Subject: [NEXTEL-1] Petitions for Rule Making to Amend the Commission’s Rules to Provide Additional Flexibility for AMTS and VHF Public Coast Station Licensees

From: [email-masked]
Date: Fri, 30 Jul 2004 15:41:22 -0400

Before the
Federal Communications Commission
Washington, D.C. 20554

In the Matter of

MARITEL, INC.
and
MOBEX NETWORK SERVICES, LLC

Petitions for Rule Making to Amend the Commission’s Rules to Provide
Additional Flexibility for AMTS  and VHF Public Coast Station Licensees

WT Docket No. 04-257
RM-10743

NOTICE OF PROPOSED RULE MAKING
1. Adopted:  July 8, 2004 Released:  July 30, 2004
Comment date:  60 days after publication in the Federal Register
Reply comment date:  90 days after publication in the Federal Register

2. By the Commission:

I.  INTRODUCTION AND EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

1. In this Notice of Proposed Rule Making, we address petitions for
rulemaking that were filed by Maritel, Inc. (Maritel), a VHF public
coast (VPC) station licensee, on May 16, 2003, and Mobex Network
Services, LLC (Mobex), an automated maritime telecommunications system
(AMTS) station licensee, on June 13, 2003.   Both petitions seek
additional flexibility for public coast station licensees.  We propose
to amend our rules to permit VPC and AMTS licensees to provide private
mobile radio service  to units on land.  The rule changes that we
propose in this Notice of Proposed Rule Making further the Commission’s
ongoing goal of establishing a regulatory framework that will enhance
operational flexibility and enable maritime spectrum licensees to
compete more effectively against other commercial mobile radio service
(CMRS) providers.  We tentatively conclude that the actions proposed
herein will not adversely affect the essential purpose of the Maritime
Services, i.e., to promote safety of life and property at sea and on
inland waterways.   At the same time, we tentatively conclude that
Maritel’s suggested broader rule changes, which would permit VPC
licensees essentially to choose whether or not to comply with various
regulatory obligations in Part 80, which governs the Maritime Services,
are not in the public interest.  We invite comment on this tentative
conclusion, in particular our belief that the changes advocated by
Maritel could undermine the purpose of the Maritime Services, to which
we reiterate our commitment.

II.  BACKGROUND

2. The Maritime Services provide for the unique distress, operational,
and personal communications needs of vessels at sea and on inland
waterways.   There are two types of coast stations:  public coast
stations and private coast stations.  Generally, public coast stations
are CMRS providers that allow maritime vessels to send and receive
messages and to interconnect with the public switched network.   Each
public coast station has exclusive use of one or more public
correspondence channels within its service area or region of operation.
By contrast, private coast stations do not offer common carrier
services, and may not charge fees for the provision of communications
services.  Private coast stations instead serve vessels’ business,
maritime control, and operational needs.  The frequencies designated for
private coast operations are assigned on a shared, rather than
exclusive, basis.
3. This Notice of Proposed Rule Making addresses VHF public coast
stations and AMTS stations.   VHF coast stations may use VHF band
frequencies (156-162 MHz) to serve a port or coastal area.  These
maritime frequencies are allocated internationally to facilitate
interoperable radio communications among vessels of all nations and
stations on land worldwide.  In this connection, the International
Telecommunication Union Radio Regulations set forth the particular
frequencies to be used for maritime communications, the geographic
regions where these frequencies may be used, and the types of
communications (e.g., voice, telegraph, data) that may be transmitted on
each frequency.  AMTS uses different spectrum (217/219 MHz).  This
service was established in 1981 as an alternative to VHF public coast
service.   AMTS relieves vessel operators from having to change
frequencies and contact new coast stations (which may have different
call set-up and billing procedures) during their travel along
waterways.   While AMTS was intended primarily to be a public
correspondence service like the VHF public coast service, the Commission
did not limit AMTS stations to public correspondence; rather, it gave
licensees the option of operating private coast station systems to
satisfy ships’ operational and business requirements.   However, each
system of AMTS stations must be interconnected to the public switched
network.
4. In 1997, the Commission amended its rules to permit VPC and AMTS
licensees to serve fixed and mobile units on land, in addition to
maritime vessels.   The Commission’s goal was to permit licensees to
make use of excess channel capacity so that the stations would be more
economically viable and competitive with other CMRS providers, provided
that serving units on land did not negatively affect vessel safety.
Consequently, in order to preserve the core purpose of the
internationally allocated marine radio spectrum, the Commission imposed
certain conditions on the provision of service to units on land.  For
example, land units are limited to the Part 80 power limit of
twenty-five watts, and public coast stations serving units on land must
afford priority to marine-originating communications.
5. Originally, both VPC and AMTS stations were licensed on a
site-by-site basis.  In 1998, the Commission adopted a geographic area
licensing approach for VPC stations.   It also modified the rules to
provide VPC geographic area licensees the option to use their spectrum
to provide either commercial or private mobile communications, instead
of only public correspondence.   In 2002, the Commission adopted a
geographic area licensing approach for AMTS stations.

