the device. The entry of static data into a Class B
AIS device shall be performed by the vendor of the device or by an
appropriately qualified person in the business of installing marine
communications equipment on board vessels. In no event shall the entry
of static data into a Class B AIS device be performed by the user of the
device or the licensee of a ship station using the device. Knowingly
programming a Class B AIS device with inaccurate static data, or causing
a Class B AIS device to be programmed with inaccurate static data, is
prohibited.

\(c\) Prior to submitting a certification application for a Class B AIS
device, the following information must be submitted in duplicate to the
Commandant (CG-521), U.S. Coast Guard, 2100 2^nd^ Street, S.W.,
Washington, DC 20593-0001:

\(1\) The name of the manufacturer or grantee and the model number of
the AIS device; and

\(2\) Copies of the test report and test data obtained from the test
facility showing that the device complies with the environmental and
operational requirements identified in IEC 62287-1.

\(d\) After reviewing the information described in paragraph (c) of this
section, the U.S. Coast Guard will issue a letter stating whether the
AIS device satisfies all of the requirements specified in IEC 62287-1.

\(e\) A certification application for an AIS device submitted to the
Commission must contain a copy of the U.S. Coast Guard letter stating
that the device satisfies all of the requirements specified in IEC
62287-1, a copy of the technical test data, and the instruction
manual(s).

4.  Section 80.275 is amended by revising the title and paragraph (a) to
    read as follows:

**§ 80.275 Technical Requirements for Class A Automatic Identification
System (AIS) equipment.**

\(a\) Prior to submitting a certification application for a Class A AIS
device, the following information must be submitted in duplicate to the
Commandant (G--PSE), U.S. Coast Guard, 2100 2nd Street, S.W., Washington
DC 20593--0001:

\* \* \* \* \*

5.  Section 80.371 is amended by removing the column titled "Frequency
    pairs not available for assignment" in the table in paragraph
    (c)(1)(ii), and revising paragraphs (c)(1)(i) and (c)(3) to read as
    follows:

\* \* \* \* \*

**§ 80.371 Public correspondence frequencies.**

\(c\) [Working frequencies in the marine VHF 156-162 MHz
band]{.underline}. (1)(i) The frequency pairs listed in this paragraph
are available for assignment to public coast stations for communications
with ship stations and units on land.

[\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_]{.underline}

[Working Carrier Frequency Pairs in the 156-162 MHz Band
^1^]{.underline}

+---------------------------------------+--------------+--------------+
| Channel designator                    | Carrier      |              |
|                                       | Frequency    |              |
|                                       | (MHz)        |              |
+---------------------------------------+--------------+--------------+
|                                       | Ship         | Coast        |
|                                       |              | Transmit     |
|                                       | Transmit     |              |
+---------------------------------------+--------------+--------------+
| 24.                                   | 157.200      | 161.800      |
| ..................................... |              |              |
+---------------------------------------+--------------+--------------+
| 84.                                   | 157.225      | 161.825      |
| ..................................... |              |              |
+---------------------------------------+--------------+--------------+
| 25^5^.                                | 157.250      | 161.850      |
| ..................................... |              |              |
+---------------------------------------+--------------+--------------+
| 85^2^                                 | 157.275      | 161.875      |
| ..................................... |              |              |
+---------------------------------------+--------------+--------------+
| 26.                                   | 157.300      | 161.900      |
| ..................................... |              |              |
+---------------------------------------+--------------+--------------+
| 86...                                 | 157.325      | 161.925      |
| .................................\... |              |              |
+---------------------------------------+--------------+--------------+
| 27...                                 | 157.350      | 161.950      |
| .................................\... |              |              |
+---------------------------------------+--------------+--------------+
| 87^3^                                 | 157.375      | 161.975      |
| .................................\... |              |              |
+---------------------------------------+--------------+--------------+
| 28...                                 | 157.400      | 162.000      |
| .................................\... |              |              |
+---------------------------------------+--------------+--------------+
| 88^4^.                                | 157.425      | 162.025      |
| ..................................... |              |              |
+---------------------------------------+--------------+--------------+

^1^ For special assignment of frequencies in this band in certain areas
of Washington State, the Great Lakes and the east coast of the United
States pursuant to arrangements between the United States and Canada,
see subpart B of this part.

^2^ The frequency pair 157.275/161.875 MHz is available on a primary
basis to ship and public coast stations. In Alaska it is also available
on a secondary basis to private mobile repeater stations.

^3^ The frequency 161.975 MHz is available only for Automatic
Identification System communications. No license authorizing a
site-based VHF Public Coast Station or a Private Land Mobile Radio
Station to operate on the frequency 161.975 MHz will be renewed unless
the license is or has been modified to remove frequency 161.975 MHz as
an authorized frequency. Licenses authorizing geographic stations to
operate on frequency 161.975 MHz will be modified on **\[INSERT DATE TWO
YEARS AFTER EFFECTIVE DATE\]** to replace the frequency with either
frequency pair 157.225/161.825 MHz (VPCSAs 10-15, 23-30, 33-34, 36-39,
and 41-42) or frequency pair 157.275/161.875 MHz (VPCSAs 16-22, 31-32,
35, and 40), unless an application to so modify the license is granted
before that date.

^4^ The frequency 162.025 MHz is available only for Automatic
Identification System communications. One hundred twenty kilometers (75
miles) from the United States/Canada border, the frequency 157.425 MHz
is available for intership and commercial communications. Outside the
Puget Sound area and its approaches and the Great Lakes, 157.425 MHz is
available for communications between commercial fishing vessels and
associated aircraft while engaged in commercial fishing activities.

^5^ In VPCSAs 10-42, the working carrier frequency pair 157.250/161.850
MHz (Channel 25) is not available for assignment under Part 80.

\* \* \* \* \*

\(ii\) Service areas in the marine VHF 156-162 MHz band are VHF Public
Coast Service Areas (VPCSAs). As listed in the table in this paragraph,
VPCSAs are based on, and composed of one or more of, the U.S. Department
of Commerce\'s 172 Economic Areas (EAs). See 60 FR 13114 (March 10,
1995). In addition, the Commission shall treat Guam and the Northern
Mariana Islands, Puerto Rico and the United States Virgin Islands,
American Samoa, and the Gulf of Mexico as EA-like areas, and has
assigned them EA numbers 173-176, respectively. Maps of the EAs and
VPCSAs are available for public inspection and copying at the FCC Public
Reference Room, Room CY-A257, 445 12th Street, SW., Washington, DC
20554. In addition to the EAs listed in the table in this paragraph,
each VPCSA also includes the adjacent waters under the jurisdiction of
the United States. In VPCSAs 10-42, the working carrier frequency pair
157.250 MHz/161.850 MHz (Channel 25) is not available for assignment
under Part 80.

\(3\) VPCSA licensees may not operate on Channel 228B (162.0125 MHz),
which is available for use in the Coast Guard's Ports and Waterways
Safety System (PAWSS). In addition, VPCSA licensees may not operate on
Channel AIS 1 (161.975 MHz) or Channel AIS 2 (162.025 MHz), which are
designated exclusively for Automatic Identification Systems (AIS),
except to receive AIS communications to the same extent, and subject to
the same limitations, as other shore stations participating in AIS.
[See]{.underline} note 3 to the table in paragraph (c)(1) of this
section regarding use of Channel AIS 1 by VPCSA licensees in VPCSAs
10-42.

\* \* \* \* \*

6.  Section 80.393 is amended by inserting the heading [AIS
    Stations]{.smallcaps} immediately above Section 80.393 and by
    revising the section to read as follows:

**§ 80.393 Frequencies for AIS stations.**

Automatic Identification Systems (AIS) are a maritime broadcast service.
The simplex channels at 161.975 MHz (AIS 1) and 162.025 MHz (AIS 2),
each with a 25 kHz bandwidth, may be authorized only for AIS. In
accordance with the Maritime Transportation Security Act, the United
States Coast Guard regulates AIS carriage requirements for non-Federal
Government ships. These requirements are codified at 33 CFR §§ 164.46,
401.20.

7.  Section 80.1101 is amended by adding paragraph (c)(12)(vi) to read
    as follows:

**§ 80.1101 Performance standards.**

\* \* \* \* \*

\(c\) \* \* \*

\(12\) \* \* \*

\(vi\) with respect to Class B AIS devices only, IEC 62287-1
International Standard, "Maritime navigation and radio communication
equipment and systems -- Class B shipborne equipment of the Automatic
Identification System -- Part 1: Carrier -- sense time division multiple
access (CSTDMA) techniques," 2006.

\* \* \* \* \*

**III. PART 90 -- PRIVATE LAND MOBILE RADIO SERVICES**

The authority citation for Part 90 continues to read as follows:

**AUTHORITY: Secs. 4(i), 11, 303(g), 303(r) and 332(c)(7) of the
Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 154(i), 161, 303(g),
303(r), 332(c)(7.**

8.  Section 90.20 is amended by removing paragraphs (g)(3) and (g)(4),
    redesignating paragraph (g)(5) as (g)(3), and revising paragraphs
    (g), (g)(2) and redesignated paragraphs (g)(3)(i), (g)(3)(ii),
    (g)(3)(iii)(B), (g)(3)(iii)(D), and (g)(3)(vi) to read as follows:

    **§ 90.20 Public safety pool.**

    \* \* \* \* \*

    \(g\) Former public correspondence working channel in the maritime
    VHF (156-162 MHz) band allocated for public safety use in 33 inland
    Economic Areas.

    \(1\) \* \* \*

    \(2\) In VHF Public Coast Service Areas (VPCSAs) 10-42, the duplex
    channel pair 157.250 MHz/161.850 MHz (VHF Maritime Channel 25) is
    allocated for public safety use by entities eligible for licensing
    under paragraph (a) of this section, and is designated primarily for
    the purpose of interoperability communications. [See]{.underline} 47
    CFR § 80.371(c)(1)(ii) for the definitions of VPCSAs.

    \(i\) The channel pair 157.250 MHz/161.850 MHz was formerly
    allocated and assigned (under\
    § 80.371(c) (1997) of this chapter) as a public correspondence
    working channel in the maritime VHF 156-162 MHz band, and was also
    shared (under former § 90.283 (1997) of this chapter) with private
    land mobile stations, including grandfathered public safety
    licensees. Thus, there are grandfathered licensees nationwide
    (maritime and private land mobile radio stations, including by rule
    waiver) operating on this channel both inside and outside of VPCSAs
    10-42.

    \(ii\) The channel pairs 157.225 MHz/161.825 MHz and 157.275
    MHz/161.875 MHz were formerly allocated and assigned under this
    section as public safety interoperability channels but were
    reallocated for assignment as VHF public coast station channels
    under § 80.371(c) of this chapter. Public safety operations licensed
    on these channels as of **\[INSERT EFFECTIVE DATE\]** or licensed
    pursuant to an application filed prior to **\[INSERT RELEASE DATE OF
    THIS ORDER\]** may remain authorized to operate on the channels on a
    primary basis until **\[INSERT DATE FIFTEEN YEARS AFTER EFFECTIVE
    DATE\]**.

