******************************************************** NOTICE ******************************************************** This document was converted from WordPerfect or Word to ASCII Text format. Content from the original version of the document such as headers, footers, footnotes, endnotes, graphics, and page numbers will not show up in this text version. All text attributes such as bold, italic, underlining, etc. from the original document will not show up in this text version. Features of the original document layout such as columns, tables, line and letter spacing, pagination, and margins will not be preserved in the text version. If you need the complete document, download the WordPerfect version or Adobe Acrobat version, if available. ***************************************************************** Before the Federal Communications Commission Washington, D.C. 20554 In the Matter of Amendment of the Commission's Rules Concerning Maritime Communications Petition for Rule Making filed by ) RegioNet Wireless License, LLC ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) PR Docket No. 92-257 RM-9664 FOURTH REPORT AND ORDER AND THIRD FURTHER NOTICE OF PROPOSED RULE MAKING Adopted: October 13, 2000 Released: November 16, 2000 Comment Date: [60 days after Federal Register publication] Reply Comment Date: [90 days after Federal Register publication] By the Commission: TABLE OF CONTENTS Paragraph I. INTRODUCTION AND EXECUTIVE SUMMARY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 II. BACKGROUND. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 III. FOURTH REPORT AND ORDER. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .10 A. Automated Maritime Telecommunications System (AMTS) Spectrum . . . . . 10 1. Siting flexibility . . . . . . 11 2. Construction flexibility . . . . . .16 3. Technical flexibility . . . . 18 B. High Seas Public Coast Station Spectrum. . . . . . . 24 IV. THIRD FURTHER NOTICE OF PROPOSED RULEMAKING . . . . . . . . . . . 29 A. AMTS Spectrum. . . . . . . 29 1. Geographic area licensing. . . . . . 29 2. Service areas. . . . . . . . . . . . .31 3. Treatment of incumbent licensees . . . . . . . 34 4. Licensing. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38 5. Engineering study requirement. . . . . . . 45 6. Broadcaster notification requirement . . . . . .50 7. Coverage requirements. . . . . .54 Paragraph 8. Partitioning and disaggregation. . . . . .55 9. Technical flexibility. . . . . .58 B. High Seas Public Coast Station Spectrum. . . . . . .59 1. Radiotelephone (voice) .. 59 2. Radiotelegraph (manual Morse code) and facsimile . . . . . . .65 3. NB-DP and data transmission. . . . . 71 4. Use flexibility . . . . . . 72 5.Partitioning and disaggregation73 C. Competitive Bidding Procedures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75 V. PROCEDURAL MATTERS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76 A. Suspension of Acceptance and Processing of Applications . . . . . . 76 B. Regulatory Flexibility Act . . . . . .80 C. Ex Parte Rules -- Permit-But-Disclose Proceeding . . . . . . .81 D. Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .82 E. Comment Dates. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84 F. Ordering Clauses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85 G. Contact for Information. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91 Page APPENDICES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .40 APPENDIX A - LIST OF COMMENTERS TO THE SECOND FURTHER NOTICE OF PROPOSED RULEMAKING. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .40 APPENDIX B - REGULATORY FLEXIBILITY ANALYSIS . . . . . . 41 APPENDIX C - FINAL RULES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47 APPENDIX D - PROPOSED RULES . . . . .56 I.INTRODUCTION AND EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1. In the Second Further Notice of Proposed Rule Making in this proceeding, the Commission sought comment on proposals to promote innovative telecommunications services, improve communications capabilities, and reduce regulatory burdens in the Maritime Services. In this Fourth Report and Order and Third Further Notice of Proposed Rule Making, we amend our rules to promote operational, technical, and regulatory flexibility for Automated Maritime Telecommunications System (AMTS) and high seas public coast stations. Specifically, we provide additional flexibility for AMTS coast stations by permitting the construction and operation of fill-in stations without prior Commission authorization, extending the construction period, eliminating the current emission restrictions and channel plan, and increasing the permitted power level for point-to-point communications. We also provide additional flexibility for high seas public coast stations by eliminating the required showing of channel loading and extending the construction period. We believe that these rule changes will increase competition in the provision of telecommunications services, promote more efficient use of maritime spectrum, increase the types of telecommunications services available to vessel operators, allow maritime commercial mobile radio service (CMRS) providers to respond more quickly to market demand, and reduce regulatory burdens on AMTS and high seas public coast station licensees. We conclude that giving licensees more flexibility in the use of maritime spectrum, while preserving the core purpose of this internationally allocated radio service, i.e., to promote safety of life and property at sea, serves the public interest. 2. In the Third Report and Order and Memorandum Opinion and Order in this proceeding, we adopted rules to convert the licensing of very high frequency (VHF) (156-162 MHz) public coast stations from a site-based approach to geographic licensing. In light of the changes to the VHF licensing scheme, we believe that it serves the public interest to reexamine our licensing of AMTS and high seas public coast stations. Therefore, in the Third Further Notice of Proposed Rule Making, we seek comment on the following: We propose to designate licensing regions and authorize one licensee for each currently unassigned AMTS frequency block on a geographic basis, in lieu of the current site-based approach. Under our proposal, incumbent AMTS licensees would be permitted to operate their systems indefinitely, and incumbents and geographic licensees would have to afford each other interference protection. We seek comment on a petition for rule making filed by RegioNet Wireless License, LLC, (RegioNet) proposing to eliminate the engineering study requirement for AMTS stations. We seek comment on using our Part 1 competitive bidding procedures, and the small business definitions applied to the VHF public coast service auction, to resolve mutually exclusive applications for AMTS and high seas public coast spectrum. We seek comment on whether we should set aside any AMTS spectrum for public safety use instead of auctioning it for commercial use. We propose to permit partitioning and disaggregation of the AMTS geographic area licenses, disaggregation of site-based AMTS licenses, and partitioning of most high seas public coast station licenses. We also seek comment on whether we should introduce flexibility into our Rules in order to permit other uses for spectrum that is currently allocated for high seas public coast station use. 3. In developing these proposals we are guided by several broad policy initiatives. First, we seek to establish a flexible regulatory framework that will (1) provide opportunities for continued development of competitive new services using maritime spectrum, (2) expedite market entry through streamlined licensing procedures, (3) promote technological innovation, and (4) eliminate unnecessary regulatory burdens. Second, we seek to enhance regulatory symmetry among maritime CMRS providers and between maritime CMRS providers and other CMRS providers to ensure that market forces, rather than regulatory forces, shape the development of the CMRS marketplace. Finally, we take into account the unique nature of the Maritime Services. Specifically, we note that (1) frequencies are allocated internationally to facilitate interoperability; (2) use of maritime spectrum is subject to various statutes, treaties, and agreements; and (3) the primary purpose of these services is to provide for the safety of life and property at sea and on inland waterways. II. BACKGROUND 4. 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. Public coast stations are CMRS providers that allow ships at sea 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. In contrast, private coast stations operate on shared frequencies to serve vessels' business and operational needs, and may not charge fees for the provision of communications services. Both public and private coast stations may use VHF band frequencies to serve a port or coastal area; or low frequency (LF), medium frequency (MF), and high frequency (HF) band frequencies to serve vessels on the high seas, often hundreds or even thousands of miles from land. Maritime frequencies are allocated internationally by the International Telecommunication Union (ITU) to facilitate interoperable radio communications among vessels of all nations and stations on land worldwide. 5.. .Based on the comments received in response to the 1992 Notice of Proposed Rule Making and Notice of Inquiry in this proceeding, the Commission released a First Report and Order in 1995 adopting rules that increased the flexibility of VHF and high seas public coast station licensees. It also released a Further Notice of Proposed Rule Making in response to commenters' requests for more flexible regulatory treatment of public coast stations and accommodations for enhancements in marine communications equipment. In 1997, the Commission released a Second Report and Order and Second Further Notice of Proposed Rule Making (Second Report and Order and Second Further Notice), in which it adopted rules to allow public coast stations to use various innovative technologies. The Commission also proposed rules for geographic area licensing in the VHF public coast station service, and sought comment on various related proposals; proposed to streamline AMTS licensing procedures, eliminate the current emission restrictions and channel plan, and increase the permitted power level for AMTS point-to-point communications; and proposed to extend the construction requirement and eliminate the channel loading requirement for high seas public coast stations, and to permit high seas private coast stations to share certain high seas public coast station frequencies. Eighteen comments and eight reply comments to the Second Further Notice were received. 