[Federal Register: October 12, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 197)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 60075-60076]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr12oc06-5]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
47 CFR Parts 2 and 80
[WT Docket No. 04-344; PR Docket No. 92-257; FCC 06-108]
Maritime Communications
AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: In this document, the Commission denies a petition for
reconsideration of the Automatic Identification Systems (AIS) equipment
certification requirements for ship station equipment that were adopted
in the Sixth Report and Order in PR Docket No. 92-257. The Commission
concludes that there is no compelling justification for adopting
domestic AIS equipment certification standards that diverge from the
international standards. In support of this conclusion, the Commission
notes that any such departure from the international standards would
delay AIS deployment in the United States, discourage voluntary AIS
carriage, and create other problems, including difficulties in AIS
coordination with maritime authorities of other nations.
DATES: Effective October 12, 2006.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jeffrey Tobias, Jeff.Tobias@FCC.gov,
Public Safety and Critical Infrastructure Division, Wireless
Telecommunications Bureau, (202) 418-0680, or TTY (202) 418-7233.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a summary of the Federal
Communications Commission's Fourth Memorandum Opinion and Order, FCC
06-108, adopted on July 20, 2006, and released on July 24, 2006. The
full text of this document is available for inspection and copying
during normal business hours in the FCC Reference Center, 445 12th
Street, SW., Washington, DC 20554. The complete text may be purchased
from the Commission's copy contractor, Best Copy and Printing, Inc.,
445 12th Street, SW., Room CY-B402, Washington, DC 20554. The full text
may also be downloaded at http://www.fcc.gov. Alternative formats are
available to persons with disabilities by sending an e-mail to
fcc504@fcc.gov or by calling the Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau
at 202-418-0530 (voice), 202-418-0432 (tty).
1. In the Sixth Report and Order in PR Docket No. 92-257, the
Commission adopted rules providing for the certification of AIS
equipment that complies with the international standards for such
equipment. In a petition for reconsideration of that decision, MariTEL,
Inc. (MariTEL) contended that the adopted AIS equipment certification
requirements will have a devastating impact on MariTEL because the
international AIS emission mask is not as rigorous as the otherwise
applicable U.S. emission mask, and, more importantly, the procedures
for measuring compliance with the international mask are flawed so that
equipment approved as compliant may not in fact comply even with the
more lenient emission mask. MariTEL further argued that, in adopting
AIS equipment certification requirements that incorporate by reference
the international standards for such equipment, the Commission
effectively ceded its authority over domestic spectrum use to
international authorities, abrogating its obligation to exercise
independent judgment to determine whether a particular regulation would
serve the domestic public interest.
2. The Commission agrees with MariTEL that the Commission should
not incorporate international standards in its own rules automatically,
without considering whether, on balance, those international standards
would serve the domestic public interest. The Commission believes,
however, based on the record, that it serves the public interest for
the Commission to establish AIS equipment certification standards that
conform to the international standards. The adoption of U.S.-specific
standards for AIS equipment could preclude the development of a
seamless global AIS network and complicate international AIS
coordination. This would reduce the effectiveness of AIS as a tool
against terrorism. It would also reduce the value of AIS for maritime
safety, especially if U.S.-certified equipment were not interoperable
with AIS equipment approved under the international standards. It could
also lead to the premature obsolescence of installed AIS devices
meeting the international standards, and result in stranded inventory
for AIS equipment manufacturers who have relied on the international
standards in designing AIS devices. In addition, adoption of a separate
standard could increase the costs to U.S. vessels of complying with the
domestic AIS carriage requirement (and potentially also increase AIS
costs for foreign-flagged vessels transiting U.S. waters) by making
U.S.-approved AIS equipment more expensive and/or necessitating
carriage of two different AIS devices. Adding to the cost of AIS
equipment would also create a disincentive to voluntary AIS carriage,
further undermining the effectiveness of AIS. Furthermore, the current
record in this proceeding does not provide a basis for immediate
adoption of an alternative AIS equipment standard. Therefore, if the
Commission were to grant MariTEL's petition for reconsideration, it
would appear that the Commission would also have to request further
comment to determine precisely what standard should be adopted in part
80 in lieu of incorporating the international standards by reference.
This would engender considerable uncertainty in both the maritime and
the manufacturing communities, internationally as well as domestically,
for a significant period of additional time. All of these factors would
serve to delay and limit effective, efficient and expeditious AIS
implementation in the United States, which would clearly be contrary to
the public interest. On the other hand, continued reliance on the
international standards in certifying AIS equipment under part 80 would
permit domestic AIS deployment to proceed unabated, provide certainty
to the affected entities, encourage voluntary AIS carriage, minimize
the costs of AIS implementation (for the United States Government as
well as private sector entities), and permit the development of a
seamless global AIS network in which
[[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