    \(3\) \* \* \*

    \(i\) Provide evidence of frequency coordination in accordance with
    § 90.175. Public safety coordinators except the Special Emergency
    Coordinator are certified to coordinate applications for the channel
    pair 157.250 MHz/161.850 MHz ([i.e.]{.underline}, letter symbol PX
    under paragraph (c)(2) of this section).

\(ii\) Station power, as measured at the output terminals of the
transmitter, must not exceed 50 Watts for base stations and 20 Watts for
mobile stations, except in accordance with the provisions of paragraph
(g)(3)(vi) of this section. Antenna height (HAAT) must not exceed 122
meters (400 feet) for base stations and 4.5 meters (15 feet) for mobile
stations, except in accordance with paragraph (g)(3)(vi) of this
section. Antenna height (HAAT) must not exceed 122 meters (400 feet) for
base stations and 4.5 meters (15 feet) for mobile stations, except in
accordance with paragraph (g)(3)(vi) of this section. Such base and
mobile channels shall not be operated on board aircraft in flight.

\(iii\) \* \* \*

\(B\) Protect stations described in paragraph (g)(2)(i) of this section,
by frequency coordination in accordance § 90.175 of this part.

\* \* \* \* \*

\(C\) \* \* \*

\(D\) Where the Public safety designated channel is not a Public safety
designated channel in an adjacent VPCSA: Applicants shall engineer base
stations such that the maximum signal strength at the boundary of the
adjacent VPCSA does not exceed 5 dBµV/m.

\(vi\) Applicants seeking to be licensed for stations exceeding the
power/antenna height limits of the table in paragraph (g)(3)(iv) of this
section must request a waiver of that paragraph and must submit with
their application an interference analysis, based upon an appropriate,
generally-accepted terrain-based propagation model, that shows that
co-channel protected entities, described in paragraph (g)(3)(iii) of
this section, would receive the same or greater interference protection
than the relevant criteria outlined in paragraph (g)(3)(iii) of this
section.

\* \* \* \* \*

**APPENDIX C**

**Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis**

As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, as amended
(RFA),[^157] an Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) was
incorporated in the *Further* *Notice of Proposed Rule Making* in this
proceeding (*Further Notice*).[^158] The Commission sought written
public comment on the proposals in the *Further Notice*, including
comment on the IRFA. This present Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
(FRFA) conforms to the RFA.[^159]

**A. Need for, and Objectives of, the Second Report and Order**

The rules adopted in the *Second* *Report and Order* are intended to
facilitation the implementation of maritime Automatic Identification
Systems (AIS) in the United States and its territorial waters. AIS is an
important tool for enhancing maritime safety and homeland security. In
the *Second* *Report and Order*, we designate VHF maritime Channels 87B
and 88B for exclusive AIS use in inland VHF Public Coast service areas
(VPCSAs) because such designation will best ensure that the United
States can maximize the maritime safety and homeland security benefits
of AIS. The exclusive use of VHF maritime Channel 87B for AIS in inland
waterways will, *inter alia*, provide an important navigational tool to
guide vessels traveling on inland rivers and lakes, avoid the problems
that would inhere in requiring vessels to switch AIS channels when
transiting an AIS "fence" between maritime VPCSAs and inland VPCSAs,
facilitate speedy AIS deployment using existing technical standards and
infrastructure, and prevent co-channel interference to AIS operations
not only in inland waterways but also in coastal and international
waters.[^160] The *Second Report and Order* also concludes that AIS base
stations should be operated only by Federal entities, and, as a
consequence, that the Commission need not adopt any rules pertaining to
AIS base station equipment certification, licensing or operation.[^161]
Finally, the Commission adopts rules for the certification of Class B
AIS devices, incorporating by reference the applicable international
standard as the basis for such certification, while also adopting
additional measures to better ensure that Class B AIS devices transmit
accurate static data.[^162]

**B. Summary of Significant Issues Raised by Public Comments in Response
to the IRFA**

No comments were submitted specifically in response to the IRFA.
However, one of the commenters, MariTEL, Inc. (MariTEL), contends that
the Commission should not designate Channel 87B for AIS in inland
VPCSAs, should not adopt rules based on international standards for the
certification of AIS base station equipment, and should not authorize
Class B AIS devices pursuant to the international standards, because
such measures would cause interference to VHF Public Coast (VPC)
stations operating on adjacent channels. As discussed in detail in
Section E of this FRFA, we have considered the potential economic impact
on small entities of these rules, and we have considered alternatives
that would reduce the potential economic impact on small entities of the
rules enacted herein, regardless of whether the potential economic
impact was discussed in any comments.

**C. Description and Estimate of the Number of Small Entities to Which
Rules Will Apply**

The RFA directs agencies to provide a description of and, where
feasible, an estimate of the number of small entities that may be
affected by the proposed rules, if adopted.[^163] The RFA defines the
term "small entity" as having the same meaning as the terms "small
business," "small organization," and "small governmental
jurisdiction."[^164] In addition, the term "small business" has the same
meaning as the term "small business concern" under the Small Business
Act.[^165] A small business concern is one which: (1) is independently
owned and operated; (2) is not dominant in its field of operation; and
(3) satisfies any additional criteria established by the Small Business
Administration (SBA).[^166]

Small businesses in the aviation and marine radio services use a very
high frequency (VHF) marine or aircraft radio and, as appropriate, an
emergency position-indicating radio beacon (and/or radar) or an
emergency locator transmitter. The Commission has not developed a small
business size standard specifically applicable to these small
businesses. For purposes of this analysis, the Commission uses the SBA
small business size standard for the category "Cellular and Other
Wireless Telecommunications," which is 1,500 or fewer employees.[^167]
Between December 3, 1998 and December 14, 1998, the Commission held an
auction of 42 VHF Public Coast (VPC) licenses in the 157.1875-157.4500
MHz (ship transmit) and 161.775-162.0125 MHz (coast transmit) bands. For
purposes of the auction, the Commission defined a "small" business as an
entity that, together with controlling interests and affiliates, has
average gross revenues for the preceding three years not to exceed
fifteen million dollars. In addition, a "very small" business is one
that, together with controlling interests and affiliates, has average
gross revenues for the preceding three years not to exceed three million
dollars.[^168] There are approximately 10,672 licensees in the Marine
Coast Service, and the Commission estimates that almost all of them
qualify as "small" businesses under the above special small business
size standards.

**D. Description of Projected Reporting, Recordkeeping, and Other
Compliance Requirements\
for Small Entities**

The rule amendments adopted in the *Second Report and Order* impose new
compliance burdens on manufacturers and vendors of Class B AIS devices
by requiring that such devices comply with the international standard
for Class B AIS equipment, IEC 62287-1, in order to be certified by the
Commission for use in the United States, and by requiring that static
data be entered into Class B AIS equipment only by the vendor or
installer. The rule amendments adopted in the *Second Report and Order*
also impose requirements for the professional installation and labeling
of Class B AIS devices to better ensure the accuracy of the static data
transmitted from such devices.

**E. Steps Taken to Minimize the Significant Economic Impact on Small
Entities, and Significant Alternatives Considered**

The RFA requires an agency to describe any significant alternatives that
it has considered in developing its approach, which may include the
following four alternatives (among others): "(1) the establishment of
differing compliance or reporting requirements or timetables that take
into account the resources available to small entities; (2) the
clarification, consolidation, or simplification of compliance and
reporting requirements under the rule for such small entities; (3) the
use of performance rather than design standards; and (4) an exemption
from coverage of the rule, or any part thereof, for such small
entities."[^169]

In the IRFA for the *Further Notice*, the Commission described, and
sought comment on, possible alternatives to the rule amendments under
consideration in the *Further Notice* that might minimize the economic
impact on small entities.[^170] Specifically, the Commission asked
interested parties, and in particular inland VPCSA licensees, to provide
information on the potential impact on inland VPCSA licensees of
designating Channel 87B for AIS use exclusively throughout the Nation.
To the extent that commenters foresaw such an impact, they were invited
to suggest alternatives that would minimize or eliminate any adverse
effect on small entities. It was noted, for example, that commenters
could suggest that inland VPCSA licensees be accorded treatment similar
to that which was accorded to site-based incumbent licensees, permitting
them to continue to operate on Channel 87B on a shared basis with AIS
for the remainder of their current license terms, but with no
opportunity for renewal of the licenses. Commenters were also invited to
address the possibility of migrating such licensees to different
channels if such were available.[^171]

In the *Further Notice*, comment was also invited on rules to govern AIS
base stations, including certification standards for AIS base station
equipment.[^172] In the absence of specific proposals, the Commission
invited interested parties to consider generally whether any special
measures should be adopted in the AIS base station rules to prevent a
significant adverse impact on small entities. Parties providing such
comments were asked to address the extent to which they believe small
entities may seek to become AIS base station licensees.[^173]

Finally, the Commission requested comment in the *Further Notice* on the
Commission's proposal to incorporate by reference IEC 62287-1 as the
standard for certifying Class B AIS devices under Part 80 of the
Commission's rules.[^174] The Commission stated that incorporating by
reference the international standard for Class B AIS devices would
reduce costs to manufacturers by eliminating the possible need to design
devices to two potentially conflicting standards, and would reduce costs
to users of the devices both from a pass-through of manufacturers' cost
savings and by eliminating the possible need to fit their vessels with
more than one Class B AIS device if they travel outside U.S. territorial
waters, *i.e.*, removing the need to carry one Class B AIS device to
function within U.S. territorial waters, and another Class B AIS device
to function in international waters or other nations' territorial
waters. The Commission noted, in addition, that Class B AIS devices are
intended generally for use on vessels that are not required by law to
carry AIS devices. Since carriage of Class B AIS devices is voluntary,
the establishment of standards for certifying such devices should not
impose a new compliance burden on vessel operators. However, to the
extent that any commenters believed that the establishment of equipment
certification standards for Class B AIS devices might impose a
significant new compliance burden on any small entities, the Commission
invited those commenters to suggest alternative or complementary
approaches that might reduce or eliminate that burden, including, but
not limited to, the establishment of less rigorous standards, or the
provision of exemptions or grandfathering protection for small
entities.[^175]

Although we received no comments specifically addressed to the IRFA for
the *Further Notice*, we have considered all comments to the *Further
Notice* addressing the impact of any proposed change on small entities
and all suggestions for alternative measures that would have a less
significant impact on small entities. For reasons discussed below, we
conclude that the rule changes adopted in the *Second Report and Order*
will not impose undue compliance burdens on small entities.

