[Federal Register Volume 69, Number 66 (Tuesday, April 6, 2004)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 18007-18010]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 04-7365]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

47 CFR Parts 13 and 80

[WT Docket No. 00-48; RM-9499; FCC 04-3]


Maritime Communications

AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: In this document the Commission solicits comment on the 
Commission's rules governing the Maritime Radio Services. These 
comments will aid the Commission in establishing rules to further the 
implementation of the Global Maritime Distress and Safety System 
(GMDSS) and continue the process of streamlining, consolidating and 
revising domestic maritime radio regulations. In addition, the comments 
will aid the Commission in assessing the impact that possible rule 
changes may have on the maritime community, including vessel operators, 
manufacturers of marine radio equipment, and commercial radio operator 
licensees. These comments will provide the Commission with feedback 
that will allow it to better craft rules that will enhance safety while 
at the same time avoiding the imposition of unnecessary or unwarranted 
burdens on regulated entities.

DATES: Written comments are due on or before June 7, 2004, and reply 
comments are due on or before July 6, 2004.

ADDRESSES: Federal Communications Commission, 445 12th St., SW., 
Washington, DC 20554. Comments may be filed using the Commission's 
Electronic Comment Filing System (ECFS) or by filing paper copies. See 
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION for further filing instructions.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jeffrey Tobias, [email protected], 
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 Second Further Notice of Proposed 
Rulemaking (Second FNPRM) in WT Docket No. 00-48, FCC 04-3, adopted on 
January 8, 2004, and released on February 12, 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, Qualex International, 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 [email protected].
    1. In the Second FNPRM, the Commission solicits comment on whether 
the Commission should: (i) Revise the requirements for digital 
selective calling (DSC) equipment to comport with international 
standards that were adopted after the Commission last requested comment 
on this issue; (ii) add the INMARSAT F-77 ship earth station to the 
list of ship earth stations that are authorized to be used in lieu of a 
single sideband radio by vessels traveling more than 100 nautical miles 
from shore; (iii) require all small passenger vessels to have a reserve 
power source; (iv) make certain commercial radio operator licenses and 
permits valid for the lifetime of the holder, obviating the need for 
such licensees to file periodic renewal applications; (v) introduce 
greater flexibility into the examination process by removing rule 
provisions that codify the number of questions for each examination 
element and that require the exclusive use of new question pools 
immediately upon their public availability; (vi) adopt technical 
standards for equipment to be used in the Ship Security Alert System; 
(vii) further update part 80 of the Commission's rules in response to 
recent changes in international standards, and specifically whether 
certain on-board frequencies should be authorized for narrowband use 
domestically; and (viii) revise or eliminate certain part additional 80 
rules pursuant to recommendations submitted in the Commission's 2002 
Biennial Review proceeding.

[[Page 18008]]

I. Procedural Matters

A. Ex Parte Rules--Permit-But-Disclose Proceeding

    2. 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

    3. Pursuant to Sec. Sec.  1.415 and 1.419 of the Commission's 
rules, 47 CFR 1.415, 1.419, interested parties may file comments on or 
before June 7, 2004 and reply comments on or before July 6, 2004. 
Comments may be filed using the Commission's Electronic Comment Filing 
System (ECFS) or by filing paper copies.
    4. 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 [email protected], and 
should include the following words in the body of the message, ``get 
form .'' 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 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. 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.
    5. 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 4-
A366, 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 lead docket number in this case, WT Docket No. 00-48), 
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, Qualex International, Inc., 
445 12th St., SW., Room CY-B402, Washington, DC 20554.

C. Paperwork Reduction Act

    6. The Second FNPRM does not contain any new or modified 
information collection.

II. Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis

    7. As required by the RFA, the Commission has prepared an Initial 
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) of the rules proposed or 
discussed in the Second FNPRM. Written public comments are requested on 
the IRFA. These comments must be filed in accordance with the same 
filing deadlines for comments on the Second FNPRM in WT Docket No. 00-
48, and they should have a separate and distinct heading designating 
them as responses to the IRFA. The Commission's Consumer and 
Governmental Affairs Bureau, Reference Information Center, will send a 
copy of the Second FNPRM, including the IRFA, to the Chief Counsel for 
Advocacy of the Small Business Administration, in accordance with the 
Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA).

