Maritime Communications, 60075-60076 [E6-16844]

Download as PDF Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 197 / Thursday, October 12, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 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 § 80.393 Frequencies for AIS stations. of this document is available for Automatic Identification Systems inspection and copying during normal (AIS) is a maritime broadcast service. business hours in the FCC Reference The simplex channels at 161.975 MHz Center, 445 12th Street, SW., (AIS 1) and 162.025 MHz (AIS 2), each Washington, DC 20554. The complete with a 25 kHz bandwidth, may be text may be purchased from the authorized in VHF Public Coast Station Commission’s copy contractor, Best Areas 1–9 for AIS, and the frequency Copy and Printing, Inc., 445 12th Street, 162.025 MHz (AIS 2) also may be SW., Room CY–B402, Washington, DC authorized in VHF Public Coast Station 20554. The full text may also be Areas 10–42 for AIS. The VHF Public downloaded at https://www.fcc.gov. Coast Station Areas are codified at 47 CFR 80.371(c)(1)(ii). In accordance with Alternative formats are available to persons with disabilities by sending an the Maritime Transportation Security e-mail to fcc504@fcc.gov or by calling Act, the United States Coast Guard the Consumer & Governmental Affairs regulates AIS carriage requirements for Bureau at 202–418–0530 (voice), 202– non-Federal Government ships. These 418–0432 (tty). requirements are codified at 33 CFR 1. In the Sixth Report and Order in PR 164.46, 401.20. Docket No. 92–257, the Commission [FR Doc. 06–8655 Filed 10–11–06; 8:45 am] adopted rules providing for the BILLING CODE 6712–01–P certification of AIS equipment that complies with the international standards for such equipment. In a FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS petition for reconsideration of that COMMISSION decision, MariTEL, Inc. (MariTEL) contended that the adopted AIS 47 CFR Parts 2 and 80 equipment certification requirements [WT Docket No. 04–344; PR Docket No. 92– will have a devastating impact on 257; FCC 06–108] MariTEL because the international AIS emission mask is not as rigorous as the Maritime Communications otherwise applicable U.S. emission mask, and, more importantly, the AGENCY: Federal Communications procedures for measuring compliance Commission. with the international mask are flawed ACTION: Final rule. so that equipment approved as SUMMARY: In this document, the compliant may not in fact comply even Commission denies a petition for with the more lenient emission mask. reconsideration of the Automatic MariTEL further argued that, in Identification Systems (AIS) equipment adopting AIS equipment certification certification requirements for ship requirements that incorporate by station equipment that were adopted in reference the international standards for the Sixth Report and Order in PR Docket such equipment, the Commission No. 92–257. The Commission concludes effectively ceded its authority over that there is no compelling justification domestic spectrum use to international for adopting domestic AIS equipment authorities, abrogating its obligation to certification standards that diverge from exercise independent judgment to the international standards. In support determine whether a particular of this conclusion, the Commission regulation would serve the domestic notes that any such departure from the public interest. international standards would delay AIS 2. The Commission agrees with deployment in the United States, MariTEL that the Commission should discourage voluntary AIS carriage, and not incorporate international standards create other problems, including in its own rules automatically, without difficulties in AIS coordination with considering whether, on balance, those maritime authorities of other nations. international standards would serve the DATES: Effective October 12, 2006. domestic public interest. The Commission believes, however, based FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: on the record, that it serves the public Jeffrey Tobias, Jeff.Tobias@FCC.gov, rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES 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. I 8. Section 80.393 is added to subpart H to read as follows: VerDate Aug<31>2005 16:14 Oct 11, 2006 Jkt 211001 PO 00000 Frm 00021 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 60075 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 E:\FR\FM\12OCR1.SGM 12OCR1 60076 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 197 / Thursday, October 12, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 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 rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with RULES 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 VerDate Aug<31>2005 16:14 Oct 11, 2006 Jkt 211001 DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE Department of the Army 48 CFR Parts 5125 and 5152 Contractor Personnel Deployment Department of the Army, DoD. Final Rule. AGENCY: ACTION: SUMMARY: This action removes regulations pertaining to the deployment of contractor personnel in support of military operations. The regulations are superseded by a higher regulation, Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS) Subpart 225.74, Defense Contractors Outside the United States. DATES: Effective Date: Effective October 12, 2006. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Steve Jaren, (703) 604–7105. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: B. Regulatory Flexibility Act These rules will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities within the meaning of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601, et seq., because the rules add no new requirements for contractors. These rules remove AFARS text that has become unnecessary as a result of policy that was added to the DFARS. C. Paperwork Reduction Act Authority: 5 U.S.C. 301, 10 U.S.C. 2202, DoD Directive 5000.35, and DoD FAR Supplement 201.301. 5152.225–74–9000 [Removed] 2. Section 5152.225–74–9000 is removed. I Sfmt 4700 DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 50 CFR Part 622 [Docket No. 060525140–6221–02; I.D. 092606D] Fisheries of the Caribbean, Gulf of Mexico, and South Atlantic; Reef Fish Fishery of the Gulf of Mexico; Closure of the 2006 Golden Tilefish and Snowy Grouper Commercial Fisheries National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce. ACTION: Temporary rule; closure. AGENCY: SUMMARY: NMFS closes the commercial fisheries for golden tilefish and snowy grouper in the exclusive economic zone (EEZ) of the South Atlantic. NMFS has determined that the golden tilefish and snowy grouper quotas for the commercial fisheries will have been reached by October 23, 2006. This closure is necessary to protect the golden tilefish and snowy grouper resources. Closure is effective 12:01 a.m., local time, October 23, 2006, until 12:01 a.m., local time, on January 1, 2007. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jason Rueter, telephone 727–824–5350, fax 727–824–5308, e-mail Jason.Rueter@noaa.gov. DATES: The Paperwork Reduction Act does not apply because the rules do not impose any information collection requirements that require the approval of the Office of Management and Budget under 44 U.S.C. 3501, et seq. Fmt 4700 1. The authority citation for part 5152 continues to read as follows: I BILLING CODE 3710–08–M In the November 28, 2003 issue of the Federal Register (68 FR 66738 and 68 FR 66740), the Department of the Army issued two interim final rules to add 48 CFR part 5125, section 5125.74–9000 and amend 48 CFR part 5152. Subsequent amendments to the DFARS, on May 5, 2005 (70 FR 23790) and June 16, 2006 (71 FR 34826), added DoD policy addressing situations that require contractor personnel to provide intheater support to United States military forces engaged in contingency, humanitarian or peacekeeping, or certain other operations outside the United States, and incorporated significant terminology from the Army Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (AFARS), rendering the regulations at 48 CFR part 5125 and 48 CFR 5152.225–74–9000 obsolete. Frm 00022 PART 5152—SOLICITATIONS PROVISIONS AND CONTRACT CLAUSES [FR Doc. 06–8563 Filed 10–11–06; 8:45 am] A. Background PO 00000 List of Subjects in 48 CFR Parts 5125 and 5152 Government contracts, Government procurement. I Accordingly, for reasons stated in the preamble, under the authority of 5 U.S.C. 301, 10 U.S.C. 2202, DoD Directive 5000.35, FAR 1.301, and DoD FAR Supplement 201.3, 48 CFR part 5125 is removed. E:\FR\FM\12OCR1.SGM 12OCR1

Agencies

[Federal Register Volume 71, Number 197 (Thursday, October 12, 2006)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 60075-60076]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing 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, 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 https://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
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.