In order to avoid the disruption of VPC station operations in inland
VPCSAs that might otherwise stem from the designation of Channel 87B for
exclusive AIS use in the inland VPCSAs, we have provided the licensees
of those stations with both a significant transitional period to adjust
to the loss of Channel 87B, as well as a replacement channel.
Specifically, we have provided that site-based licensees operating on
Channel 87B in inland areas may continue to use that channel for fifteen
years after the effective date of these rule changes, and that
geographic licensees operating on Channel 87B in inland VPCSAs may
continue to operate on the channel for a period of two years following
the effective date of these rule amendments.[^176] In addition, in each
inland VPCSA, we are making a duplex channel pair, either Channel 84 or
Channel 85, depending on the inland VPCSA, available for VPC use by the
geographic licensee as a replacement for Channel 87B.[^177] Channel
84/85 will be made available immediately upon the effective date of
these rule amendments; thus, licensees will be able to operate on either
Channel 84/85 or Channel 87B for a significant period of time, allowing
migration of existing users of Channel 87B to alternative spectrum
without disruption of existing operations on Channel 87B. In addition,
the only commenter opposing the designation of Channel 87B for AIS use
in inland VPCSAs has indicated that the redesignation of Channel 84/85
for VPC use could suffice to compensate licensees for the loss of use
Channel 87B.[^178]

We have determined not to adopt rules for the certification of AIS base
station equipment, or for the licensing and operation of AIS base
stations, because AIS base stations perform critical maritime safety and
homeland security functions, and should therefore be controlled only by
Federal entities.[^179] Accordingly, there is no present need to further
consider how such rules might affect small entities.

In addition, we continue to find, for the reasons stated in the IRFA
accompanying the *Further Notice*, that adopting rules for the
certification of Class B AIS devices based on the international
standard, IEC 62287-1, will benefit the manufacturers of such devices,
including small entities, because manufacturers would have to
manufacture Class B AIS devices in accordance with that standard in any
event to serve vessels traveling outside U.S. territorial waters.
Adoption of a different standard incompatible with IEC 62287-1 would
increase costs of manufacturing Class B AIS equipment by requiring that
such equipment conform to both standards. Those costs would be passed on
to consumers, and it is even possible that establishment of a
U.S.-specific standard for Class B AIS devices would compel vessel
owners and operators, including recreational boaters, to purchase and
install two separate Class B AIS devices. Adoption of a different
standard would also delay domestic deployment of Class B AIS equipment
because no such accepted alternative standard currently exists. Finally,
we note that the manufacturers addressing this issue all support the
incorporation by reference of IEC 62287-1.[^180]

Finally, we have also determined in the *Second Report and Order* to
impose additional requirements pertaining to the labeling, sale,
installation and operation of Class B AIS equipment.[^181] Specifically,
we have adopted rules that: (a) prohibit any person from entering an
incorrect MMSI or other static data in a Class B AIS device; (b) require
that sellers and professional installers of Class B AIS devices, not the
end users, enter the static data; and (c) require affixation on a Class
B AIS device of a conspicuous label explaining how to enter and confirm
static data, and warning that it is a violation of the Commission's
rules to input an MMSI that has not been properly assigned to the end
user, or to otherwise enter any improper or inaccurate static data, and
to provide this same information in the user's manual. These provisions
do not impose a significant compliance burden on manufacturers, vendors
or users of Class B AIS equipment. In any event, we do not see any
alternative that would permit differential application of these
requirements on small entities without undermining the purpose of these
requirements, to promote homeland security and maritime safety by
ensuring that Class B AIS devices transmit accurate static data.

**F. Report to Congress**

The Commission will send a copy of this *Second* *Report and Order* in
WT Docket No. 04-344, including the Final Regulatory Flexibility
Analysis, in a report to be sent to Congress pursuant to the
Congressional Review Act.[^182] In addition, the Commission will send a
copy of the *Second* *Report and Order*, including the Final Regulatory
Flexibility Analysis, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the SBA. A
copy of the *Second* *Report and Order* and the Final Regulatory
Flexibility Analysis (or summaries thereof) will also be published in
the Federal Register.[^183]

[^1]: *See* Amendment of the Commission's Rules Regarding Maritime
    Automatic Identification Systems, *Report and Order and Further
    Notice of Proposed Rule Making and Fourth Memorandum Opinion and
    Order*, WT Docket No. 04-344 & PR Docket No. 92-257, 21 FCC Rcd 8892
    (2006) (*Report and Order*, *Further Notice*, and *Fourth MO&O*,
    respectively).

[^2]: *See Report and Order*, 21 FCC Rcd at 8907 ¶ 23.

[^3]: Class A AIS devices are those currently certified by the
    Commission for compliance with international and Coast Guard
    carriage requirements. Class B AIS devices, which have somewhat
    reduced functionality vis-à-vis Class A devices, are intended
    primarily for voluntary carriage by recreational and other
    non-compulsory vessels.

[^4]: *See* 47 C.F.R. § 80.5. For more detailed information on the
    history of AIS, *see* *Report and Order*, 21 FCC Rcd at 8894-8901 ¶¶
    4-11.

[^5]: *See* Amendments to the International Convention for the Safety of
    Life at Sea, 1974, Chapter V, Regulation 19.2.4, "Carriage
    requirements for shipborne navigational systems and equipment," as
    amended by IMO Resolution MSC.99(73) -- 2000 Amendments to the
    Safety of Life at Sea 1974 Convention, as Amended -- London, 5
    December 2000 (*IMO AIS Carriage Requirements*). The *IMO AIS
    Carriage Requirements* apply to all ships of 300 gross tons or more
    on international voyages, cargo ships of 500 gross tons or more, and
    passenger ships that carry more than twelve passengers, irrespective
    of size.

[^6]: *See* 46 U.S.C. § 70114.

[^7]: Currently, the Coast Guard AIS carriage requirements apply to,
    *inter alia*, self-propelled vessels of 65 feet or more in length,
    other than passenger and fishing vessels, in commercial service and
    on an international voyage; passenger vessels of 150 gross tonnage
    or more; all tankers, regardless of tonnage; and vessels, other than
    passenger vessels or tankers, of 300 gross tonnage or more. *See* 33
    C.F.R. § 164.46. Separate AIS carriage requirements apply to vessels
    transiting the Saint Lawrence Seaway. *See* 33 C.F.R. § 401.20.

[^8]: *See* Recommendation ITU-R M.1371-1, "Technical characteristics
    for a universal shipborne automatic identification system using time
    division multiple access in the VHF maritime mobile band," with
    Annexes (2001). *See also* IMO Resolution A.917(22), "Guidelines for
    the On Board Operational Use of Shipborne Universal Automatic
    Identification System."

[^9]: *See* 47 C.F.R. § 80.1101(c)(2). In addition to ITU-R M.1371-1,
    applications for certification of Class A AIS ship station equipment
    must meet the following standards: IMO Resolution MSC.74(69), IEC
    61162-1, IEC 61162-100, and IEC 61993-2. *See* *id*.; IMO Resolution
    A.917(22), "Guidelines for the On Board Operational Use of Shipborne
    Universal Automatic Identification System" (adopted Nov. 29, 2001).
    The Commission decided to incorporate by reference the international
    standards for certifying Class A AIS equipment in 2004, in the
    *Sixth Report and Order* in PR Docket No. 92-257. *See* Amendments
    of Parts 13 and 80 of the Commission's Rules Concerning Maritime
    Communications, *Second Report and Order, Sixth Report and Order,
    and Second Further Notice of Proposed Rule Making*, WT Docket No.
    00-48 & PR Docket No. 92-257, 19 FCC Rcd 3120, 3155 ¶ 67 (2004),
    *aff'd*, *Fourth MO&O*, 21 FCC Rcd at 8936-39 ¶¶ 65-67.

[^10]: *See* WRC-97 Final Acts (amending ITU *Radio Regulations* App.
    S18).

[^11]: *Id*.

[^12]: *See* 47 C.F.R. § 80.371(c)(1)(i) (2005). VPC stations
    traditionally provided public correspondence service to vessels,
    interconnecting ship radio stations to the public switched telephone
    network on a common carrier basis. *See* 47 C.F.R. § 80.5; *see
    also* Amendment of the Commission's Rules Concerning Maritime
    Communications, *Notice of Proposed Rule Making and Notice of
    Inquiry*, PR Docket No. 92-257, 7 FCC Rcd 7863, 7864 ¶ 7 (1992). In
    recent years, the Commission has provided VPC stations with
    flexibility to expand their service offerings. *See, e.g.*, 47
    C.F.R. § 20.9(b) (permitting VPC geographic licensees to offer
    private radio service to vessels); 47 C.F.R.\
    § 80.123 (authorizing VPC stations to provide public correspondence
    service to units on land); MariTEL, Inc. and Mobex Network Services
    LLC, Petitions for Rule Making to Amend the Commission's Rules to
    Provide Additional Flexibility for AMTS and VHF Public Coast Station
    Licensees, *Report and Order*, WT Docket No. 04-257, 22 FCC Rcd 8971
    (2007) (*Coast Station Flexibility Order*) (authorizing VPC
    geographic licensees to provide private radio service to units on
    land).

[^13]: For purposes of VHF Public Coast Service geographic area
    licensing, the Commission established nine licensing regions near
    major waterways, *i.e.*, the maritime VPCSAs, and thirty-three
    inland licensing regions. *See* Amendment of the Commission's Rules
    Concerning Maritime Communications, *Third Report and Order and
    Memorandum Opinion and Order*, PR Docket No. 92-257, 13 FCC Rcd
    19853, 19861-63 ¶¶ 14-16 (1998) (*Public Coast Third Report and
    Order*); 47 C.F.R. § 80.371(c)(1)(ii).

[^14]: *See Report and Order*, 21 FCC Rcd at 8904 ¶ 18, 8907-08 ¶¶
    23-24.

[^15]: *Id*. at 8906 ¶ 19.

[^16]: *Id*.

[^17]: *Id*. at 8906 ¶ 20. The Commission expressed concern that
    "requiring vessels to switch channels as they transit an AIS 'fence'
    between international and U.S. waters would create a risk that AIS
    tracking of such vessels, by both shore stations and other ship
    stations, would be interrupted. This temporary disappearance of
    vessels from AIS screens as they transit the AIS fence increases the
    risk of vessel collisions and creates a potential vulnerability in
    the Nation's maritime domain awareness." *Id*. Maritime domain
    awareness is "the effective understanding of anything associated
    with the global maritime environment that could adversely impact the
    security, safety, economy or environment of the United States."
    Statement of Jeffrey P. High, Department of Homeland Security,
    United States Coast Guard, on the U.S. Coast Guard's Maritime Domain
    Awareness Efforts before the Subcommittee on Coast Guard and
    Maritime Transportation, Committee on Transportation and
    Infrastructure, U.S. House of Representatives, Oct. 6, 2004.