III.  DISCUSSION

6. Private mobile radio service for units on land.  Under the current
rules, VPC and AMTS stations may provide either commercial service or
private correspondence service  to maritime units, but may provide only
commercial service to units on land.   Section 80.123 of the
Commission’s Rules, which permits VPC and AMTS licensees to serve fixed
and mobile units on land on a subsidiary basis, specifically authorizes
only “public correspondence service to stations on land.”   In addition,
Section 80.475(c) of the Commission’s Rules, which allows AMTS licensees
to provide private mobile communications, by its terms limits the
permissible communications to “the operational requirements of ships
including transmissions of fuel, weather, position and supply reports.”
7. We note, as an initial matter, that the prohibition against public
coast stations providing private mobile radio service to land units
appears to result from the interplay of sequentially enacted
regulations.  For example, as noted above, Section 80.475(c) expressly
limits the provision of AMTS private correspondence service to “ships.”
When the predecessor of Section 80.475(c) was enacted in 1981, however,
AMTS stations could provide service only to marine vessels, because the
Rules did not permit service to units on land.  Consequently, the rule’s
language limiting private communications to the operational needs of
“ships” did not have any limiting effect on what units could receive
AMTS private correspondence service.  The reference to “ships” took on
this limiting effect in 1996, when Section 80.123 permitted AMTS service
to units on land.  Similarly, at the time Section 80.123 was written,
VPC stations could provide only commercial services, so the fact that it
expressly authorized only “public correspondence” services to stations
on land did not create any distinction between the VPC stations could
provide to units on land and the services that they could provide to
maritime vessels.  Only after VPC geographic licensees were permitted to
choose between commercial and private mobile radio services in 1998 did
the language take on this possibly-unintended effect.  The adoption of
geographic licensing for VPC and AMTS stations, which expressly
contemplated operations in areas with no navigable waterways,  magnified
the potential effects of the existing regulatory language.  Thus, the
Commission has not specifically addressed whether VPC and AMTS stations
should be permitted to provide private mobile radio service to land
units.
8. We agree with Mobex  and Maritel  that prohibiting VPC and AMTS
licensees from providing private correspondence to mobile units on land
appears to conflict with the Commission’s goal of providing CMRS
licensees with optimal operational flexibility in utilizing their
authorized spectrum.   Maritel argues that the advent and proliferation
of other CMRS providers, such as cellular and personal communications
services, has drastically reduced the market for VPC interconnected
ship-to-shore voice communications.   As Maritel argues, amending the
rules so that VPC licensees can elect to provide private or common
carrier service to units on land will promote effective and intense
utilization of VPC spectrum,  which is consistent with the underlying
purpose of Section 80.123 of permitting VPC and AMTS licensees to make
use of excess channel capacity so that they will be more economically
viable and competitive with other CMRS providers, so long as such
operations do not decrease vessel safety.   Therefore, we propose to
delete the reference to “public correspondence” in Section 80.123, and
remove the discussion of “ships” in Section 80.475(c).  We also propose
to amend Section 20.9 to give AMTS geographic licensees the same
flexibility as VPC geographic area licensees to choose between
commercial and private services.  We believe that such action is
consistent with the Commission’s intent when it adopted a geographic
licensing approach for AMTS stations similar to and premised on that
which it adopted earlier for VPC stations.   We seek comment on these
tentative conclusions.  In addition, we seek comment on how VPC and AMTS
stations can technically and practically serve both maritime and land
mobile interests in areas near navigable waterways, especially in the
VPC service, where maritime and land mobile users may utilize different
equipment.  We also seek comment on how these providers can ensure that
priority would always be given to maritime communications.
9. In addition, we agree with Mobex that AMTS stations providing private
correspondence service should not be required to be interconnected to
the public switched network.   Mobex states that the end-users of many
private land mobile radio applications, such as mobile data, automatic
vehicle location systems, supervisory control and data acquisition
systems, and “one-to-many” dispatch, neither require nor desire
interconnection.   As Mobex also points out, we do not prohibit any
other CMRS operator from providing both interconnected and
non-interconnected services.   Consequently, we propose to retain the
interconnection requirement for AMTS licensees providing public
correspondence service, but amend Section 80.475 to provide that such
licensees may also provide non-interconnected service, and that AMTS
