65570 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 219 / Monday, November 15, 2004 / Proposed Rules 

Dated: November 1, 2004.

Michael O. Leavitt,

Administrator.

[FR Doc. 04–25307 Filed 11–12–04; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–S

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS 

COMMISSION 

47 CFR Parts 2 and 80 

[WT Docket No. 04–344; RM–10821; FCC 

04–207] 

Maritime Communications

AGENCY: Federal Communications 

Commission.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

SUMMARY: In this document, the 

Commission initiates a rulemaking 

proceeding to identify the 

electromagnetic spectrum that should be 

used for 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, 

and the Commission is concerned that 

recent developments may have created 

uncertainty in the maritime community 

regarding the very high frequency (VHF) 

channels to be used for AIS, and that 

this in turn could impede efforts to 

expedite the broad deployment of AIS. 

The Commission has received 

conflicting petitions and other pleadings 

on this subject from the National 

Telecommunications and Information 

Administration (NTIA), which is 

representing the interests of the Federal 

Government, including the United 

States Coast Guard (USCG or Coast 

Guard) and the Department of 

Transportation (including the Saint 

Lawrence Seaway Development 

Corporation) in this matter, and from 

MariTEL, Inc. (MariTEL), the licensee of 

all nine of the maritime VHF Public 

Coast (VPC) station service areas. Based 

on these petitions and pleadings, as well 

as responsive comments from other 

stakeholders in the maritime 

community, the Commission proposes 

to designate VHF maritime Channels 

87B and 88B for exclusive AIS use 

domestically, in keeping with the 

international allocation of those 

channels for AIS, because the 

Commission tentatively concludes that 

the use of those channels will best 

secure to the United States the maritime 

safety and homeland security benefits of 

AIS. In addition, the Commission 

tentatively concludes that it should 

deny MariTEL’s pending petitions that 

conflict with this proposal.

DATES: Submit comments on or before 

December 30, 2004, and reply comments 

are due on or before January 31, 2005.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Jeffrey Tobias, Jeff.Tobias@FCC.gov, 

Public Safety and Critical Infrastructure 

Division, Wireless Telecommunications 

Bureau, (202) 418–0680, or TTY (202) 

418–7233.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a 

summary of the Federal 

Communications Commission’s Notice 

of Proposed Rulemaking (‘‘NPRM’’) in 

WT Docket No. 04–344, FCC 04–207, 

adopted on August 26, 2004, and 

released on October 15, 2004. The full 

text of this document is available for 

inspection and copying during normal 

business hours in the FCC Reference 

Center, 445 12th Street, SW., 

Washington, DC 20554. The complete 

text may be purchased from the 

Commission’s copy contractor, Best 

Copy and Printing, Inc., 445 12th Street, 

SW., Room CY–B402, Washington, DC 

20554. The full text may also be 

downloaded at: http://www.fcc.gov.

Alternative formats are available to 

persons with disabilities by contacting 

Brian Millin at (202) 418–7426 or TTY 

(202) 418–7365 or at bmillin@fcc.gov.

1. Section 80.371(c)(3) of the 

Commission’s Rules, 47 CFR 

80.371(c)(3), directs the licensee of VHF 

Public Coast Service Areas (VPCSAs) 1–

9, i.e., MariTEL, and the Coast Guard to 

negotiate in good faith to select two 

narrowband offset channel pairs to be 

dedicated to AIS use, and specifies that 

if an agreement cannot be reached, the 

Coast Guard may petition the 

Commission to select the channel pairs. 