[^18]: *See Report and Order*, 21 FCC Rcd at 8907 ¶ 21. By enabling the
    United States to take full advantage of existing AIS standards and
    infrastructure, the Commission explained, the designation of
    Channels 87B and 88B for domestic AIS use "would facilitate the
    speedy and efficient deployment of AIS" in the United States. *Id*.

[^19]: *Id*.

[^20]: *Id*.

[^21]: *Id*. at 8928-30 ¶¶ 49-52.

[^22]: *See* Amendment of the Commission's Rules Regarding Maritime
    Automatic Identification Systems, *Memorandum Opinion and Order and
    Notice of Proposed Rule Making*, WT Docket No. 04-344, 19 FCC Rcd
    20071, 20106 ¶ 63 (2004) (*NPRM*). The Commission also stated that
    there were public interest benefits in preserving the ability of
    inland VPCSA licensees to continue to provide VPC service on Channel
    87B. *Id*.

[^23]: *See Report and Order*, 21 FCC Rcd at 8928 ¶ 50.

[^24]: *Id*. at 8928-29 ¶ 50.

[^25]: *Id*. at 8929 ¶ 51, *citing* NTIA Comments \[to the *NPRM*\] at
    24-25. ORBCOMM, the satellite service provider that has contracted
    with the Coast Guard to develop satellite AIS capabilities, filed
    reply comments concurring in NTIA's assessment of the need for a
    nationwide designation to accommodate satellite AIS. *Id*. at 8929
    n.264, *citing* ORBCOMM Reply Comments \[to the *NPRM*\] at 3-4.

[^26]: *Id*. at 8930 ¶ 52.

[^27]: *Id*.

[^28]: *See Further Notice*, 21 FCC Rcd at 8933-34 ¶¶ 58-59.

[^29]: *Id*. at 8933-34 ¶ 58.

[^30]: *Id*. at 8934 ¶ 59.

[^31]: Channel 25 is set aside in every inland VPCSA; in addition,
    Channel 84 is set aside in some inland VPCSAs and Channel 85 is set
    aside in the other inland VPCSAs. *See* 47 C.F.R. §
    80.371(c)(1)(ii); *see also Public Coast Third Report and Order*, 13
    FCC Rcd at 19869 ¶ 31; 47 C.F.R. § 90.20(g)(2).

[^32]: *See Further Notice,* 21 FCC Rcd at 8934-35 ¶ 60.

[^33]: *Id*. at 8935 ¶ 61.

[^34]: *Id*. at 8935-36 ¶¶ 62-64.

[^35]: *Id*. at 8936 ¶ 63.

[^36]: *See, e.g.,* ACR Electronics Comments at 1; APA Comments at 1-2;
    AWO Comments at 1-3; IALA Comments at 2; NI Comments at 1; NTIA
    Comments at 3, 8 n.18; RTCM Comments at 3-4; Task Force Comments at
    2; USBI Comments at 1. *See* Appendix A, *infra*, for a list of the
    commenters and the acronyms or abbreviations by which they are
    referred to in the text and footnotes. In the interest of having a
    complete record in this proceeding, we accept the late-filed
    comments submitted by Carver, Daugherty, and NTIA. Although styled
    Reply Comments, the Shine Micro submission was filed on November 13,
    2006, the deadline for filing comments, rather than reply comments,
    and is in the nature of comments. We therefore cite to this
    submission as Shine Micro Comments. Warren G. Havens, Telesaurus VPC
    LLC, Telesaurus Holdings GB, LLC, AMTS Consortium LLC, and
    Intelligent Transportation & Monitoring Wireless LLC (together,
    Havens) filed a pleading styled "Reply Comments" on November 28,
    2006 (Havens Reply Comments). (On December 13, 2006, the Commission
    granted Havens's request to accept the Havens Reply Comments as
    timely filed. *See* Letter dated Dec. 13, 2006, from Marlene H.
    Dortch, Secretary, FCC, to Warren Havens, President, Telesaurus VPC
    LLC, etc.) The Havens Reply Comments, however, generally do not
    address any of the issues raised in the initial comments to the
    *Further Notice* or in the *Further Notice* itself, but instead
    concern matters outside the scope of this proceeding. We therefore
    grant MariTEL's Motion to Strike the Havens Reply Comments, filed
    December 21, 2006. *See, e.g.*, 47 C.F.R. § 1.415(c) (specifying
    that reply comments should be "in reply to the original comments");
    Philippine Long Distance Telephone Company v. International Telecom
    Ltd. d/b/a Kallback Direct, *Memorandum Opinion and Order*, 15 FCC
    Rcd 6009, 6016 ¶ 16 (2000); BellSouth Corporation, *Memorandum
    Opinion and Order*, 13 FCC Rcd 539, 563 ¶ 41 (1997); Deletion of
    Noncommercial Reservation of Channel \*16, 482-488 MHz, Pittsburgh,
    Pennsylvania, *Memorandum Opinion and Order*, 11 FCC Rcd 11700,
    11701 n.6 (1996).

[^37]: Some of the commenters argue only that Channel 87B should be
    designated for AIS in inland VPCSAs which have navigable waterways,
    rather than throughout all inland VPCSAs. *See, e.g.*, ACR
    Electronics Comments at 1; Task Force Comments at 2. Given the
    breadth of the Coast Guard's definition of "navigable waters," *see*
    33 C.F.R. § 2.36(a) (defining "navigable waters" to include
    territorial seas; internal waters subject to tidal influence; and
    internal waters not subject to tidal influence that are or have been
    used or susceptible for use as highways for substantial interstate
    or foreign commerce), which is incorporated in the Commission's
    rules, *see* 47 C.F.R. § 80.5, we question whether there are many
    inland VPCSAs with no navigable waterways.

[^38]: *See, e.g*., ACR Electronics Comments at 1; AWO Comments at 1;
    Daugherty Comments at 1; NTIA Comments at 8 n.18; RTCM Comments at
    3; Task Force Comments at 2; USBI Comments at 1.

[^39]: *See* RTCM Comments \[to *NPRM*\] at 4, *cited in Report and
    Order*, 21 FCC Rcd at 8928 n.256.

[^40]: *See* ACR Electronics Comments at 1; AWO Comments at 1; RTCM
    Comments at 3.

[^41]: *See* RTCM Comments at 3.

[^42]: *See* ACR Electronics Comments at 1; APA Comments at 1. The need
    to switch AIS channels at the demarcation point between inland
    VPCSAs and maritime VPCSAs is problematic, APA explains, because, if
    done manually, it would place an additional burden on the bridge
    crew and create a risk that it would not be done correctly or at
    all. Even if done correctly, moreover, there will be some disruption
    of AIS communications during the switching process. Finally,
    commenters note that Class B AIS devices are designed to prevent
    manual switching of channels, so vessels equipped with Class B
    devices would have to be switched remotely by AIS base stations,
    which would burden base station personnel and increase AIS
    infrastructure costs. See APA Comments at 2; *accord*, AWO Comments
    at 3; RTCM Comments at 3-4.

[^43]: *See, e.g.*, APA Comments at 2 ("If AIS is to reach its potential
    as a significant navigation safety tool, a nationwide system is
    required"); AWO Comments at 2 (stating that, in the absence of a
    seamless AIS system covering all navigable waterways, including
    inland waterways, "AIS would be a security tool only of very limited
    value"); RTCM Comments at 3.

[^44]: *See* NTIA Comments at 3.

[^45]: Ducting is a phenomenon that occurs when radio waves get trapped
    by a variation in the atmospheric density. The waves can then travel
    along by refraction. Ducting usually occurs over water or other
    homogenous surfaces.

[^46]: *See, e.g*., APA Comments at 1; AWO Comments at 3; IALA Comments
    at 2; NI Comments at 1; NTIA Comments at 3; RTCM Comments at 4. NTIA
    notes that the propagation of non-AIS signals (as well as AIS
    signals) also can be extended through tropospheric scatter. *See*
    NTIA Comments at 7.

[^47]: *See, e.g.*, AWO Comments at 3; IALA Comments at 2; NI Comments
    at 1; NTIA Comments at 3; RTCM Comments at 4.

[^48]: *See* MariTEL Reply Comments at 3-4. In addition to arguing that
    Channel 87B should remain designated for VPC operations in the
    inland VPCSAs, MariTEL also contends that the channel should be
    available for VPC operations in the inland portions of the maritime
    VPCSAs. *See* MariTEL Comments at 4-5. This argument is beyond the
    scope of the *Further Notice*, which requested additional comment on
    the channel designation question only with respect to the inland
    VPCSAs. *See Further Notice*, 21 FCC Rcd at 8933-34 ¶¶ 58-59. In any
    event, this question was specifically raised in the *NPRM*, but
    neither MariTEL nor any other commenter to the *NPRM* suggested any
    basis for defining areas of maritime VPCSAs where co-channel non-AIS
    operations should be permitted*. See NPRM,* 19 FCC Rcd at 20106 ¶ 63
    ("We also seek comment on whether Channels 87B and 88B must be set
    aside throughout all of each maritime VPCSA, or whether there are
    areas where VPC operations would not pose an interference threat").
    Consequently, the *Report and Order* expressly determined that VPC
    use of Channel 87B should not be permitted anywhere in the maritime
    VPCSAs. *See* *Report and Order*, 21 FCC Rcd at 8928 n.252. We
    decline to revisit the question here. In any event, permitting
    non-AIS operations on Channel 87B in inland portions of maritime
    VPCSAs would be inconsistent with our determination herein to
    designate Channel 87B exclusively for AIS on a nationwide basis.

[^49]: *See* MariTEL Comments at 5, *citing* County of Placer,
    California, *Order*, 20 FCC Rcd 3657 (WTB PSCID 2005) (*Placer
    County Order*); Commonwealth of Virginia, *Order,* 19 FCC Rcd 15454
    (WTB PSCID 2004) (*Virginia Order*); MariTEL Reply Comments at 3-4
    (same).

[^50]: *See* MariTEL Reply Comments at 3-4.

[^51]: *See Placer County Order,* 20 FCC Rcd at 3658 ¶ 4; *Virginia
    Order*, 19 FCC Rcd at 15459 ¶ 10.

[^52]: *See* *Placer County* *Order*, 20 FCC Rcd at 3662 ¶ 12; *Virginia
    Order*, 19 FCC Rcd at 15459 ¶ 10. Moreover, there was no discussion
    in the record of those proceedings regarding ducting effects.

[^53]: Similarly, we see no inconsistency between this decision and the
    Commission's recent action expanding the flexibility of VPC
    geographic licensees to serve units on land, because that
    flexibility is expressly conditioned on affording priority to
    marine-originating communications. *See Coast Station Flexibility
    Order*, 22 FCC Rcd at 8981\
    ¶ 15.