6.. . . . Section 309(j)(2) of the Communications Act formerly stated that mutually exclusive applications for initial licenses or construction permits were auctionable if the principal use of the spectrum was for subscriber-based services, and competitive bidding would promote the expressed objectives of the Communications Act. The Commission concluded that the public coast service, including VHF, high seas, and AMTS public coast stations, was a CMRS and subsequently decided that mutually exclusive applications for public coast station licenses would be resolved through competitive bidding. On August 5, 1997, after release of the Second Further Notice, President Clinton signed into law the Balanced Budget Act of 1997 (Balanced Budget Act), which expanded the Commission's auction authority by amending Section 309(j) of the Communications Act to provide that all mutually exclusive applications for initial licenses or construction permits shall be auctioned, with certain exceptions not applicable here. The Balanced Budget Act does not require a reexamination of the conclusion that public coast station licenses are auctionable. 7.. . . . On July 9, 1998, the Commission released a Third Report and Order and Memorandum Opinion and Order (Third Report and Order) in this proceeding, in which it adopted rules to utilize a geographic area licensing approach for VHF public coast stations. We designated forty-two licensing regions, known as VHF Public Coast Areas (VPCs): nine maritime VPCs near major waterways based on U.S. Coast Guard Districts, and thirty-three inland VPCs based on the Commerce Department's Economic Areas (EAs). The new rules provided for a single licensee for all unassigned VHF public correspondence channels in each VPC, to be selected by competitive bidding. We permitted the continued operation of incumbents using VHF public coast station spectrum, and required incumbents and VPC licensees to afford each other interference protection. We also adopted a substantial service construction requirement for VPC licenses and permitted partitioning and disaggregation of those licenses. The Third Report and Order did not address the proposals in the Second Further Notice regarding AMTS and high seas spectrum, deferring resolution of those issues until they could be considered as part of a broader reexamination of the AMTS and high seas licensing schemes. 8.. .In accordance with the Third Report and Order, the Commission conducted an auction of the forty-two VPC licenses from December 3, 1998, to December 14, 1998. On May 19, 1999, twenty-six VPC licenses were granted by the Commission. 9.. .While our actions in this proceeding are designed to improve maritime telecommunications, applicants should be aware that an FCC auction represents an opportunity to become an FCC licensee in this service, subject to certain conditions and regulations. The FCC does not endorse any particular services, technologies, or products, and grant of an FCC license does not guarantee business success. Applicants should perform their individual due diligence before proceeding in an auction, as they would with any new business venture. III. FOURTH REPORT AND ORDER A. Automated Maritime Telecommunications System (AMTS) Spectrum 10. .An AMTS is a specialized system of coast stations providing integrated and interconnected marine voice and data communications, somewhat like a cellular phone system, for tugs, barges, and other vessels on waterways. AMTS licensees must provide continuity of service to either a substantial navigational area along a coastline; or sixty percent of one or more inland waterways, except that a waterway less than 240 kilometers (150 miles) long must be served in its entirety, and waterways small enough to be served by a single station are not eligible for AMTS service. There currently are three AMTS providers: RegioNet Wireless LLC (RegioNet) and Paging Systems, Inc. (PSI), which are licensed to serve much of the Atlantic, Pacific, Hawaii (PSI only), Great Lakes, and Puerto Rico (PSI only) coastlines, and Waterway Communications System LLC (Watercom), serving the Mississippi River system and Gulf of Mexico. There are two frequency groups of twenty channel pairs each in the 217-220 MHz band available for assignment to AMTS stations to use for voice, facsimile, and radioteletypewriter communications. AMTS stations also are licensed, by rule, to use the 216.750-217 MHz band for low power point-to-point network control communications under the Low Power Radio Service (LPRS) in Part 95 of our Rules. The Commission requested comment on a variety of AMTS licensing issues in the Second Further Notice in this proceeding. 1. Siting flexibility 11. .Proposal. In establishing the AMTS service, the Commission considered the potential for interference to television reception, particularly Channels 13 and 10. Consequently, applications for authority to operate a new AMTS transmitter within 169 kilometers (105 miles) of a Channel 13 television station or 129 kilometers (80 miles) of a Channel 10 television station, or with an antenna height greater than 61 meters (200 feet) above ground, must include an engineering study showing how harmful interference to television reception will be avoided, and the applicant must notify each television station that may be affected so that the broadcaster can comment on the proposed construction. Moreover, any AMTS licensee that causes such interference must cure the problem or cease operations. In addition, AMTS operations must not cause harmful interference to the United States Navy's Space Surveillance System (SPASUR), which operates in the 216.880-217.080 MHz band. The Commission tentatively concluded in the Second Further Notice that AMTS licensees should be permitted to construct "fill-in" sites and stations at remote fixed locations within their service areas with a minimum of regulatory burdens, and sought comment on how to streamline regulatory procedures while still protecting over-the-air television reception. 12. .Decision. As requested by RegioNet, PSI, and Watercom, we will revise our Rules to eliminate the application and engineering study requirements and modify the broadcaster notification requirement for new AMTS stations whose predicted interference contours do not encompass any land area beyond the composite interference contour of the applicant's existing system. We conclude that this approach is consistent with our treatment of certain other CMRS licensees. The AMTS licensee shall be required, at least 15 days before the station is put into operation, to notify, in writing, all television stations that might be affected by the fill-in station of its technical characteristics, the date it will be put into operation, and the licensee's contact representative in the event a broadcaster experiences interference. In addition, AMTS licensees will be required to provide the location of fill-in stations to the organizations that keep track of AMTS locations for amateur operators so that amateur service licensees can abide by the notification and exclusion distances in our Rules. Licensees need not file applications to construct and operate fill-in stations, but must, upon request by the Commission, supply administrative and technical information concerning such stations. Fill-in stations shall be fully subject to the requirement that AMTS stations cause no harmful interference to television reception, or discontinue operations. We believe that this procedure will streamline the licensing process for fill-in stations and facilitate service to currently unserved areas, while still providing a sufficient safeguard against harmful interference. 13. .The AMTS operators note that nearly all of their transmitters have required engineering studies and broadcaster notification, but none have caused harmful interference. Orion and PSI argue that the distance and antenna height criteria triggering the engineering study and broadcaster notification requirements, which have not changed since 1981, are obsolete due to technological changes in television receivers and the expansion of cable television. The National Association of Broadcasters and the Association for Maximum Service Television (NAB/MSTV), associations representing television stations, respond that these rules should not be relaxed, because there have been few changes in technology that would justify less restrictive protection criteria, and, even if the technology has improved, many older television receivers remain in use. They further argue that a lack of complaints does not necessarily indicate a lack of interference, because viewers respond to interference by changing channels rather than complaining. NAB/MSTV further argue that it is unclear whether digital television receivers are any less susceptible to AMTS interference than analog receivers. We are unpersuaded by NAB/MSTV, and we find that adding flexibility as discussed above to our AMTS licensing rules with respect to fill-in stations will not result in increased interference to television stations. 14. .As requested by RegioNet and PSI, we also amend Section 80.477 of our Rules to authorize AMTS stations to provide fixed service communications on a secondary basis to support AMTS deployment in remote fixed locations at which other communications facilities are not available. We already provide AMTS licensees in the offshore waters of the Gulf of Mexico with authority to use AMTS coast and ship station frequencies on a secondary basis for fixed service communications to support off-shore AMTS operations. This amendment of Section 80.477 of our Rules will enhance regulatory symmetry among maritime CMRS providers and other CMRS providers. 15. .Finally, we deny RegioNet's request that AMTS licenses be modified by rule to include temporary fixed station authority allowing licensees to conduct short duration tests of expanded service areas. We note that RegioNet's request goes far beyond the authority granted to the Offshore Radiotelephone Service, which applies only when the service of permanent fixed stations is disrupted by storms or other emergencies. 2. Construction flexibility 16. .Proposal. Because an AMTS licensee must provide continuity of service to its service area, which entails a system of stations, we typically grant authorizations for each station in the system on the same date. Currently, AMTS stations must be placed in operation within eight months from when the license is granted, but licensees often have found eight months to be insufficient to construct an entire system, and have routinely requested additional time, up to two years. The Commission proposed in the Second Further Notice to extend the construction period to two years for each station within a new AMTS system and one year for subsequently licensed stations that extend an existing system's service area (a "system extension"), with no construction requirements for fill-in stations. 