Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 197 / Thursday, October 12, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 60067 

institution of proceedings looking to 

suspension and revocation under 46 

U.S.C. chapter 77 of licenses, 

certificates, and documents held by 

persons; and all other marine safety 

regulatory activities except those 

functions related to recreational boating 

when under the supervision of the 

Chiefs, Boating Safety Division, in the 

District Offices. 

(2) Unless otherwise provided for, the 

Chiefs, Boating Safety Division, in the 

District Offices, under the supervision 

of their respective District Commanders, 

direct the activities in their districts 

relative to administration of the law 

enforcement program applicable to 

uninspected vessels used for 

recreational purposes and the 

imposition and collection of penalties in 

connection therewith; maintain liaison 

with Federal and State agencies having 

related interests; develop and 

coordinate agreements and 

arrangements with Federal and State 

agencies for cooperation in the 

enforcement of State and Federal laws 

related to recreational boating; and 

review investigative reports of 

recreational boating accidents. 

* * * * * 

Dated: October 5, 2006. 

S.G. Venckus, 

Chief, Office of Regulations and 

Administrative Law, United States Coast 

Guard. 

[FR Doc. E6–16904 Filed 10–11–06; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–15–P 

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS 

COMMISSION 

47 CFR Parts 2 and 80 

[WT Docket No. 04–344; FCC 06–108] 

Maritime Communications 

AGENCY: Federal Communications 

Commission. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: In this document, the 

Commission designates VHF maritime 

Channels 87B (161.975 MHz) and 88B 

(162.025 MHz) for Automatic 

Identification Systems (AIS). The 

designation of Channels 87B and 88B 

for AIS in the United States is consistent 

with establishment of a seamless global 

AIS framework, and will facilitate the 

broad, efficient and effective 

implementation of AIS in U.S. territorial 

waters. The intended effect of this 

action is to maximize the benefits of AIS 

for United States homeland security and 

maritime safety. 

DATES: Effective November 13, 2006. 

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 Report 

and Order, FCC 06–108, adopted on July 

20, 2006, and released on July 24, 2006. 

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 sending an 

e-mail to fcc504@fcc.gov or by calling 

the Consumer & Governmental Affairs 

Bureau at 202–418–0530 (voice), 202–

418–0432 (tty). 

1. In the Report and Order, the 

Commission affirms its tentative 

conclusion that, in light of current 

circumstances, the public interest 

would be served by designating Channel 

87B for exclusive AIS use on a 

wideband simplex basis. Such an 

approach would result in both Channel 

87B and the Federal Government 

Channel 88B being available for AIS use 

in U.S. territorial waters, just as they are 

used for that purpose internationally. 

Most commenters continue to favor this 

approach. However, MariTEL and a few 

other commenters oppose the 

designation of Channel 87B for AIS in 

the wideband simplex mode. These 

commenters contend that the use of 

duplex channels for AIS in the United 

States is technically feasible and should 

be preferred over wideband simplex AIS 

operation on Channel 87B because it 

would cause less disruption to existing 

VPC operations, preserve the efficiency 

benefits of duplex channelization 

throughout the VPC band, maximize the 

spectrum available for VPC 

communications, facilitate the 

implementation of wide-area VPC 

systems, reduce coordination 

requirements, permit VPC licensees to 

make full use of Channel 87, and 

minimize AIS interference to and from 

VPC operations. These comments focus 

primarily on the comparative impact on 

VPC operations of the various AIS 

channel designation options, but the 

Commission believes it is at least as 

important, if not more so, to consider 

the impact its decisions herein will have 

on AIS, a service specifically intended 

to enhance maritime domain awareness 

and navigational safety. 

2. In the Notice of Proposed Rule 

Making in this proceeding (AIS NPRM), 

the Commission offered a number of 

reasons why it believed that the 

designation of Channel 87B for domestic 

AIS use on a wideband simplex basis 

would best promote the widespread, 

efficient and effective use of AIS, and 

thus the public interest in promoting 

and enhancing homeland security and 

maritime safety. Neither the comments 

to the AIS NPRM nor anything else in 

the record of this proceeding undermine 

the Commission’s tentative conclusion 

that it would serve the public interest to 

designate Channel 87B for wideband 

simplex AIS use in the United States. Of 

critical importance, adoption of the 

Commission’s proposal permits 

seamless worldwide AIS operations. As 

NTIA notes, use of Channels 87B and 

88B for AIS communications in U.S. 

territorial waters will facilitate Coast 

Guard coordination with other nations 

in tracking and monitoring vessels. 

3. In addition, the Commission 

remains concerned about the negative 

consequences that would arise if it does 

not designate Channel 87B for AIS use 

in the United States, because vessels on 

international voyages would have to 

switch from Channel 87B to other 

channels when entering U.S. territorial 

waters. As the Commission explained in 

the AIS NPRM, 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. MariTEL concedes that the 

resultant need of vessels to switch 

channels when entering U.S. waters 

could be ‘‘problematic,’’ but argues that 

it should not preclude use of duplex 

channels for AIS in the United States. 

