Maritime Security: Partnering Could Reduce Federal Costs and	 
Facilitate Implementation of Automatic Vessel Identification	 
System (23-JUL-04, GAO-04-868). 				 
                                                                 
As part of international efforts to ensure maritime safety and	 
security--and to carry out its mandates under the Maritime	 
Transportation Security Act of 2002--the U.S. Coast Guard is	 
developing an automatic identification system (AIS) that should  
enable it to monitor ships traveling to and through U.S. waters. 
For AIS to operate nationwide, ships need equipment to transmit  
and receive AIS signals, and the Coast Guard needs shore stations
and designated radio frequencies to keep track of the ships'	 
identities and movements. Yet unresolved frequency issues between
the Coast Guard and a private company, MariTEL, have come before 
the Federal Communications Commission (FCC). GAO reviewed federal
agencies' progress in developing AIS nationwide and identified	 
certain challenges and opportunities in completing the work.	 
-------------------------Indexing Terms------------------------- 
REPORTNUM:   GAO-04-868 					        
    ACCNO:   A11048						        
  TITLE:     Maritime Security: Partnering Could Reduce Federal Costs 
and Facilitate Implementation of Automatic Vessel Identification 
System								 
     DATE:   07/23/2004 
  SUBJECT:   Communication					 
	     Counterterrorism					 
	     National preparedness				 
	     Intercoastal waterways				 
	     International agreements				 
	     Marine radio broadcasting				 
	     Marine safety					 
	     Maritime law					 
	     Military radio					 
	     Radio frequency allocation 			 
	     Ships						 
	     Strategic planning 				 
	     Systems analysis					 
	     Systems evaluation 				 
	     Territorial waters 				 
	     Communications regulations 			 
	     Homeland security					 
	     Coast Guard Automatic Identification		 
	     System						 
                                                                 
	     Coast Guard Vessel Traffic Service 		 
	     System						 
                                                                 

******************************************************************
** This file contains an ASCII representation of the text of a  **
** GAO Product.                                                 **
**                                                              **
** No attempt has been made to display graphic images, although **
** figure captions are reproduced.  Tables are included, but    **
** may not resemble those in the printed version.               **
**                                                              **
** Please see the PDF (Portable Document Format) file, when     **
** available, for a complete electronic file of the printed     **
** document's contents.                                         **
**                                                              **
******************************************************************
GAO-04-868

United States Government Accountability Office

GAO	Report to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation U.S. Senate

July 2004

MARITIME SECURITY

Partnering Could Reduce Federal Costs and Facilitate Implementation of Automatic
                          Vessel Identification System

GAO-04-868

Contents

  Letter

Results in Brief
Background
The Coast Guard Has Taken Advantage of Opportunities for Quick

AIS Installation, but Much Work Remains Challenge and Opportunity Could
Affect Nationwide AIS

Development Conclusions Recommendation for Executive Action Agency
Comments

                                       1

                                      2 4

                                       9

13 19 19 19

Appendix I            GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments            21 
                                      GAO Contacts                         21 
                                 Staff Acknowledgments                     21 
    Figures                                                                
                   Figure 1: Staffed VTS Control Room, Houston, Texas       5 
                Figure 2: The 10 U.S. VTS Areas and Number of Ports within  7 
                                                                      Each 
                Figure 3: Information That Can Be Transmitted from Ship to 
                                                                      Ship 
                      and Ship to Shore by Automatic Identification System 
                                       Technology                          11 

Abbreviations

AIS automatic identification system
FCC Federal Communications Commission
IMO International Maritime Organization
MOA memorandum of agreement
MTSA Maritime Transportation Security Act of 2002
NTIA National Telecommunications and Information Administration
UHF ultrahigh frequency
VHF very high frequency
VTC vessel traffic center
VTS vessel traffic service

This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright
protection in the United States. It may be reproduced and distributed in
its entirety without further permission from GAO. However, because this
work may contain copyrighted images or other material, permission from the
copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to reproduce this material
separately.

United States Government Accountability Office Washington, DC 20548

July 23, 2004

The Honorable John McCain
Chairman
The Honorable Ernest Hollings
Ranking Minority Member
Committee on Commerce, Science,

and Transportation United States Senate

To abide by international navigation safety agreements and federal law,
promote safe navigation, and help secure America's ports and waterways
from terrorism, the U.S. Coast Guard is developing an automatic
identification system (AIS) for monitoring vessels as they approach and
travel in U.S. waters. This system, which uses radio signals sent from
ship to ship and from ship to shore on designated frequencies, is required
by the Maritime Transportation Security Act (MTSA) of 20021 and by the
International Maritime Organization (IMO).2 For AIS to operate as the
Coast Guard and international bodies intend, vessels need to install
equipment that can send and receive AIS signals, stations on shore need to
be built and staffed to monitor signals from vessels, and designated radio
frequencies must be available for signal transmission. While the Coast
Guard's stated goal is to extend AIS coverage throughout U.S. waters, AIS
coverage in the United States is currently limited primarily to 10 areas
where, to aid safety and navigation, ship traffic is already monitored by
vessel traffic service (VTS) systems. These areas, where vessels are
monitored by radar and other means from a central location, do not include
many of the nation's major ports-for example Boston, Baltimore, or
Charleston-and encompass only a fraction of the nation's 12,375 miles of
coastline and 25,000 miles of river or inland shoreline. In addition, the
Federal Communications Commission (FCC)-the federal agency responsible for
regulating interstate and international communications by

1Pub. L. No. 107-295, 116 Stat. 2064, 2082-2084 (2002).