17. .Decision. We agree with RegioNet that the construction requirement for new AMTS systems and system extensions should be extended from eight months to two years because our experience has shown that eight months generally is not sufficient time in which to construct a system of coast stations. At this time, we do not believe it is necessary to distinguish between new systems and system extensions, or among system extensions, so we reject PSI's suggestion that the construction requirement for a multiple-station system extension be two years but the requirement for a single-station extension be one year. We reserve the discretion to revisit this issue at a future time should circumstances so dictate. No construction requirement will apply to fill-in stations because of our decision today eliminating the requirement of prior Commission authorization. 3. Technical flexibility 18. .Proposal. The Commission's technical requirements governing the authorized power, emission types, and bandwidth of AMTS transmissions sometimes limit the particular technologies that licensees can use and the services they may offer to the maritime community. For example, the requirement that AMTS stations use FM radio equipment for all transmissions precludes the use of narrowband technologies such as amplitude compandored single sideband, which is used in the immediately adjacent 220-222 MHz band. The Commission proposed in the Second Further Notice to eliminate the modulation and channelization requirements for AMTS coast stations, so long as transmissions do not exceed the adjacent channel emission limitations of each station's authorization. It also proposed to amend the rule governing power output measurement of AMTS coast stations to measure transmission power at the antenna input, rather than the transmitter output, and to increase AMTS transmitter power under the Low Power Radio Service (LPRS) beyond the current 100 mW limit. Finally, the Commission proposed affording AMTS stations flexibility to provide fixed or hybrid CMRS services. 19.. Decision. We conclude that the record in this proceeding supports allowing AMTS transmitters to use any modulation or channelization scheme so long as emissions are attenuated at the band edges of each station's assigned frequency group(s) in accordance with Section 80.211 of our Rules. This action will benefit the maritime community by increasing the number and types of telecommunications services available while promoting more efficient use of the maritime radio spectrum. We believe that the modulation and channelization requirements, which are designed to prevent co-channel interference, are unnecessary here because AMTS channels are licensed in blocks. Further, we conclude that eliminating these requirements will allow AMTS licensees to take advantage of technological developments in an effort to provide both additional and improved services. Given the current rules requiring AMTS applicants to notify broadcasters and eliminate any interference, we find NAB/MSTV's concern that eliminating the modulation and channelization requirements could result in increased out-of-band emissions insufficient to defeat the proposed rule change. 20.. We also conclude that the record supports amending the rules governing output power measurement for AMTS stations. The amended rules will provide that the transmission power be measured at the antenna input rather than the transmitter output. We agree with RegioNet that this will make AMTS system designers better able to use innovative transmission combining solutions without sacrificing system performance, and will make the AMTS rules consistent with those governing VHF public coast stations. 21.. In addition, we conclude that the permissible effective radiated power should be increased from 100 mW to 1 W for AMTS point-to-point network control communications over LPRS spectrum. We believe that this is a reasonable power limit which will result in minimal harmful interference potential for television reception and other LPRS users. As requested by NAB/MSTV, we will revise our rules to make clear that any emissions at or below 216 MHz must be attenuated in accordance with Section 80.211 of our Rules, and we shall retain the broadcaster notification and interference resolution requirements for these links. However, we find unpersuasive NAB/MSTV's suggestions to move the requirements for these links from Part 95 of the Commission's Rules to Part 80, and to subject these links to the same engineering study requirements as apply to other AMTS transmissions. The Commission generally relocates rules only to eliminate redundancy or make them easier to understand and use, and we do not believe that moving the LPRS rules, or copying them, to the Part relating to only one group of LPRS users would accomplish either of these goals. We do not believe that requiring engineering studies for AMTS LPRS transmitters is necessary to protect television reception. Generally, AMTS LPRS transmitters, like AMTS fill-in sites, have interference contours fully encompassed by the system's composite interference contour. Thus, as we have concluded above with reference to fill-in sites, we believe that television reception will be sufficiently protected by notification to broadcasters of the location of LPRS transmitters and the requirement that an AMTS licensee causing harmful interference alleviate the problem or cease operating. 22.. In addition, RegioNet proposes eliminating the requirement in Section 80.215(e)(2), (i) of our Rules that AMTS ship radios include the capacity to reduce the carrier power to 2.5 W with a front panel control. RegioNet argues that the requirement increases terminal costs and complicates subscriber operation. We also note that no such requirement applies to VHF ship radios used in automated systems. We conclude that the requirement of a front panel power control is not necessary for purposes of avoiding harmful interference from AMTS transceivers, and that the requirement should be eliminated. RegioNet also seeks a ruling that Section 80.70 of our Rules, which requires coast stations above 150 MHz to minimize interference to other coast stations, does not apply to AMTS stations, but, because RegioNet has not explained how Section 80.70 prevents AMTS licensees from using new technology or offering additional services, we find this request to be beyond the scope of this proceeding. 23.. Finally, we agree with RegioNet that allowing AMTS licensees to provide fixed or hybrid CMRS services on a co-primary basis with mobile services will be beneficial. Affording AMTS licensees operational flexibility will enhance their ability to meet customer requirements and demand, and promote regulatory parity among maritime CMRS providers and between maritime CMRS providers and other CMRS providers. B. High Seas Public Coast Station Spectrum 24. .High seas public coast stations, which operate on LF (.100-.160 MHz band), MF (.405-.525 and 2 MHz bands), and HF (4, 6, 8, 12, 16, 18/19, 22, and 25/26 MHz bands) frequencies, can serve vessels thousands of miles away. These stations provide a variety of voice and data telecommunications services, including radiotelephone (voice), radiotelegraph (manual Morse code), facsimile, and narrow-band direct printing (NB-DP) and data transmission. High seas public coast frequencies are assigned for exclusive use in accordance with the ITU Radio Regulations, which specify how each frequency may be used. They are allotted on a geographic or nationwide basis, depending on the type of service to which they are allocated, and are assigned on a site-by-site basis. These frequencies' propagation characteristics make some bands unusable at certain hours due to varying atmospheric or solar conditions, so high seas stations require frequencies in several bands in order to be able to provide service at all times. Presently, an initial application for high seas public coast HF radiotelephone, radiotelegraph (except on the Mississippi River), or NB-DP frequencies is limited to one frequency in each band, and licensees may be assigned additional frequencies only if certain loading criteria are met. 25. .Proposal. The Commission proposed in the Second Further Notice to eliminate channel loading requirements for high seas public coast stations, and sought comment on modifying the number of frequencies that may be obtained per application. It also proposed to extend the existing construction requirement from eight months to twelve months. In addition, the Commission tentatively decided, in light of comments received in response to the Further Notice, to redistribute MF marine frequencies by permitting MF private coast stations to use unassigned public coast station frequency pairs in the 2 MHz band on a shared basis with other private coast stations, and sought further comment regarding the procedures that would govern such an arrangement, and on expanding it to all MF and HF bands below 27.5 MHz. Finally, the Commission proposed that where two or more entities apply for an authorization on the same channel in the same region (where applicable) within thirty days of the date that the first application is placed on public notice, the applications would be considered mutually exclusive and the frequency assigned by competitive bidding procedures. 26. .Decision. We agree with public coast station licensees Globe Wireless and Mobile Marine Radio, Inc. (MMR) that we should eliminate the HF channel loading requirements, including any limit on the number of frequencies that may be obtained in an initial or subsequent application. Continuing to impose such requirements could unfairly impair the ability of service providers to compete with other maritime CMRS providers. Efficient use of high seas public coast station spectrum is more appropriately monitored through construction requirements than by requiring channel loading. 27. .In addition, we are extending the high seas public coast station construction requirement to twelve months. We agree with Globe Wireless and MMR that this construction requirement will encourage intensive use of the spectrum. Given that a single high seas public coast station can serve vessels thousands of miles away, we believe that employing long-term construction requirements based on population or geographic service areas is inappropriate. Rather, we believe that rapid delivery of service to the public will be promoted by requiring high seas public coast licensees to place each newly assigned channel in operation -- that is, being capable of transmitting and receiving public correspondence on the channel -- within twelve months of the initial license grant. This twelve-month period is consistent with the construction periods the Commission has adopted for other site-based CMRS licensees. We reject MMR's argument that we should require licensees to be able to transmit on each channel simultaneously instead of using frequency-agile transmitters, for other CMRS providers are not subject to such a requirement, which we find would increase the cost of placing a new public coast station into service and thereby undermine the development of competition in the Maritime Services. 