[^54]: *See* NTIA Comments at 5 n.10. NTIA adds, however, that the Coast
    Guard has sometimes received AIS reports at distances exceeding 350
    nautical miles, and even 450 to 500 nautical miles, while
    experimenting with various techniques for extending the range of
    non-satellite AIS coverage. *Id*. at 7.

[^55]: *See* 46 U.S.C. § 70115.

[^56]: *See* ORBCOMM Comments at 3-4; U.S. General Accountability
    Office, Maritime Security: Partnering Could Reduce Federal Costs and
    Facilitate Implementation of Automatic Vessel Identification System,
    Report to the Committee of Commerce, Science, and Transportation,
    U.S. Senate, at n.15 (GAO-04-868 July 2004) (viewable at
    http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d04868.pdf).

[^57]: *See Report and Order*, 21 FCC Rcd at 8929-30 ¶ 51; *Further
    Notice*, 21 FCC Rcd at 8933-34 ¶ 58.

[^58]: *See* NTIA Comments at 5. ORBCOMM asserts that its
    next-generation AIS-equipped satellites will have a footprint with a
    diameter of three thousand miles, *see* ORBCOMM Comments at 6, and
    "will allow reliable monitoring of AIS transmissions virtually
    anywhere on the planet." *Id*. at 4.

[^59]: *See* NTIA Comments at 2-9; ORBCOMM Comments at 1-10; ORBCOMM
    Reply Comments at 2-7; *see also*, *e.g.*, ACR Electronics Comments
    at 1; AWO Comments at 3; RTCM Comments at 5; Shine Micro Comments at
    1-2; Task Force Comments at 3. We note that some of these commenters
    support the nationwide designation of Channel 87B for exclusive AIS
    use as an accommodation to satellite AIS, but they rely primarily on
    the benefits of such a nationwide allocation for terrestrial AIS, as
    discussed *supra*.

[^60]: Although some commenters contend that both the benefits and the
    feasibility of satellite AIS have been demonstrated, *see, e.g.*,
    AWO Comments at 3; RTCM Comments at 5; Task Force Comments at 3, the
    comments of NTIA and ORBCOMM, the parties that are most directly
    involved in developing satellite AIS, indicate that its feasibility
    remains an open question. *See, e.g.,* NTIA Comments at 5 (stating
    that the NTIA-ORBCOMM initiative is intended to "test the technical
    and operational feasibility of spaceborne AIS receivers"); NTIA
    Comments at 8 (indicating that "\[i\]t may be some time before
    large-scale satellite detection of AIS signals and other
    technologies are implemented due to the need for ... additional
    study, evaluation ..."); ORBCOMM Comments at 2 ("Assuming that
    \[its\] demonstration \[of satellite AIS monitoring\] proves
    successful," ORBCOMM will likely incorporate AIS monitoring
    capabilities in new satellites to be launched in the future).

[^61]: Shine Micro favors the designation of a third AIS channel to be
    dedicated solely to satellite AIS, but does not believe designation
    of a satellite-only AIS channel is viable at present, for a number
    of reasons. Shine Micro therefore proposes, as an alternative, that
    Channel 88B be designated as the "preferred" long-range AIS tracking
    channel, and that Class B AIS devices be prohibited from operating
    on Channel 88B within U.S. territorial waters, in order to preserve
    its availability for long-range tracking. *See* Shine Micro Comments
    at 2; *accord* MariTEL Reply Comments at 5. We find this Shine Micro
    proposal to be outside the scope of this rulemaking. Adoption of
    this proposal would, in any event, require the concurrence of NTIA
    inasmuch as Channel 88B is a Federal channel. In addition, we note
    that the Coast Guard, in an *ex parte* filing, states that the
    restriction proposed by Shine Micro could be implemented "through
    on-air channel management without the need to hard-wire that
    restriction into Class B AIS units sold in the United States." *See*
    Letter dated Mar. 27, 2007, from Joseph D. Hersey, Jr., Chief,
    Spectrum Management Division, U.S. Coast Guard, to Marlene H.
    Dortch, Secretary, FCC at 1 (Coast Guard *Ex Parte* Filing).

[^62]: *See* NTIA Comments at 8; ORBCOMM Comments at 1-2; *see also,
    e.g.,* ACR Electronics Comments at 1; AWO Comments at 3; RTCM
    Comments at 5; Shine Micro Comments at 1; Task Force Comments at 3.

[^63]: *See* ORBCOMM Comments at 8-9.

[^64]: *See* "Satellite Detection of Automatic Identification System
    Messages," Joint Spectrum Center, Department of Defense (Sept. 19,
    2006) (JSC Report). The JSC Report is attached to NTIA's comments as
    Exhibit A. The JSC Report has been peer reviewed in compliance with
    the Peer Review Bulletin issued by the Office of Management and
    Budget (OMB). *See generally* OMB Final Information Quality Bulletin
    for Peer Review, 70 Fed. Reg. 2664 (Jan. 14, 2005). All of the
    materials relating to this peer review -- including the study (the
    JSC Report), the charge statement (the memorandum requesting the
    peer review, including attachments), the peer review report, and the
    response to that report -- are disseminated on the Commission's
    website. *See* www.fcc.gov/omd/dataquality/peer-agenda.html.

[^65]: *See* NTIA Comments at 6.

[^66]: *Id*. NTIA explains that the JSC Report "finds that several key
    technical factors distinguish satellite AIS detection from
    conventional ship-to-ship and ship-to-shore AIS detection,
    specifically receiver sensitivity, antenna gain pattern, and
    reliability requirements. Unlike conventional terrestrial AIS
    operations that may be able to co-exist with other co-channel
    transmitters through geographical separation, because the satellite
    beam covers a very large geographical area, the satellite antenna
    receives not only AIS ship transmissions, but also non-AIS signals
    transmitted on the AIS frequency." *Id*.

[^67]: *See* ORBCOMM Comments at 7. ORBCOMM notes, moreover, that
    non-AIS signals on Channel 87B in inland VPCSAs "would be operating
    at two to four times the power levels of the AIS transmissions, and
    ORBCOMM foresees no reliable way of 'filtering out' these more
    powerful undesired signals. Nor does ORBCOMM perceive any practical
    method of coordinating shared usage of this band, particularly
    because of the absence of any central control of AIS transmissions
    by ships at sea." *Id.* The problem will be particularly acute,
    ORBCOMM adds, with respect to interference to AIS signals
    originating from inland waterways, due to both frequency and
    geographic overlap of the desired AIS signals and the undesired
    non-AIS signals. *Id*. at 8.

[^68]: *See* MariTEL Comments at 3. MariTEL also contends that "there is
    no evidence that the Coast Guard or \[NTIA\] is actually in the
    process of developing any particular satellite-based AIS system."
    *Id*. at 3-4. MariTEL acknowledges the Coast Guard's "provision of
    funding to ORBCOMM for satellite AIS research" but asserts that such
    funding "is not indicative of a near-term plan." *Id*. at n.7. This
    argument, however, is belied by the Coast Guard's contract with
    ORBCOMM to test the feasibility of satellite AIS, and the JSC's
    submission to the ITU of a report on satellite AIS technical issues.
    On June 19, 2008, moreover, six ORBCOMM satellites with AIS payloads
    were launched. *See* Satellite TODAY, "Orbcomm Announces Successful
    Launch of Six Satellites," June 20, 2008, viewable at
    <http://www.viasatellite.com/st/headlines/23454.html>. We therefore
    disagree with MariTEL to the extent that it argues that satellite
    AIS is too conjectural to be a consideration in this proceeding.
    *See, e.g.*, NTIA Comments at 5-6; ORBCOMM Comments at 2-4.

[^69]: *See* MariTEL Comments at 4.

[^70]: We disagree with MariTEL's contention that the other commenters'
    arguments regarding the interference impact of non-AIS inland VPCSA
    communications on terrestrial and satellite AIS operations are
    "completely speculative." *See* MariTEL Reply Comments at 3. Rather,
    it is MariTEL's unsupported assumption that "satellite monitoring
    would only detect channel 87B transmissions from vessels with AIS
    radios and not channel 87B transmissions from land mobile radios,"
    *see* MariTEL Comments at 4, that appears speculative, given the
    insistence of the responsible entities that they lack the ability to
    so distinguish among transmissions. Moreover, our concern that
    non-AIS operations on Channel 87B in inland VPCSAs could cause
    interference to terrestrial and satellite AIS is not inconsistent
    with the Commission's determination in the *Report and Order* that
    it was premature, on the basis of the then-existing record, to
    address VPC-to-AIS interference issues. *See Report and Order*, 21
    FCC Rcd at 8909 n.119. While MariTEL alone addressed that issue at
    that stage of the proceeding, the matter of interference to AIS from
    non-AIS operations has been addressed by virtually all of the
    commenters to the *Further Notice*, who, save MariTEL, all agree
    that such interference will result if the AIS designation of Channel
    87B is not nationwide.

[^71]: *See* NTIA Comments at 3.

[^72]: MariTEL remains "concerned that the Coast Guard's future plans --
    to which the FCC has acceded to date -- will decimate MariTEL's
    business." *See* MariTEL Reply Comments at 6-7. MariTEL therefore
    urges the Commission to "make it clear that it intends no further
    frequency relocation to accommodate AIS operations." *Id.* at 7. We
    are unable to provide MariTEL with a guarantee that, regardless of
    circumstances, its licensed spectrum will not be further encumbered
    in the future. Should the Commission be presented in the future with
    an issue implicating MariTEL's licensed VPC spectrum, the Commission
    will have to resolve that question in a manner that best promotes
    the public interest, convenience and necessity, as the Commission
    finds it at that time. No licensee is entitled to the sort of
    assurance that MariTEL is seeking. *See Report and Order*, 21 FCC
    Rcd at 8924 ¶ 44 & n.229, and cases cited therein.

[^73]: ORBCOMM urges the Commission to amend its Table of Frequency
    Allocations, 47 C.F.R. § 2.106, to clarify, either through a direct
    table entry or through a footnote, that satellite monitoring of AIS
    signals on Channels 87B and 88B is permissible. *See* ORBCOMM
    Comments at 4-5, 9-10. We find it unnecessary to do so. As we
    understand it, the feasibility of satellite AIS does not depend on
    any new uplink authorization inasmuch as the satellite will be able
    to receive the same AIS transmissions that are already authorized
    under ship station licenses. Downlink communications, moreover, will
    be under the total control of the Federal Government. *See Report
    and Order*, 21 FCC Rcd at 8929-30 ¶ 51 (stating that the AIS
    satellite "will not transmit AIS information directly to end users,
    but will send the data via downlink to a gateway Earth Station, to
    be routed through a Network Control Center, and ultimately
    incorporated into appropriate Coast Guard command and control
    systems for distribution to other users"). In these circumstances,
    we do not discern anything in the existing Section 2.106 Table of
    Frequency Allocations or elsewhere in the Commission's Rules that
    would preclude satellite AIS, as currently envisioned by its
    proponents.

