*Pages 1--5 from  Microsoft Word - 6949.doc*
 Federal  Communications  Commission  DA  01-  241 
 Before  the 
 Federal  Communications  Commission 
 Washington,  D.  C.  20554 

 In  the  Matter  of  Applications  of 
 WARREN  C.  HAVENS 
 for  Automated  Maritime 
 Telecommunications  System  Stations  at 
 Various  Locations  in  Texas 

 ) 
 ) 
 ) 
 ) 
 ) 
 ) 
 ) 

 FCC  File  Nos.  852997-  853009 

 ORDER 
 Adopted:  January  29,  2001  Released:  January  31,  2001 
 By  the  Chief,  Public  Safety  and  Private  Wireless  Division,  Wireless  Telecommunications  Bureau: 
 I.  INTRODUCTION 
 1.  On  March  24,  2000,  Waterway  Communications  System,  Inc.  (Watercom)  filed  a  petition  to 
 deny  certain  applications  of  Warren  C.  Havens  (Havens)  for  authority  to  operate  Automated  Maritime 
 Telecommunications  System  (AMTS)  stations  at  various  locations  in  Texas.  1  For  the  reasons  discussed 
 below,  we  dismiss  the  above-  captioned  applications  for  AMTS  stations  that  would  serve  the  Lower 
 Colorado  River,  2  the  San  Antonio  River,  3  and  the  Trinity  River.  4 

 II.  BACKGROUND 
 2.  AMTS  stations  provide  automated,  integrated,  interconnected  ship-  to-  shore  communications 
 similar  to  a  cellular  phone  system  for  tugs,  barges,  and  other  maritime  vessels.  5  Under  Section  80.475(  a) 
 of  the  Commissions  Rules,  AMTS  applicants  who  propose  to  serve  a  navigable  inland  waterway  that  is 

 1  Havens  filed  applications  for  AMTS  stations  that  would  serve  the  Trinity  River  (FCC  File  Nos.  85299-  853001), 
 San  Antonio  River  (FCC  File  Nos.  853003-  83006),  and  Lower  Colorado  River  (FCC  File  Nos.  853008-  853009). 
 Watercom  petitioned  to  deny  most  of  these  applications,  specifically,  FCC  File  Nos.  852999-  853001,  853003- 
 853006,  and  853008-  853009.  In  addition,  Watercom  petitioned  to  deny  Havenss  applications  for  AMTS 
 stations  that  would  serve  the  Guadalupe  River  (FCC  File  Nos.  853033  and  853034)  and  the  Brazos  River  (FCC 
 File  Nos.  853041  and  853042).  The  Guadalupe  River  and  Brazos  River  applications  will  be  addressed  in  a  future 
 order.  On  April  10,  2000,  Havens  filed  an  opposition  to  Watercoms  petition  to  deny.  On  April  18,  2000, 
 Watercom  filed  a  reply. 

 2  FCC  File  Nos.  853007-  853009. 

 3  FCC  File  Nos.  853003-  853006. 
 4  FCC  File  Nos.  852997-  853002. 
 5  See  Amendment  of  Parts  2  and  80  of  the  Commission's  Rules  Applicable  to  Automated  Maritime 
 Telecommunications  Systems  (AMTS),  First  Report  and  Order,  GEN  Docket  No.  88-  732,  6  FCC  Rcd  437,  437   
 3  (1991)  (AMTS  First  Report  and  Order). 
1
 Federal  Communications  Commission  DA  01-  241 
 2 
 less  than  150  miles  in  length  must  serve  that  waterway  in  its  entirety.  6  On  the  other  hand,  AMTS 
 applicants  who  propose  to  serve  a  navigable  inland  waterway  that  is  more  than  150  miles  in  length  must 
 provide  continuity  of  service  along  at  least  60  percent  of  the  waterway.  7 