The Commission continues to believe 

that the potential risks of ‘‘losing’’

vessels from AIS screens when they first 

enter U.S. territorial waters, especially 

in busy maritime areas where port 

security is critical, is a significant factor 

disfavoring the use of channels other 

than Channel 87B for AIS in the United 

States, even if, as MariTEL speculates, 

foreign vessels would eventually 

‘‘become accustomed to switching to the 

U.S. AIS channels when they approach 

U.S. waters.’’


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES
60068 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 197 / Thursday, October 12, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 

4. Further, the record is devoid of any 

party disputing the Commission’s 

determination in the AIS NPRM that 

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. Technical standards have 

been established, and equipment has 

been built and installed, domestically 

and internationally, for AIS operation 

on Channels 87B and 88B. The 

Commission is concerned that the 

designation of narrowband duplex 

channels for domestic AIS use could 

preclude reliance on those prior 

standards-setting efforts, and necessitate 

further technical analysis and changes 

in equipment design, and possibly even 

a more extensive AIS shore 

infrastructure, to accommodate a unique 

AIS channelization scheme in the 

United States and the attendant need to 

switch AIS channels when entering U.S. 

waters. In addition to impeding AIS 

deployment in the United States as a 

general matter, such an approach also 

could discourage voluntary AIS carriage 

by, for example, recreational boaters, 

due to higher equipment costs. 

Moreover, the Commission believes, 

under the circumstances presented, that 

it is reasonable to consider, as part of its 

public interest analysis, the economic 

impact of a duplex approach on 

equipment manufacturers, ship station 

licensees and other stakeholders in the 

maritime community who have 

designed, manufactured, installed or are 

using (in most cases to comply with a 

statutory carriage requirement) AIS 

devices that operate on Channels 87B 

and 88B on a wideband simplex basis in 

reliance on the ITU standards. In this 

connection, the Commission notes that 

those standards have been in existence 

for several years, have been adopted for 

use not only in international waters but 

in the territorial waters of other nations, 

and are the only standards that have 

received any widespread acceptance. 

5. Further, AIS operation on 

wideband channels will provide for 

effective AIS coverage at greater 

distances due to improved receiver 

sensitivity and frequency modulation 

discrimination capacity. In addition, 

requiring AIS shore station equipment 

and Class A AIS ship station equipment 

to operate in wideband mode will 

ensure the interoperability of such 

equipment with Class B devices. 

Although MariTEL correctly notes the 

inherent efficiency benefits of duplex 

channelization, the Commission agrees 

with NTIA that, under the 

circumstances presented, authorizing 

the use of Channel 87B on a simplex 

basis will, on balance, permit the 

establishment of more robust and 

effective AIS tracking capability in U.S. 

waters. 

6. In sum, the Commission believes 

that AIS is an important tool for 

combating terrorism and a significant 

advancement in maritime navigation 

technology. Based on the record before 

us, the Commission is persuaded that its 

promotion and facilitation of AIS 

deployment will save lives, strengthen 

the integrity of our borders, protect port 

operations that are vital to the United 

States economy, and promote a healthy 

and secure marine environment. Given 

the importance of AIS to homeland 

security and maritime safety, the 

Commission also believes that, absent 

compelling reasons, it should adopt 

rules that will best ensure that AIS is 

deployed widely, quickly, reliably, and 

cost-effectively, and in a manner that 

will maximize its capabilities. On the 

basis of this record, the Commission 

believes that this goal can be most 

readily and best achieved by designating 

Channel 87B to be used for AIS on a 

wideband simplex basis. The 

Commission therefore amends its rules 

as proposed, and designates Channels 

87B and 88B for exclusive AIS use. 

7. In addition, the Commission adopts 

its proposal in the AIS NPRM to delete 

note US223 from the Table of Frequency 

Allocations if Channels 87B and 88B are 

designated for exclusive AIS use. Note 

US223 permits the authorization of 

maritime public correspondence 

operations on Channel 88 in specified 

areas within seventy-five miles of the 

Canadian border. Most of the 

commenters addressing this issue agree 

that it is no longer necessary to retain 

note US223 once Channel 88B has been 

designated exclusively for AIS in the 

maritime VPCSAs, inasmuch as VPCSAs 

1, 5 and 7 completely encompass the 

areas identified in note US223. The 

Commission is not persuaded by 

MariTEL’s argument that elimination of 

note US223 is inconsistent with 

MariTEL’s retention of authority to use 

Channel 88. Under the rules the 

Commission adopts herein, MariTEL 

may use only the A side of Channel 88 

for public correspondence operations, 

and it is unnecessary to retain note 

US223 to authorize such operations 

since Channel 88A (157.425 MHz) is 

allocated for non-Federal Government 

maritime mobile use on a primary basis. 