2IMO, an agency of the United Nations to which the United States belongs,
is the international body responsible for improving maritime safety,
including combating acts of violence or crime at sea. In December 2002,
IMO adopted amendments to the International Convention for Safety of Life
at Sea, 1974, to which the United States is also a party, requiring
certain ships to carry AIS equipment to enhance maritime security.

radio, television, wire, satellite and cable-in 1998 auctioned the
licenses to certain maritime radio frequencies, including the two
frequencies designated by the International Telecommunication Union3 for
worldwide AIS communications, to a private company, MariTEL, Inc., for a
10-year term. Since then, the Coast Guard and MariTEL have negotiated over
use of those frequencies and other issues.

In September 2003, we identified a number of challenges to the Coast
Guard's development of AIS.4 Given the system's importance to homeland
security, this report discusses (1) the progress being made by the Coast
Guard and other federal agencies in developing an automatic identification
system that covers U.S. navigable waters and (2) challenges and
opportunities that these agencies may encounter in completing their work.

To accomplish these objectives, we examined documents from federal and
local government agencies and private companies, interviewed a wide range
of officials, and visited locations where AIS is being implemented. We met
with Coast Guard officials, including those responsible for administering
the procurement of AIS equipment, defining the requirements for a
nationwide system, and setting technical standards. We also met with or
interviewed other federal officials, including FCC staff responsible for
licensing the radio frequencies for AIS transmissions and St. Lawrence
Seaway Development Corporation staff who help operate an integrated AIS in
North America. We visited 3 of the 10 locations where the Coast Guard is
currently installing AIS equipment.5 We also attended a Coast Guard public
meeting and an industry conference on AIS issues. We performed our work
from October 2003 through June 2004 in accordance with generally accepted
government auditing standards.

Because the Coast Guard is early in its progress toward developing a
nationwide AIS, the system's total cost and full development schedule are

3The International Telecommunication Union is an international
organization within the United Nations system in which governments and the
private sector work together to coordinate the operation of
telecommunication networks and services and to advance the development of
communications technology.

4See U.S. General Accounting Office, Maritime Security: Progress Made in
Implementing Maritime Transportation Security Act, but Concerns Remain,
GAO-03-1155T (Washington, D.C.: Sept. 9, 2003).

5We visited VTS facilities at New Orleans, Louisiana; New York, New York;
and Seattle, Washington.

  Results in Brief

uncertain. The Coast Guard is taking a two-track approach to creating a
nationwide system: first, installing AIS equipment in the 10 areas where
vessel-monitoring systems already exist and, second, taking steps to
expand the system to additional locations. As of June 2004, the Coast
Guard was using a portion of the funds appropriated to it for acquisition,
construction, and improvements toward completing the installation of AIS
equipment in VTS areas and toward planning and testing of shore equipment
to be installed outside VTS areas. The Coast Guard intends to use a
portion of the appropriated funds to pay for its initial installations
beyond the current 10 VTS areas as well. The President's budget request
for fiscal year 2005 included $4 million for AIS. As of May 2004, the
Coast Guard's cost estimates for a nationwide system were preliminary,
because geographic and other factors will affect installation of equipment
at different locations. Nevertheless, the difference between current
funding and the estimated total cost leaves a substantial amount still to
be financed. The Coast Guard also estimates that planning and equipment
testing will be completed between December 2004 and February 2005. The
Coast Guard's planning process, which includes review of public comments
about the scope and structure of the system, will determine, among other
decisions, which navigable waterways need AIS coverage, what equipment
must be installed for those waterways, and what financing options should
be pursued.

The Coast Guard faces both challenges and opportunities in moving ahead
with developing AIS nationwide. Development will depend in part on the
specifics of an FCC response, expected in summer 2004, to address various
unresolved AIS issues between several federal agencies and the private
company MariTEL, including who should have access to the international
designated AIS frequencies and for what maritime communications. After the
Coast Guard and MariTEL failed to reach agreement on these issues in May
2003, MariTEL sought ways to help protect its licensed rights to certain
frequencies. In general, the company seeks either sole control over the
internationally designated AIS frequencies or shared control with the
Coast Guard. The federal government is advocating an alternative proposal,
under which FCC would allocate the internationally designated AIS
frequencies exclusively to AIS for both government and nongovernment use.
FCC's actions to address this situation-and whether it leads other parties
to initiate any challenges or appeals of FCC's actions-could affect the
overall cost and pace of nationwide AIS development. Depending on how FCC
addresses the issues at hand and on whether FCC's actions are challenged
or appealed, one important factor that could offer an opportunity to
reduce the federal government's costs is whether certain local port
entities that would benefit

Background

from access to AIS ship data would be willing to assume some or all of the
expense and responsibility for AIS equipment installation. Port entities
in Los Angeles-Long Beach, California; Tampa, Florida; and Portland,
Oregon, have already demonstrated or expressed such willingness.