A. Need for, and Objectives of, the Proposed Rules

    8. In the Second FNPRM, we seek comment on rule amendments that are 
intended to enhance maritime safety, promote the efficient use of the 
maritime radio spectrum, and, to the extent consistent with these first 
two objectives, remove unnecessary regulatory burdens. We also seek to 
conform the Commission's part 80 rules with international standards 
where doing so will not undermine domestic regulatory objectives. In 
the Second FNPRM, we first request comment on whether we should adopt 
new requirements for digital selective calling equipment that conform 
to recently adopted international standards for such equipment. Second, 
we invite comment on whether to augment the list of ship earth stations 
approved for use in lieu of a single sideband radio. Specifically, we 
invite comment on whether to add the INMARSAT F-77 ship earth station 
to the list. Next, we seek comment on a recommendation by the National 
Transportation Safety Board to require that all small passenger vessels 
have a reserve power source. In addition, we ask interested parties to 
consider whether we should make certain commercial radio operator 
licenses and permits valid for the lifetime of the holder, obviating 
the need for such licensees to file periodic renewal applications. We 
also ask for comment on whether we should introduce greater flexibility 
into the examination process by removing rule provisions that codify 
the number of questions for each examination element and that require 
the exclusive use of new question pools immediately upon their public 
availability. In addition, we request comment to assist us in crafting 
rules to guide the industry in making communications equipment that 
will meet the functional needs of the Ship Security Alert System. We 
also invite recommendations for further updating of part 80 of our 
rules in response to recent changes in international standards, and 
specifically request comment on whether certain on-board frequencies 
should be authorized for narrowband use domestically, as they are 
internationally. Finally, we request comment on suggestions by both 
Globe Wireless and the Commission that certain regulatory provisions 
have become outdated, and therefore should be revised or eliminated.

B. Legal Basis for Proposed Rules

    9. 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

    10. 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

[[Page 18009]]

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: (i) Is 
independently owned and operated; (ii) is not dominant in its field of 
operation; and (iii) satisfies any additional criteria established by 
the Small Business Administration (SBA). A small organization is 
generally ``any not-for-profit enterprise which is independently owned 
and operated and is not dominant in its field.'' Nationwide, as of 
1992, there were approximately 275,801 small organizations. ``Small 
governmental jurisdiction'' generally means ``governments of cities, 
counties, towns, townships, villages, school districts, or special 
districts, with a population of less than 50,000.'' As of 1992, there 
were approximately 85,006 governmental entities in the United States. 
This number includes 38,978 counties, cities, and towns; of these, 
37,566, or 96%, have populations of fewer than 50,000. The Census 
Bureau estimates that this ratio is approximately accurate for all 
governmental entities. Thus, of the 85,006 governmental entities, we 
estimate that 81,600 (96%) are small entities. Below, we further 
describe and estimate the number of small entity licensees and 
regulatees that may be affected by adoption of rules discussed in the 
Second FNPRM.
    11. Small businesses in the aviation and marine radio services use 
a marine very high frequency (VHF), medium frequency (MF), or high 
frequency (HF) radio, any type of emergency position indicating radio 
beacon (EPIRB) and/or radar, an aircraft radio, and/or any type of 
emergency locator transmitter (ELT). The Commission has not developed a 
definition of small entities specifically applicable to these small 
businesses. For purposes of this IRFA, therefore, the applicable 
definition of small entity is the definition under the SBA rules 
applicable to wireless telecommunications. Pursuant to this definition, 
a ``small entity'' for purposes of the ship station licensees, public 
coast station licensees, or other marine radio users that may be 
affected by these rules, is any entity employing 1,500 or fewer 
persons. 13 CFR 121.201 (NAICS Code 517212). Since the size data 
provided by the Small Business Administration do not enable us to make 
a meaningful estimate of the number of marine radio service providers 
and users that are small businesses, we have used the 1992 Census of 
Transportation, Communications, and Utilities, conducted by the Bureau 
of the Census, which is the most recent information available. This 
document shows that twelve radiotelephone firms out of a total of 1,178 
such firms which operated in 1992 had at least 1,000 employees. Thus, 
we estimate that as many as 1,166 small entities may be affected. We 
invite comment on whether this is the correct definition to use in this 
context. We note in this regard that one of the discussed rule changes 
would affect small passenger vessels, and the Passenger Vessel 
Association has stated in comments in this proceeding that the vast 
majority of U.S. passenger vessel operating companies are small 
businesses. We accordingly request commenters to consider whether the 
number of small passenger vessel operators potentially affected by the 
rule is not fully reflected in the above definition and estimate. In 
keeping with the spirit of the RFA, we choose to err, if at all, on the 
side of overestimating the number of small entities potentially 
affected by these rules.