 3.  On  February  24,  2000,  Havenss  applications  for  AMTS  channel  block  B  stations  along  the 
 Trinity  River,  Lower  Colorado  River,  and  San  Antonio  River  were  placed  on  public  notice.  8  Havens 
 applied  for  six  AMTS  stations  that  would  serve  236  miles,  or  55.5  percent,  of  the  425-  mile  Trinity  River.  9 
 He  applied  for  four  AMTS  stations  that  would  serve  87.5  miles,  or  43.7  percent,  of  the  200-  mile  San 
 Antonio  River.  10  He  also  applied  for  three  AMTS  stations  that  would  serve  120  miles,  or  42  percent,  of  the 
 286-  mile  Lower  Colorado  River.  11  Havens  acknowledges  that  he  proposes  to  serve  less  than  60  percent  of 
 each  waterway.  12  Nevertheless,  he  argues  that  in  each  case  he  is  proposing  to  serve  100  percent  of  the 
 waterway  that  can  be  served  without  causing  interference  to  Watercoms  seven  AMTS  channel  block  B 
 stations  that  are  located  near  the  Texas  coastline.  13 

 III.  DISCUSSION 
 4.  In  its  petition  to  deny,  Watercom  offers  two  reasons  why  we  should  deny  the  Havens 
 applications.  First,  Watercom  argues  that  Havens  really  intends  to  provide  service  to  land-  based,  rather 
 than  maritime,  users  with  his  proposed  AMTS  stations.  14  Under  the  Commissions  Rules,  however,  an 
 AMTS  station  may  provide  public  correspondence  service  to  stations  on  land  so  long  as  priority  is  given  to 
 marine-  originating  communications.  15  The  Commission  has  determined  that  it  is  in  the  public  interest  to 
 permit  AMTS  stations  to  serve  units  on  land  because  it  expands  the  range  of  communications  services  that 

 6  47  C.  F.  R.    80.475(  a). 
 7  Id. 
 8  See  Wireless  Telecommunications  Bureau  Weekly  Receipts  and  Disposals,  Report  No:  2081  (rel.  Feb.  24,  2000). 

 9  Supplemental  Statement  in  Support  of  Applications  Filed  by  Warren  C.  Havens  to  Serve  the  Trinity  River  with 
 Six  AMTS  Radio  Stations,  at  4  (dated  Jan.  24,  2000)  (Trinity  River  Statement). 
 10  Supplemental  Statement  in  Support  of  Applications  Filed  by  Warren  C.  Havens  to  Serve  the  San  Antonio  River 

 with  Four  AMTS  Radio  Stations,  at  4  (dated  Jan.  24,  2000)  (San  Antonio  River  Statement). 
 11  Supplemental  Statement  in  Support  of  Applications  Filed  by  Warren  C.  Havens  to  Serve  the  Lower  Colorado 

 River  with  Three  AMTS  Radio  Stations,  at  4  (dated  Jan.  24,  2000)  (Lower  Colorado  River  Statement). 
 12  Trinity  River  Statement  at  4;  San  Antonio  River  Statement  at  4;  Lower  Colorado  River  Statement  at  4. 

 13  Trinity  River  Statement  at  5;  San  Antonio  River  Statement  at  5;  Lower  Colorado  River  Statement  at  5. 
 14  Petition  to  Deny  at  2-  5.  Watercom  also  argued  that  Havens  is  attempting  to  serve  non-  maritime  users  in 
 Dallas,  Austin,  and  San  Antonio,  Texas,  with  stations  that  operate  on  both  channel  block  A  (Guadalupe  River 
 and  Brazos  River)  and  channel  block  B  (Trinity  River,  Lower  Colorado  River,  and  San  Antonio  River),  thereby 
 gaining  a  monopoly  on  AMTS  frequencies  in  these  particular  metropolitan  areas.  Id.  at  4-  5.  We  believe  that  it 
 will  be  more  appropriate  to  address  the  merits  of  this  argument  when  we  reach  final  resolution  of  Havenss 
 applications  for  the  Guadalupe  River  system  and  Brazos  River  system,  which,  as  previously  indicated,  will  be  the 
 subject  of  a  future  order. 

 15  47  C.  F.  R.    80.123. 
2
 Federal  Communications  Commission  DA  01-  241 
 3 
 such  stations  may  offer  and  fosters  a  regulatory  environment  in  which  AMTS  stations  may  effectively 
 compete  against  other  commercial  mobile  radio  service  providers.  16  In  addition,  we  have  concluded  that  an 
 AMTS  licensee  is  entitled  to  add  a  station  to  a  system  when  the  intended  purpose  of  that  station  is  to 
 primarily  serve  units  on  land,  so  long  as  the  station  continues  to  give  priority  to  marine-  originating 
 communications.  17  Thus,  even  if  Watercom  is  correct  and  Havenss  true  intention  is  to  serve  units  on  land 
 (which  Havens  denies  18  ),  this  fact  alone  would  not  constitute  a  sufficient  reason  to  deny  the  applications. 