28. .In the Third Further Notice of Proposed Rule Making, we undertake a broad reexamination of the high seas public coast station licensing scheme. Consequently, we will not adopt our proposal for identifying and resolving mutually exclusive high seas public coast station applications, or the proposal to reallocate 2 MHz frequencies to private coast station use. IV. THIRD FURTHER NOTICE OF PROPOSED RULE MAKING A. AMTS Spectrum 1. Geographic area licensing 29. Unlike most other CMRS providers, AMTS stations are licensed by individual sites within multi- station systems, rather than by Commission-defined service areas. As noted above, the Third Report and Order in this proceeding adopted rules to convert the licensing of VHF public coast stations from site-based licensing to geographic licensing. We concluded that such an approach would facilitate the development of wide-area systems and provide greater operational flexibility for licensees, promote competition and regulatory symmetry between VHF public coast stations and other CMRS providers, and reduce administrative burdens on the public and the Commission. We note that in many respects VHF and AMTS public coast stations are governed by the same rules, and we tentatively conclude that they serve similar markets. We therefore must consider whether the statutory objective of regulatory symmetry among CMRS providers dictates that we convert AMTS licensing to a geographic basis. We tentatively conclude that our current procedure for determining mutual exclusivity is no longer in the public interest because it could delay assignment of subsequent AMTS licenses and place undue administrative burdens on the public and the Commission. In addition, because the Balanced Budget Act mandates the use of competitive bidding procedures to resolve mutually exclusive applications for initial licenses (except for certain types of licenses that do not include AMTS and other public coast stations), our current procedure for resolving mutually exclusive AMTS applications may no longer be used. We acknowledge that the Commission has retained site-based licensing for some auctionable services, but those decisions were based on unique circumstances relating to those services, which are not relevant for AMTS. 30. We propose a transition from the current licensing approach to geographic area licensing. We tentatively conclude that such an approach would speed assignment of subsequent AMTS licenses, reduce processing burdens on the Commission, facilitate the expansion of existing AMTS systems and the development of new AMTS systems, eliminate inefficiencies arising from the intricate web of relationships made possible by site- specific authorization, and enhance regulatory symmetry. We seek comment on our proposal to use a geographic licensing approach for AMTS spectrum, and on the tentative conclusions underlying it. To the extent that commenters oppose a geographic licensing approach, we ask them to discuss which changes, if any, should be made to our current rules in order to achieve the goals we have identified in our proposed transition to another licensing approach. In addition, we seek comment on whether the use of band manager licensing may also be an appropriate alternative method of accomplishing the objectives that we strive to achieve through our partitioning and disaggregation rules. Band managers would be a class of Commission licensee that would engage in the business of making spectrum available for use by others through private, written contracts. We seek comment generally on the possible use of band managers for the AMTS spectrum. Should we decide to license band managers for this spectrum, we seek comment on whether licensees should be permitted to choose to operate either as band managers (i.e., spectrum brokers), or as traditional licensees, or both. We invite comment on the advantages and disadvantages of band manager licensing and the approaches identified above. We also seek comment on all the rules that would apply to band managers. Commenters also should address whether some other licensing approach would be most effective for AMTS spectrum. 2. Service areas 31. In the Third Report and Order, we established VPCs as the geographic licensing areas for VHF public coast stations. The VPCs near major waterways, known as maritime VPCs, are composed of one or more EAs and approximate the nine U.S. Coast Guard Districts. The VPCs in other areas, known as inland VPCs, consist of individual EAs no part of which is within one hundred miles of a major waterway. The division of the country into large maritime VPCs and small inland VPCs furthered the Commission's goal of facilitating the development of wide-area multi-channel systems along waterways, while accommodating the current use of those frequencies away from waterways, where the spectrum is shared by certain private land mobile radio (PLMR) licensees. 32. .We seek comment on whether VPCs provide an appropriate basis for defining AMTS geographic licensing areas. Commenters should discuss whether, in light of the fact that there are no PLMR licensees sharing AMTS spectrum in inland areas, the VPC boundaries should be adapted for AMTS by combining the inland VPCs into a single licensing area, or redistributing the inland VPCs among the surrounding maritime VPCs so as to approximate Coast Guard Districts. Another alternative is to base the AMTS service areas on those used in the adjacent 220-222 MHz band, where some channels are licensed nationwide, others are licensed among six Regional Economic Area Groupings, and some are licensed by EA. Because there are two AMTS frequency blocks, we could adopt no more than two of the 220 MHz band licensing schemes. We ask commenters to discuss these and any other alternative service area definitions, and the advantages and disadvantages of each. 33. .We also seek comment, in light of our continuing commitment to take measures to ensure that the current and future communications needs of the public safety community are addressed, on whether the Commission should take any steps to facilitate use of AMTS spectrum by public safety entities, including setting aside some channels for public safety use. We note that the Commission set aside two channels in each inland VPC for public safety use. In addition, we note that some channels in the adjacent 220 MHz band have been set aside for public safety use. We also seek comment on whether any steps are necessary to protect public safety operations in the 220 MHz band from AMTS interference. 3. Treatment of incumbent licensees 34. .In tandem with our geographic licensing proposal, we must assess the potential impact on incumbents currently licensed to operate on AMTS spectrum. There are approximately 215 AMTS stations licensed to provide public correspondence service along the coastlines and navigable inland waterways of the United States to vessel owners and units on land. Because these stations provide an important link between waterborne vessels and the public switched network, we tentatively conclude that the public interest would be best served by providing for their continued operation while, at the same time, reducing implementation barriers for geographic licensees. Therefore, we propose that each incumbent AMTS licensee continue to be authorized to operate under the terms of its current station license. 35. .Our rules currently do not define a co-channel interference protection standard for AMTS stations, so we propose to rely on the co-channel interference protection standard for the 220 MHz band, which requires geographic licensees to locate their base stations at least 120 kilometers from the base stations of co-channel incumbents, except that such licensees may on a case-by-case basis be permitted to locate their base stations closer if the geographic licensees provide 10 dB protection to the incumbent's predicted 38 dBuV/m service contour. We seek comment on whether this is the best co-channel interference protection standard for AMTS, or whether there is a more appropriate alternative. For example, for protection of VHF public coast stations, we specify a 12 dB ratio of desired to undesired signal strength within the incumbent's service area, and we specify an 80 kilometer (49.7 mile) exclusion distance for protection of AMTS licensees from amateur operations in the 219-220 MHz band. 36. .In turn, we propose to protect geographic area licensee operations by allowing each incumbent AMTS licensee to renew, transfer, assign, or modify its license only if the modifications do not extend the system's service area or frequency assignment, as we have for incumbents using VHF public coast spectrum. Proposed modifications that would extend an AMTS incumbent's service area or request the use of additional frequencies would be contingent upon an agreement with each affected geographic area licensee. We also propose to entertain incumbents' modification requests, after the close of the auction for geographic area licenses, to consolidate the stations of each system under a single license with a single call sign, as we will for VHF public coast station incumbents. To avoid manipulation and evasion of construction and renewal requirements, we propose that such consolidated licenses ordinarily expire on the expiration date of the earliest-to-expire license. We seek comment on these proposals. 37. .Finally, in the Third Report and Order, we concluded that mobile-to-mobile communications should not be permitted on VHF public coast stations because there was insufficient information regarding channel capacity and co-channel interference protection. We were also concerned that permitting mobile-to-mobile communications may impair the Maritime Services' safety functions. For the same reasons, we reach the tentative conclusion that such communications should not be permitted on AMTS spectrum either. We seek comment on this tentative conclusion. 4. Licensing 38. .Presently, each AMTS must provide continuity of service to either a substantial navigational area along a coastline or sixty percent of one or more inland waterways (except that a waterway less than 240 kilometers (150 miles) long must be served in its entirety). This requirement reflects the original purpose of AMTS service, which was to authorize and provide radio frequencies for automated, interconnected marine communications systems that would provide commercial vessels moving along a waterway with more convenient service than was available from individual public coast stations, by, e.g., relieving them from having to repeatedly change frequencies and contact new coast stations (which may have different call set-up and billing procedures). The Commission proposed in the Further Notice in this proceeding, and adopted in the Second Report and Order, a rule permitting VHF and AMTS public coast stations to provide service to units on land, so long as marine-originating communications receive priority. The Commission subsequently received a significant number of applications for individual AMTS stations to serve small navigable inland waterways in or near large metropolitan areas, apparently intended to serve land units in areas with little marine-originating traffic. These applications, which were denied on the grounds that waterways small enough to be served by a single station are not eligible for AMTS service, indicate a demand for AMTS spectrum away from large waterways. 