To help reduce federal costs and speed the development of AIS nationwide,
we recommend that, depending on the outcome of the expected FCC response,
the Commandant of the Coast Guard seek and take advantage of opportunities
to partner with port entities willing to develop AIS systems at their own
expense.

AIS technology, which has been under development worldwide since the early
1990s to improve navigation safety, helps prevent collisions by enabling
ships to electronically "see" and track the movements of similarly
equipped ships and to receive pertinent navigational information from
shore. Like other wireless technologies, AIS uses a portion of the radio
frequency spectrum to carry information. In the United States, specific
frequencies within the radio spectrum are allocated primarily by two
agencies: FCC-an independent agency that regulates spectrum use for
nonfederal users, including commercial, private, and state and local
government users-and the National Telecommunications and Information
Administration (NTIA), an agency within the Department of Commerce that
regulates spectrum for federal government users. These agencies (1) decide
how various frequencies are used and (2) assign the frequencies to
specific users. FCC makes these assignments by issuing licenses to
nongovernmental parties; NTIA does so by assigning specific frequencies to
federal agencies that have radio communication needs.

AIS is designed to improve upon information available through
vesselmonitoring systems already in use. Existing VTS systems apply radar,
closed-circuit television, radios, and other devices to monitor and manage
vessel traffic from a central onshore location, much as an air traffic
control tower does (see fig. 1). An AIS unit consists of a global
navigation satellite system; computer hardware and software; three radio
receivers; and one radio transmitter-receiver, or transceiver. The unit
gathers vessel information-including the vessel's name, identification
number, dimensions, position, course and speed,6 destination, and
cargo-from

6AIS measures "speed over ground," or the speed a vessel is traveling
relative to a fixed position.

shipboard instruments or from manual input and transmits it to receiving
AIS stations installed on other ships or on shore. Radio frequencies, or
channels, carry the information. AIS also requires considerable
infrastructure on shore-including antennas and base stations equipped with
electric power, transceivers, computers, and displays-to monitor vessel
activity and transmit information or instructions back to vessels. In the
United States, such infrastructure now exists only in areas where VTS
systems operate.

               Figure 1: Staffed VTS Control Room, Houston, Texas

                           Source: U.S. Coast Guard.

MTSA and Coast Guard regulations require that certain vessels on U.S.
navigable waterways7 install AIS equipment between January 1, 2003, and

7The St. Lawrence Seaway Development Corporation and its Canadian partner,
the St. Lawrence Seaway Management Corporation, also require use of AIS by
certain vessels in Seaway waters. This joint U.S.-Canadian system operates
on channels 87B and 88B under assignments from NTIA and Industry Canada.
See St. Lawrence Seaway Development Corporation regulations at 33 C.F.R.
S: 401.20.

December 31, 2004.8 Coast Guard regulations implementing the law provide
that vessels include (1) commercial vessels 65 feet long or more on
international voyages, including all tankers regardless of tonnage; (2)
passenger vessels of 150 tons or more; and (3) commercial vessels on
strictly domestic U.S. voyages in the 10 VTS areas, which encompass
approximately 10 percent of the U.S. ports recognized by the Department of
Transportation's Maritime Administration (see fig. 2). Currently excluded
from Coast Guard regulations are fishing vessels and passenger vessels
certified to carry 150 or fewer passengers. Regardless of itinerary, any
private vessels not in commercial service, such as a pleasure craft, less
than 300 gross tons are not required by Coast Guard regulations to carry
AIS equipment.

8See 33 C.F.R. 164.46 for which vessels need to carry AIS equipment.

high frequency (VHF) band reserved for maritime public correspondence
communications.9 For approximately $7 million, MariTEL won the bid for
these licenses. The announcements for the auction stated that potential
bidders should be aware of international agreements and other issues that
might affect the ability to use the licenses on the two specific
internationally designated AIS frequencies, known as channels 87B and 88B.
Issues that could affect the licenses were not explicitly laid out in the
announcements, but potential bidders were directed to a prior FCC document
and specific federal regulations for assistance in evaluating the degree
to which such issues may affect spectrum availability. Different
interpretations of issues such as these may have contributed to the
conflict that continues to exist between MariTEL and the Coast Guard.