D. Description of Projected Reporting, Recordkeeping, and Other 
Compliance Requirements

    12. We believe two of the possible rule changes discussed in the 
Second FNPRM may potentially have a direct, significant economic impact 
on a substantial number of small entities. As noted, we have requested 
comment on whether to impose new requirements on digital selective 
calling equipment in conformity with recently adopted international 
standards for such equipment. We invite interested parties to address 
the economic impact of the new requirements on small vessel operators 
and other small businesses that may be subject to the requirements. It 
is our tentative conclusion that mandating compliance with the new 
requirements will benefit maritime safety. We seek information on 
whether the compliance costs may outweigh the safety benefits of these 
requirements, and whether there are alternative means of securing the 
safety benefits of these requirements through means that are less 
burdensome to regulatees.
    13. In addition, we have requested comment on an NTSB 
recommendation that the Commission amend its rules to require that 
small passenger vessels have VHF radiotelephone communications systems 
on board that can operate even when the vessel loses power. Currently, 
Sec.  80.917 of the Commission's rules imposes a requirement on vessels 
of more than 100 gross tons to have a reserve power supply. Adoption of 
the NTSB recommendation would in effect remove the tonnage limitation 
from Sec.  80.917, and impose the reserve power supply requirement on 
all passenger vessels, regardless of size. The NTSB states that 
imposing the reserve power supply requirement on all small passenger 
vessels will prevent accidents and save lives. Imposition of such a 
requirement would likely require small passenger vessel operators, 
including small passenger vessel operators that are small entities, to 
purchase and install additional equipment on their vessels. The record 
in this proceeding does not indicate the estimated cost of such 
equipment or the estimated overall costs of compliance with such a 
requirement. In the Second FNPRM, we specifically ask commenters to 
provide information on the costs to small vessel operators of complying 
with such a requirement, and we reiterate that request here.
    14. We do not believe any of the other matters discussed in the 
Second FNPRM would have a direct, significant economic impact on a 
substantial number of small entities. However, any commenters that 
disagree with that tentative conclusion are asked to explain the basis 
of that disagreement.

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

    15. 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: (i) The 
establishment of differing compliance or reporting requirements or 
timetables that take into account the resources available to small 
entities; (ii) the clarification, consolidation, or simplification of 
compliance or reporting requirements under the rule for small entities; 
(iii) the use of performance, rather than design standards; and (iv) an 
exemption from coverage of the rule, or any part thereof, for small 
entities.
    16. In the Second FNPRM, we request comment on whether to 
incorporate into the Commission's rules newly adopted international 
standards for digital selective calling equipment. We describe here, 
and seek comment on, possible alternatives to imposing these new 
requirements that might minimize the economic impact on small entities. 
First, we ask commenters to consider whether it would be appropriate to 
exempt small businesses from any additional requirements for digital 
selective calling equipment that may be