[^74]: As noted above, we do not rely primarily on the need to
    accommodate satellite AIS as the basis for a nationwide designation
    of Channel 87B for exclusive AIS use. *See* paras. 9-12, *supra.*
    Accordingly*,* our determination that a nationwide designation would
    be warranted even in the absence of satellite AIS obviates the need
    to revisit the issue if satellite AIS ultimately proves infeasible,
    or even to address that contingency in the present action.

[^75]: *See Report and Order*, 21 FCC Rcd at 8932 ¶ 56. In so holding,
    the Commission observed that it had not been presented with any
    evidence of actual interference to AIS operations from incumbent
    site-based operations on Channel 87B, and stated its belief that
    terrestrial AIS would "be able to operate effectively
    notwithstanding the continued use of Channel 87B for a limited
    period of time by a very few, highly localized VPC stations." *Id*.
    at 8933 ¶ 56.

[^76]: *Id*. at 8933 ¶ 57 & n.287.

[^77]: The site-based licensees using Channel 87B in the inland VPCSAs
    are the State of Arizona (Stations WPGA967, Phoenix; WPGA968,
    Tucson; WPGA969, Phoenix; and WPGA970, statewide), and Frontier
    Refining Inc. (Station WNQQ375, Cheyenne, Wyoming). These licensees
    are using the channel for public safety and other PLMR operations,
    pursuant to former Section 90.283 of the Commission's Rules, or to
    earlier waivers. *See* 47 C.F.R. § 90.283 (1995). Former Section
    90.283 provided that specified frequencies in the 156-162 MHz
    maritime band could be assigned for private land mobile radio use,
    subject to certain conditions, where there were no available Part 90
    VHF frequencies. *See* 47 C.F.R. § 90.283(a)-(b) (1995). The
    conditions included minimum distance separations from co-channel VPC
    stations and the coastlines of any navigable waterways. *See* 47
    C.F.R. § 90.283(d) (1995). The rule also provided that the
    Commission would entertain waivers to permit PLMR operations on a
    secondary, non-interference basis to maritime operations if the
    applicant could not meet the minimum distance separation with
    respect to a navigable waterway. *See* 47 C.F.R. § 90.283(f) (1995);
    Amendment of the Commission's Rules Concerning Maritime
    Communications, *First Report and Order*, PR Docket No. 92-257, 10
    FCC Rcd 8419 (1995). Section 90.283 was deleted when the Commission
    adopted a geographic licensing scheme for VPC spectrum in 1998, but
    PLMR operations licensed pursuant to that rule were grandfathered.
    *See* *Public Coast* *Third Report and Order*, 13 FCC Rcd at
    19863-64 ¶ 18. Operation of a PLMR station authorized to use Channel
    87B on a secondary basis must cease immediately if it causes harmful
    interference to AIS that the licensee is unable to remedy. *See
    Report and Order*, 21 FCC Rcd at 8933 ¶ 57.

[^78]: *See* NTIA Comments at 8-9 (noting that, since "\[i\]t may be
    some time before large-scale satellite detection of AIS signals and
    other technologies are implemented," it is not necessary to provide
    for a nationwide allocation for AIS on Channel 87B immediately, and
    that, as a consequence, existing operations on Channel 87B in the
    non-maritime VPCSAs "should be allowed to continue ... until such
    time as a final determination is made that they must vacate the
    channel").

[^79]: We note that PLMR licensees in the 150-174 MHz band are required
    to migrate from 25 kHz bandwidth operations to 12.5 kHz technology
    or technology that achieves equivalent efficiency by 2013. *See*
    Implementation of Sections 309(j) and 337 of the Communications Act
    of 1934 as Amended; Promotion of Spectrum Efficient Technologies on
    Certain Part 90 Frequencies, *Third Memorandum Opinion and Order,
    Third Further Notice of Proposed Rule Making and Order*, WT Docket
    No. 99-87, RM-9332, 19 FCC Rcd 25045, 25046 ¶ 1 (2004). Earlier in
    that proceeding, the Commission indicated that ten years is a
    reasonable equipment replacement cycle and a reasonable life span
    for equipment. *See* Implementation of Sections 309(j) and 337 of
    the Communications Act of 1934 as Amended; Promotion of Spectrum
    Efficient Technologies on Certain Part 90 Frequencies, *Second
    Report and Order and Second Further Notice of Proposed Rule Making*,
    WT Docket No. 99-87, RM-9332, 18 FCC Rcd 3034, 3041-42 ¶¶ 15-19
    (2003), *citing* Replacement of Part 90 by Part 88 to Revise the
    Private Land Mobile Radio Services and Modify the Policies Governing
    Them, *Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rule Making*,
    PR Docket No. 92-235, 10 FCC Rcd 10076, 10098 ¶ 35 (1995).
    Therefore, a fifteen-year grandfathering period in this proceeding
    should more than span the replacement cycle of equipment in use by
    site-based Channel 87B PLMR licensees in inland VPCSAs.

[^80]: *See NPRM*, 19 FCC Rcd at 20106 ¶ 63.

[^81]: *See Further Notice*, 21 FCC Rcd at 8934 ¶ 60.

[^82]: *See* 47 C.F.R. §§ 80.371(c)(1)(ii), 90.20(g)(2).

[^83]: *See* 47 C.F.R. §§ 80.371(c)(1)(ii), 90.20(g)(2).

[^84]: The public safety entities licensed to operate on one or more of
    these channels in inland VPCSAs are the State of Wyoming (Stations
    WQCR772 and WQJA319, Cheyenne, KB9153 (mobile-only), WQJA320,
    Fremont County, WQJA429, Cody-Spotted Horse, WQJA434, Sheridan, Big
    Horn and Washakie Counties, WQJA439, Johnson and Weston Counties,
    WQJA441, Campbell and Crook Counties, WQJA446, Niobrara, Goshen,
    Lincoln and Teton Counties, WQJA452, Carbon County, WQJA455, Natrona
    and Converse Counties, and WQJA458, Albany and Platte Counties);
    Unified School District 457 of Garden City, Kansas (Stations KJR221,
    KJR224, and KK7146, Garden City, Kansas); County of Placer,
    California (Station WQFE808, Reno, Nevada); and the Panhandle
    Regional Planning Commission (Stations WQGV794, Amarillo, Texas, and
    WQGP756, Turkey, Texas).

[^85]: *See Further Notice*, 21 FCC Rcd at 8934 ¶ 60. The spectrum
    available for public safety interoperability includes five "mutual
    aid" channels in the 800 MHz band, 47 C.F.R. §90.617(a)(1), 2.6
    megahertz of spectrum in the 700 MHz band, 47 C.F.R. § 90.531(b)(1),
    (c)(1), and five VHF channels and four UHF channel pairs below 512
    MHz, 47 C.F.R. § 90.20(d)(80). In addition, the Commission recently
    allocated 700 MHz spectrum for nationwide, interoperable broadband
    public safety communications. *See* Service Rules for the 698-746,
    747-762 and 777-792 MHz Bands; Implementing a Nationwide, Broadband,
    Interoperable Public Safety Network in the 700 MHz Band, *Second*
    *Report and Order*, WT Docket No. 06-150, PS Docket No. 06-229, 22
    FCC Rcd 15289 (2007), *on recon*., 22 FCC Rcd 17935 (2007),
    *erratum*, 22 FCC Rcd 18907 (WTB/PSHSB 2007), *further recon.
    pending*.

[^86]: *See Further Notice*, 21 FCC Rcd at 8934-35 ¶ 60.

[^87]: *See* MariTEL Comments at 5; RTCM Comments at 5; PacifiCorp Reply
    Comments at 1-8.

[^88]: *See* MariTEL Comments at 5.

[^89]: *Id*. (stating that, "\[w\]hile the Commission has asserted in
    the Report and Order that it has the authority to strip licensees of
    their spectrum, where it has the ability to make licensees whole in
    the process, it should certainly do so as a matter of public
    policy"). PacifiCorp, which has been licensed to use VPC spectrum
    for PLMR operations under Part 90 pursuant to waivers, states that,
    "\[w\]ith so few channels available, loss of even one 25 kHz channel
    would have a significant and detrimental impact on \[its\] ability
    to meet its private land mobile communications requirements." *See*
    PacifiCorp Reply Comments at 4-5.

[^90]: We have decided to make Channels 84/85 available to inland VPCSA
    licensees, rather than Channel 25, for several reasons. All four of
    the public safety licensees are licensed on Channel 25, but not all
    four are licensed on the other channels. In addition, Channel 25 is
    more useful for public safety interoperability because it is set
    aside throughout the inland VPCSAs. Finally, PacifiCorp, the only
    commenter addressing this precise issue, favors the reallocation of
    Channels 84 and 85, explaining that the reallocation of those
    channels would be more beneficial than a reallocation of Channel 25
    in providing additional flexibility to inland VPCSA licensees and
    lessees with respect to signal strength across the border of
    adjacent VPCSAs. *See* PacifiCorp Reply Comments at 1, 7-8.

[^91]: This grandfathering protection will be accorded both to existing
    licenses and to licenses granted pursuant to applications that were
    filed prior to the release of this *Second Report and Order*. That
    is, if an application for authorization to operate on Channel 84 or
    85 that was pending as of the release date of this *Second Report
    and Order* is granted subsequent to the release date, the licensee
    will be permitted to operate on Channel 84 or 85 until fifteen years
    after the effective date of these rules, regardless of the date of
    licensing. In light of the actions described above, however, we will
    suspend the acceptance of new site-based applications for Channel 84
    or 85 as of the release date of this *Second Report and Order*, and
    amend our rules to prohibit any subsequent applications for those
    channels.

[^92]: *See* para. 17 and n.79, *supra*.

[^93]: *See* MariTEL Reply Comments at 5-6.

[^94]: *See id*. at 6; PacifiCorp Reply Comments at 6-7; *see also* NTIA
    Comments at 3 (arguing that a nationwide designation of Channel 87B
    for AIS is warranted as a public safety measure).

[^95]: We note, moreover, that Channels 84 and 85 may still be used for
    public safety operations by inland VPCSA licensees, partitionees,
    disaggregatees, and/or lessees, even after this redesignation. The
    Commission has recently revised the Part 80 rules to provide VPC
    licensees with the flexibility to provide (or, *e.g*., lease
    spectrum for) private land mobile radio service, which may include
    public safety or critical infrastructure industry communications.
    *See Coast Station Flexibility Order*, 22 FCC Rcd at 8976-77 ¶ 8. It
    remains, however, that such operations must be consistent with the
    Part 80 rules in the absence of a waiver permitting operation under
    Part 90. *Id*. at 8983-85 ¶¶ 20-21.