This conflict extends to the use of both frequencies. FCC regulations
required the winning bidder to negotiate with the Coast Guard for the use
of frequencies for AIS but did not specify any particular frequency. In
March 2001, in response to FCC's auction requirements, MariTEL and the
Coast Guard signed a memorandum of agreement (MOA) that allowed the use of
channel 87B for AIS in U.S. waters. MariTEL terminated the MOA in May
2003, however, after disagreements arose over interpretations of the MOA's
provisions, including technical properties of the frequencies that the
Coast Guard could use for AIS. After termination of the MOA, MariTEL
asserted that the Coast Guard had no authority to use channel 87B for AIS,
but the Coast Guard maintains that an FCC announcement still gives it that
authority.10 With respect to channel 88B, MariTEL asserts, in general,
that it obtained through the FCC auction the exclusive rights to channel
88B in certain areas within approximately 75 miles of the U.S.-Canadian
border, and it has petitioned FCC for a declaratory ruling to that effect.
The Coast Guard, NTIA, and the Department of Transportation disagree and
assert, in general, that channel 88B has already been allocated on a
primary basis to the federal government.

9Maritime public correspondence services are provided by companies to
subscribing customers for ship-to-ship and ship-to-shore communications.
Such communications do not include a company's internal communications.

10MariTEL has filed a $267 million damage claim with the Coast Guard for
misappropriation of MariTEL's licensed frequencies.

  The Coast Guard Has Taken Advantage of Opportunities for Quick AIS
  Installation, but Much Work Remains

The total cost and time frame for the development of a nationwide AIS
remain uncertain. As of June 2004, the Coast Guard's efforts to install
AIS equipment nationwide had followed two tracks: first, installing AIS
quickly in the 10 VTS areas and, second, launching a widespread planning
effort for the rest of the nation's navigable waters. Having taken
advantage of existing facilities, electronic systems, and plans for AIS
development to enhance safety in the 10 VTS areas, the Coast Guard plans
to complete AIS implementation in those areas by December 2004. At the
same time, the Coast Guard has begun to plan for U.S. waters outside the
VTS areas, defining the goals, technical requirements, and waterways and
vessels to be covered under a nationwide AIS. The Coast Guard expects
planning for the technical requirements to be completed between December
2004 and February 2005. The Coast Guard also estimates that the nationwide
system could cost between $62 million and $165 million.11 According to the
Coast Guard, the cost estimate is preliminary, because geographic and
other factors are expected to significantly affect the cost of
installation at different locations, and the impacts are yet to be
determined.

    First AIS Installations Have Taken Place Primarily in 10 VTS Areas

The first effort in the Coast Guard's two-track AIS development has
involved installing, testing, and operating AIS equipment in the 10 VTS
areas. To enable monitoring of vessels carrying AIS, the Coast Guard
accelerated onshore AIS installation under way in its navigation safety
program. A combination of existing facilities, equipment, plans, and
funding has allowed rapid establishment of AIS in the VTS areas. Since
much of the AIS infrastructure for conventional safety monitoring (e.g.,
to avert collisions) is the same for security monitoring (e.g., to avert
acts of terrorism), bringing AIS into service involved primarily adapting
and modifying existing systems to accommodate their additional security
purpose. AIS facilities are completely operational at Berwick Bay,
Louisiana; Los Angeles-Long Beach, California;12 Prince William Sound,
Alaska; and St. Marys River, Michigan. AIS is being tested along the lower
Mississippi River in Louisiana, and it is partially operational at
Houston-Galveston, Texas, and New York, New York. The facilities at Port
Arthur, Texas; Puget Sound, Washington; and San Francisco, California, are
under construction. The Coast Guard expects AIS installations at the VTS
areas

11These sums represent the present values of expected acquisition costs.
Unless otherwise noted, all cost figures cited are present values.

12AIS in Los Angeles-Long Beach is fully functional, but it has not yet
not been issued a license to transmit by FCC.

to be completed by December 2004.13 To enhance safety and efficiency at
the ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach, the Marine Exchange of Southern
California, a nonprofit corporation formed to provide vessel arrival and
departure information to the local maritime industry, took the initiative
to install and pay for AIS on its own. The total cost to the Coast Guard
for the installation of AIS equipment at the other 9 VTS areas comes to
approximately $20.5 million.

Bringing AIS into service in the 10 VTS areas should improve
vesselmonitoring capability at these locations. Before AIS, VTS facilities
relied on such means as radar, closed-circuit television, ship-to-shore
voice communications via radio, and people with binoculars. Signals and
other information from the monitoring equipment went to a central vessel
traffic center (VTC), where the information was collated and where staff
tracked ships' movements. With AIS, for a vessel equipped with a properly
operating AIS transceiver, VTC staff have access to so-called static
information, which rarely changes, such as dimensions, vessel name, and
identification number; dynamic information, which changes continuously,
such as course and speed; and voyage-specific information such as cargo
type, destination, and estimated time of arrival (see fig. 3). This detail
allows VTC staff to immediately identify any transmitting ship,
particularly if it is on a collision course with another ship or if it is
headed toward a hazardous or restricted area. In some VTS areas, AIS also
extends monitoring coverage over a wider radius than originally covered by
VTS. On the lower Mississippi River, for example, AIS will cover more than
240 miles along the river-from its mouth to Baton Rouge, Louisiana-rather
than the 8 miles around New Orleans covered by the original VTS system. In
New York, AIS equipment will allow vessels to be monitored farther out to
sea than possible with radar monitoring.