licensees providing only private mobile radio service need not be
interconnected.  In this regard, we also propose to revise Section 80.5
to remove “interconnected” as a required characteristic of all AMTS
operations.
10. Proposals for additional operational flexibility.  We note that
Maritel proposes additional changes to the service rules governing VPC
licensees.  Generally, Maritel proposes to permit VPC geographic area
licensees to choose whether to provide maritime public correspondence
services.  In addition, it asserts that Part 80 regulatory obligations,
particularly Part 80 equipment standards and watch requirements, should
not apply to VPC licensees that do not provide maritime public
correspondence services.   Maritel recommends that a VPC licensee be
governed by the rules and decisions applicable to the particular type of
service that it has elected to provide.   Therefore, under Maritel’s
suggested approach, to the extent that a VPC licensee does not elect to
provide maritime public correspondence service, it would not be
obligated to comply with those Part 80 rules that govern that service,
including the obligation to employ equipment that is type accepted under
those rules.   Maritel states that such flexibility would be consistent
with the Commission’s goal of providing CMRS licensees with a flexible
approach to spectrum use.
11. In addition, Maritel argues that it is no longer necessary for the
Commission to effectively require the provision of maritime public
correspondence services on VPC spectrum because the United States Coast
Guard’s National Distress and Response System Modernization Project will
meet all needs related to safety and distress communications.   Along
these lines, Maritel contends that watch requirements in particular, and
distress and safety communications in general, are the responsibility of
the Coast Guard, and not public coast station licensees.
12. Most commenters generally agree that such flexibility is appropriate
in light of the proliferation of other CMRS providers, such as cellular
and personal communications services, and the reduced demand for VPC
interconnected ship-to-shore voice communications.   However, one
commenter opposes the Maritel proposal.  He argues that VPC spectrum
should remain dedicated primarily to maritime public correspondence in
order to remain consistent with international allocations, and because
VHF maritime frequencies are becoming increasingly congested, and other
CMRS providers do not provide reliable coverage over coastal waters.
13. We decline to propose the rule changes requested by Maritel at this
time.  As noted above, when the Commission permitted VPC stations to
serve units on land,  and again when it converted VPC licensing to a
geographic approach,  it remained committed to maintaining the core
purpose of the Maritime Services—providing for the unique distress,
operational, and personal communications needs of vessels at sea and on
inland waterways.  We recently reiterated this commitment in another
proceeding, when we rejected Maritel’s suggestion that the watch
requirement be modified for VPC stations that serve units on land.   We
are concerned that implementation of Maritel’s proposed rule changes
would undermine that purpose by, in effect, reallocating Part 80
spectrum for primary land mobile radio use.  That demand for VHF
maritime public correspondence services has decreased does not decrease
our commitment to marine safety.  We recognize that upwards of ten
million U.S. and foreign mariners in American waters have radios that
operate in this spectrum, and we further recognize the importance of
ensuring that there remains adequate, available
internationally-interoperable spectrum to the American maritime public
to meet their common needs, and for purposes of safety and security.
Although we are here proposing to relax the Part 80 regulations to allow
for more efficient use of the spectrum, we are not considering actions
that would effectively create a de facto reallocation or otherwise
remove this spectrum from the maritime community.  Moreover, we believe
that the rule changes proposed above regarding land-based private mobile
radio services will afford Maritel much of the flexibility it seeks.
Because we believe that our proposed amendments will ensure that the
Part 80 rules fully support flexible use of AMTS and VPC spectrum, we
tentatively conclude that Maritel’s proposal to permit VPC licensees in
certain instances to be governed by rule sections other than Part 80 is
inappropriate and unnecessary.  We seek comment on this tentative
conclusion.
14. Finally, we note that the ITU Radio Regulations Appendix 18 does
allow the VPC channels under consideration in this proceeding to be used
for port operations and ship movement services, and further allows
operation in single channel as well as two-channel mode.  We generally
have sought to conform our allocations of maritime spectrum to the ITU
Radio Regulation as closely as possible, consistent with the public
interest, particularly where international users and safety may be
affected.  We therefore seek comment on whether we should align our
allocation of this spectrum with that of the ITU with respect to use of
the spectrum for port operations and ship movement services, in the
interest of promoting compatibility with international shipping and
increased flexibility.