The Commission therefore deletes note 

US223 as proposed. The Commission 

agrees with MariTEL, however, that it 

should modify the table in § 80.371(c) of 

the Commission’s rules only to reflect 

that Channels 87 and 88 may be used for 

radiotelephony in simplex mode, in 

keeping with the Commission’s 

proposal in the AIS NPRM, rather than 

completely delete Channels 87 and 88 

from the table. The Commission invited 

comment on the latter option as an 

alternative to its proposed amendment. 

MariTEL, the only commenter 

addressing this precise issue, correctly 

observes that eliminating Channels 87 

and 88 from the table would be 

inconsistent with the fact that Channel 

87A and, subject to the aforementioned 

limitations, Channel 88A can still be 

used for VPC service. 

8. The Commission continues to 

believe that the interference impact of 

wideband simplex AIS on VPC 

operations can be effectively mitigated 

through commercially reasonable 

means. Accordingly, the Commission 

concludes that there is no need to adopt 

additional AIS interference abatement 

requirements. Even if simplex wideband 

AIS operations pose a greater 

interference challenge than duplex 

narrowband AIS operations, the 

Commission does not believe that 

extraordinary measures are necessary to 

overcome it. The record in this 

proceeding confirms that the use of 

forward error correction (FEC) 

techniques with soft decision decoding 

mitigates interference from AIS. The 

Commission also continues to believe 

that VPF Public Coast (VPC) station 

licensees would be required to employ 

FEC and interleaving even in the 

absence of AIS to correct errors due to 

signal fading. In support of this belief, 

the Commission notes that FEC and 

interleaving techniques are commonly 

used in other services and technologies, 

such as the Project 25 technology 

utilized by some public safety licensees. 

While the degree of error correction in 

the commercially available radio 

equipment MariTEL has thus far 

investigated may not meet its quality-ofservice requirements, the technology is 

nonetheless available, as indicated in 

the comments. 

9. In addition, while the Commission 

understands the desirability of limiting 

the amount of adjacent channel 

interference to VPC stations, it notes 

that the International Electrotechnical 

Commission (IEC) AIS emissions mask 

is in fact more stringent than the 

emissions mask applicable to other part 

80 devices. In addition, the IEC AIS 

mask in the 25 kHz mode is more 

stringent than the equivalent part 90 

mask. Therefore, since the AIS emission 

limits already are more stringent than 

the normally applicable part 80 or part 

90 emission limits, the Commission 

does not believe it necessary to impose 

additional technical requirements to 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 197 / Thursday, October 12, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 60069 

further reduce AIS emissions under the 

circumstances presented. 

10. The Commission continues to 

encourage the Coast Guard and 

MariTEL, as well as other VPC 

licensees, to cooperate on identification 

and implementation of effective 

interference mitigation measures, but it 

remains unconvinced that it should 

condition the use of Channel 87B for 

AIS on the Coast Guard’s assumption of 

specific interference mitigation 

obligations. MariTEL propounds a 

number of such conditions as 

alternative means of allowing the use of 

Channel 87B for AIS in a manner that 

MariTEL deems sufficiently protective 

of its interests. MariTEL requests, for 

example, that the Commission require 

the Coast Guard to negotiate with 

MariTEL and incumbent licensees 

regarding interference protection, and to 

require an agreement among the parties 

before any rule designating Channel 87B 

for AIS becomes effective. The 

Commission thinks these approaches 

are both unnecessary, given its 

conclusions regarding the extent and 

remediability of AIS interference, and 

problematic. In this regard, the 

Commission is concerned that 

mandatory negotiations regarding 

interference protection would be no 

more successful than, and would have 

the same drawbacks as, mandatory 

negotiations over the designation of 

channels for AIS. It therefore declines to 

condition the designation of Channel 

87B for AIS on the Coast Guard’s 

successful completion of interference 

abatement negotiations with MariTEL 

and other VPC licensees for the same 

reasons that impelled us to reject 

another round of negotiations over the 

AIS channel designation. The 

Commission also declines to adopt 

MariTEL’s alternative suggestion that 

any designation of Channel 87B for AIS 

be conditioned on demonstrating to 

MariTEL’s satisfaction that it will be 

able to operate free of AIS interference. 

Following such an approach would give 

MariTEL the effective ability to veto AIS 

deployment on Channel 87B and could 

result in the same delay and uncertainty 

that would attend further negotiations. 

Moreover, even if the Commission were 

to agree with MariTEL’s assessment of 

the interference threat posed by AIS, it 

still would be reluctant to make actions 

that would promote homeland security 

and public safety contingent upon a 

private entity’s approbation. 