 5.  Watercom  also  contends  that  Havenss  proposed  stations  will  cause  interference  to  its  seven 
 AMTS  stations  that  are  located  near  the  Texas  coastline.  19  Watercom  has  calculated  that  its  stations 
 receivers  are  sensitive  to  co-  channel  signals  that  are  transmitted  from  an  omnidirectional  antenna  at  a 
 distance  of  150  miles,  and  that  all  of  Havenss  proposed  AMTS  stations  would  operate  within  150  miles  of 
 Watercom  stations.  20  While  the  Commission's  Rules  do  not  specifically  define  a  service  area  for  AMTS 
 stations,  21  we  believe  that  Watercoms  suggestion  of  a  150-  mile  separation  is  excessive.  First,  we  note  that 
 a  number  of  Watercom  stations  are  within  150  miles  of  co-  channel  facilities,  and  we  have  no  record  of 
 interference  complaints  from  Watercom  regarding  the  operations  of  such  facilities.  22  In  addition, 
 Watercoms  calculations  do  not  consider  the  fact  that  Havens  proposes  to  use  directional  antennas  oriented 
 away  from  Watercoms  stations,  and  to  afford  12  dB  protection  at  each  Watercom  stations  predicted  17 
 dBu  V/  m  contour.  23  We  are  concerned  that  requiring  overly  conservative  co-  channel  interference 
 protection,  such  as  Watercoms  suggested  150-  mile  protective  separation,  would  be  spectrally  inefficient 
 because  it  would  prevent  licensees  from  re-  using  spectrum  in  areas  that  could  be  served  without  harming 
 other  licensees.  24  For  the  foregoing  reasons,  we  are  not  persuaded  by  Watercoms  argument  that  grant  of 
 Havenss  applications  for  AMTS  stations  will  cause  harmful  interference. 

 16  Amendment  of  the  Commissions  Rules  Concerning  Maritime  Communications,  Second  Report  and  Order 
 and  Second  Further  Notice  of  Proposed  Rule  Making,  PR  Docket  No.  92-  257,  12  FCC  Rcd  16949,  16964    24 
 (1997)  (Second  Report  and  Order). 

 17  See  Application  of  Fred  Daniel  d/  b/  a  Orion  Telecom  for  an  Automated  Maritime  Telecommunications  System 

 Station  at  Corona,  California,  Memorandum  Opinion  and  Order,  14  FCC  Rcd  3837,  3839    4  (WTB  PSPWD 
 1999). 

 18  Opposition  at  3  n.  6. 

 19  Petition  to  Deny  at  2. 
 20  Petition  to  Deny,  Analysis  of  Potential  Interference  Between  Proposed  Warren  Havens  AMTS  and  Existing 
 Watercom  AMTS  at  2-  3. 
 21  Second  Report  and  Order,  12  FCC  Rcd  at  17008    117. 

 22  For  example,  Paging  System,  Inc.  s  (PSIs)  Chicago  station  is  within  89  miles  of  Watercoms  Tonica,  Illinois 
 station  and  28  miles  of  Watercoms  Lockport,  Illinois  station,  which  is  also  within  123  miles  of  PSIs  Port 
 Washington,  Wisconsin  station.  Similarly,  PSIs  Lakewood,  Ohio  station  is  within  95  miles  of  Watercoms 
 Hookstown,  Pennsylvania  station  and  137  miles  of  Watercoms  Brownsville,  Ohio  station. 

 23  Trinity  River  Statement  at  5;  San  Antonio  River  Statement  at  5;  Lower  Colorado  River  Statement  at  5.  We 

 note  that  12  dB  at  the  17  dBu  contour  is  the  co-  channel  interference  protection  standard  the  Commissions  Rules 
 require  for  VHF  (156-  162  MHz)  public  coast  stations.  47  C.  F.  R.    80.773(  a). 