39. .We tentatively conclude that the current requirement to serve a waterway should be modified because it is inconsistent with geographic licensing. We find that requiring AMTS stations to serve coastlines or sizable navigable inland waterways could prevent service from being offered in some licensing areas. We propose to permit each geographic area licensee to place stations anywhere within its service area to serve vessels or units on land, so long as marine-originating traffic is given priority and incumbent operations are protected. We will, however, propose to require licensees whose service areas encompass certain major waterways to provide coverage to those waterways. Consistent with the rules for VHF public coast stations, all base stations and land units would be blanket licensed under the geographic area license, except that we propose to require geographic area licensees to individually license any base station that requires an Environmental Assessment pursuant to Section 1.1307 of the Commission's Rules or international coordination, or would affect the radio frequency quiet zones described in Section 80.21 of the Commission's Rules, or would require broadcaster notification and an engineering study under our rules. We seek comment on this proposal. 40. .Currently, our rules provide that an applicant for a station falling within the broadcaster notification and engineering study requirements, the interference contour of which encompasses at least one hundred residences, must show, among other things, that the proposed location is the "only suitable location" from which the proposed service can be provided. We propose to revise the rule to make clear that, at the application stage, the applicant need only demonstrate that the proposed application is especially suitable; the suitability of alternative locations for serving the area need not be refuted unless or until a third party opposes the application. This revision is not meant to be substantive, but is intended to clarify the regulation to reflect how it has been interpreted by the Commission. We also propose to maintain the requirement that an AMTS licensee that causes interference to television reception or to the U.S. Navy SPASUR system cure the problem or discontinue operations. We seek comment on these proposals. 41. .The 219-220 MHz band is allocated to the Amateur Radio Service on a secondary basis. We seek comment on our tentative conclusions that we should retain this allocation, and require AMTS geographic area licensees to provide the location of their blanket- licensed stations to the administrator of the database of amateur radio service stations that transmit in the 219-220 MHz band, so amateur service licensees can abide by the notification and exclusion distances in our rules. 42. .In other services, we have required geographic area licensees to also provide co- channel interference protection to other geographic area licensees. Accordingly, we propose to use the standard adopted for the 220 MHz band, where geographic area licensees may transmit up to a predicted 38 dBu field strength at their geographic area boundaries, unless the bordering geographic area licensee agrees to a higher field strength. We seek comment on whether this is the most appropriate standard, or whether another option, such as the VHF public coast station geographic area boundary field strength limit of +5 dBu (decibels referenced to one microvolt per meter), should be used instead. 43. .To assist geographic area licensees in consolidating spectrum, we also propose, consistent with the rules for VHF public coast station geographic area licensees, that (1) if an AMTS incumbent fails to construct, discontinues operations, or otherwise has its license terminated by the Commission, the spectrum covered by the incumbent's authorization will automatically revert to the geographic area licensee (even in an area partitioned by the geographic area licensee, unless the partitioning agreement provides otherwise), and (2) if a geographic area licensee negotiates to acquire an incumbent station by assignment or transfer, the assignment or transfer will be presumed to be in the public interest. An incumbent would be permitted to assign its existing license to any qualified entity whether or not that entity is the geographic area licensee. We tentatively conclude that an incumbent should be permitted to assign or transfer any part of an existing system, even if the assigned portion or the remainder would no longer satisfy the current AMTS coverage requirements. We seek comment on these proposals. 44. .We propose to authorize two geographic area licensees in each licensing area, with each licensee authorized to use one of the two AMTS frequency blocks. We tentatively conclude that this will contribute to competition in the maritime CMRS marketplace. The Commission has never assigned both AMTS frequency blocks at one time to one licensee, but has permitted a licensee with one frequency block to obtain the other block upon a showing of need. We decided to authorize a single licensee in each VHF public coast station geographic area, but that was due to the limited number of channels available in that band. We seek comment on whether to permit a single licensee to acquire more than one AMTS frequency block in the same geographic area, either initially or by partitioning and disaggregation. 5. Engineering study requirement 45. .As indicated above, our rules require an AMTS applicant proposing to locate a transmitter within 169 kilometers (105 miles) of a Channel 13 television station or 105 kilometers (80 miles) of a Channel 10 television station, or with an antenna height greater than 61 meters (200 feet), to provide an engineering study showing how harmful interference to television reception will be avoided. In 1982, the Commission conducted a study ("the Eckert Report") to analyze the interference potential from AMTS systems to TV reception. This report is a model for applicants to use in performing any required engineering analysis of potential interference from AMTS systems to television reception. 46. .RegioNet, in its petition for rule making, proposes that the engineering study requirement be eliminated. RegioNet argues that the engineering study's high costs have deterred further entry into AMTS, and that these costs are incurred with no associated benefit because the Eckert Report's prescribed method is based on data obtained several decades ago. RegioNet proffers two technical studies performed at its request as evidence that the Eckert Report methodology greatly overstates an AMTS station's potential for interference to television reception. The study by Professor A.E. Hull of the California State Polytechnic Institute concludes that improvements in broadcast technology have made current television receivers less susceptible to interference. The study by Allen Davidson of Davidson Consulting Engineering, concludes that the Eckert Report procedure yields too much coverage for the television stations. The studies make valid points about the continued reliability of the data underlying the Eckert Report, both currently and with respect to the conversion to digital television (DTV). On the other hand, the commenters, representing broadcasting interests, oppose the elimination of the engineering study, and note several flaws in the Hull and Davidson studies' methods. 47. .In establishing AMTS, the Commission considered the potential for interference to television reception and conditioned the operation of AMTS coast stations on the requirement that no harmful interference to television reception would be caused. We continue to believe that it is of paramount importance to ensure that AMTS operations do not interfere with television reception on Channels 10 and 13, so we are reluctant to eliminate a measure designed to protect television broadcasters when we are less than certain as to the consequences. In this proceeding, given the substantial questions that have been raised regarding the studies upon which RegioNet bases its argument for eliminating the engineering study requirement, we tentatively conclude that there should be no modification to the engineering study requirement for new AMTS stations that are not fill-in stations because we are unconvinced that the requirement can be eliminated while still protecting television reception. We seek comment on this tentative conclusion. 48. .Moreover, we tentatively conclude that we need not resolve the technical dispute over the validity of the Eckert Report and of the studies criticizing the Eckert Report, because nothing in our Rules requires an AMTS applicant to use the Eckert Report methodology for its engineering studies. Indeed, the Commission expressly stated that the Eckert Report methodology is "not . . . prescribed, merely a sample of an acceptable format" for demonstrating that television reception will be protected. If AMTS applicants so prefer, then they may use a study methodology other than that of the Eckert Report, provided that it is adequate to show that interference to television reception will be avoided. 49. .RegioNet suggests that the aim of identifying harmful interference to television reception can be achieved by simply submitting a survey plan in cases where a top 25 market is involved. The survey plan would include: (1) an advertisement in the local community newspaper; and (2) a notice to 10-100 residences (depending on the distance of the AMTS facility from the Channel 10 or 13 broadcast facility) that are located within one mile of the AMTS transmitter. KM Communications, Inc. (KM) finds RegioNet's plan to survey only 10- 100 residences to be inadequate. It suggests that all residences within five miles of the AMTS transmitter should be surveyed. We find that a survey plan is not a reasonable substitute for an engineering study because our Rules require a prospective showing that television reception will be protected, and a survey can only identify interference after it has occurred. It has previously been suggested that in cases where there is potential AMTS interference in an area that encompasses an extraordinary number of residences, it may be advisable that the applicant include a plan (e.g., by direct mailing or advertising) that demonstrates its commitment to seeking out instances of interference. We find it unnecessary, however, to require that all AMTS applicants, no matter what their circumstances, include a plan to survey a pre-determined number of residences, for such a requirement would place a burden on applicants who propose AMTS stations with a reasonable number of residences in their interference contour and the local television station's Grade B contour. We seek comment on our tentative conclusion. 