******************************************************** 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 Applications of WARREN C. HAVENS for Automated Maritime Telecommunications System Stations at Various Locations in Texas ) ) ) ) ) ) ) FCC File Nos. 852997-853009 ORDER Adopted: January 29, 2001 Released: January 31, 2001 By the Chief, Public Safety and Private Wireless Division, Wireless Telecommunications Bureau: I. INTRODUCTION 1. On March 24, 2000, Waterway Communications System, Inc. (Watercom) filed a petition to deny certain applications of Warren C. Havens (Havens) for authority to operate Automated Maritime Telecommunications System (AMTS) stations at various locations in Texas. For the reasons discussed below, we dismiss the above-captioned applications for AMTS stations that would serve the Lower Colorado River, the San Antonio River, and the Trinity River. II. BACKGROUND 2. AMTS stations provide automated, integrated, interconnected ship-to-shore communications similar to a cellular phone system for tugs, barges, and other maritime vessels. Under Section 80.475(a) of the Commission's Rules, AMTS applicants who propose to serve a navigable inland waterway that is less than 150 miles in length must serve that waterway in its entirety. On the other hand, AMTS applicants who propose to serve a navigable inland waterway that is more than 150 miles in length must provide continuity of service along at least 60 percent of the waterway. 3. On February 24, 2000, Havens's applications for AMTS channel block B stations along the Trinity River, Lower Colorado River, and San Antonio River were placed on public notice. Havens applied for six AMTS stations that would serve 236 miles, or 55.5 percent, of the 425-mile Trinity River. He applied for four AMTS stations that would serve 87.5 miles, or 43.7 percent, of the 200-mile San Antonio River. He also applied for three AMTS stations that would serve 120 miles, or 42 percent, of the 286-mile Lower Colorado River. Havens acknowledges that he proposes to serve less than 60 percent of each waterway. Nevertheless, he argues that in each case he is proposing to serve 100 percent of the waterway that can be served without causing interference to Watercom's seven AMTS channel block B stations that are located near the Texas coastline. III. DISCUSSION 4. In its petition to deny, Watercom offers two reasons why we should deny the Havens applications. First, Watercom argues that Havens really intends to provide service to land-based, rather than maritime, users with his proposed AMTS stations. Under the Commission's Rules, however, an AMTS station may provide public correspondence service to stations on land so long as priority is given to marine-originating communications. The Commission has determined that it is in the public interest to permit AMTS stations to serve units on land because it expands the range of communications services that such stations may offer and fosters a regulatory environment in which AMTS stations may effectively compete against other commercial mobile radio service providers. In addition, we have concluded that an AMTS licensee is entitled to add a station to a system when the intended purpose of that station is to primarily serve units on land, so long as the station continues to give priority to marine-originating communications. Thus, even if Watercom is correct and Havens's true intention is to serve units on land (which Havens denies), this fact alone would not constitute a sufficient reason to deny the applications. 5. Watercom also contends that Havens's proposed stations will cause interference to its seven AMTS stations that are located near the Texas coastline. Watercom has calculated that its stations' receivers are sensitive to co-channel signals that are transmitted from an omnidirectional antenna at a distance of 150 miles, and that all of Havens's proposed AMTS stations would operate within 150 miles of Watercom stations. While the Commission's Rules do not specifically define a service area for AMTS stations, we believe that Watercom's suggestion of a 150-mile separation is excessive. First, we note that a number of Watercom stations are within 150 miles of co-channel facilities, and we have no record of interference complaints from Watercom regarding the operations of such facilities. In addition, Watercom's calculations do not consider the fact that Havens proposes to use directional antennas oriented away from Watercom's stations, and to afford 12 dB protection at each Watercom station's predicted 17 dBu V/m contour. We are concerned that requiring overly conservative co-channel interference protection, such as Watercom's suggested 150-mile protective separation, would be spectrally inefficient because it would prevent licensees from re-using spectrum in areas that could be served without harming other licensees. For the foregoing reasons, we are not persuaded by Watercom's argument that grant of Havens's applications for AMTS stations will cause harmful interference. 6. We nonetheless note that under Section 80.475(a) of the Commission's Rules, AMTS applicants who propose to serve a navigable inland waterway that is more than 150 miles in length, must provide continuity of service along at least 60 percent of the waterway. The purpose of this rule is to provide assurance that a substantial portion of the waterway will be continuously served by an integrated system, thus maximizing the ease of communications for vessels traveling along that waterway. As indicated, Havens proposes to serve less than 60 percent of the Trinity River, Lower Colorado River, and San Antonio River. However, with respect to each river, Havens argues that he is proposing to serve 100 percent of what can be served without causing interference to Watercom's stations. Havens argues that proposing coverage to "100 percent of the available portion of the waterway" should be deemed to satisfy the coverage requirement set forth in Section 80.475(a). We disagree. The rule, by its express terms, requires coverage of 60 percent of the entire waterway, not 60 percent of some portion of the waterway selected by the applicant. Therefore, we find that Havens's above-captioned applications are defective because they do not propose 60 percent coverage of the entire Trinity River, Lower Colorado River, or San Antonio River. IV. ORDERING CLAUSES 7. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED pursuant to Sections 4(i) and 303(r) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C.  154(i), 303(r), and Sections 1.934(d) and 80.475(a) of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R.  1.934(d), 80.475(a), FCC File Nos. 852997-853009, filed by Warren C. Havens on February 1 and 10, 2000 ARE DISMISSED. 8. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED pursuant to Sections 4(i) and 303(r) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C.  154(i), 303(r), and Section 1.939 of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R.  1.939, the petition to deny FCC File Nos. 852999- 853001, 853003-853006, 853008-853009, filed by Waterway Communications, Inc., on March 24, 2000 IS DENIED. 9. This action is taken under delegated authority pursuant to Sections 0.131 and 0.331 of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R.  0.131, 0.331. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION D'wana R. Terry Chief, Public Safety and Private Wireless Division Wireless Telecommunications Bureau