 24  Amendment  of  the  Commissions  Rules  Concerning  Maritime  Communications,  Memorandum  Opinion  and 

 Order,  PR  Docket  No.  92-  257,  14  FCC  Rcd  8804,  8806    5  (1999). 
3
 Federal  Communications  Commission  DA  01-  241 
 4 
 6.  We  nonetheless  note  that  under  Section  80.  475(  a)  of  the  Commissions  Rules,  AMTS 
 applicants  who  propose  to  serve  a  navigable  inland  waterway  that  is  more  than  150  miles  in  length,  must 
 provide  continuity  of  service  along  at  least  60  percent  of  the  waterway.  25  The  purpose  of  this  rule  is  to 
 provide  assurance  that  a  substantial  portion  of  the  waterway  will  be  continuously  served  by  an  integrated 
 system,  thus  maximizing  the  ease  of  communications  for  vessels  traveling  along  that  waterway.  26  As 
 indicated,  Havens  proposes  to  serve  less  than  60  percent  of  the  Trinity  River,  Lower  Colorado  River,  and 
 San  Antonio  River.  27  However,  with  respect  to  each  river,  Havens  argues  that  he  is  proposing  to  serve  100 
 percent  of  what  can  be  served  without  causing  interference  to  Watercoms  stations.  28  Havens  argues  that 
 proposing  coverage  to  100  percent  of  the  available  portion  of  the  waterway  should  be  deemed  to  satisfy 
 the  coverage  requirement  set  forth  in  Section  80.475(  a).  We  disagree.  The  rule,  by  its  express  terms, 
 requires  coverage  of  60  percent  of  the  entire  waterway,  not  60  percent  of  some  portion  of  the  waterway 
 selected  by  the  applicant.  Therefore,  we  find  that  Havenss  above-  captioned  applications  are  defective 
 because  they  do  not  propose  60  percent  coverage  of  the  entire  Trinity  River,  Lower  Colorado  River,  or  San 
 Antonio  River.  29 

 IV.  ORDERING  CLAUSES 
 7.  Accordingly,  IT  IS  ORDERED  pursuant  to  Sections  4(  i)  and  303(  r)  of  the  Communications 
 Act  of  1934,  as  amended,  47  U.  S.  C.    154(  i),  303(  r),  and  Sections  1.934(  d)  and  80.475(  a)  of  the 
 Commissions  Rules,  47  C.  F.  R.    1.934(  d),  80.475(  a),  FCC  File  Nos.  852997-  853009,  filed  by  Warren 
 C.  Havens  on  February  1  and  10,  2000  ARE  DISMISSED. 

 8.  IT  IS  FURTHER  ORDERED  pursuant  to  Sections  4(  i)  and  303(  r)  of  the  Communications  Act 
 of  1934,  as  amended,  47  U.  S.  C.    154(  i),  303(  r),  and  Section  1.939  of  the  Commissions  Rules,  47 
 C.  F.  R.    1.939,  the  petition  to  deny  FCC  File  Nos.  852999-  853001,  853003-  853006,  853008-  853009, 
 filed  by  Waterway  Communications,  Inc.,  on  March  24,  2000  IS  DENIED. 

 9.  This  action  is  taken  under  delegated  authority  pursuant  to  Sections  0.131  and  0.331  of  the 
 Commissions  Rules,  47  C.  F.  R.    0.131,  0.331. 

 25  47  C.  F.  R.    80.475(  a). 
 26  AMTS  First  Report  and  Order,  6  FCC  Rcd  at  439-  440    22-  25. 
 27  Trinity  River  Statement  at  4;  San  Antonio  River  Statement  at  4;  Lower  Colorado  River  Statement  at  4. 
 28  Trinity  River  Statement  at  5;  San  Antonio  River  Statement  at  5;  Lower  Colorado  River  Statement  at  5. 
 29  47  C.  F.  R.    1.934(  d). 
4
 Federal  Communications  Commission  DA  01-  241 
 5 
 FEDERAL  COMMUNICATIONS  COMMISSION 
 Dwana  R.  Terry 
 Chief,  Public  Safety  and  Private  Wireless  Division 
 Wireless  Telecommunications  Bureau 
5