6. Broadcaster notification requirement 7.. .As noted earlier, our rules require an AMTS applicant proposing to locate a transmitter within 169 kilometers (105 miles) of a Channel 13 television station or 105 kilometers (80 miles) of a Channel 10 television station, or with an antenna height greater than 61 meters (200 feet), to give written notice of the application to the television stations that may be affected. RegioNet favors retention of the broadcaster notification requirement. KM suggests that the rules be amended to require that the notification be made at or near the same time that the application is filed. It states that under current practices, the notification often precedes the filing of the application by several months. 8.. .No revision is required to implement KM's suggestion, because the broadcaster notification rule already requires that the broadcasters be notified when the application is filed. AMTS applicants must give broadcasters "written notice of the filing of such applications," not notice of the intent to file an application. Therefore, a notification that unreasonably precedes the filing of the application does not satisfy the requirement, one reason for which is to facilitate comment by broadcasters on filed applications. 9.. .That the notification required by Section 80.475(a)(2) must be made on or near the date the application is filed does not preclude earlier, additional notification. Indeed, we encourage such conduct. Early notification enables AMTS applicants and broadcasters to resolve technical disputes before the application is filed, without Commission involvement. This furthers another purpose of the notification requirement: to encourage coordination and reduce potential interference problems. 10. .KM also requests that the application be provided with the broadcaster notification, because "it often is difficult to obtain a copy from the Commission promptly." Providing a copy of the application is one way to provide the information necessary to put broadcasters on notice of the proposed construction, but it is not the only way. We tentatively conclude that it is unnecessary to require every AMTS applicant for a station meeting the broadcaster notification criteria to provide a copy of the entire application to every potentially affected broadcaster, given that KM has provided no explanation of any difficulty in obtaining applications. Also, we have no reason to believe that AMTS applicants would not comply with requests from interested broadcasters for copies of applications. 7. Coverage requirements 11. .We propose to require construction by AMTS geographic area licensees. We solicit comment on our proposal to adopt construction requirements similar to those we adopted for VHF public coast station geographic area licensees. Specifically, we propose that AMTS licensees be required to provide substantial service to their service areas within five years (which for service areas that contain major waterways can be demonstrated by coverage of one-third of those waterways; and for service areas without major waterways can be demonstrated by coverage of one-third of the area's population) and ten years (which for service areas that contain major waterways can be demonstrated by continuous coverage of two-thirds of those waterways; and for service areas without major waterways can be demonstrated by coverage to two-thirds of the area's population). We note that regardless of the specific construction requirement we ultimately adopt, the construction requirements could be reviewed in the future if we receive complaints or if our own monitoring initiatives or investigations indicate that a reassessment is warranted. Licensees failing to satisfy the requirement would be subject to forfeiture of their licenses. 8. Partitioning and disaggregation 12. .We propose to adopt for AMTS geographic area licensees the same partitioning and disaggregation provisions that we adopted for VHF public coast station geographic area licensees. Specifically, we propose to allow them to partition any portion of their geographic service area, and to disaggregate any amount of spectrum, at any time to any entity eligible for a public coast station license. Partitionees and disaggregatees would hold their licenses for the remainder of the original licensee's license term, and qualify for a renewal expectancy, if they provide substantial service and comply with the Commission's rules and policies and the Communications Act. In authorizing partitioning and disaggregation, we propose to follow existing assignment procedures. This approach is consistent with our action in other CMRS contexts. We propose to allow parties to partitioning agreements to choose between two options for satisfying the construction requirements: (a) the parties may either agree to meet the construction requirements for their respective portions of the service area, or (b) the original licensee may certify that it has met or will meet the construction requirements for the entire market. We also propose to establish two options for disaggregating licensees: (a) the disaggregator and disaggregatee may certify that they will share responsibility for meeting the substantial service requirements for the geographic service area, or (b) the parties may agree that either the disaggregator or the disaggregatee will be responsible for meeting the substantial service requirements for the geographic service area. Our Part 1 unjust enrichment provisions would govern partitioning and disaggregation arrangements involving licenses owned by small businesses afforded a bidding credit that later elect to partition or disaggregate their licenses to an entity that does not qualify as a small business. 13. .We also propose to permit disaggregation by incumbent AMTS licensees, provided that the disaggregatee's operations do not extend beyond the disaggregator's service area. Disaggregatees would hold their licenses for the remainder of the original licensee's term, and be eligible for the same renewal expectancy as other site-based AMTS licensees. We seek comment on how to apportion responsibility for satisfying the two-year construction requirement. One alternative is to give the parties the same options possessed by parties disaggregating geographic area licenses. Another alternative is simply to prohibit disaggregation by licensees that have not already satisfied their construction requirements. We propose not to permit partitioning by incumbent AMTS licensees, because our rules do not clearly define the service area of an incumbent AMTS station that would be available for partitioning. We permitted partitioning by site-based incumbents in the 220 MHz band, but those licensees have a defined coverage area, eliminating any confusion regarding what they may partition to others. 14. .We seek comment on these proposals. Any commenter opposing our proposal concerning AMTS geographic area licenses should explain why the rules for VHF geographic area licenses are not suitable for AMTS. 9. Technical flexibility 15. .Unlike VHF coast stations, AMTS coast stations currently are not permitted by our rules to transmit data. The Commission has, however, granted a number of applications with waiver requests to authorize AMTS stations to use data emissions, and we have received no complaints of harmful interference. In light of our tentative conclusion that VHF and AMTS public coast stations serve similar markets, we propose to authorize AMTS coast stations to use the same types of data emissions as VHF coast stations are permitted to use. B. High Seas Public Coast Station Spectrum 1. Radiotelephone (voice) 3.. .HF radiotelephone frequencies. HF public coast station radiotelephone frequencies are allotted among four Standard Defined Areas encompassing the continental United States and five other geographic regions encompassing Alaska and United States islands in the Caribbean and Pacific, and are assigned by frequency pair on a site-by-site basis. These regions are defined by the ITU, and our rules reflect the ITU allotment of frequencies to those regions. Many frequency pairs are listed as available in multiple regions, but as a practical matter some are not available in each listed region, for assignment to different licensees would result in harmful interference. Consequently, our current practice is to grant a later license on such a frequency only on a secondary, non-interference basis with respect to the first licensee. We propose to codify this policy. 4.. .Formerly, initial applications were limited to one HF radiotelephone frequency pair per MHz band, with additional frequency pairs available only upon a showing that the initial frequency pair was fully loaded, but we have eliminated the channel loading requirement in the Fourth Report and Order. Consequently, we anticipate an increase in applications, especially from incumbents seeking additional frequency pairs. 5.. .As discussed above, the Commission has previously decided that mutually exclusive applications for initial public coast licenses will be auctioned. We propose to continue to license the HF radiotelephone frequency pairs individually, rather than licensing all currently unassigned frequency pairs in each MHz band to a single licensee, as we have decided to do within regions for VHF public coast station frequencies. Our decision to license VHF frequencies by block was intended to facilitate the development of wide-area, multi-channel systems, but a block of frequencies in one HF MHz band cannot be put to such use, due to propagation characteristics and insufficient demand. We seek comment on these proposals. 6.. .MF radiotelephone frequencies. MF public coast station radiotelephone frequencies, all in the 2 MHz band, are allotted among eight geographic regions and are assigned by frequency pair on a site-by-site basis. These regions and the allotment of frequency pairs thereto are the result of a Commission decision and are not required by the ITU. The allotments were designed to minimize interference between licensees using the same frequency in different regions. Moreover, the table cannot easily be revised to assign these frequencies on a nationwide basis, because it does not always pair a coast transmit frequency with the same ship transmit frequency. That is, frequencies are reused in multiple, non-interfering regions, but they are reused in different pairings. Therefore, establishing nationwide channel pairs would require some incumbent coast stations to receive transmissions on a different ship transmit frequency from the one currently paired with their coast transmit frequency, and would require ships to receive messages from coast stations on different coast transmit frequencies from the frequencies currently assigned to those stations. We tentatively conclude that disrupting incumbent operations and imposing transition costs in order to simplify Commission procedures would not be in the public interest, particularly in light of the limited recent demand for these frequencies. Therefore, we propose to make no change to the MF radiotelephone frequency allotments and method of assignment. Thus, the Commission would continue to put applications on public notice individually to allow for the filing of competing applications. Where mutually exclusive applications are filed (i.e., applications for the same frequency in the same or nearby regions where granting both would result in harmful interference), competitive bidding procedures would be used. We seek comment on this proposal. We also seek comment on whether, in the alternative, we should proceed with scheduling an auction of all currently unassigned MF radiotelephone spectrum. We seek comment on these tentative conclusions, and on whether, in order to enhance licensee certainty regarding the siting of facilities, we should establish definitions for the regions (which currently are undefined), such as by reference to the analogous ITU regions or Coast Guard Districts. 