[Federal Register Volume 71, Number 197 (Thursday, October 12, 2006)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 60075-60076]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E6-16844]


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

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, [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 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 
[email protected] 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

[[Page 60076]]

the vessel monitoring capabilities of AIS are maximized.
    3. MariTEL did not directly dispute these benefits. Rather, MariTEL 
contended that the Commission must weigh against those public interest 
benefits the interference to VHF Public Coast station operations that 
will be caused by the introduction of AIS technology as contemplated by 
the international standards, and the adverse impact of such 
interference on MariTEL's ability to develop a viable maritime 
communications service. However, the Commission continues to believe 
that MariTEL overstates the interference impact of AIS equipment 
authorized on the basis of international standards, and that the 
challenges that may be presented by such potential interference can be 
surmounted using existing technology. In particular, the Commission 
continues to disagree with MariTEL's contention that the AIS emission 
mask is not as stringent as the emission mask typically applicable to 
maritime transmitters under part 80 of the Commission's rules. The 
Commission concludes that the public interest benefits of conforming 
its part 80 rules governing the certification of AIS equipment with 
those used in other nations and internationally clearly outweigh the 
costs, and that adoption of an alternative AIS certification standard 
would be in derogation of the paramount public interest in maximizing 
homeland security and maritime safety. The Commission therefore denies 
MariTEL's petition for reconsideration.

I. Procedural Matters

A. Paperwork Reduction Act Analysis

    1. 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

    2. The Commission will send a copy of this Fourth Memorandum 
Opinion 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).

Federal Communications Commission.
Marlene H. Dortch,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E6-16844 Filed 10-11-06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-P