13The Department of Homeland Security's Science and Technology
Directorate, working with the Coast Guard, built upon an existing AIS test
facility in Miami to create a security demonstration project covering
South Florida from Key West to Fort Lauderdale. The project, named
Hawkeye, features coastal radar, visual and infrared cameras, and a
ship-toshore AIS in a surveillance system aimed at stopping smugglers and
terrorists from entering South Florida ports.

or buy land for antenna towers. For example, after completing site surveys
of the area, the Coast Guard estimated that installing AIS in Puget Sound-
an arm of the Pacific Ocean extending into Washington State that features
many bays and islands and is surrounded by mountains-would likely cost
$6.6 million. In contrast, the AIS installation at Berwick Bay, Louisiana,
one of the first AIS installations completed by the Coast Guard, generally
monitors a roughly 5-mile radius around a short stretch of the Atchafalaya
River and surrounding waterways; this installation cost approximately $1
million. On the basis of its experience installing AIS in the VTS areas,
the Coast Guard estimates that installing AIS equipment nationwide could
cost between $62 million and $165 million-a preliminary estimate that one
Coast Guard official responsible for reviewing such programs characterizes
as "ballpark."

    Long-Range Planning for Nationwide AIS Installation Now Under Way

At the same time the Coast Guard is completing installation of AIS
equipment in the 10 VTS areas, it is also planning for nationwide AIS
installation, in waters where most of the needed infrastructure is not now
available. This planning consists of two primary components:

o  	The Coast Guard will soon be defining the technical requirements of
the system needed to meet both the safety and security missions of AIS,
including how elaborate it will be. For example, will the system need to
involve satellites to receive AIS signals beyond the range of stations on
land,15 or will an installation that can receive signals only along the
shore

be adequate? The Coast Guard will also investigate whether AIS can share
shore infrastructure, such as antenna towers, with systems in place or
under development, such as its search-and-rescue communications system
called Rescue 21.16 As of June 2004, the Coast Guard estimated it will be
able to complete this planning sometime between December 2004 and February
2005.

o  	The Coast Guard is also determining the extent of AIS coverage needed
in its overall AIS strategy, including a reexamination of which vessels
should carry AIS in U.S. waters outside of VTS areas. This process
includes selecting which waterways will be covered (e.g., deciding whether

15The Coast Guard has awarded a contract to test the validity of satellite
reception of AIS signals from as far as 2,000 miles of the U.S. coastline.

16Rescue 21, now under development, is a system using enhanced VHF and
ultrahigh frequency (UHF) radios and direction-finding equipment to speed
rescue response to vessels in distress.

relatively small rivers and lakes will be covered); setting priorities for
which waterways will be covered first (e.g., deciding whether large ports
will receive coverage before open coastline); and identifying which
additional vessels will be required to carry and operate AIS equipment
(e.g., whether noncommercial, pleasure craft will still be outside AIS
requirements). The Coast Guard has held public meetings and requested
public comment on these issues and expects to complete its review of these
comments by July 2004.17

Even after these planning efforts are completed, the Coast Guard will not
be able to install AIS equipment outside VTS areas immediately. The
factors that shape the cost of an AIS installation also shape the
equipment requirements. For example, the more obstructions, such as
mountains or tall buildings, that could block AIS signals, the more
antennas will be required. At every location where the Coast Guard decides
to install AIS equipment, it will have to evaluate the presence or absence
of such design factors. Site surveys that detail local terrain and the
volume and variety of vessel traffic will have to be carried out before
the Coast Guard can determine a location's precise equipment needs.

As of June 2004, the continuing dispute between MariTEL and the Coast
Guard over various frequency issues was in the hands of FCC, which
expected to respond in summer 2004. At issue are competing views over the
use of the internationally designated AIS frequencies. The commission's
response could involve any number of actions or conditions regarding the
internationally designated AIS frequencies, especially on access to
frequencies needed to carry AIS information. FCC's specific findings could
lead to varied technical, cost, and legal implications for AIS
installation and operation, including potential delay. Depending on how
FCC responds, and any subsequent actions by the interested parties, one
factor that offers an opportunity to lower the federal government's costs
is the demonstrated or expressed willingness of certain local port
entities to shoulder the expense and responsibility for AIS installation
if they, along with the Coast Guard, can use AIS data for their own
purposes.

  Challenge and Opportunity Could Affect Nationwide AIS Development

17The Coast Guard issued a temporary interim rule on July 1, 2003,
outlining its MTSA implementation plans and setting forth initial AIS
requirements, which apply primarily to commercial vessels on international
voyages and traveling in U.S. VTS areas. It also sought public comment on
how best to extend and implement AIS requirements on the remaining U.S.
navigable waters for vessels not on international voyages. See 68 Fed.
Reg. 39,353 (2003).