IV.  PROCEDURAL MATTERS

A. Regulatory Flexibility Act

15. Appendix A contains an Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
(IRFA) with respect to this Notice of Proposed Rule Making.  As required
by the Regulatory Flexibility Act,  the Commission has prepared the
analysis of the possible impact on small entities of the rules and
proposed rules set forth in this document.  Written public comments are
requested on the IRFA.  These comments must be filed in accordance with
the same filing deadlines as comments on the rest of the Notice of
Proposed Rule Making, but they must have a separate and distinct heading
designating them as responses to the IRFA.  The Commission’s Consumer
Information Bureau, Reference Information Center, will send a copy of
this Notice of Proposed Rule Making, including the IRFA, to the Chief
Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration in accordance
with the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

B. Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995

16. 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 107-193, see 44 U.S.C.            § 3506(c)(4).

C. Ex Parte Rules - Permit-But-Disclose Proceeding

17. This is a permit-but-disclose notice and comment rule making
proceeding.  Ex parte presentations are permitted except during the
Sunshine Agenda period, provided they are disclosed as provided in the
Commission's rules.

D. Comment Dates

18. Pursuant to Sections 1.415 and 1.419 of our Rules, 47 C.F.R. §§
1.415, 1.419, interested parties may file comments on or before [60 days
after Federal Register publication] and reply comments on or before [90
days after Federal Register publication].  Comments may be filed using
the Commission's Electronic Filing System (ECFS) or by filing paper
copies.
19. 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-masked], and should include the
following words in the body of the message, "get form <your e-mail
address>."  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
St., S.W., Washington, D. C. 20554.  Filings can be sent first class by
the U.S. Postal Service, by an overnight courier or hand and
message-delivered.  Hand and messenger-delivered paper filings must be
delivered to 236 Massachusetts Avenue, N.E., Suite 110, Washington, D.C.
20002. The filing hours at this location are 8:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m.
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.
20. Parties who choose to file by paper should also submit their
comments on diskette.  These diskettes should be submitted to Jeffrey
Tobias, Esq., Public Safety and Critical Infrastructure Division,
Wireless Telecommunications Bureau, 445 12th St., S.W., Washington, D.C.
20554.  Such a submission should be on a 3.5-inch diskette formatted in
an IBM-compatible format using Microsoft Word 2002 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 lead docket
number in this case, WT Docket No. 04-257), 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 Street, S.W., Room
CY-B402, Washington, D.C. 20554.

E. Ordering Clauses

21. Authority for the issuance of this Notice of Proposed Rule Making is
contained in Sections 4(i), 4(j), 7(a), 302, 303(b), 303(f), 303(g),
303(r), 307(e), 332(a), and 332(c) of the Communications Act of 1934, as
amended, 47 U.S.C. §§ 154(i), 154(j), 157(a), 302, 303(b), 303(f),
303(g), 303(r), 307(e), 332(a), and 332(c).
22. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN of the
proposed regulatory changes described in the Notice of Proposed Rule
Making and contained in Appendix B.
23. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the petition for rulemaking filed by
Maritel, Inc. on May 16, 2003 IS GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART, to
the extent set forth herein, and the petition for rulemaking filed by
Mobex Network Services, LLC on June 13, 2003 IS GRANTED.
24. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Commission's Consumer Information
Bureau, Reference Information Center, SHALL SEND a copy of this Notice
of Proposed Rule Making, including the Initial Regulatory Flexibility
Analysis, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business
Administration.