[[Page 18010]]

adopted. Commenters advocating such an exemption should propose 
criteria for identifying entities that should be exempt, and should 
explain why they believe such an exemption represents a reasonable 
compromise between the goals of promoting maritime safety and 
minimizing compliance costs for small entities. In addition, if we do 
determine to impose new requirements on digital selective calling 
equipment, we would consider whether we should grandfather some vessels 
from the requirement, either indefinitely or for a specified term of 
years, or whether there should be a phased-in schedule for compliance, 
with possibly different compliance timetables for vessels based, 
possibly, on vessel size or on whether the vessel operator is a small 
business. Interested parties should address these alternatives. 
Finally, we seek comment on whether an alternative equipment 
requirement, less costly to small passenger vessel operators, could 
provide the same or similar safety benefits as the international 
standards. Proponents of such an alternative requirement should compare 
the estimated costs of complying with the international digital 
selective calling equipment standards with the estimated costs of 
complying with the proposed alternative, and explain why they believe 
the proposed alternative will be adequate to address safety concerns. 
Commenters are also invited to suggest alternatives other than those 
discussed here.
    17. In the Second FNPRM, we also invite comment on an NTSB 
recommendation to require that small passenger vessels, regardless of 
size, have VHF radiotelephone communications systems on board that can 
operate even when the vessel loses power. We tentatively conclude that 
the most direct way of imposing such a requirement is removing the 
tonnage limitation in Sec.  80.917, which now exempts vessels of 100 
gross tons or less from an otherwise applicable reserve power supply 
requirement. However, we also specifically ask interested parties to 
recommend other means of addressing the safety needs of small vessel 
operators, crewmembers, and passengers, either as alternatives to the 
NTSB recommendation or as supplementary measures.
    18. We describe here, and seek comment on, possible alternatives to 
the NTSB recommendation that might minimize the economic impact on 
small entities. First, we ask commenters to consider whether the 
reserve power supply requirement should be expanded only to a subset of 
additional small passenger vessels rather than to all small passenger 
vessels. For example, instead of eliminating the tonnage limitation in 
current Sec.  80.917, we might simply lower the threshold. Commenters 
advocating a lowered tonnage threshold should recommend a specific 
threshold and explain why they believe it represents a reasonable 
compromise between the goals of promoting maritime safety and 
minimizing compliance costs for small entities. Alternatively, we could 
restrict the applicability of the reserve power supply requirement 
based on the size of the small passenger vessel operator, perhaps 
exempting only those small passenger vessel operators that meet the 
statutory definition of a small business. Commenters advocating such an 
approach should explain, inter alia, if it might result in exempting 
certain vessels exceeding 100 gross tons that are now fully subject to 
the reserve power supply requirement, and the ramifications of such an 
exemption for maritime safety. In addition, we might consider providing 
a continuing exemption for vessels below a certain size, or owned by a 
small business, that operate only in protected inland waterways. If we 
do determine to impose a reserve power supply requirement on all small 
passenger vessels, we would consider whether we should grandfather some 
vessels from the requirement, either indefinitely or for a specified 
term of years, or whether there should be a phased-in schedule for 
compliance, with possibly different compliance timetables for vessels 
based, possibly, on vessel size or on whether the vessel operator is a 
small business. Interested parties should address these alternatives. 
Finally, we seek comment on whether an alternative equipment 
requirement, less costly to small passenger vessel operators, could 
provide the same or similar safety benefits as a reserve power supply 
requirement. Proponents of such an alternative requirement should 
compare the estimated compliance costs of the reserve power supply 
requirement with the estimated compliance costs of the proposed 
alternative, and explain why they believe the proposed alternative will 
be adequate to address safety concerns. Commenters are also invited to 
suggest alternatives other than those discussed here.

F. Federal Rules that May Duplicate, Overlap, or Conflict With the 
Proposed Rules

    None.

III. Ordering Clauses

    19. The Commission's Consumer Information Bureau, Reference 
Information Center, SHALL SEND a copy of this Second Further Notice of 
Proposed Rule Making, including the Initial Regulatory Flexibility 
Analyses, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business 
Administration.

Federal Communications Commission.
Marlene H. Dortch,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 04-7365 Filed 4-5-04; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-P