    Competing Proposals to Be Decided by FCC

Since 2003, there have been a number of petitions, proposals, and other
actions put before FCC on who may and should use channels 87B and 88B and
for what purposes. In October 2003, for example, MariTEL petitioned FCC
seeking a ruling that would prohibit transmission on channels 87B and 88B
by entities other than those authorized by MariTEL. In this petition
MariTEL asserts, among other things, that the termination of the
memorandum of agreement ended the Coast Guard's right to use channels for
which MariTEL holds licensing rights. The company further contends that
transmissions by entities other than those authorized by MariTEL would
interfere with its other maritime frequency licenses and prevent its
benefiting from the investment it made at the auction. On behalf of the
Coast Guard and the Department of Transportation, NTIA also petitioned FCC
in October 2003, opposing MariTEL's petition and proposing instead that
FCC allocate channels 87B and 88B exclusively to AIS for government and
nongovernment use. The government's position was that navigation safety
and homeland security would be compromised if the United States and the
maritime industry did not have unrestricted access to the frequencies
designated by the International Telecommunication Union for AIS use
worldwide.

Then in February 2004, citing a desire to protect its licensed rights and
to reach a quick "resolution to the AIS frequency controversy," MariTEL
submitted a proposal to FCC, "to share its licensed rights to channels 87B
and 88B for use by ship stations and by the USCG at no cost." In this
proposal, MariTEL generally agreed with NTIA's proposal to use channels
87B and 88B only for AIS, but unlike NTIA, it sought to limit access to
the signals to ships, MariTEL, the Coast Guard, and the St. Lawrence
Seaway Development Corporation. In other words, under this proposal,
unless authorized by MariTEL, the Coast Guard and the St. Lawrence Seaway
Development Corporation would be the only entities allowed to use AIS
information received by a shore station. In effect, under this proposal,
the transmission and receipt of AIS signals by other entities, such as
marine exchanges, port authorities, or state and local government
agencies, would require MariTEL's consent.

FCC has been gathering public comment from groups representing vessel
pilots, port authorities, ship and barge operators, and others on these
competing proposals, and a response is expected in summer 2004. The
implications of this response for nationwide AIS development will depend
on just how the commission resolves the competing proposals.

    Challenges Posed by FCC's Decision Will Depend on Its Specifics

If FCC allocates the internationally designated frequencies exclusively to
AIS use but limits access to ships, MariTEL, the Coast Guard, and the St.
Lawrence Seaway Development Corporation, other organizations will no
longer be able to use the signals and would therefore have no incentive to
pay for installing AIS infrastructure. Such loss of incentive would likely
mean the loss of federal cost-sharing opportunities, potentially closing
off a possible long-term cost-reduction strategy in the development of AIS
nationwide. For example, an official of the Merchants Exchange of Portland
told us that the exchange would not be willing to pay for AIS facilities
unless access to AIS data is unrestricted. In addition, according to an
AIS consultant, enforcing a ban on parties other than MariTEL and the
federal government to receive AIS signals at shore stations, as MariTEL
has requested, could prove impossible, because an AIS receiver that is
only receiving signals cannot be detected by an enforcement authority.

For its part, MariTEL maintains that it should be able to protect its
investors and to profit from the licenses it won and that AIS can be
operated as required by FCC's preauction rules. The company also maintains
that even if FCC grants MariTEL's proposal for shared access to the
internationally designated AIS frequencies, technical issues could still
harm the company's ability to use other frequencies for which it holds
licenses. In its February 2004 proposal, MariTEL contends that FCC rules
now permit an AIS transmission technology that causes interference with
maritime communications on channels adjacent to 87B and 88B. The company's
proposal asserts that such interference impairs non-AIS shoreto-ship
communications, with significant impact to MariTEL's ability to use its
licensed spectrum, including its construction of a wide-area radio system
for maritime services.

The Coast Guard argues that transmitting AIS signals on frequencies other
than those internationally designated could compromise navigation safety
and homeland security and complicate nationwide AIS development already
under way using channels 87B and 88B. The Coast Guard cites examples such
as the following:

o  	A ship traveling near or in U.S. waters may have to decide between
broadcasting and receiving signals on the international frequencies-to
"see" foreign vessels operating under international frequency
requirements-and United States-specific frequencies-to "see" domestic
vessels operating under U.S. frequency requirements. The inability of
vessels to broadcast and monitor the U.S frequencies and the

internationally designated AIS frequencies simultaneously heightens the
risk of collisions.

o  	Until a fully automated frequency management system has been
established nationwide, the use of frequencies other than channels 87B and
88B would require transmitting foreign ships to manually change
frequencies when approaching U.S. shores. According to the Coast Guard,
such so-called manual channel switching is cumbersome and vulnerable to
human errors and, if a ship's crew fails to change to the U.S. channel
when necessary, could leave the ship "invisible" to ships in the same
waters broadcasting on the U.S. frequency.

o  	Any U.S. channel management plans that become necessary would, the
Coast Guard believes, impair existing operations in the border regions
with Canada and Mexico, as well as AIS communications with international
vessels operating within or near U.S. waters. For example, the St.
Lawrence Seaway AIS system, jointly operated by the United States and
Canada, is viewed by the Coast Guard as a complement to its nationwide
AIS. The Seaway system, however, operates on channels 87B and 88B, and any
U.S.-specific frequencies would reduce the efficiency of this
international shipping thoroughfare.

o  	Transmissions on channels 87B and 88B from vessels operating outside
U.S. jurisdiction would interfere with the effective use of channels 87B
and 88B within the United States. According to the Coast Guard, such
interference would encumber four frequencies in U.S. coastal areas instead
of just the two internationally designated frequencies.