 3. F. Contact Information
25. For further information, contact Jeffrey Tobias, Esq., Public Safety
and Critical Infrastructure Division, Wireless Telecommunications
Bureau, (202) 418-0680, or TTY (202) 418-7233, [email-masked].
26. Alternative formats (computer diskette, large print, audiocassette
and Braille) are available to persons with disabilities by contacting
Brian Millin at (202) 418-7426, TTY (202) 418-7365, or at
[email-masked]. This Notice of Proposed Rule Making can also be
downloaded at: http://www.fcc.gov/dtf/.

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

Marlene H. Dortch
Secretary

 APPENDICES
4. APPENDIX A – INITIAL REGULATORY FLEXIBILITY ANALYSIS
5. As required by the RFA,  the Commission has prepared this present
IRFA of the possible significant economic impact on small entities of
the policies and rules proposed in the Notice of Proposed Rule Making.
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 Notice of Proposed Rule Making provided in paragraph
17 of the item.  The Commission will send a copy of the Notice of
Proposed Rule Making, including this IRFA, to the Chief Counsel for
Advocacy of the Small Business Administration.  See 5 U.S.C. § 603(a).
In addition, the Notice of Proposed Rule Making and IRFA (or summaries
thereof) will be published in the Federal Register.  See id.
 A.  Need for, and Objectives of, the Proposed Rules:

Our objective is to determine whether it is in the public interest,
convenience, and necessity to provide VHF public coast stations and AMTS
stations with the additional flexibility to offer non-interconnected
private communications to units on land.

B. Legal Basis:

6. Authority for issuance of this item is contained in Sections 4(i),
4(j), 7(a), 302, 303(b), 303(f), 303(g), 303(r), 307(e), 332(a), and
332(c) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C.
7. §§ 154(i), 154(j), 157(a), 302, 303(b), 303(f), 303(g), 303(r),
307(e), 332(a), and 332(c).
C. Description and Estimate of the Number of Small Entities to Which the
Proposed Rules Will Apply:

8. 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 generally 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).
9. The proposed rules would affect licensees using AMTS and VHF public
coast (VPC) spectrum.  In the Third Report and Order in PR Docket No.
92-257, the Commission defined the term "small entity" specifically
applicable to public coast station licensees as any entity employing
less than 1,500 persons, based on the definition under the Small
Business Administration rules applicable to radiotelephone service
providers.  See Amendment of the Commission's Rules Concerning Maritime
Communications, Third Report and Order and Memorandum Opinion and Order,
PR Docket No. 92-257, 13 FCC Rcd 19853, 19893 (1998) (citing 13 C.F.R. §
121.201, Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) Code 4812, now NAICS
Code 513322).  Since the size data provided by the Small Business
Administration does not enable us to make a meaningful estimate of the
number of public coast station licensees that are small businesses, we
have used the 1992 Census of Transportation, Communications, and
Utilities, conducted by the Bureau of the Census, which is the most
recent information available.  This document shows that 12
radiotelephone firms out of a total of 1,178 such firms which operated
in 1992 had 1,000 or more employees.  There are three AMTS public coast
station licensees and approximately thirty-five VPC licensees.  It is
unlikely that more than seven more AMTS or five more VPC licensees will
be authorized in the future.  Therefore, we estimate that no fewer than
fifty small entities will be affected.
D. Description of Projected Reporting, Recordkeeping, and Other
Compliance Requirements:

10. This Notice of Proposed Rule Making neither proposes nor anticipates
any additional reporting, recordkeeping or other compliance measures.
E. Steps Taken to Minimize Significant Economic Impact on Small Entities
and Significant Alternatives Considered:

11. 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.
12. The Notice of Proposed Rule Making solicits comment on a variety of
alternatives set forth herein.  For example, the Commission seeks
comment on its proposal to reduce the regulatory burden for all
entities, including small entities, by eliminating the current
requirement that Part 80 public coast licensees provide interconnected
service to land units.  It also seeks comment on the proposal of
Maritel, Inc. that licensee elect either CMRS or PMRS and then be
regulated by the Commission rule’s that govern that service.
F. Federal Rules that May Duplicate, Overlap, or Conflict with the
Proposed Rules:

13. None.

 APPENDIX B – PROPOSED RULES
14. Chapter I of Title 47 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Parts 20
and 80 are proposed to be amended as follows:
Part 20 – Commercial Mobile Radio Services
1. The authority citation for Part 20 continues to read as follows:

AUTHORITY:  Secs. 4, 10, 251-254, 303, and 332; 47 U.S.C. 154, 160,
251-254, 303, and 332, unless otherwise noted.
2. Section 20.9 is amended by revising paragraphs (b) and (b)(1) to read
as follows:

15. § 20.9 Commercial mobile radio service.

* * * * *

16. (b) Licensees of a Personal Communications Service or applicants for
a Personal Communications Service license, and VHF Public Coast Station
geographic area licensees or applicants, and automated maritime
telecommunications system (AMTS) geographic area licensees or
applicants, proposing to use any Personal Communications Service, VHF
Public Coast Station, or AMTS spectrum to offer service on a private
mobile radio service basis must overcome the presumption that Personal
Communications Service, VHF Public Coast, and AMTS Stations are
commercial mobile radio services.
(1) The applicant or licensee (who must file an application to modify
its authorization) seeking authority to dedicate a portion of the
spectrum for private mobile radio service, must include a certification
that it will offer Personal Communications Service, VHF Public Coast
Station, or AMTS service on a private mobile radio service basis.  The
certification must include a description of the proposed service
sufficient to demonstrate that it is not within the definition of
commercial mobile radio service in § 20.3.  Any application requesting
to use any Personal Communications Service, VHF Public Coast Station, or
AMTS spectrum to offer service on a private mobile radio service basis
will be placed on public notice by the Commission.

* * * * *

Part 80 – Stations in the Maritime Services
1. The authority citation for Part 80 continues to read as follows:

17. 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.
2. Section 80.5 is amended by revising the definition of automated
maritime telecommunications system as follows:

§ 80.5 Definitions.

* * * * *

Automated maritime telecommunications system (AMTS).  An automatic,
integrated maritime communications system.

* * * * *

3. Section 80.123 is amended by revising the introductory paragraph to
read as follows:

§ 80.123 Service to stations on land.
18. Marine VHF public coast stations, including AMTS coast stations, may
provide service to stations on land in accordance with the following:

* * * * *

4. Section 80.475 is amended by revising paragraph (c) and adding a new
paragraph (d) to read as follows:

§ 80.475 Scope of service of the Automated Maritime Telecommunications
System (AMTS).

* * * * *

(c) In lieu of public correspondence service, an AMTS system may provide
a private mobile radio service.  However, such communications may be
provided only to stations whose licensees make cooperative arrangements
with the AMTS coast station licensees.  In emergency and distress
situations, services must be provided to ship stations without prior
arrangements.
(d) AMTS systems providing private mobile radio service in lieu of
public correspondence service are not required to be interconnected to
the public switched network.  AMTS systems providing public
correspondence service must be interconnected to the public switched
network, but the licensee may also offer non-interconnected services.

http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-04-171A1.doc

------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~--> 
Make a clean sweep of pop-up ads. Yahoo! Companion Toolbar.
Now with Pop-Up Blocker. Get it for free!
http://us.click.yahoo.com/L5YrjA/eSIIAA/yQLSAA/61FxlB/TM
--------------------------------------------------------------------~-> 

-- 
    "NEXTEL-1 IT'S NOT JUST NEXTEL"
  Note The New address 
Subscribe to Nextel-1: http://www.groups.yahoo.com/subscribe/NEXTEL-1

  "NEXTEL2 FOR iDEN SOFTWARE DEVELOPERS"
Subscribe to Nextel2: http://www.groups.yahoo.com/subscribe/NEXTEL2

  "WIRELESS FORUM HOMELAND SECURITY GROUP"
     The Complete Resource for Wireless Homeland Security.
Subscribe to WFHSG:  http://www.groups.yahoo.com/subscribe/WFHSG

Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/NEXTEL-1/

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
    [email-masked]

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
    http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/