[Federal Register Volume 69, Number 219 (Monday, November 15, 2004)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 65570-65577]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 04-25289]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

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, [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 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 [email protected].
    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

[[Page 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 [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

[[Page 65572]]

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

[[Page 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 site-based 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.


Sec.  2.106  Table of Frequency Allocations.

    The revisions and additions read as follows:
* * * * *
BILLING CODE 6712-01-P

[[Page 65574]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP15NO04A.056


[[Page 65575]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP15NO04A.057

BILLING CODE 6712-01-C

[[Page 65576]]

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 non-Federal 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:


Sec.  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 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:


Sec.  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:


Sec.  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\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                   Carrier  frequency
                                                          (MHz)
              Channel designator               -------------------------
                                                    Ship        Coast
                                                  transmit     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
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ For special assignment of frequencies in this band in certain areas
  of Washington State, the Great Lakes and the east coast of the United
  States pursuant to arrangements between the United States and Canada,
  see subpart B of this part.
\2\ The frequency pair 157.275/161.875 MHz is available on a primary
  basis to ship and public coast stations. In Alaska it is also
  available on a secondary basis to private mobile repeater stations.
\3\ Within 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.
\4\ Within 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:


Sec.  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:


Sec.  80.393  Frequencies for AIS stations.

    Automatic Identification Systems (AIS) is a maritime broadcast 
service provided by both the United States

[[Page 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