[^96]: In areas where VPC spectrum has been disaggregated, Channels
    84/85 will be assigned to the licensee authorized to operate on
    Channel 87B.

[^97]: We are not allowing inland VPCSA geographic licensees as lengthy
    a grandfathering period to continue operating on Channel 87B as we
    are affording site-based Channel 87B licensees in the inland VPCSAs
    because geographic licensees can engage in wide-area VPC operations,
    which pose a greater potential threat of interference to AIS.
    Because, as discussed *supra*, incumbent site-based licensees
    operating on Channels 84/85 in the inland VPCSAs have been
    grandfathered to permit them to continue to operate on those
    channels for fifteen years, while inland VPCSA licensees are
    required to migrate from Channel 87B to Channels 84/85 within two
    years, there may in some inland VPCSAs be a period during which an
    incumbent site-based licensee and the migrating geographic licensee
    are both authorized on Channels 84/85. In such instances, the
    geographic licensee must protect the site-based incumbent operations
    in accordance with Section 80.773(b) of the Commission's Rules, 47
    C.F.R. § 80.773(b).

[^98]: Inland VPCSA geographic licensees remain subject to their
    existing construction deadlines. *See* 47 C.F.R.\
    § 80.49(a)(1) (establishing five- and ten-year construction
    deadlines for VPC geographic licensees). Transitioning to Channel 84
    or Channel 85 from Channel 87B should not significantly disrupt
    those construction efforts.

[^99]: *See Further Notice*, 21 FCC Rcd at 8935 ¶ 61. The IEC is an
    international non-governmental organization engaged in the
    development of international standards for electrical, electronic
    and related technologies. Its membership consists of fifty-four
    countries, including the United States, as full members, and an
    additional seventeen countries as associate members. Among other
    things, it works closely with SOLAS organizations in developing
    standards for GMDSS equipment. *See* Amendment of Parts 13 and 80 of
    the Commission\'s Rules Concerning Maritime Communications, *Notice
    of Proposed Rule Making and Memorandum Opinion and Order*, WT Docket
    No. 00-48, 15 FCC Rcd 5942, 5947 n.21 (2000); http://www.iec.ch.

[^100]: *See, e.g.*, ACR Electronics Comments at 2; NTIA Comments at
    9-11; RTCM Comments at 5-6; Task Force Comments at 3; USBI Comments
    at 1. These parties state that private sector entities such as
    marinas, marine exchanges and terminals, would benefit from having
    access to AIS data, but that they can obtain such information
    through the use of AIS receive-only equipment, without being
    licensed to operate AIS base stations. *See, e.g.*, ACR Electronics
    Comments at 2; RTCM Comments at 6; Task Force Comments at 3.

[^101]: *See* NTIA Comments at 9.

[^102]: *Id.* at 10.

[^103]: *Id*.

[^104]: *See* RTCM Comments at 6.

[^105]: *See* MariTEL Comments at 7.

[^106]: *See* *id*.; MariTEL Reply Comments at 8.

[^107]: *See* 47 C.F.R. § 80.13(c).

[^108]: The comments of ACR Electronics and the Task Force could be
    construed as advocating that state or local government authorities,
    as well as Federal entities, be permitted to operate AIS base
    stations inasmuch as they refer, without further qualification, to
    "government agencies and port authorities responsible for waterway
    management." *See* ACR Electronics Comments at 2; Task Force
    Comments at 3. Our determination that only Federal entities should
    be responsible for operating AIS base stations does not necessarily
    preclude state or local entities, or even private sector entities,
    from participating in such operations subject to the oversight of
    the Federal Government. NTIA observes that an AIS base station
    serves as an aid to navigation, and therefore, pursuant to 14 U.S.C.
    § 83, the Coast Guard "could ... allow the use of an AIS base
    station by a non-federal entity provided there is authorization by
    the Coast Guard providing that the operation of the AIS base station
    is, at all times, operated under the control of the federal entity."
    *See* NTIA Comments at 11 n.22. MariTEL recommends that the
    Commission develop "coordination procedures" to ensure that the
    Coast Guard puts into place a broad-based, non-discriminatory
    program for partnering with private sector entities in the operation
    of AIS base stations, one that would allow both commercial
    activities and a role in safety-related functions by such private
    sector entities. *See* MariTEL Comments at 7. While our decisions
    herein do not foreclose partnering arrangements of the sort
    contemplated by MariTEL, we do not find it necessary or appropriate
    for the Commission to impose "coordination procedures" on the Coast
    Guard, especially since the Coast Guard is subject to existing
    statutory and regulatory requirements pertaining to procurement and
    contracting. *See*, *e.g*., 10 U.S.C. § 2305; 48 C.F.R. Part 3006.

[^109]: *See* NTIA Comments at 11.

[^110]: *See* 47 U.S.C. § 305(a).

[^111]: *See* NTIA Comments at 10 n.20; NTIA Manual Chapter 10.

[^112]: *See* IEC 62320-1, "Maritime navigation and radiocommunication
    equipment and systems - Automatic identification system (AIS) - Part
    1: AIS Base Stations - Minimum operational and performance
    requirements, methods of testing and required test results,"
    2007-02.

[^113]: *See, e.g.*, ACR Electronics Comments at 2; RTCM Comments at 5;
    Task Force Comments at 3. We therefore also do not need to address
    Shine Micro's recommendation to adopt the IEC 62360-1 standard with
    a modified minimum sensitivity requirement. *See* Shine Micro
    Comments at 3. Nor, given our disposition of this issue, need we
    address MariTEL's argument that the Commission "should not
    incorporate any IEC base station standards into the FCC's rules
    until, based on rigorous demonstration, it is satisfied that those
    base stations will not cause harmful interference to, and receive
    interference from, VPC stations." *See* MariTEL Comments at 6.

[^114]: There may be some confusion as to what type of Commission
    authorization is needed for the on-land testing and installation of
    AIS equipment, given that AIS transmissions are authorized only
    under ship station licenses. *See, e.g*., FCC File No. 0002791967
    (application by Simrad Fisheries for waiver and special temporary
    authorization to "operate a marine AIS system as a bench standard"
    on land). Given our determination not to license private sector
    entities to operate AIS base stations, we take this opportunity to
    clarify that maritime support stations are authorized to undertake
    on-land testing and installation of AIS equipment pursuant to
    Section 80.653(b)(2) of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R. §
    80.653(b)(2), and may transmit on Channels 87B and 88B for that
    purpose on a secondary, non-interference basis to operational
    maritime communications. *See* 47 C.F.R. § 80.655(a)(2), (b).

[^115]: *See Further Notice*, 21 FCC Rcd at 8935-36 ¶¶ 62-64.

[^116]: *Id*. at 8935 ¶ 62. For additional background information
    regarding Class B AIS equipment, *see* NTIA Comments at 11-12.

[^117]: *See* IEC 62287-1, "Maritime navigation and radio communication
    equipment and systems -- Class B shipborne equipment of the
    automatic identification system -- Part 1: carrier-sense time
    division multiple access (CSTDMA) techniques," 2006 (IEC 62287-1),
    available from http://www.iec.ch.

[^118]: *See Further Notice*, 21 FCC Rcd at 8936 ¶ 63.

[^119]: *See* 47 C.F.R. § 80.1101(c)(12).

[^120]: An MMSI number, also referred to simply as an MMSI, is a unique
    nine-digit number assigned to commercial and recreational vessels
    participating in the Global Maritime Distress and Safety System
    (GMDSS). The MMSI functions as a "phone number" for the vessel and
    must be programmed into the vessel's digital selective calling (DSC)
    radio. MMSIs are also used for AIS transponders.

[^121]: *See* ACR Electronics Comments at 2; Daugherty Comments at 1;
    NTIA Comments at 11-13; RTCM Comments at 7; Shine Micro Comments at
    3-4; Task Force Comments at 3; USBI Comments at 1. In addition, NTIA
    and Shine Micro request that the Commission provide for the
    certification of Class B AIS devices as soon as possible to ensure
    that there is no undue delay in the domestic deployment of Class B
    AIS devices. *See* Shine Micro Comments at 4; NTIA Comments at 13.

[^122]: *See* ACR Electronics Comments at 2.

[^123]: *Id*.

[^124]: *See* NTIA Comments at 13.

[^125]: *See* ACR Electronics Comments at 2; *see also Fourth MO&O*, 21
    FCC Rcd at 8937-38 ¶ 66 (adoption of a separate standard for Class A
    AIS equipment would increase the cost).

[^126]: *See* MariTEL Comments at 8; MariTEL Reply Comments at 8.
    MariTEL states that no other party has addressed this issue "because
    no other party is affected in the same way as MariTEL." *See*
    MariTEL Reply Comments at 8.

[^127]: *See* *Report and Order*, 21 FCC Rcd at 8909-14 ¶¶ 26-32.

[^128]: *Id*. at 8914 ¶ 32.

[^129]: MariTEL notes that the United States Congress passed legislation
    approving the transfer of one million dollars to NTIA, and
    authorizing the Coast Guard to expend those funds for further study
    of methods to ameliorate interference from Class B AIS devices to
    maritime data services with a throughput of greater than 19.2
    kilobits per second. *See* MariTEL Comments at 8, *citing* Coast
    Guard and Maritime Transportation Act of 2006, P.L. 109-241, 120
    Stat. 516, 546 § 419 (July 11, 2006). MariTEL further notes that
    "\[t\]he Coast Guard, despite MariTEL's urging, chose not to expend
    the funds necessary to address the issue." *Id*. MariTEL argues that
    "authorization of Class B devices, without the efforts contemplated
    by Congress, would be directly contrary to Congressional intent."
    *Id*. We are not persuaded by this argument because the legislation
    in question did not impose any conditions on the approval of Class B
    AIS equipment, or otherwise restrict the Commission's authority to
    act in this proceeding. Moreover, the statute did not mandate the
    expenditure of the appropriated funds, but merely authorized the use
    of those funds on a permissive basis at the discretion of the Coast
    Guard; it says that "the Secretary of the department in which the
    Coast Guard is operating ... *may* transfer \$1,000,000 ...."
    (emphasis added).

[^130]: *See Fourth MO&O*, 21 FCC Rcd at 8937-38 ¶ 66.