Finally, any additional actions by the interested parties stemming from
specifics of FCC's response could slow or otherwise affect nationwide AIS
development.

Depending on FCC's An opportunity that may help the Coast Guard speed AIS
installation at Response, Local Needs for lower cost to the federal
government is potential partnerships between the AIS Data Create a
Possible Coast Guard and local port entities. For projects like AIS whose
costs and

benefits extend 3 or more years, the Office of Management and Budget

Cost-Sharing Opportunity 	instructs federal agencies, including the Coast
Guard, to consider alternative means of achieving program objectives, such
as different methods of providing services and different degrees of
federal

involvement.18 Similarly, in 1996 a congressional conference committee
report directed the Coast Guard to review user fee options and
publicprivate partnerships for its VTS program.19 In carrying out these
directives, the Coast Guard learned of potential partnership
opportunities.

The initiative for the actual partnerships has come mainly from the local
port entities following their interactions with the Coast Guard on
navigation safety issues. As a part of the VTS program, the Coast Guard
has been performing a series of safety assessments at U.S. ports to help
determine if additional VTS areas are warranted. In a number of cases,
when the Coast Guard determined that a federal VTS was not warranted,
local entities approached the Coast Guard for assistance in setting up
their own vessel-monitoring system. Coast Guard assistance has ranged from
full partnerships on vessel traffic management systems, to memorandums of
understanding regarding uses of local vessel-monitoring systems, to advice
and counsel on possible local efforts.

The offers from port entities have come at a number of locations and
reflect a realization that vessel monitoring can provide a range of
benefits. Entities have explored partnership with the Coast Guard at ports
including Baltimore, Maryland; Charleston, South Carolina; Corpus Christi,
Texas; Delaware Bay, Delaware, Pennsylvania, and New Jersey; Hampton
Roads, Virginia; Los Angeles-Long Beach, California; Portland, Oregon; San
Diego, California; and Tampa, Florida. Given the level of interest, these
partnerships offer an alternative to exclusive federal involvement in
nationwide AIS development. Entities at some of the listed locations have
used, or want to use, AIS data about incoming vessels to improve port
efficiency, for example, by helping schedule tugs or dock workers; to
improve safety by mitigating risks uncovered during the Coast Guard's
safety assessments; and to increase their own security by monitoring
vessels as they approach the port. Some of these entities have installed
AIS or similar systems and have offered to share their information with
the Coast Guard. Such work relieves the Coast Guard from having to carry
out its own installation of AIS shore stations in certain locations, thus
accelerating and facilitating nationwide AIS implementation.

18Office of Management and Budget, Guidelines and Discount Rates for
Benefit-Cost Analysis of Federal Programs, Circular A-94, revised October
29, 1992.

19H.R. Conf. Rep. No. 104-785 at 29 (1996).

As of June 2004, some of the port entities that either used AIS or planned
to do so included the following:

o  	The Marine Exchange of Southern California, which provides vessel
information at the ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach, California, to
support port safety and the efficient movement of commerce. As a part of
that support, the marine exchange financed, with port pilots, and built
the VTS system at Los Angeles-Long Beach and purchased and installed AIS
equipment to that system. The Marine Exchange and the Coast Guard share
information received on the AIS equipment. The Coast Guard estimated that
the cost of installation at Los Angeles-Long Beach was comparable to the
Coast Guard's installation at San Francisco, which the Coast Guard
estimates at $2.2 million.

o  	The Tampa (Florida) Port Authority, which currently operates a vessel
traffic advisory service. In 1997 the authority installed an earlier
version of AIS that did not meet current international or Coast Guard
standards but was designed to help the harbor pilots and vessel masters as
they navigated in the Tampa Bay channels. The port authority recently
requested a grant from the state of Florida to upgrade its AIS equipment
to international and Coast Guard standards so as to improve security at
the port of Tampa. The port authority has expressed willingness to share
AIS information with the Coast Guard when its system becomes operational.

o  	Merchants Exchange of Portland, Oregon, which has expressed a desire
to build an AIS system around Portland and the Columbia River as a means
of supplying information on vessel movements to interested port entities.
The goal is again to improve the efficiency of port operations. According
to an exchange official, Merchant Exchange would be willing to share AIS
information with the Coast Guard but would not build the facility until
the conflict over AIS transmission frequencies is settled.