11. Similarly, the Commission will 

not accept MariTEL’s offer to forgo its 

objections to the reallocation of Channel 

87B for AIS if the Commission adopts 

regulations that affirmatively require the 

Coast Guard to cure to MariTEL’s 

satisfaction all interference to its VPC 

operations caused by the use of AIS 

devices on Channel 87B. MariTEL has 

failed to demonstrate that such 

extraordinary relief is warranted here 

and would further the public interest 

without adversely affecting homeland 

security and maritime safety. Moreover, 

such a requirement would be extremely 

difficult to craft and enforce. Most 

seriously, adoption of this MariTEL 

proposal raises the specter of shutting 

down AIS, thus creating a large 

vulnerability in our national security. 

12. The Commission concludes that it 

would not serve the public interest to 

adopt the ‘‘Sharing Proposal’’ submitted 

by MariTEL because it appears that 

MariTEL still views a reexamination 

and revision of the AIS equipment 

certification standards as an integral 

component of the ‘‘Sharing Proposal.’’

The Commission believes, however, that 

it would be counterproductive to 

reconsider the AIS equipment 

standards. To do so would not only 

create problems for international AIS 

interoperability and coordination, but 

would also retard, possibly even freeze, 

AIS deployment efforts in this country, 

and could also necessitate retrofitting 

vessels that have already installed AIS 

equipment meeting the current 

international and FCC requirements. 

13. The Commission affirms its 

tentative conclusion in the AIS NPRM 

that there is no basis in public policy or 

equity to compensate MariTEL in 

conjunction with the designation of 

Channels 87B and 88B for AIS on a 

wideband simplex basis. MariTEL 

contends, as it has consistently 

throughout this proceeding, that the 

Commission should require the Coast 

Guard to compensate it for harmful 

interference if the Commission adopts 

its AIS channel designation proposal. 

MariTEL asserts that failing to take such 

action would, for the first time, strip the 

winner of an FCC auction of the right to 

the spectrum it purchased in that 

auction, and that such action would be 

inequitable and contrary to public 

policy. The Commission disagrees for a 

number of reasons. Most importantly, 

the Commission do not believe that 

wideband simplex AIS operations on 

Channels 87B and 88B will 

unreasonably burden MariTEL’s use of 

its licensed VPC spectrum. Even if such 

wideband simplex AIS operations were 

to present new challenges to the launch 

of a data network on the maritime 

VPCSA channels, the Commission does 

not believe that those challenges cannot 

be surmounted, and does not believe 

they are of such magnitude as to warrant 

special compensation to maritime 

VPCSA licensees. As the Commission 

indicated in the AIS NPRM, moreover, 

licensees who acquire their licenses at 

auction do not have a vested right to the 

continuation without change of the 

rules in effect at the time of the auction. 

Auction bidders are on notice, based on 

clear statutory language and judicial 

precedent, that the Commission retains 

the power to alter the terms of existing 

licenses (whether or not acquired 

through competitive bidding) through 

rulemaking, should the public interest 

so warrant. 

14. The Commission believes that it 

would be beneficial and prudent to 

augment the record on the important 

question of whether to expand the 

exclusive use of Channel 87B for AIS 

beyond the nine maritime VPC service 

areas (VPCSAs), as initially 

contemplated, before taking final action 

on this issue. NTIA’s request for a 

nationwide AIS allocation is now based 

to a significant degree on the need to 

protect satellite AIS systems, but NTIA 

advanced this justification for the first 

time in its comments to the AIS NPRM. 

As a result, the existing record provides 

almost no information regarding the 

technical feasibility, effectiveness or 

potential benefits of satellite AIS, and 

no studies or analysis of potential 

interference to and from satellite AIS. 

The Commission is not convinced, 

based on the current record, that it 

should depart from its earlier 

determinations limiting the scope of the 

AIS set-aside. On the other hand, 

neither does the Commission believe 

that it can affirm its tentative conclusion 

in the AIS NPRM, that the public 

interest would not be served by 

extending AIS use of Channel 87B to 

inland areas, without further review of 

this new development. It appears that 

satellite AIS may significantly expand 

the range at which vessels may be 

effectively identified and tracked. Such 

an expansion of AIS vessel tracking 

capabilities could promote and enhance 

maritime domain awareness. 

Accordingly, the Commission invites 

comment in a Further Notice of 

Proposed Rule Making on issues 

pertaining to satellite AIS, and further 

comment more generally on the 

geographic scope of the AIS set-aside. 

15. The Commission believes, at this 

juncture, that Channel 87B can continue 

to be used for AIS on a shared basis 

with the limited group of site-based 

incumbent VPC stations in the maritime 

VPCSAs, but that the channel should 

ultimately be cleared for exclusive AIS 

use. The Commission is not persuaded 

that it is necessary to clear Channel 87B 

of site-based VPC stations immediately, 

as requested by NTIA, but neither will 

it require that AIS operate on a nonVerDate Aug<31>2005 16:14 Oct 11, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00015 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\12OCR1.SGM 12OCR1

rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES
60070 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 197 / Thursday, October 12, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 

interference basis to such stations, as 

ShipCom essentially urges (unless the 

incumbents receive compensation). 