7.. .In the Second Further Notice, we tentatively decided, in light of comments received in response to the Further Notice, to redistribute radiotelephone frequency pairs by permitting MF private coast stations to use unassigned public coast station radiotelephone frequency pairs in the 2 MHz band for non-CMRS services, and we sought comment regarding the procedures that would govern such an arrangement. We continue to believe that permitting private coast stations to share 2 MHz public correspondence frequencies would promote the more efficient use of maritime spectrum and reduce congestion for MF private coast licensees, so we propose to make a 2 MHz frequency available for assignment to private coast stations for business and operational radiotelephone communications in each region with unassigned frequencies. If any of these frequencies has not been assigned to a private coast station within one year of being made available for such use, then the frequency shall revert to a public correspondence frequency. We seek comment on this proposal. 8.. .Shared 4/8 MHz spectrum. Frequencies in the 4000-4063 kHz and 8100-8195 kHz bands are shared on a co-primary basis between the fixed and maritime mobile services. These frequencies are available to ship and public coast stations for supplementary ship-to-shore duplex operations with public coast stations already assigned HF radiotelephone frequencies, intership simplex operations and crossband operations, and ship-to-shore or shore-to-ship simplex operations. In addition, frequencies in the 4000-4063 kHz band are available for simplex operations between ships and certain private coast stations, which, as noted above, use frequencies only on a shared basis. When a 4000-4063 kHz band frequency is licensed first to a private coast station, it remains available to other private coast stations, but not to public coast stations. If a public coast station is the initial licensee on a frequency in the 4/8 MHz bands, that public coast station has exclusive nationwide use of the frequency. Frequency availability in the 4/8 MHz bands is limited, because assignments require government coordination and approval by the Interdepartment Radio Advisory Committee (IRAC), and these bands are used extensively by the government fixed services. In addition, use of these frequencies by U.S. stations is not protected against harmful interference from, and must not cause harmful interference to, foreign ship stations. In consideration of the foregoing factors, and the current limited use and low demand for these frequencies, we propose to retain our current procedures for assigning these frequencies. Thus, the Commission would continue to put applications for exclusive licenses on public notice individually to allow for the filing of competing applications. Where mutually exclusive applications are filed, competitive bidding procedures would be used. We seek comment on this proposal. We also seek comment on whether, in the alternative, we should proceed with scheduling an auction of all currently unassigned spectrum in the 4000- 4063 kHz and 8100-8195 kHz bands that is available for exclusive use. 2. Radiotelegraph (manual Morse code) and facsimile 9.. .High seas public coast station radiotelegraph frequencies, distributed among the LF, MF, and HF bands ("the radiotelegraph table frequencies"), are allotted among eleven geographic regions and are assigned on a site-by-site basis. This regional allotment was a Commission decision, and is not required by the ITU. However, as is the case with HF radiotelephone frequency pairs, some frequencies allotted to multiple regions are as a practical matter not available in each of those regions, for assignment to different licensees would result in harmful interference. Consequently, our current practice is to grant a later license on such a frequency only on a secondary, non-interference basis with respect to the first licensee. We propose to codify this policy. Another similarity to HF radiotelephone frequencies is that HF radiotelegraph frequencies formerly were subject to a channel loading requirement, and an increase in applications, particularly from incumbents seeking additional frequencies, is foreseeable now that we have eliminated the requirement. 10. .In addition to the radiotelegraph table frequencies, the following frequencies also are available for assignment for public coast station radiotelegraph use, upon IRAC coordination and approval: (1) LF and MF frequencies offset from the radiotelegraph table frequencies, and (2) any frequency in addition to the radiotelegraph table frequencies that is within the segments of the maritime mobile HF bands where coast station use of facsimile is permitted internationally ("the facsimile bands"). 11. .Facsimile frequencies are assigned for nationwide use to a single public coast station. Our rules do not establish specific frequencies for high seas public coast station facsimile use; rather, licensees may select for facsimile use any 3 kHz channel in (1) the facsimile bands, or (2) the 2000-27500 kHz bands (except 4000-4063 kHz and 8100-8195 kHz) listed in Part 2 of the Commission's Rules as available for shared use by the maritime mobile service and other radio services ("the shared bands"). After coordination and approval by IRAC, the chosen frequency will be assigned if its use will not cause harmful interference to another licensee, even if such use will preclude assignment of an unassigned frequency also allocated to another service or another type of transmission. 12. .We tentatively conclude that the radiotelegraph table frequencies should remain available for radiotelegraph use, so that high seas radiotelegraph public coast station operators can take advantage of the elimination of the channel loading requirement, and for facsimile use, because we expect more facsimile use of these frequencies than telegraph use in the future. One way to accomplish both goals within a competitive bidding procedure for resolving mutually exclusive applications would be to divide the facsimile bands into frequencies set aside for radiotelegraph use only and frequencies set aside for facsimile use only. However, the Commission found in an earlier proceeding that clearing usable 3 kHz slots for facsimile use amid existing radiotelegraph and facsimile licensees would be impractical, and we tentatively conclude that this remains true. Further complicating such an effort is the fact that the facsimile bands are allocated to Government and non-Government users, so any channelization of the facsimile bands would have to take into account present Government users and future Government needs. 13. .We propose to retain our current procedures for assigning the radiotelegraph and facsimile frequencies. Where mutually exclusive applications are filed (i.e., applications for the same frequency or overlapping frequencies in the same or nearby regions where granting both would result in harmful interference), competitive bidding procedures will be used. We realize that the possibility exists that applicants might request frequencies adjacent to or overlapping other requested frequencies, thus causing mutually exclusive "daisy chain" situations and complicating the resolution of mutually exclusive applications by competitive bidding. We note, however, that mutual exclusivity has not to date been a problem with these frequencies, even without any channel loading requirement for the facsimile frequencies. We, therefore, seek comment on the proposal to retain our current assignment procedures, i.e., putting applications for licenses on public notice individually to allow for the filing of competing applications. We also seek comment on whether, in the alternative, we should proceed with scheduling an auction of all currently unassigned spectrum. 14. .In addition, we request comment on whether we should eliminate the operator licensing requirement for all public coast stations transmitting radiotelegraph (manual Morse code), an issue regarding which the Commission inadvertently failed to seek comment in the Second Further Notice. 3. NB-DP and data transmission 15. .Frequency pairs for narrow-band direct printing (NB-DP) and data transmission are distributed among the HF bands, and are assigned for nationwide use to a single public coast station. In the Second Report and Order in this proceeding the Commission expanded NB-DP public coast stations' technical flexibility, and in the Fourth Report and Order we eliminated the channel loading requirement, so an increase in applications, particularly from incumbents seeking additional frequency pairs, is possible. We seek comment on whether we should continue assigning these frequency pairs individually using current procedures. Thus, the Commission would continue to put applications on public notice individually to allow for the filing of competing applications. Where mutually exclusive applications are filed, competitive bidding procedures would be used. Finally, we seek comment on whether, in the alternative, we should proceed with scheduling an auction of all currently unassigned frequency pairs for NB-DP and data transmission. 4. Use flexibility 16. .As indicated above, high seas public correspondence spectrum is allocated for specific uses in accordance with the ITU Radio Regulations. We also note that we have in recent years experienced low demand for some of this spectrum. We recognize that this insufficient demand may be due to certain aspects of our Rules that prevent this spectrum from being used for other services. We therefore seek comment on whether we should introduce flexibility into our Rules to permit additional uses of this spectrum, for domestic use only and/or on a secondary basis to maritime communications. Commenters should consider whether the Radio Regulations and the characteristics of this spectrum would make such use flexibility impractical. Commenters making suggestions for additional uses that should be permitted on this spectrum are requested to propose appropriate changes to specific service rules. Finally, we note that the introduction of additional flexibility into these rules could lead us to reconsider some of the proposals set forth above regarding competitive bidding procedures for high seas spectrum. We encourage any commenters proposing additional flexibility to address whether our existing proposals would remain appropriate if their suggestions were adopted. We also seek comment on whether now is the appropriate time to transition this spectrum to a new use. We note that it may not always be in the public interest to distribute spectrum resources immediately to licensees. Based on the apparently limited demand for this spectrum, we seek comment on the best Commission approach to this spectrum. 5. Partitioning and disaggregation 17. .We propose to permit partitioning pursuant to the Commission's current procedures by incumbents and auction winners on all high seas frequencies allotted nationwide or to multiple regions. Specifically, we propose to permit partitioning of any geographic portion of the licensee's frequencies at any time to any entity eligible for a public coast station license, with one exception. The exception is that in instances where there are multiple incumbents, only the prior incumbent be allowed to partition frequencies and that the partitionee's operation be conditioned on a secondary, non-interference basis to the later incumbent. Partitioning of frequencies subject to IRAC approval and coordination requirements would itself require IRAC approval and coordination. Partitionees would hold their licenses for the remainder of the original licensee's term, and be eligible for the same renewal expectancy as other high seas public coast station licensees. We seek comment on these proposals, and on how to apportion responsibility for satisfying the twelve-month construction requirement. One alternative is to give the parties the same options possessed by parties partitioning VHF geographic area licenses. Another alternative is simply to prohibit partitioning by licensees that have not already satisfied their construction requirement. 18. .We tentatively conclude that no purpose would be served by permitting single- region licensees to partition their frequencies, for their authorized service areas cannot accommodate multiple co-channel licensees without harmful interference resulting. In addition, because we propose to continue assigning high seas spectrum by individual frequency (or, as the case may be, individual frequency pair) rather than by frequency block, disaggregation is not an option, and normal assignment procedures will continue to apply. S. Competitive Bidding Procedures 20. .In the Third Report and Order in this proceeding, the Commission decided that the general competitive bidding rules found in Subpart Q of Part 1 of the Commission's Rules should apply to the auction of public coast spectrum. The Commission also adopted provisions to facilitate the participation of small businesses in auctions of public coast licenses. Stating that it would base its definitions of small businesses on the characteristics and capital requirements of the specific service, the Commission defined small businesses as those entities, together with their affiliates and controlling interests, with not more than fifteen million dollars in average gross revenues for the preceding three years, and very small businesses as those entities, together with their affiliates and controlling interests, with not more than three million dollars in average gross revenues for the preceding three years. The Commission further provided that small businesses and very small businesses would receive bidding credits pursuant to the schedule set forth in the Part 1 rules. Thus, small businesses would receive a bidding credit of 25 percent and very small businesses would receive a bidding credit of 35 percent. We tentatively conclude that these provisions, which were applied to the auction of VHF public coast licenses, would also be appropriate for the auction of the AMTS and high seas services licenses. In this regard, we note that the three maritime radio services operate under many of the same Part 80 service rules. Moreover, AMTS transmitting equipment is similar in technology and cost to VHF transmitting equipment. Thus, we believe that the capital requirements for AMTS and high seas public coast services may be comparable to those for VHF public coast service. Although we recognize that the transmitting equipment used by high seas public coast providers can cost more than the equipment used by AMTS and VHF public coast providers, we nonetheless believe, considering the rules under which these service providers operate and the similarities in services provided, that the small business definitions and bidding credits that were applied in the VHF public coast auction would also be appropriate for AMTS and high seas public coast services. We seek comment on whether any of these provisions should be modified for the auction of licenses for the AMTS and high seas public coast spectrum. V. PROCEDURAL MATTERS A. Suspension of Acceptance and Processing of Applications 21. .In light of the fundamental changes we have proposed for our AMTS and high seas public coast station licensing rules, we are suspending acceptance of applications for new licenses, applications to modify existing licenses, and amendments to applications for new licenses or modifications, for AMTS (217-220 MHz) and HF radiotelephone (4-27.5 MHz) frequencies as of the release date of this Fourth Report and Order and Third Further Notice of Proposed Rule Making, except as provided in the following paragraph. Any such applications received on or after that date will be returned as unacceptable for filing. We believe that after the public has been placed on notice of our proposed rule changes, continuing to accept new applications under the current rules would impair the objectives of this proceeding, particularly in light of our decision today to eliminate the channel loading requirements for high seas radiotelephone (HF only) spectrum. We also note that this is consistent with the approach we have taken in other existing services where we have proposed to adopt geographic area licensing and auction rules. We therefore find that this temporary measure is in the public interest. 22. .We will continue to accept and process applications for such frequencies involving renewals, transfers, assignments, and modifications, and amendments to such applications, that propose neither to expand a station's (or AMTS system's) service area or to obtain additional spectrum. This exception should permit modifications that can improve the efficiency of incumbent operations without affecting the effective and orderly resolution of the issues in this proceeding. 23. .With respect to applications for such frequencies that were filed prior to the release date of this Fourth Report and Order and Third Further Notice of Proposed Rule Making, and which are pending, we will process such applications provided that, as of the deadline stated above, they are not mutually exclusive with any other applications and the relevant period for filing competing applications has expired. This approach gives the appropriate consideration to those applicants who filed applications prior to our proposed changes and whose applications are not subject to competing applications. Pending applications not meeting the above criteria will be held in abeyance until the conclusion of this proceeding, whereupon we will determine, in accordance with such new rules as are adopted, whether to process or return any such pending applications. 24. .These decisions are procedural in nature and therefore not subject to the notice and comment and effective date requirements of the Administrative Procedure Act. Moreover, there is good cause for proceeding in this manner; to do otherwise would be impractical, unnecessary, and contrary to the public interest because compliance would undercut the purposes of these interim measures. B. Regulatory Flexibility Act 25. .Appendix B contains a Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (FRFA) with respect to the Fourth Report and Order and an Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) with respect to the Third Further 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 Third Further 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 Fourth Report and Order and Third Further Notice of Proposed Rule Making, including the FRFA and IRFA, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration in accordance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act. C. Ex Parte Rules -- Permit-But-Disclose Proceeding 26. .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. Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 27. .This Fourth Report and Order contains a new information collection that the Commission is submitting to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) requesting emergency clearance under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Pub. L. No. 104-13. 28. .This Third Further Notice of Proposed Rule Making contains a proposed information collection. The Commission, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork burdens, invites the general public and OMB to take this opportunity to comment on the information collections contained herein, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. Public and agency comments are due at the same time as other comments on this Third Further Notice of Proposed Rule Making; OMB comments are due 60 days from the date of publication of this Third Further Notice of Proposed Rule Making in the Federal Register. In addition to filing comments with the Secretary, a copy of any comments on the information collections contained herein should be submitted to Judy Boley, Federal Communications Commission, 445 Twelfth St., S.W., Room 1-C804, Washington, D.C. 20554, or via the Internet to jboley@fcc.gov, and to Virginia Huth, OMB Desk Officer, 10236 NEOB, 725 17th St., N.W., Washington, D.C. 20503, or via the Internet to vhuth@omb.eop.gov Comments should address: (a) whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Commission, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the Commission's burden estimates; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on the respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. E. Comment Dates 29. .Pursuant to Sections 1.415 and 1.419 of the Commission's Rules, 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 Comment Filing System (ECFS) or by filing paper copies. Comments filed through the ECFS can be sent as an electronic file via the Internet to . 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 an 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 ecfs@fcc.gov, and should include the following words in the body of the message: "get form