In all three cases, the local port entity has already paid, or is willing
to pay, for AIS installation, but the port entities' ability to use AIS
information depends on the coming FCC response. Although the local
entities are building systems for their own purposes, all are sharing, or
are planning to share, AIS information with the Coast Guard when the
systems are complete. For example, the initiative taken by the Marine
Exchange of Southern California alone likely saved the federal government
$2.2 million for AIS installation. The more local port organizations that
are willing to pay for the purchase and installation of AIS facilities,
the more the Coast Guard can save on nationwide AIS installation. If the
FCC response does not allow these entities to make unrestricted use of AIS
information, they are likely to be less willing to invest in such
facilities.

  Conclusions

Recommendation for Executive Action

  Agency Comments

The development of AIS nationwide is an important step in the overall
effort to increase port safety and security. The Coast Guard has made an
expeditious start with its installations at VTS areas and its continued
planning for additional coverage, but before the system can be fully
implemented, the Coast Guard faces a number of challenges. It must make
some key decisions to determine AIS's technical requirements, waterway
coverage, and vessels to be equipped with AIS. The dispute with MariTEL
must be resolved, and the Coast Guard must obtain financing for
installation nationwide. Pending the outcome of FCC's response, financing
is one area where the Coast Guard may find help in meeting its challenges.
Although the Coast Guard did not actively pursue cost-sharing options
under the VTS program, by actively doing so now, it could potentially
accomplish its nationwide AIS installation goals more quickly and reduce
installation costs to the federal government.

To help reduce federal costs and speed development of AIS nationwide, we
recommend that, depending on the outcome of the expected FCC response, the
Secretary of Homeland Security direct the Commandant of the Coast Guard to
seek and take advantage of opportunities to partner with organizations
willing to develop AIS systems at their own expense.

We provided a draft of this report to the Department of Homeland Security,
the Coast Guard, and FCC for their review and comment. The Coast Guard and
FCC generally agreed with the facts presented in the report and offered
technical comments that were incorporated into the report where
applicable. While agreeing with our recommendation, the Coast Guard also
said that developing partnerships would face challenges such as ensuring
that locally built systems meet all Coast Guard requirements, dealing with
reluctant partners, or developing partnerships that maximize savings to
the federal government. Given our assumption that the Coast Guard would
not sacrifice AIS capability or standards in developing partnerships, we
agree that developing partnerships will not necessarily be easy. We
continue to believe, however, that doing so with willing local entities is
in the public interest, and we continue to be encouraged in this regard by
the level of interest in partnering with the Coast Guard that we found in
the VTS program.

As arranged with your office, unless you publicly announce its contents
earlier, we plan no further distribution of this report until 15 days
after its issue date. At that time, we will send copies of this report to
the Department of Homeland Security and the Federal Communications
Commission. We will also make copies available to others upon request. In
addition, this report will also be available at no charge at GAO's Web
site at http://www.gao.gov.

If you or your staffs have any questions about this report, please contact
me at (415) 904-2200 or at [email protected] or Steve Calvo, Assistant
Director, (206) 287-4800 or at [email protected]. Key contributors to this
report are listed in appendix I.

Margaret T. Wrightson Director, Homeland Security and Justice Issues

Appendix I: GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments

GAO Contacts

  Staff Acknowledgments

(440332)

Margaret Wrightson (415) 904-2200 Steven Calvo (206) 287-4800

In addition to those named above, Jonathan Bachman, Chuck Bausell, Ellen
W. Chu, Mathew Coco, Geoffrey Hamilton, Anne Laffoon, and Jeffrey Larson
made key contributions to this report.

GAO's Mission	The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation
and investigative arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting
its constitutional responsibilities and to help improve the performance
and accountability of the federal government for the American people. GAO
examines the use of public funds; evaluates federal programs and policies;
and provides analyses, recommendations, and other assistance to help
Congress make informed oversight, policy, and funding decisions. GAO's
commitment to good government is reflected in its core values of
accountability, integrity, and reliability.

Obtaining Copies of The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO
documents at no cost

is through GAO's Web site (www.gao.gov). Each weekday, GAO postsGAO
Reports and newly released reports, testimony, and correspondence on its
Web site. To Testimony have GAO e-mail you a list of newly posted products
every afternoon, go to

www.gao.gov and select "Subscribe to Updates."

Order by Mail or Phone	The first copy of each printed report is free.
Additional copies are $2 each. A check or money order should be made out
to the Superintendent of Documents. GAO also accepts VISA and Mastercard.
Orders for 100 or more copies mailed to a single address are discounted 25
percent. Orders should be sent to:

U.S. Government Accountability Office 441 G Street NW, Room LM Washington,
D.C. 20548

To order by Phone: 	Voice: (202) 512-6000 TDD: (202) 512-2537 Fax: (202)
512-6061

    To Report Fraud, Contact:
    Waste, and Abuse in Web site: www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm

E-mail: [email protected] Programs Automated answering system: (800)
424-5454 or (202) 512-7470

Congressional 	Gloria Jarmon, Managing Director, [email protected] (202)
512-4400 U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7125

Relations Washington, D.C. 20548

Public Affairs Jeff Nelligan, Managing Director, [email protected] (202)
512-4800 U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149
Washington, D.C. 20548
*** End of document. ***