Although ShipCom contends that it is 

impossible for site-based VPC 

operations to co-exist with AIS on 

Channel 87B, neither ShipCom nor 

NTIA (nor any other party) has brought 

to the Commission’s attention any 

present examples of real-world VPC/AIS 

interference, notwithstanding that AIS 

has been operating on Channel 87B for 

several years now. The Commission also 

believes that ShipCom, like MariTEL, is 

incorrect in asserting that it is 

practically impossible to overcome AIS 

interference, in this case co-channel as 

well adjacent channel interference. In 

addition, the Commission is likewise 

unaware of any actual interference to 

AIS transmissions from these VPC 

operations, and it believes that AIS will 

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. 

16. However, the Commission also 

believes that to ensure the integrity of 

AIS in the long run, Channel 87B 

should be cleared of all site-based VPC 

and private land mobile radio (PLMR) 

operations over time through the nonrenewal of any license authorizing such 

operation on Channel 87B in a maritime 

VPCSA. The Commission accordingly 

adds a new footnote to § 80.373(c)(1)(i) 

of the rules to provide that no site-based 

authorization to operate on Channel 87B 

in a maritime VPCSA will be renewed 

after this Report and Order takes effect. 

Operation of PLMR stations 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. 

I. Procedural Matters 

A. Paperwork Reduction Act Analysis 

17. The action contained herein has 

been analyzed with respect to the 

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) 

and found to impose no new or 

modified reporting or recordkeeping 

requirements or burdens to the public, 

including businesses with fewer than 25 

employees. 

B. Report to Congress 

18. The Commission will send a copy 

of this Report and Order in a report to 

be sent to Congress and the General 

Accounting Office pursuant to the 

Congressional Review Act, see 5 U.S.C. 

801(a)(1)(A). 

C. Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 

19. As required by the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act of 1980, as amended 

(RFA), an Initial Regulatory Flexibility 

Analysis (IRFA) was incorporated in the 

Notice of Proposed Rule Making in this 

proceeding (AIS NPRM). The 

Commission sought written public 

comment on the proposals in the AIS 

NPRM, including comment on the IRFA. 

This present Final Regulatory Flexibility 

Analysis (FRFA) conforms to the RFA. 

Need for, and Objectives of, the Report 

and Order 

20. The rules adopted in the Report 

and Order are intended to identify 

spectrum to 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 

had been concerned that certain 

developments in recent years, such as 

the termination of the Memorandum of 

Agreement between the U.S. Coast 

Guard and MariTEL, Inc. regarding the 

set-aside of channels for AIS, and the 

various petitions and pleadings filed by 

NTIA and MariTEL following that 

termination, 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 Report and Order, 

we 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 ensure that the 

United States can maximize the 

maritime safety and homeland security 

benefits of AIS. The use of VHF 

maritime Channels 87B and 88B for 

domestic AIS use will, inter alia, permit 

U.S. participation in a seamless global 

AIS network, avoid the problems that 

would inhere in requiring vessels to 

switch AIS channels when transiting an 

AIS ‘‘fence’’ between international and 

U.S. territorial waters, facilitate speedy 

AIS deployment using existing technical 

standards and infrastructure, and 

provide for AIS coverage at greater 

distances than would otherwise be 

possible. 

Summary of Significant Issues Raised by 

Public Comments in Response to the 

IRFA 

21. No comments were submitted 

specifically in response to the IRFA. 

However, some commenters, including 

two VHF Public Coast (VPC) station 

licensees, MariTEL, Inc. (MariTEL) and 

ShipCom LLC (ShipCom), contend that 

the interference impact of wideband 

simplex AIS operations on Channels 

87B and 88B would be of such 

magnitude as to effectively preclude 

VPC licensees from being able to make 

commercially reasonable use of their 

licensed spectrum. 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. 

Description and Estimate of the Number 

of Small Entities to Which Rules Will 

Apply 

22. 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). 

23. 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. 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, 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 197 / Thursday, October 12, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 60071 

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. 

Description of Projected Reporting, 

Recordkeeping, and Other Compliance 

Requirements for Small Entities 

24. There are no projected reporting, 

recordkeeping or other compliance 

requirements. However, some 

commenters contend that the Report 

and Order may have a significant 

economic impact on VPC licensees 

because of the potential interference 

impact on their operations of 

designating VHF maritime Channels 

87B and 88B for exclusive AIS use on 

a wideband simplex basis within the 

nine maritime VPC service areas 

(VPCSAs). 

Steps Taken To Minimize the 

Significant Economic Impact on Small 

Entities, and Significant Alternatives 

Considered 

25. 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.’’