[^131]: Shine Micro supports the incorporation by reference of IEC
    62287-1 subject to its modification in several respects. *See* Shine
    Micro Comments at 3-4. To the extent Shine Micro seeks the addition
    of procedures for the proper programming of Class B AIS devices, we
    discuss the matter *infra*, at paragraphs 30-31. With respect to
    Shine Micro's other recommendations, we clarify, first, that we are
    *not* requiring a dedicated DSC receiver in Class B AIS devices as a
    prerequisite to certification, notwithstanding that IEC 62287-1
    accords member Administrations the discretion to impose such a
    requirement, but we are requiring that functionality by using either
    a dedicated DSC receiver or by time sharing the TDMA channels. *See*
    IEC 62287-1 para. 6.1 & n. 3 (establishing a requirement for an
    integrated DSC receiver, but also providing that "\[i\]n some
    regions, the competent authority may not require DSC
    functionality"). This is consistent with the Coast Guard's position
    on this issue. *See* Coast Guard *Ex Parte* Letter at 2-3. In
    addition, we clarify that negative ground operation is permissible
    as a means to reduce costs, and that Software Link Layer testing may
    be performed by a capable test lab. *See* *id*. at 4; *see also*
    Coast Guard *Ex Parte* Letter at 3 (supporting these Shine Micro
    proposals). Finally, given our earlier determination, *see* n.61,
    *supra*, that Shine Micro's proposal to designate Channel 88B as the
    "preferred" long-range AIS tracking channel is outside the scope of
    this proceeding, we decline to "permit an 'AIS1ONLY' minimal Class B
    CS-TDMA transponder...." *See* Shine Micro Comments at 3-4.

[^132]: Static data refers to data that must be entered prior to or at
    the time of installation of the device, such as MMSI number, call
    sign, vessel name, and vessel dimensions.

[^133]: *See, e.g.*, Carver Comments at 2-4; Shine Micro Comments at
    Appendix A.

[^134]: We note that the same public interest considerations that
    militate in favor of adopting additional safeguards to better ensure
    the accuracy of the static data programmed in Class B AIS equipment
    might also support the adoption of such measures for Class A AIS
    equipment. Given that there was no discussion in the *Further
    Notice* of applying such measures to Class A AIS equipment, however,
    there is no record to support amending the rules to that end at this
    juncture. We would nevertheless consider extending to Class A AIS
    devices the three measures we are adopting herein to better ensure
    the accuracy of static data in Class B devices, or adopting other
    measures that could safeguard against the transmission of inaccurate
    static data from Class A devices, upon receiving an appropriate
    petition or request for such action, and we reserve discretion to
    propose such action *sua sponte*, should circumstances indicate that
    it would promote the public interest.

[^135]: *See* NTIA Comments at 14.

[^136]: Our authority in this regard is clear. *See, e.g*., 47 U.S.C. §
    303(m)(1)(d)(1)-(2) (authorizing the Commission to suspend the
    license of any licensee who has knowingly transmitted "\[f\]alse or
    deceptive signals or communications," or a "call signal or letter
    which has not been assigned by proper authority to the station he is
    operating....").

[^137]: *See* RTCM Comments at 7 n.6; ACR Electronics Comments at 2.

[^138]: *See* IEC 62287-1 para. 6.7.2. IEC 62287-1 also specifies that
    Class B AIS devices may operate only in receive-only mode until the
    MMSI has been entered. *Id*. at para. 6.5.1.1.

[^139]: NTIA proposes that "the MMSI be entered into the Class B AIS
    device prior to the time that the user takes possession of the
    device." *See* NTIA Comments at 15.

[^140]: *See* ACR Electronics Comment at 2; RTCM Comments at 7; Task
    Force Comments at 3.

[^141]: *See* NTIA Comments at 14-15; RTCM Comments at 7.

[^142]: *See* RTCM Comments at 7 n.5.

[^143]: In adopting these requirements, we attach significant weight to
    the fact that NTIA recommends these three additional safeguards
    regarding the accuracy of static data transmitted by Class B AIS
    devices, but does not recommend any further measures.

[^144]: We leave open the possibility of imposing additional
    requirements pertaining to MMSI assignments, data entry, or other
    matters pertaining to Class B AIS equipment, if future circumstances
    indicate that such action is warranted. We note, in this regard,
    that Shine Micro recommends that we also require that Class B AIS
    devices be programmed to transmit a unique Message 24 Part B 42-bit
    Vendor ID field, to be comprised of an 18-bit three-character ASCII
    symbol for the manufacturer's identity, to be assigned by the
    National Marine Electronics Association (NMEA) free of charge at the
    manufacturer's request; a 4-bit binary coded series number for the
    model; and a 20-bit Unit Serial Number. *See* Shine Micro Comments
    at Appendix A. The Coast Guard endorses this recommendation, noting
    that the IALA e-Navigation Committee has decided to recommend to the
    ITU that this requirement also be included in the ITU-R M.1371-3
    standard. *See* Coast Guard *Ex Parte* Letter at 2. Such detailed
    requirements should not be prescribed by the Commission at this
    juncture, however. We think it is preferable to let the maritime
    community develop through consensus specific standards for the
    content and format of the information to be transmitted by Class B
    AIS devices. We note that nothing in the Commission's rules
    precludes implementation of Shine Micro's recommendation. As noted,
    moreover, the Commission can revisit this matter in the future if
    circumstances so dictate.

[^145]: *See* *Further Notice*, 21 FCC Rcd at 8950 Appendix C (proposed
    Section 80.231(b)-(d)); 47 C.F.R. § 80.275. NTIA states that, by
    requiring Coast Guard certification of the device prior to the
    filing of the application for Commission certification, "the
    integrity of the VHF data link will be maintained, and the Coast
    Guard will have the flexibility to ensure that the Class B AIS
    devices meet future security regulation." *See* NTIA Comments at 15.

[^146]: We have received waiver requests from ACR Electronics (File No.
    EA669653), Navico UK (File No. EA684983), SevenStar Electronics Ltd.
    (File No. EA370463), and Software Radio Technology, plc (File No.
    EA316380).

[^147]: *See* Wireless Telecommunications Bureau Seeks Comment on
    Requests for Waiver to Permit Approval of Class B Automatic
    Identification System (AIS) Devices, *Public Notice*, WT Docket No.
    04-344, 22 FCC Rcd 10949 (WTB MD 2007) (*Public Notice*). The
    Mobility Division noted that authorization and use of Class A
    devices had been permitted prior to the adoption of rules providing
    for such equipment. *See* *id.* at 10950, *citing* Applications for
    Equipment Authorization of Universal Shipborne Automatic
    Identification Systems to be Coordinated with U.S. Coast Guard to
    Ensure Homeland Security, *Public Notice*, 17 FCC Rcd 11983 (OET
    2002).

[^148]: *See* Michael D. O'Dell Comments to *Public Notice*; ACR
    Electronics Comments to *Public Notice*; J.H. Daugherty Comments to
    *Public Notice*; Jon K. Hill Comments to *Public Notice*; Dan
    Gingras Comments to *Public Notice*; Negron Marine Consultants Inc.
    Comments to *Public Notice*; RTCM Comments to *Public Notice*; Task
    Force Comments to *Public Notice*; Coast Guard Comments to *Public
    Notice*; SevenStar Electronics LTD (SevenStar) Comments to *Public
    Notice*; United States Marine Safety Association (USMSA) Comments to
    *Public Notice*.

[^149]: *See*, *e.g.*, Task Force Comments to *Public Notice*; Coast
    Guard Comments to *Public Notice*; SevenStar Comments to *Public
    Notice*; USMSA Comments to *Public Notice*.

[^150]: This waiver applies to the pending requests and to any other
    requests for Class B certification received prior to the effective
    date of the new rules.

[^151]: *See* 5 U.S.C. § 604*.*

[^152]: *See* 5 U.S.C. § 801(a)(1)(A).

[^153]: *See* OMB Final Information Quality Bulletin for Peer Review, 70
    Fed. Reg. 2664 (Jan. 14, 2005).

[^154]: *See* n.64, *supra*.

[^155]: *See* http://www.fcc.gov/omd/dataquality/peer-agenda.html.

[^156]: *See* In the Matter of Implementation of Guidelines for Ensuring
    and Maximizing the Quality, Objectivity, Utility, and Integrity of
    Information Pursuant to Section 515 of Public Law No. 105-554, 17
    FCC Rcd 19890 (2002) (implementing OMB Guidelines for Ensuring and
    Maximizing the Quality, Objectivity, Utility, and Integrity of
    Information Disseminated by Federal Agencies, 67 Fed. Reg. 8452
    (Feb. 22, 2002)). The Commission's Information Quality Guidelines
    are available at www.fcc.gov/omd/dataquality.

[^157]: *See* 5 U.S.C. § 603. The RFA, *see* 5 U.S.C. §§ 601--612, has
    been amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness
    Act of 1996 (SBREFA), Pub. L. No. 104-121, Title II, 110 Stat. 857
    (1996).

[^158]: *Se**e* Amendment of the Commission's Rules Regarding Maritime
    Automatic Identification Systems, *Report and Order and Further
    Notice of Proposed Rule Making and Fourth Memorandum Opinion and
    Order*, WT Docket No. 04-344, 21 FCC Rcd 8892, 8958 (2004) (*Further
    Notice*).

[^159]: *See* 5 U.S.C. § 604.

[^160]: *See* paras. 8-16, *supra*.

[^161]: *See* paras. 22-26, *supra*.

[^162]: *See* paras. 27-31, *supra*.

[^163]: 5 U.S.C. § 603(b)(3).

[^164]: 5 U.S.C. § 601(6).

[^165]: 5 U.S.C. § 601(3) (incorporating by reference the definition of
    "small business concern" in 15 U.S.C. § 632). Pursuant to the RFA,
    the statutory definition of a small business applies "unless an
    agency, after consultation with the Office of Advocacy of the Small
    Business Administration and after opportunity for public comment,
    establishes one or more definitions of such term which are
    appropriate to the activities of the agency and publishes such
    definition(s) in the Federal Register." 5 U.S.C. § 601(3).

[^166]: Small Business Act, 15 U.S.C. § 632 (1996).

[^167]: 13 C.F.R. § 121.201, NAICS code 517212 (2002).

[^168]: Amendment of the Commission's Rules Concerning Maritime
    Communications, *Third Report and Order and Memorandum Opinion and
    Order*, PR Docket No. 92-257, 13 FCC Rcd 19853 (1998).

[^169]: 5 U.S.C. § 603(c)(1)-(4).

[^170]: *See Further Notice*, 21 FCC Rcd at 8959-60.

[^171]: *Id*. at 8960.

[^172]: *Id.*

[^173]: *Id*.

[^174]: *Id*.

[^175]: *Id*.

[^176]: *See* paras. 20-21, *supra*.

[^177]: *Id.*

[^178]: *See* para. 19, *supra*.

[^179]: *See* paras. 25-26, *supra*.

[^180]: *See* para. 28, *supra*.

[^181]: *See* paras. 30-31, *supra*.

[^182]: *See* 5 U.S.C. § 801(a)(1)(A).

[^183]: *See* *id*. § 604(b).