Although MariTEL and the Coast Guard 

did in fact reach an agreement to 

designate frequencies 157.375 MHz and 

161.975 MHz for AIS and executed a 

Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) to 

that effect, MariTEL later exercised its 

right to terminate the MOA. Following 

termination of the MOA, NTIA 

petitioned the Commission on behalf of 

the Coast Guard to select Channels 87B 

and 88B for AIS and to work with NTIA 

to reallocate the channels for exclusive 

AIS use nationwide on a shared Federal 

Government/non-Federal Government 

basis. After reviewing various proposals 

submitted by MariTEL and NTIA, 

including their technical submissions, 

and the comments filed in response to 

a number of public notices relating to 

this matter, the Commission tentatively 

agrees with NTIA and the Coast Guard, 

as well as the vast majority of 

commenters, that the public interest 

would be served by designating 

Channels 87B and 88B for exclusive AIS 

use in the nine maritime VPCSAs. The 

Commission therefore grants the 

petition for rulemaking filed by NTIA 

on October 24, 2003, RM–10821 to the 

extent that it seeks initiation of a 

rulemaking proceeding to consider this 

issue, denies the Emergency Petition for 

Declaratory Ruling filed by MariTEL on 

October 15, 2003, and adopts the instant 

Notice of Proposed Rule Making in 

which it proposes to designate Channels 

87B and 88B for exclusive AIS use in 

the nine maritime VPCSAs. 

2. Designating Channels 87B and 88B 

for AIS in the United States and its 

territorial waters would permit seamless 

worldwide AIS operations. If the United 

States were to designate channels other 

than 87B and 88B for AIS, vessels 

entering United States waters would 

have to switch to those alternative 

channels, instead of being able to use 

the same channels that were employed 

in international waters. Commenters 

indicate that requiring such switching 

would increase the risk of vessel 

collisions. If ships must switch channels 

as they approach and transit an AIS 

‘‘fence’’ between international and 

United States waters, there is a risk that 

they will disappear temporarily from 

the screens of vessel traffic management 

systems as well as from the screens of 

AIS receivers located on the bridges of 

vessels. 

3. Further, domestic use of Channels 

87B and 88B for AIS would facilitate the 

speedy and efficient deployment of AIS, 

allowing the United States to take full 

advantage of existing AIS standards and 

infrastructure. Mandating the use of 

other channels could prolong 

implementation schedules for future 

PAWSS installations and delay full 

implementation of AIS as a component 

of homeland security because of the 

need for additional technical analysis, 

possible design changes, and 

conceivably more extensive shore 

infrastructure to accommodate AIS 

channel shifting. In addition, AIS 

operations on Channels 87B and 88B 

already have been deployed in, for 

example, the Saint Lawrence Seaway. A 

switch to other channels on the United 

States side would not only necessitate a 

costly reconfiguration of the AIS 

network on the Seaway but, more 

importantly, would compromise the 

ability of the United States to coordinate 

with Canada in monitoring vessel traffic 

on the Seaway and in other areas, since 

Canada uses Channels 87B and 88B for 

AIS. In addition to implementation 

delays and coordination difficulties, the 

use of channels other than 87B and 88B 

would affect the United States adversely 

because it would cause the U.S. 

Government to expend considerably 

more time, money and resources to 

Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 219 / Monday, November 15, 2004 / Proposed Rules 65571

implement a domestic AIS 

infrastructure. 

4. Designating specific channels for 

AIS should provide greater regulatory 

certainty, which in turn should 

encourage investment in AIS 

technology. Calling for another round of 

negotiations between the Coast Guard 

and MariTEL to identify channels for 

AIS would likely result in greater delay 

before this critical issue could be 

definitively resolved, and the resultant 

uncertainty could retard the pace of AIS 

deployment in the United States. 

Further, a resolution premised on a new 

MOA between the parties would still 

leave open the possibility that either 

party would terminate that future MOA, 

returning us to the present predicament. 

Specifically designating AIS channels in 

the Commission’s Rules, in contrast, 

would eliminate that possibility. 

Therefore, the Commission sees 

important public interest benefits in 

designating specific channels for AIS, 

and the record developed thus far 

overwhelmingly militates in favor of 

designating Channels 87B and 88B for 

this purpose rather than any other 

channels. 

5. After reviewing the parties’

technical submissions, the Commission 

also tentatively concludes that there is 

no basis in public policy or equity either 

to forego designating Channels 87B and 

88B for AIS in order to protect 

MariTEL’s interests or to provide some 

mechanism to compensate MariTEL if it 

does so. The Commission believed that 

the action it proposes here is essential 

to public safety, a reasonable regulatory 

response to changed circumstances, 

does not limit the licensed VPC 

spectrum available for MariTEL’s 

proposed data offerings to any greater 

degree than would the designation of 

four narrowband offset channels, does 

not unfairly undermine MariTEL’s 

reasonable investment-backed 

expectations, and does not undermine 

the integrity of the Commission’s 

auction process. The Commission 

invites comment on these tentative 

conclusions as well as on its overall 

proposal. In addition, the Commission 

encourages the Coast Guard and Maritel 

to cooperate in an effort to avoid 

interference to and from AIS and VPC 

operations, and to take reasonable 

measures to remedy any instances of 

interference that occur. Although the 

Commission does not propose here to 

mandate any particular type of 

cooperative interference mitigation 

measures, it seeks comment on whether 

there are specific actions it could take 

to facilitate such collaboration.

6. The Commission also tentatively 

concludes that it should not adopt 

MariTEL’s proposal to serve as the AIS 

frequency coordinator. MariTEL’s 

proposed fees for providing AIS 

frequency coordination would create an 

unwarranted disincentive for voluntary 

carriage of AIS equipment. The 

effectiveness of AIS as a tool in service 

of maritime safety and homeland 

security is directly proportional to the 

percentage of vessels that operate with 

AIS. Creating a disincentive for 

voluntary AIS carriage should be 

considered only if there are equally 

weighty reasons in favor of it. Here, 

there is no apparent countervailing 

public interest benefit in MariTEL’s 

proposal to act as AIS frequency 

coordinator that could justify a measure 

that would discourage fitting vessels 

with AIS equipment. In addition, the 

proposed fees would unfairly burden 

the owners and operators of vessels 

subject to mandatory AIS carriage 

requirements, who must already 

shoulder the costs of purchasing and 

installing AIS equipment to fulfill the 

requirement. 

7. The Commission also declines to 

propose adoption of MariTEL’s proposal 

for shared use of Channels 87B and 88B, 

as set forth in MariTEL’s submission of 

February 9, 2004. The public interest 

benefits of adopting this proposal are 

unclear, and do not outweigh the clear 

disadvantages of the proposal. First, the 

MariTEL sharing proposal would permit 

MariTEL to use on a shared basis not 

only Channel 87B but also the Federal 

Government channel 88B. The 

Commission is not empowered to give 

MariTEL any rights to use a Federal 

Government channel, and NTIA has not 

indicated any readiness to do so. 

Second, the MariTEL sharing proposal 

is premised in part on the Commission 

adopting regulations precluding the 

reception and use of AIS transmissions 

except by MariTEL, the Coast Guard and 

ship stations. However, precluding 

other entities from acquiring and using 

AIS information, or allowing such 

access and use only upon payment to 

MariTEL, could inhibit domestic 

implementation of AIS, could preclude 

beneficial public/private cooperative 

arrangements between the Coast Guard 

and private maritime associations, and 

could otherwise impede efficient AIS 

implementation. Finally, the MariTEL 

sharing proposal calls for the 

Commission to modify the technical 

requirements for AIS devices in order to 

prevent interference from AIS 

operations on Channels 87B and 88B to 

adjacent channel VPC channels. The 

AIS technical requirements are based on 

the international standards, and the 

Commission tentatively concludes that 

it should not revise those requirements 

unilaterally, and effectively abandon the 

standards-setting efforts to date, solely 

at the behest of and for the benefit of a 

single company. This is especially so 

because some of the mandatory AIS 

carriage deadlines have come into effect, 

and it is at best uncertain that the 

Commission could develop new 

technical requirements soon enough to 

give vessel operators a reasonable 

opportunity to come into compliance. 

I. Procedural Matters 

A. Ex Parte Rules—Permit-But-Disclose 

Proceeding 

8. This is a permit-but-disclose notice 

and comment rulemaking proceeding. 

Ex parte presentations are permitted, 

except during the Sunshine Agenda 

period, provided they are disclosed as 

provided in the Commission’s rules. 

B. Comment Dates 

9. Pursuant to sections 1.415 and 

1.419 of the Commission’s rules, 47 CFR 

1.415, 1.419, interested parties may file 

comments on or before December 30, 

2004 and reply comments on or before 

January 31, 2005. Comments may be 

filed using the Commission’s Electronic 

Comment Filing System (ECFS) or by 

filing paper copies. 

10. Comments filed through the ECFS 

can be sent as an electronic file via the 

Internet to http://www.fcc.gov/e-file/

ecfs.html. Generally, only one copy of 

an electronic submission must be filed. 

If multiple docket or rulemaking 

numbers appear in the caption of this 

proceeding, however, commenters must 

transmit one electronic copy of the 

comments to each docket or rulemaking 

number referenced in the caption. In 

completing the transmittal screen, 

commenters should include their full 

name, Postal Service mailing address, 

and the applicable docket or rulemaking 

number. Parties may also submit an 

electronic comment by Internet e-mail. 

To get filing instructions for e-mail 

comments, commenters should send an 

e-mail to ecfs@fcc.gov, and should 

include the following words in the body 

of the message, ‘‘get form <your e-mail 

address>.’’ A sample form and 

directions will be sent in reply. Parties 

who choose to file by paper must file an 

original and four copies of each filing. 

If more than one docket or rulemaking 

number appears in the caption of this 

proceeding, commenters must submit 

two additional copies for each 

additional docket or rulemaking 

number. All filings must be addressed to 

the Commission’s Secretary, Marlene H. 

Dortch, Office of the Secretary, Federal 

Communications Commission, 445 12th 

65572 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 219 / Monday, November 15, 2004 / Proposed Rules 

St., SW., Washington, DC 20554. Filings 

can be sent first class by the U.S. Postal 

Service, by an overnight courier or hand 

and message-delivered. Hand and 

message-delivered paper filings must be 

delivered to 236 Massachusetts Avenue, 

NE., Suite 110, Washington, DC 20002. 

Filings delivered by overnight courier 

(other than U.S. Postal Service Express 

Mail and Priority Mail) must be sent to 

9300 East Hampton Drive, Capitol 

Heights, MD 20743. 

11. Parties who choose to file by 

paper should also submit their 

comments on diskette. These diskettes 

should be submitted to: Jeffrey Tobias, 

Wireless Telecommunications Bureau, 

445 12th St., SW., Room 3–A432, 

Washington, DC 20554. Such a 

submission should be on a 3.5 inch 

diskette formatted in an IBM compatible 

format using Microsoft Word or 

compatible software. The diskette 

should be accompanied by a cover letter 

and should be submitted in ‘‘read only’’

mode. The diskette should be clearly 

labeled with the commenter’s name, 

proceeding (including the docket 

number in this case, WT Docket No. 04–

344), type of pleading (comment or 

reply comment), date of submission, 

and the name of the electronic file on 

the diskette. The label should also 

include the following phrase ‘‘Disk 

Copy—Not an Original.’’ Each diskette 

should contain only one party’s 

pleadings, preferably in a single 

electronic file. In addition, commenters 

should send diskette copies to the 

Commission’s copy contractor, Best 

Copy and Printing, Inc., 445 12th St., 

SW., Room CY–B402, Washington, DC 

20554. 

C. Paperwork Reduction Act 

12. This document does not contain 

proposed information collection(s) 

subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act 

of 1995 (PRA), Public Law 104–13. In 

addition, therefore, it does not contain 

any new or modified ‘‘information 

collection burden for small business 

concerns with fewer than 25 

employees,’’ pursuant to the Small 

Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, 

Public Law 107–198, see 44 U.S.C. 

3506(c)(4).

II. Initial Regulatory Flexibility 

Analysis 

13. As required by the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act (RFA), the Commission 

has prepared this present Initial 

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) 

of the possible significant economic 

impact on small entities by the policies 

and rules proposed in the Notice of 

Proposed Rule Making in WT Docket 

No. 04–344 (NPRM). Written public 

comments are requested on this IRFA. 

Comments must be identified as 

responses to the IRFA and must be filed 

by the deadlines for comments on the 

NPRM as provided in paragraph 70, 

supra, of the item. The Commission will 

send a copy of the NPRM, including the 

IRFA, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy 

of the U.S. Small Business 

Administration. In addition, the NPRM

and IRFA (or summaries thereof) will be 

published in the Federal Register. 

A. Need for, and Objectives of, the 

Proposed Rules 

14. In the NPRM, we seek comment 

on rule amendments that are intended 

to identify the spectrum that should be 

used for 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, 

and we are concerned that recent 

developments may have created 

uncertainty in the maritime community 

regarding the very high frequency (VHF) 

channels to be used for AIS, and that 

this in turn could impede efforts to 

expedite the broad deployment of AIS 

domestically. In the NPRM, we propose 

to designate VHF maritime Channels 

87B and 88B for AIS use domestically, 

in keeping with the international 

allocation of those channels for AIS, 

because we believe the use of those 

channels will best secure to the United 

States the maritime safety and 

homeland security benefits of AIS. 

B. Legal Basis for Proposed Rules 

15. The proposed action is authorized 

under sections 1, 4(i), 302, 303(f) and 

(r), and 332 of the Communications Act 

of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 1, 154(i), 

302, 303(f) and (r), and 332. 

C. Description and Estimate of the 

Number of Small Entities To Which the 

Proposed Rules Will Apply 

16. 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. The RFA 

defines the term ‘‘small entity’’ as 

having the same meaning as the terms 

‘‘small business,’’ ‘‘small organization,’’

and ‘‘small governmental jurisdiction.’’

In addition, the term ‘‘small business’’

has the same meaning as the term 

‘‘small business concern’’ under the 

Small Business Act. 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). 

17. 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 

Telecommunications,’’ which is 1,500 

or fewer employees. 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. 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 

18. There are no projected reporting, 

recordkeeping or other compliance 

requirements. 

E. Steps Taken To Minimize Significant 

Economic Impact on Small Entities, and 

Significant Alternatives Considered 

19. The RFA requires an agency to 

describe any significant alternatives that 

it has considered in reaching its 

proposed approach, which may include 

the following four alternatives: (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 or 

reporting requirements under the rule 

for 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 small entities. 

In the NPRM, we request comment on 

the proposal to designate Channels 87B 

and 88B for exclusive AIS use. We 

Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 219 / Monday, November 15, 2004 / Proposed Rules 65573

describe here, and seek comment on, 

possible alternatives to imposing these 

new rules that might minimize the 

economic impact on small entities. 

First, we ask commenters to consider 

the interference impact on MariTEL, 

Inc., licensee of the nine maritime VPC 

service areas, or on any incumbent sitebased VPC licensees or any Economic 

Area (EA) VPC licensees of the proposed 

designation of Channels 87B and 88B 

for AIS exclusively. We tentatively 

conclude that the proposed designation 

of Channels 87B and 88B for AIS should 

not have an adverse effect on MariTEL’s 

use of its VPC channels to a materially 

greater extent, if at all, than would 

designation of two narrowband offset 

channel pairs of the Commission’s 

choosing from the 156–162 MHz VHF 

maritime band. We request comment on 

this tentative conclusion. In addition, 

commenters are asked if incumbent site 

based VPC operations can co-exist on a 

non-interference basis with AIS and, if 

not, should the Commission require that 

that these operations be migrated to 

other spectrum and/or should the 

licensees be compensated in some way. 

20. Commenters are requested to 

identify potential means of minimizing 

or eliminating any adverse economic 

impact on any small entities, 

particularly VPC licensees that qualify 

as small entities, if Channels 87B and 

88B are designated for AIS use. Such 

means may include, but are not limited 

to, exemptions, grandfathering 

protection, or geographic limitations on 

the use of Channels 87B and 88B for 

AIS. Additionally or alternatively, we 

seek comment on whether we could 

provide replacement spectrum for 

licensees who may find themselves 

unable to continue using their licensed 

VPC channels because of our proposal. 

For example, we might be able to 

modify their licenses to provide other 

channels in lieu of Channels 87B and 

88B. We also could designate channels 

other than Channels 87B and 88B for 

AIS use in the United States as a means 

of minimizing any adverse economic 

impact on these licensee. We note, 

however, that mandating use of 

channels other than Channels 87B and 

88B for AIS use in the United States 

may have an adverse economic impact 

on vessel operators and radio equipment 

manufacturers that qualify as small 

entities by, for example, increasing the 

cost of AIS equipment, causing 

premature obsolescence of AIS 

equipment already installed on vessels, 

or leaving manufacturers with stranded 

inventory. Accordingly, commenting 

parties, and particularly commenting 

parties who favor adopting an 

alternative to the Commission’s 

proposal, are asked to address the 

potential economic impact of that 

alternative on small entities. 

21. In Appendix D of the NPRM, we 

list all of the incumbent site-based 

licensees that currently operate within 

VHF Public Coast Service Areas 

(VPCSAs) 1–9 on the channels which 

we are proposing to designate for 

exclusive AIS use. We assume for 

purposes of this IRFA that some or all 

of these licensees qualify as small 

entities. We specifically invite these 

licensees to address the expected 

economic impact on them of our 

proposal, and to suggest alternatives or 

additions to our proposal that would 

minimize that impact, including but not 

limited to the methods discussed in the 

preceding paragraph. 

22. We also note that there are 

incumbent licensees operating on the 

specified channels in inland areas. We 

do not anticipate any significant adverse 

effect on any such licensee due to the 

geographic limitations of our proposal, 

i.e., our limiting the AIS set-aside to 

areas near major navigable waterways. 

Commenters who believe differently are 

asked to describe the expected adverse 

economic impact on incumbent inland 

licensees operating on these or adjacent 

channels, and to provide suggested 

methods of minimizing any such 

impact. In addition, we note that, 

although we are proposing only to 

designate Channels 87B and 88B for AIS 

in the nine maritime VPCSAs, we have 

not foreclosed the possibility of 

designating those channels for AIS on a 

nationwide basis. Accordingly, inland 

licensees and other interested parties 

should address the possible economic 

impact on small entities if we were to 

designate Channels 87B and 88B for AIS 

in inland areas as well as the nine 

maritime VPCSAs. 

F. Federal Rules That May Duplicate, 

Overlap, or Conflict With the Proposed 

Rules 

None. 

III. Ordering Clauses 

23. The Commission’s Consumer 

Information Bureau, Reference 

Information Center, SHALL SEND a 

copy of this NPRM, including the Initial 

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis, to the 

Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small 

Business Administration.

List of Subjects in 47 CFR Parts 2 and 

80 

Communications equipment, Radio.

Federal Communications Commission. 

Marlene H. Dortch, 

Secretary.

Proposed Rules 

For the reasons discussed in the 

preamble, the Federal Communications 

Commission proposes to amend 47 CFR 

parts 2 and 80 as follows:

PART 2—FREQUENCY ALLOCATIONS 

AND RADIO TREATY MATTERS; 

GENERAL RULES AND REGULATIONS 

1. The authority citation for part 2 

continues to read as follows:

Authority: 47 U.S.C. 154, 302a, 303, and 

336, unless otherwise noted.

2. Section 2.106, the Table of 

Frequency Allocations, is amended as 

follows: 

a. Revise pages 30 and 31. 

b. In the list of United States (US) 

Notes, add note USxxx and remove note 

US223.

§ 2.106 Table of Frequency Allocations. 

The revisions and additions read as 

follows:

* * * * *

BILLING CODE 6712–01–P

65574 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 219 / Monday, November 15, 2004 / Proposed Rules 


EP15NO04A.056</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 219 / Monday, November 15, 2004 / Proposed Rules 65575

BILLING CODE 6712–01–C


EP15NO04A.057</GPH>
65576 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 219 / Monday, November 15, 2004 / Proposed Rules 

United States (US) Notes

* * * * *

USxxx The 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 and nonFederal Government use in VHF Public 

Coast Station Areas (VPCSAs) 1–9. In 

these areas, the maritime mobile service 

shall be used exclusively for Automatic 

Identification Systems (AIS). In VPCSAs 

10–42, the band 161.9625–161.9875 

MHz is allocated to the maritime mobile 

service on a primary basis for exclusive 

non-Federal Government use and the 

162.0125–162.0375 MHz is allocated to 

the fixed and mobile services on a 

primary basis for exclusive Federal 

Government use. See 47 CFR 

80.371(c)(1)(ii) for the definitions of 

VPCSAs.

* * * * *

PART 80—STATIONS IN THE 

MARITIME SERVICES 

3. 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.

4. Section 80.5 is amended by adding 

an entry for ‘‘Automatic Identification 

Systems (AIS)’’ in alphabetical order to 

read as follows:

§ 80.5 Definitions.

* * * * *

Automatic Identification Systems 

(AIS). A maritime navigation safety 

communications system standardized 

by the International Telecommunication 

Union (ITU) that provides vessel 

information, including the vessel’s 

identity, type, position, course, speed, 

navigational status and other safetyrelated 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.

* * * * *

5. Section 80.13 is amended by 

revising paragraph (c) to read as follows:

§ 80.13 Station license required.

* * * * *

(c) A ship station is licensed by rule 

and does not need an individual license 

issued by the FCC if the ship station is 

not subject to the radio equipment 

carriage requirements of any statute, 

treaty or agreement to which the United 

States is signatory, the ship station does 

not travel to foreign ports, and the ship 

station does not make international 

communications. A ship station 

licensed by rule is authorized to 

transmit radio signals using a marine 

radio operating in the 156–162 MHz 

band, any type of AIS, any type of 

EPIRB, and any type of radar 

installation. All other transmissions 

must be authorized under a ship station 

license. Even though an individual 

license is not required, a ship station 

licensed by rule must be operated in 

accordance with all applicable operating 

requirements, procedures, and technical 

specifications found in this part. 

6. Section 80.371 is amended by 

revising paragraphs (c)(1)(i), (c)(2) and 

(c)(3) to read as follows:

§ 80.371 Public correspondence 

frequencies.

* * * * *

(c) Working frequencies in the marine 

VHF 156–162 MHz band. (1)(i) The 

frequency pairs listed in the following 

table are available for assignment to 

public coast stations for public 

correspondence communications with 

ship stations and units on land.

WORKING CARRIER FREQUENCY PAIRS

IN THE 156–162 MHZ BAND 1

Channel designator 

Carrier

frequency

(MHz) 

Ship

transmit 

Coast

transmit 

24 ...................... 157.200 161.800 

84 ...................... 157.225 161.825 

25 ...................... 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 .................... 157.375 157.375 

28 ...................... 157.400 162.000 

88 4 .................... 157.425 157.425 

1For 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. 2The 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. 3Within VHF Public Coast Station Areas 

(VPCSAs) 1 through 9 listed in the table in 

paragraph (c)(1)(ii) of this section, the frequency 161.975 MHz may be used only for 

Automatic Identification System communications. 

4Within that portion of VHF Public Coast 

Station Areas (VPCSAs) 1 through 9 listed in 

the table in paragraph (c)(1)(ii) of this section 

within 120 km (75 miles) of the United States/

Canada border, in the area of the Great 

Lakes, the Saint Lawrence Seaway, and the 

Puget Sound and the Strait of Juan de Fuca 

and its approaches, the frequency 157.425 

MHz is available for use by ship stations for 

public correspondence communications and 

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 

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. 

* * * * *

(2) Any recovered channel pairs will 

revert automatically to the holder of the 

VPCSA license within which such 

channels are included, except the 

channel pairs listed in the table in 

paragraph (c)(1)(i) of this section. Those 

channel pairs, and any channel pairs 

recovered where there is no VPCSA 

licensee, will be retained by the 

Commission for future licensing. 

(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 in VPCSAs 1–9 may not 

operate on Channel AIS 1 (161.975 

MHz) or Channel AIS 2 (162.025 MHz), 

which are designated in those areas 

exclusively for Automatic Identification 

Systems (AIS), except to transmit and 

receive AIS communications to the 

same extent, and subject to the same 

limitations, as other shore stations 

participating in AIS.

* * * * *

7. Section 80.373 is amended by 

revising paragraph (j) to read as follows:

§ 80.373 Private communications 

frequencies.

* * * * *

(j) Frequencies for portable ship 

stations. VHF frequencies authorized for 

stations authorized carrier frequencies 

in the 156.275 MHz to 157.450 MHz and 

161.575 MHz to 162.025 MHz bands 

may also be authorized as marine utility 

stations. Marine-utility stations on shore 

must not cause interference to any 

Automatic Identification System, VHF 

or coast station, VHF or UHF land 

mobile base station, or U.S. Government 

station. 

8. Section 80.393 is added to read as 

follows:

§ 80.393 Frequencies for AIS stations. 

Automatic Identification Systems 

(AIS) is a maritime broadcast service 

provided by both the United States 

Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 219 / Monday, November 15, 2004 / Proposed Rules 65577

Coast Guard and Commission licensees. 

The simplex channels at 161.975 MHz 

(AIS 1) and 162.025 MHz (AIS 2), each 

with a 25 kHz bandwidth, may be 

authorized in VHF Public Coast Station 

Areas 1–9 for AIS. These areas are 

codified at 47 CFR 80.371(c)(1)(ii). 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.

[FR Doc. 04–25289 Filed 11–12–04; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6712–01–P