26. In the IRFA of the AIS NPRM, the 

Commission described, and sought 

comment on, possible alternatives to the 

Commission’s proposal for the 

designation of Channels 87B and 88B 

for AIS that might minimize the 

economic impact on small entities. 

First, the Commission asked 

commenters to consider the interference 

impact on MariTEL, licensee of the nine 

maritime VPC service areas, or on any 

incumbent site-based VPC licensees or 

any Economic Area (EA) VPC licensees, 

of the proposed designation of Channels 

87B and 88B for AIS exclusively. The 

Commission noted that it had 

tentatively concluded 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. The 

Commission noted that it had requested 

comment on this tentative conclusion, 

and had also asked commenters to 

consider if incumbent site-based VPC 

operations can co-exist on a noninterference basis with AIS and, if not, 

whether the Commission should require 

that these operations be migrated to 

other spectrum and/or that the licensees 

be compensated in some way. 

27. Commenters were 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. The 

Commission suggested that such means 

might include, for example, exemptions, 

grandfathering protection, or geographic 

limitations on the use of Channels 87B 

and 88B for AIS. The Commission also 

stated, inter alia, that commenters could 

recommend that the Commission 

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 

licensees. The Commission noted, 

however, that mandating use of 

channels other than Channels 87B and 

88B for AIS use in the United States 

could 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, were asked to address the 

potential economic impact of that 

alternative on small entities. In 

addition, the Commission specifically 

invited site-based incumbent licensees 

that operate within VHF Public Coast 

Service Areas (VPCSAs) 1–9 on Channel 

87B or Channel 88B to suggest 

alternatives or additions to the 

Commission’s proposal that would 

minimize any significant economic 

impact on them. Finally, the 

Commission also noted that there are 

incumbent licensees operating on the 

specified channels in inland areas. The 

Commission said it did not anticipate 

any significant adverse effect on any 

such licensee due to the geographic 

limitations of its proposal, i.e., its 

tentative determination to limit the AIS 

set-aside to areas near major navigable 

waterways. Commenters who believed 

differently were 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. The 

Commission noted that, although it was 

proposing only to designate Channels 

87B and 88B for AIS in the nine 

maritime VPCSAs, it was not foreclosing 

the possibility of designating those 

channels for AIS on a nationwide basis, 

and it therefore requested inland 

licensees and other interested parties to 

address the possible economic impact 

on small entities if the Commission 

were to designate Channels 87B and 88B 

for AIS in inland areas as well as the 

nine maritime VPCSAs. 

28. Although we received no 

comments specifically addressed to the 

IRFA for the AIS NPRM, we have 

considered all comments to the AIS 

NPRM 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. In particular, 

we have addressed comments regarding 

the impact on VPC licensees of 

designating Channels 87B and 88B for 

AIS on a wideband simplex basis. We 

have considered the possibility of 

designating two narrowband duplex 

channel pairs for AIS in lieu of Channel 

87B, because commenters argued that 

VPC licensees would not incur as great 

a level of interference from narrowband 

duplex AIS as they would from 

wideband simplex AIS. We have 

determined not to designate narrowband 

duplex channels for AIS in lieu of 

Channel 87B because doing so would 

compromise the effectiveness of AIS as 

a tool in the service of homeland 

security and maritime safety. Because 

both international bodies and other 

nations operate AIS on a wideband 

simplex basis on Channels 87B and 88B, 

the designation of narrowband duplex 

channels for AIS in the United States 

would preclude creation of a seamless 

global AIS network; limit and 

complicate the ability of the Coast 

Guard to coordinate with maritime 

safety organizations in other nations; 

result in AIS coverage gaps when 

vessels transit an AIS ‘‘fence’’ between 

international and U.S. territorial waters; 

delay domestic AIS deployment efforts; 

discourage voluntary carriage of AIS 

equipment; and reduce the distances at 

which vessels may be tracked. In 

addition, the designation of narrowband 

duplex channels for AIS would likely 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES
60072 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 197 / Thursday, October 12, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 

harm more small entities than it would 

benefit, because it could leave small 

manufacturers of marine radio 

equipment with stranded inventory, and 

require small entities that own or 

operate vessels to refit those vessels 

with new AIS equipment. 

29. We also have considered a 

proposal by MariTEL that would permit 

MariTEL to share use of Channel 87B in 

what MariTEL deems a commercially 

advantageous manner. We have rejected 

this MariTEL Sharing Proposal for two 

reasons. First, it includes as an integral 

component the Commission’s agreement 

to revisit and revise the rules governing 

certification of AIS equipment. We have 

concluded that it would disserve the 

public interest to adopt AIS equipment 

certification requirements that diverge 

from the international requirements. An 

attempt to devise new, U.S.-specific AIS 

equipment standards at this juncture 

would engender many of the same 

problems that would attend designation 

of AIS channels other than Channels 

87B and 88B for use in the United 

States. Second, the Sharing Proposal 

contemplates the Commission’s 

imposition and enforcement of 

restrictions on the ability of entities 

other than MariTEL to make commercial 

use of AIS data. We have concluded 

that, even if the Commission had 

authority to impose and enforce such 

restrictions, its exercise would be 

administratively burdensome. 

30. In making all of the above policy 

determinations, we have weighed in the 

balance the interference impact of 

wideband simplex AIS on MariTEL and 

the other VPC licensees. We have 

concluded that whatever harmful 

interference may be caused to VPC 

operations by wideband simplex AIS 

transmissions, it can be effectively 

mitigated through commercially 

reasonable means, such as forward error 

correction (FEC) coding, and block 

interleaving. Based on that 

determination, as well as a 

determination that there is no legal 

theory through which the Commission 

could provide compensation to VPC 

licensees in any event, the Commission 

has declined to provide for 

compensation to any VPC licensee 

based on predictions of the interference 

impact of AIS. 

31. As a measure to minimize the 

potential economic impact of its 

decision herein on site-based incumbent 

VPC licensees, some of which may be 

small entities, we have determined not 

to require such licensees to immediately 

terminate use of Channel 87B in order 

to clear the spectrum for AIS. Instead, 

we are providing that such licensees 

may continue to operate on Channel 

87B for the remainder of their current 

license terms, but also that no such 

license will be renewed for operation on 

Channel 87B. This provides what is in 

effect grandfathering protection for sitebased incumbent licensees for a period 

of several years, with the precise 

termination date based on their current 

authorizations. In reaching this 

determination, we have considered that 

site-based incumbent VPC licensees, 

unlike maritime VPCSA licensees, were 

not subject to any pre-existing 

requirement to set aside spectrum for 

AIS. 

32. Finally, we have determined to 

augment the record with additional 

comments to better inform a decision as 

to whether the designation of Channel 

87B for AIS should be nationwide in 

scope or just limited to the nine 

maritime VPCSAs. We discuss this 

matter in the Further Notice of Proposed 

Rule Making (Further Notice) in this 

proceeding and the accompanying 

Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis of 

the Further Notice, infra. 

D. Report to Congress 

33. The Commission will send a copy 

of this 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. In 

addition, the Commission will send a 

copy of the Report and Order, including 

the Final Regulatory Flexibility 

Analysis, to the Chief Counsel for 

Advocacy of the SBA. A copy of the 

Report and Order and the Final 

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (or 

summaries thereof) will also be 

published in the Federal Register. 

List of Subjects in 47 CFR Parts 2 and 

80 

Communications, Radio. 

Federal Communications Commission. 

Marlene H. Dortch, 

Secretary. 

Rule Changes 

■ For the reasons discussed in the 

preamble, the Federal Communications 

Commission amends 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 page 21. 

■ b. In the list of United States (US) 

Notes remove footnote US223 and add 

footnote US399. 

The revisions and additions read as 

follows: 

§ 2.106 Table of Frequency Allocations. 

* * * * * 

BILLING CODE 6712–01–P 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 197 / Thursday, October 12, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 60073 

BILLING CODE 6712–01–C 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULESER12OC06.013</GPH>
60074 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 197 / Thursday, October 12, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 

UNITED STATES (US) NOTES 

* * * * * 

US399 Except as indicated below, 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 nonFederal Government use, and shall be 

used exclusively for Automatic 

Identification Systems. However, in 

VHF Public Coast Station Areas 

(VPCSAs) 1–9, site-based VHF Public 

Coast stations licensed prior to [effective 

date of this order] 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 

[effective date of this order], and 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. 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 

a definition 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) 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. 

* * * * * 

■ 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) * * * 

(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 4 5 ..................... 157.375 161.975 

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

88 3 ........................ 157.425 162.025 

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 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, Maritime VHF Channel 

88A (157.425 MHz) is available for use for 

public correspondence communications, subject to prior coordination with Canada. Maritime VHF Channel 88B (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. 4Within VHF Public Coast Station Areas 

(VPCSAs) 1 through 9 listed in the table in 

paragraph (c)(1)(ii) of this section, Maritime 

VHF Channel 87B (161.975 MHz) may be 

used only for Automatic Identification System 

communications. 5 No license authorizing a site-based VHF 

Public Coast Station or a Private Land Mobile 

Radio Station to operate on maritime VHF 

Channel 87B (161.975 MHz) in one of the 

nine maritime VHF Public Coast Service Areas 

(VPCSAs) listed in the table in paragraph 

(c)(1)(ii) will be renewed unless the license is 

or has been modified to remove Channel 87B 

as an authorized frequency. 

* * * * * 

(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 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 197 / Thursday, October 12, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 60075 

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 subpart 

H to read as follows: 

§ 80.393 Frequencies for AIS stations. 

Automatic Identification Systems 

(AIS) is 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 in VHF Public Coast Station 

Areas 1–9 for AIS, and the frequency 

162.025 MHz (AIS 2) also may be 

authorized in VHF Public Coast Station 

Areas 10–42 for AIS. The VHF Public 

Coast Station 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. 06–8655 Filed 10–11–06; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6712–01–P 

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS 

COMMISSION 

47 CFR Parts 2 and 80 

[WT Docket No. 04–344; PR Docket No. 92–

257; FCC 06–108] 

Maritime Communications 

AGENCY: Federal Communications 

Commission. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: In this document, the 

Commission denies a petition for 

reconsideration of the Automatic 

Identification Systems (AIS) equipment 

certification requirements for ship 

station equipment that were adopted in 

the Sixth Report and Order in PR Docket 

No. 92–257. The Commission concludes 

that there is no compelling justification 

for adopting domestic AIS equipment 

certification standards that diverge from 

the international standards. In support 

of this conclusion, the Commission 

notes that any such departure from the 

international standards would delay AIS 

deployment in the United States, 

discourage voluntary AIS carriage, and 

create other problems, including 

difficulties in AIS coordination with 

maritime authorities of other nations. 

DATES: Effective October 12, 2006. 

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 Fourth 

Memorandum Opinion and Order, FCC 

06–108, adopted on July 20, 2006, and 

released on July 24, 2006. 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 sending an 

e-mail to fcc504@fcc.gov or by calling 

the Consumer & Governmental Affairs 

Bureau at 202–418–0530 (voice), 202–

418–0432 (tty). 

1. In the Sixth Report and Order in PR 

Docket No. 92–257, the Commission 

adopted rules providing for the 

certification of AIS equipment that 

complies with the international 

standards for such equipment. In a 

petition for reconsideration of that 

decision, MariTEL, Inc. (MariTEL) 

contended that the adopted AIS 

equipment certification requirements 

will have a devastating impact on 

MariTEL because the international AIS 

emission mask is not as rigorous as the 

otherwise applicable U.S. emission 

mask, and, more importantly, the 

procedures for measuring compliance 

with the international mask are flawed 

so that equipment approved as 

compliant may not in fact comply even 

with the more lenient emission mask. 

MariTEL further argued that, in 

adopting AIS equipment certification 

requirements that incorporate by 

reference the international standards for 

such equipment, the Commission 

effectively ceded its authority over 

domestic spectrum use to international 

authorities, abrogating its obligation to 

exercise independent judgment to 

determine whether a particular 

regulation would serve the domestic 

public interest. 

2. The Commission agrees with 

MariTEL that the Commission should 

not incorporate international standards 

in its own rules automatically, without 

considering whether, on balance, those 

international standards would serve the 

domestic public interest. The 

Commission believes, however, based 

on the record, that it serves the public 

interest for the Commission to establish 

AIS equipment certification standards 

that conform to the international 

standards. The adoption of U.S.-specific 

standards for AIS equipment could 

preclude the development of a seamless 

global AIS network and complicate 

international AIS coordination. This 

would reduce the effectiveness of AIS as 

a tool against terrorism. It would also 

reduce the value of AIS for maritime 

safety, especially if U.S.-certified 

equipment were not interoperable with 

AIS equipment approved under the 

international standards. It could also 

lead to the premature obsolescence of 

installed AIS devices meeting the 

international standards, and result in 

stranded inventory for AIS equipment 

manufacturers who have relied on the 

international standards in designing AIS 

devices. In addition, adoption of a 

separate standard could increase the 

costs to U.S. vessels of complying with 

the domestic AIS carriage requirement 

(and potentially also increase AIS costs 

for foreign-flagged vessels transiting 

U.S. waters) by making U.S.-approved 

AIS equipment more expensive and/or 

necessitating carriage of two different 

AIS devices. Adding to the cost of AIS 

equipment would also create a 

disincentive to voluntary AIS carriage, 

further undermining the effectiveness of 

AIS. Furthermore, the current record in 

this proceeding does not provide a basis 

for immediate adoption of an alternative 

AIS equipment standard. Therefore, if 

the Commission were to grant 

MariTEL’s petition for reconsideration, 

it would appear that the Commission 

would also have to request further 

comment to determine precisely what 

standard should be adopted in part 80 

in lieu of incorporating the international 

standards by reference. This would 

engender considerable uncertainty in 

both the maritime and the 

manufacturing communities, 

internationally as well as domestically, 

for a significant period of additional 

time. All of these factors would serve to 

delay and limit effective, efficient and 

expeditious AIS implementation in the 

United States, which would clearly be 

contrary to the public interest. On the 

other hand, continued reliance on the 

international standards in certifying AIS 

equipment under part 80 would permit 

domestic AIS deployment to proceed 

unabated, provide certainty to the 

affected entities, encourage voluntary 

AIS carriage, minimize the costs of AIS 

implementation (for the United States 

Government as well as private sector 

entities), and permit the development of 

a seamless global AIS network in which 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES