Before the

**Federal Communications Commission**

**Washington, D.C. 20554**

+----------------------------------+---+------------------------------+
| In the Matter of                 | * | WT Docket No. 01-97          |
|                                  | * |                              |
| Amendment of Section 90.20(e)(6) | ) | RM- 9798                     |
| of the                           | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
| Commission's Rules to revise the |   |                              |
| Authorized                       | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
| Duty Cycle on 173.075 MHz        | ) |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  |   |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | ) |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  |   |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | ) |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  |   |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | ) |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
+----------------------------------+---+------------------------------+

**REPORT AND ORDER**

**Adopted: August 9, 2002 Released: September 5, 2002**

By the Commission:

# INTRODUCTION

1.  In this *Report and Order*, we address the proposal set forth in the
    *Notice of Proposed Rulemaking* (*Notice*) in WT Docket No.
    01-97.[^1] In the *Notice*, the Commission sought comment on whether
    to revise the duty cycle specifications for stolen vehicle recovery
    system (SVRS) operations on 173.075 MHz.[^2] The *Notice* also
    invited comment on whether the public interest continues to be
    served by specification of duty cycles for the SVRS operations on
    173.075 MHz.[^3] For the reasons explained below, we are revising
    Section 90.20(e)(6) of the Commission's Rules[^4] to add a new duty
    cycle option of 1800 milliseconds every 300 seconds with a maximum
    of six messages in any thirty-minute period.[^5] We believe that
    this new duty cycle option will enable the enhancement of police
    performance in the recovery of stolen vehicles and apprehension of
    suspects, while ensuring that harmful interference does not occur to
    television reception.[^6]

# BACKGROUND

2.  In 1986, LoJack Corporation (LoJack) and the Massachusetts
    Department of Public Safety were granted experimental authority to
    operate and conduct a market test of a SVRS in Massachusetts.[^7] In
    1988, the Commission granted LoJack authority to expand its
    experiment to Florida.[^8] The following year, the Commission
    designated the frequency 173.075 MHz for SVRS use, and established
    service rules for these systems.[^9] In doing so, the Commission
    recognized that there was potential for interference from SVRS base
    stations to broadcast operations on Television (TV) Channel 7, but
    it concluded that the interference potential could be made
    minimal.[^10] In furtherance of its effort to minimize the
    interference risk, the Commission required SVRS operators to perform
    an analysis of potential interference to TV Channel 7 viewers and to
    develop a plan to correct any interference.[^11]

3.  After the SVRS designation in 1989, the Commission authorized
    LoJack's operation on a regular basis.[^12] LoJack has developed and
    operated a stolen vehicle recovery network with state and local
    police departments across the nation.[^13] According to LoJack, its
    system has been deployed in seventeen states, as well as the
    District of Columbia, and has been installed in approximately 1.25
    million vehicles,[^14] and assisted in the recovery of more than
    30,000 vehicles.[^15] Additionally, LoJack states that it is the
    most extensive radio-based SVRS in the world.[^16] Although the
    Commission licenses SVRS at 173.075 MHz on a shared, nonexclusive
    basis, LoJack is currently is the only SVRS operator in the United
    States.

4.  Section 90.20(e)(6) of the Commission's Rules provides that the
    frequency 173.075 MHz is available for SVRS operations on a shared
    basis with the Federal Government. SVRS operations may be conducted
    only to recover stolen vehicles and not for any other use.[^17] The
    rule limits mobile transmitters operating on 173.075 MHz to 2.5
    watts power output and limits base transmitters to 300 watts
    effective radiated power (ERP). Transmissions from mobile units are
    limited to 200 milliseconds every ten seconds, or 200 milliseconds
    every second when a vehicle is being tracked actively (the 200
    milliseconds cycle). With the 200 milliseconds cycle, vehicles are
    fitted with a transponder unit (TU) which remains dormant until an
    owner reports a vehicle theft. Once a stolen vehicle report is
    submitted, the police send a message to a central law enforcement
    computer, which causes a network of radio base stations licensed to
    the police to broadcast a message that instructs the TU to begin
    transmitting a brief "tracking" message. Activation messages are
    transmitted by each base station every fifteen minutes for the first
    two hours, then once an hour thereafter until the vehicle is
    recovered or thirty days have passed, whichever is sooner. The
    tracking message contains a unique reply code that is received by
    tracking computers in police cars. Police identify the vehicle make,
    model and registration from the reply code and then track and
    recover the stolen vehicle.[^18]

5.  Initially, LoJack had operated a stolen vehicle recovery network
    using the 200 milliseconds cycle. However, under its waiver grant of
    August 28, 2000, LoJack has been permitted---contingent on the
    outcome of this rulemaking proceeding---to utilize a duty cycle of
    1800 milliseconds every 300 seconds (the 1800 milliseconds cycle),
    which facilitates operation of LoJack's "Early Warning Detector"
    (EWD).[^19] When activated, the EWD will detect external movements
    of the vehicle or determine that the vehicle has been started
    without using a key (*i.e*., "hot-wired"), and thereupon instruct
    the TU to transmit an alert message. The nearest base station will
    process and forward the message to the LoJack central control
    center, whereupon LoJack personnel will alert the car owner that the
    vehicle is possibly being stolen. These TU "uplink" transmissions,
    which must be limited to six messages per mobile unit in any
    thirty-minute period,[^20] also can be used to acknowledge base
    station activation and deactivation messages. By comparison, there
    is no "uplink" transmission in the current 200 milliseconds cycle
    system and, as such, there is no way to determine when a mobile unit
    has been activated or deactivated. Consequently, base stations
    continue to transmit the activation/deactivation messages until the
    theft recovery activity is complete.[^21] In this connection, we
    note that LoJack has operated the 1800 milliseconds cycle technology
    since 1999, under a conditional waiver, and the record before us
    does not indicate any reports of interference problems.[^22]

# discussion

6.  *Notice of Proposed Rulemaking.* The Commission proposed to revise
    Section 90.20(e)(6)[^23] to reflect current technological
    advancements that will benefit law enforcement and vehicle owners.
    The Commission noted that the current duty cycle provisions, which
    were adopted in 1989, may no longer meet the needs of SVRS
    operations. The Commission noted that the 200 milliseconds cycle is
    incompatible with a new SVRS technology that can significantly
    benefit the public and the law enforcement community.[^24] In this
    connection, the Commission proposed to add the 1800 milliseconds
    duty cycle[^25] to the rule, noting that SVRS employment of the
    proposed 1800 milliseconds cycle could greatly reduce the lag time
    between when a vehicle is discovered stolen and when the theft is
    reported to the police.[^26]

7.  The Commission invited comment on the merits of revising the duty
    cycle to permit use of the new technology, specifically the
    associated public interest and public safety benefits.[^27]
    Interested parties also were asked to address whether adoption of
    the proposal would advance efficient spectrum utilization,[^28] and
    if the proposal presented any concerns regarding interference to
    digital, as well as analog, broadcast operations on TV Channel
    7.[^29] Comment was particularly sought regarding any interference
    experienced as a result of LoJack's modified operation under its
    current rule waiver.[^30] Additionally, parties were asked to
    comment on whether the public interest continues to be served by
    specification of the relevant duty cycles in our Rules.[^31]
    Specifically, comment was invited on whether interference concerns,
    encouragement of a competitive SVRS marketplace and spectrum
    efficiency continued to merit specifying duty cycles.[^32]
    Commenters favoring removal of duty cycle limits were requested to
    explain the possible effect on the sharing of 173.075 MHz by the
    Federal Government, given that this is a shared frequency.[^33]

8.  *Comments.* LoJack was the only commenter filing a response to the
    *Notice.* It supports the proposal to revise the duty cycle
    requirements of Section 90.20(e)(6) of the Commission's Rules by
    permitting an alternate duty cycle for SVRS mobile station "uplink"
    transmissions.[^34] LoJack submits that this increased "uplink" duty
    cycle will enable it to equip its systems with an early warning
    feature that speeds detection of stolen vehicles.[^35] Additionally,
    LoJack asserts that this rule modification will dramatically reduce
    the need for higher power base stations to transmit "downlink"
    signals.[^36] It also contends that the revised duty cycle will not
    result in harmful interference to Channel 7 Digital Television
    stations as indicated by a previously filed engineering
    analysis[^37] incorporated by reference.[^38] As an alternative,
    LoJack favors eliminating all duty cycle requirements in order to
    provide flexibility for innovation in the SVRS service.[^39] It
    submits that a mobile station duty cycle is not needed to protect TV
    Channel 7 operations from interference because base station
    transmissions rather than mobile ones are of import in this
    regard.[^40] Further, LoJack argues that a base station duty cycle
    is unnecessary because current rule provisions[^41] adequately
    protect TV reception from harmful interference.[^42] Even if all
    duty cycle limits are removed, LoJack submits, we need have no
    concerns regarding a competitive SVRS marketplace because SVRS
    licensees are public safety organizations guided by the well being
    of the public.[^43] Finally, LoJack states that no instance has
    occurred in which a Federal Government user was adversely affected
    by its SVRS system and there is no reason to believe that
    eliminating duty cycle limits will impact this state of
    affairs.[^44]

9.  *Decision.* We find that the record warrants adopting the proposal
    to amend Section 90.20(e)(6) of the Commission's Rules by
    authorizing an alternate duty cycle for SVRS mobile operations on
    173.075 MHz. Adding a new duty cycle option of 1800 milliseconds
    every 300 seconds (with a maximum of six messages in any
    thirty-minute period) to the current duty cycle of 200 milliseconds
    every ten seconds enables the use of an SVRS technological
    advancement. Specifically, the record reflects that allowing the new
    duty cycle permits SVRS operations that incorporate an early warning
    feature that minimizes lag time and thereby assists, among other
    things, in the recovery of a stolen vehicle. The current mobile duty
    cycle was adopted more than a decade ago when the frequency 173.075
    MHz was first designated for SVRS use.

10. The merits of the proposal to add the 1800 milliseconds duty cycle
    to Section 90.20(e)(6) of the Commission's Rules appear to be
    unequivocal. In this regard, we believe that adoption of this
    proposal will result in public safety and public interest benefits.
    The report of theft to the police triggers the active tracking of a
    stolen vehicle in the SVRS network (no matter whether the old or the
    new technology is used).[^45] However, the sooner a theft is
    detected and a report filed, the greater the chance of recovering
    the vehicle and apprehending the thief.[^46] Under the proposed rule
    change, the mobile-to-base "uplink" transmissions are used to alert
    a control center whose personnel, in turn, alert the vehicle owner
    that his or her vehicle has been moved without consent.[^47] Thus, a
    vehicle theft is detected immediately, which gives the owner the
    ability to notify the police immediately.[^48] By comparison, under
    the old technology, the stolen vehicle is not tracked until the
    vehicle owner discovers the theft and reports it to the police. This
    may not occur for hours or days after the theft. By expediting the
    theft detection and reporting process, the new technology
    significantly improves tracking efficiency and the chances for
    successful vehicle recovery.[^49]

11. In addition, we find that increased spectrum efficiency is an
    additional benefit to be realized by allowing utilization of new
    1800 milliseconds cycle technology for recovery of stolen vehicles.
    While the "uplink" transmission path incorporates the early warning
    feature, it also serves to acknowledge base station activation and
    deactivation messages. Specifically, mobile units using the 1800
    milliseconds cycle are capable of transmitting acknowledgements to
    instructions received from a base station.[^50] Upon receiving an
    acknowledgement, each affected base station can cease transmitting
    additional unnecessary messages, thereby reducing significantly the
    number of base station transmissions associated with each theft
    recovery activity.[^51] Thus, the slightly longer low-power (2.5
    watt ERP) mobile-to-base transmissions that the new duty cycle would
    permit, in turn, would allow a substantial reduction in the number
    of high-power (300 watt ERP) base station transmissions.[^52] In
    practice, it would appear that use of this new SVRS feature reduces
    the number of downlink transmissions from 889 to as few as
    nine.[^53] The effect of using the new technology is a dramatic
    decrease in the overall level of radiated power of the signals in
    the band and a significant reduction in channel occupancy.[^54]

12. In regard to interference matters, we conclude that the revised duty
    cycle will not have a negative impact on the reception of television
    transmissions.[^55] Rather, use of the new 1800 milliseconds cycle
    will likely reduce the possibility of harmful interference to
    television reception.[^56] Since an SVRS system transmits on a
    frequency of 173.075 MHz with an authorized bandwidth of 20 kHz, we
    have considered whether the early warning feature would cause
    harmful interference to reception of transmissions broadcast by TV
    Channel 7 (174-180 MHz).[^57] In this connection, the results of an
    independent engineering study indicate that harm to DTV operations
    is unlikely to result when DTV transmission replaces the current
    NTSC transmission standard.[^58] Power and proximity largely
    determine the possibility of interference to TV Channel 7
    transmissions. Thus, it is the base station sites operating with 300
    watts ERP, and not the 2.5 watt ERP mobile (transponder) units, that
    are of greater consequence in this matter. Nevertheless,
    transmissions by mobile units have been, and will continue to be,
    restricted to reduce the impact of any potential interference from
    mobile units to TV Channel 7 reception.

13. While use of the new technology requires an increase in the duty
    cycle to permit an "uplink" signal once every 300 seconds, it will
    be limited to six transmissions in any thirty minutes. No increase
    is needed in the length or the duty cycle of the tracking signal.
    Thus, use of the 1800 milliseconds cycle will not significantly
    increase the number of mobile transmissions, and the possibility of
    interference from mobile units to TV Channel 7 will not
    significantly increase. Conversely, the new duty cycle will greatly
    reduce the number of base station transmissions needed for a typical
    stolen vehicle recovery sequence. We note that no interference
    concerns have been reported though, in the *Notice*, we invited
    comment on whether any interference had been experienced as a result
    of LoJack's modified operations under the current waiver.[^59]

14. As to whether the public interest continues to be served by
    specification of SVRS duty cycles, we believe that the duty cycle
    for mobile units is still needed to minimize the interference
    potential from the mobile transmitters to TV broadcast Channel 7
    operations.[^60] Additionally, the base station duty cycle ensures
    that multiple licensees will be able to share the single frequency
    (173.075 MHz) that is available for SVRS operations.[^61] Although
    LoJack states otherwise,[^62] we continue to believe that the
    interference and competitive concerns merit specification of duty
    cycles for SVRS operations on 173.075 MHz. LoJack claims that a
    mobile station duty cycle is unnecessary to protect TV Channel 7
    receivers because interference is sooner caused by a base station
    than by mobile units.[^63] We, however, believe that harmful
    interference from mobiles can still occur; furthermore LoJack has
    not demonstrated that our belief is unfounded. Although the
    interference potential of the mobile unit is far less than that of
    the base station, we believe that extended transmissions or
    continuous carrier operations of mobile units could increase the
    possibility of harmful interference to TV Channel 7. Also, contrary
    to LoJack's claim,[^64] the Commission's decision eliminating the
    duty cycle rule for the 218-219 MHz Service is not analogous to the
    situation here.[^65] Although the two services occupy spectrum that
    is adjacent to TV frequencies, the SVRS frequency (173.075 MHz) is
    significantly closer to TV Channel 7 (174-180 MHz) than the 218-219
    MHz spectrum is to TV Channel 13 (210-216 MHz). Furthermore, the
    duty cycle that formerly applied to 218-219 MHz Service was not
    designed---as it was for SVRS---as a principal method to minimize
    the interference potential of the 218-219 MHz Service.[^66]

15. Further, we are not persuaded by LoJack's claim that other
    provisions in the SVRS rules, unrelated to duty cycles, mitigate any
    need to retain a base station duty cycle.[^67] These provisions
    require that if interference is projected to 100 or more residences,
    an SVRS applicant show that the proposed site is the only suitable
    location, develop a plan to control interference to TV reception,
    and agree to make adjustments in TV receivers affected by SVRS
    operations to eliminate interference within thirty days of written
    notification by the Commission. [^68] We do not believe that these
    provisions, which are reactive, in and of themselves, ensure that
    harmful interference from a base station does not occur. These rules
    largely pertain to what a licensee must do after it causes
    interference, rather than to what a licensee should do initially to
    avoid interference. They are but one component of our overall
    strategy to avoid the occurrence of harmful interference to TV
    Channel 7 reception. Indeed, as LoJack acknowledges,[^69]
    interference from base stations usually is of greater consequence
    than from mobile units. Thus, we conclude that the public interest
    is better served by minimizing the potential for interference prior
    to its occurrence rather than afterwards.

16. In addition, LoJack contends that eliminating the duty cycle limits
    would not impair the Federal Government's use of 173.075 MHz.[^70]
    In this connection, it submits that there has not been a single
    instance in which a Federal Government user was adversely affected
    by operation of LoJack's system. LoJack further asserts that the
    requirement that all base station applications be coordinated with
    the Federal Government is adequate to protect the Federal
    Government's use of 173.075 MHz.[^71] Notwithstanding LoJack's
    claim, we believe that eliminating the base station duty cycle would
    potentially limit the ability of the Federal Government to share
    this frequency. The Federal Government uses this frequency in
    various locations around the country for fixed and mobile
    operations. We are concerned that were a base station not limited to
    a specific duty cycle, its transmissions could effectively
    monopolize the frequency for miles. This situation could exist even
    if the base station had previously been coordinated. In this
    connection, we note that LoJack does not address whether base
    stations previously coordinated with Federal Government users would
    need to be coordinated anew if the duty cycle was eliminated.
    Therefore, based on the record currently before us, we believe that
    retaining the base station duty cycle will ensure availability of
    the frequency 173.075 MHz for Federal Government use.

17. In sum, we invited comment on whether it is now appropriate to
    develop a rule permitting greater technical flexibility in the SVRS
    service.[^72] In response, LoJack claims that eliminating the duty
    cycles would encourage research and development that would benefit
    consumers, the general public, and public safety organizations.[^73]
    Furthermore, LoJack submits that the duty cycles impose an undue
    constraint on innovation in SVRS equipment.[^74] The record,
    however, does not support these statements.[^75] LoJack's assertion
    that SVRS licensees as public safety organizations are guided only
    by the public's well being and not commercial concerns[^76] does not
    consider that retaining the base station duty cycle permits the
    commencement of competitive SVRS operations.[^77] In adopting the
    SVRS rules, the Commission specifically determined that some
    restriction on duty cycle was necessary to permit multiple systems
    to share the single available frequency.[^78] The Commission
    envisioned that "several systems" would time share the available
    frequency.[^79] A competitive marketplace also has the potential to
    foster innovative technology and less expensive service to the
    public safety community and the general public. Moreover, as noted,
    the base duty cycle specification is spectrally efficient because it
    ensures the potential for multiple SVRS operators to share the
    single frequency (173.075 MHz). Thus, we are concerned that
    eliminating the base station duty cycle could impair the growth of a
    competitive SVRS marketplace, counter the goal of spectrum
    efficiency and potentially harmfully interfere with TV Channel 7
    reception. Accordingly, we decline to delete the base station duty
    cycle.

# conclusion

18. We believe that the public interest will be served by permitting the
    incorporation of an SVRS early warning feature. Therefore, we amend
    Section 90.20(e)(6) of the Commission's Rules to add a duty cycle of
    1800 milliseconds every 300 seconds, with a maximum of six messages
    in any thirty-minute period, when the system is activated by
    unauthorized movement. This rule change will facilitate more
    efficient law enforcement, a decrease in the time lag in the
    notification of a stolen vehicle, greater stolen vehicle recovery
    rates, and a greater rate of apprehension of criminals. It is our
    view that the specification of SVRS duty cycles continues to serve
    the public interest by preventing harmful interference to TV Channel
    7 reception and encouraging a competitive marketplace for provision
    of SVRS operations.

# PROCEDURAL MATTERS

**Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis**

19. As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) of 1980,[^80]
    the Commission has prepared a Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
    of the possible impact of the rule changes contained in this *Report
    and Order* on small entities. The Final Regulatory Flexibility Act
    analysis is set forth in Appendix A. The Commission's Consumer and
    Governmental Affairs Bureau, Reference Information Center, will send
    a copy of this *Report and Order*, including the Final Regulatory
    Flexibility Analysis, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small
    Business Administration.

    **Paperwork Reduction Analysis**.

20. This *Report and Order* does not contain any new or modified
    information collection. Therefore, it is not subject to the
    requirements for a paperwork reduction analysis, and the Commission
    has not performed one.

    **Contacts for Information**

21. For further information, contact Freda Lippert Thyden, Esq., Policy
    and Rules Branch, Public Safety and Private Wireless Division,
    Wireless Telecommunications Bureau, (202) 418-0627, TTY (202)
    418-7233, or via e-mail at \<fthyden@fcc.gov\>.

22. Alternative formats (computer diskette, large print, audio cassette,
    and Braille) are available to persons with disabilities by
    contacting Brian Millin at (202) 418-7426, TTY (202) 418-7365, or by
    e-mail at \<bmillin@fcc.gov\>. This *Report and Order* can be
    downloaded at \<http://www.fcc.gov/dtf\>.

# ORDERING CLAUSES

23. Authority for issuance of this *Report and Order* is contained in
    Sections 4(i), 4(j), and 303(r) of the Communications Act of 1934,
    as amended, 47 U.S.C. §§ 154(i), 154(j), and 303(r).

24. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to the authority of
    Sections 4(i), 4(j), and 303(r) of the Communications Act of 1934,
    as amended, 47 U.S.C. §§ 154(i), 154(j), and 303(r), Section
    90.20(e)(6) of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R. § 90.20(e)(6), IS
    AMENDED as set forth in Appendix B, effective 30 days after
    publication in the Federal Register.

25. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Commission's Consumer and
    Governmental Affairs Bureau, Reference Information Center, SHALL
    SEND a copy of this *Report and Order*, including the Final
    Regulatory Flexibility Analysis, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy
    of the Small Business Administration.

26. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this proceeding IS TERMINATED.

> FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
>
> Marlene H. Dortch
>
> Secretary

**APPENDIX A**

**FINAL REGULATORY FLEXIBILITY ANALYSIS**

As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA),[^81] an Initial
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) was incorporated in Appendix A of
the *Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM)* issued in this
proceeding.[^82] The Commission sought written public comment on the
proposals in the *NPRM*, including on the IRFA. The Commission's Final
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (FRFA) in this *Report and Order* in WT
Docket No. 97-82 conforms to the RFA.[^83]

**I. Need for, and Objectives of, the *Report and Order***

1\. In the *Report and Order*, we modify the duty cycle for mobile
transmissions in stolen vehicle recovery systems (SVRSs) contained in 47
CFR § 90.20(e)(6) to 1800 milliseconds every three hundred seconds to
permit use of new technology. This modification is in the public
interest because it enhances the efficient use of spectrum and permits
greater efficiency in use of police resources to track and recover
stolen vehicles and apprehend more individuals involved in such
activities.

**II. Summary of Significant Issues Raised by Public Comments in
Response to the IRFA**

> 2\. No comments were filed in direct response to the IRFA.

**III. Description and Estimate of the Number of Small Entities to Which
the Rules Will Apply**

3\. The RFA directs agencies to provide a description of and, where
feasible, an estimate of the number of small entities that may be
affected by the proposed rules, if adopted.[^84] The RFA defines the
term "small entity" as having the same meaning as the terms "small
business," "small organization," and "small business concern" under
Section 3 of the Small Business Act.[^85] A small business concern is
one that: (1) is independently owned and operated, (2) is not dominant
in its field of operation, and (3) satisfies any additional criteria
established by the Small Business Administration.[^86] Nationwide, as of
1992, there were approximately 275,801 small organizations.[^87] "Small
governmental jurisdiction" generally means governments of cities,
counties, towns, townships, villages, school districts, or special
districts, with a population of less than 50,000."[^88]

4\. The rule change adopted in this *Report and Order* will provide
marketing opportunities for radio manufacturers, some of which may be
small businesses. Beyond this we are unable to quantify the potential
effects on small entities.

**IV. Description of Reporting, Recordkeeping, and Other Compliance
Requirements**

5\. No new reporting, recordkeeping, or other compliance requirements
would be imposed on applicants or licensees as a result of the actions
taken in this rulemaking proceeding.

**V. Steps Taken to Minimize Significant Economic Impact on Small
Entities, and Significant**

**Alternatives Considered**

6\. The RFA requires an agency to describe any significant alternatives
that it has considered in reaching its proposed approach, which may
include the following four alternatives (among others): (1) the
establishment of differing compliance or reporting requirements or
timetables that take into account the resources available to small
entities; (2) the clarification, consolidation, or simplification of
compliance or reporting requirements under the rule for small entities;
(3) the use of performance, rather than design, standards; and (4) an
exemption from coverage of the rule, or any part thereof, for small
entities. 5 U.S.C. §603.

7\. As an alternative, the Commission considered eliminating specified
duty cycles for SVRS mobile and base transmitters. However, the
Commission determined that the public interest continues to be served by
retention of these duty cycles. The mobile duty cycle ensures that
harmful interference to TV Channel 7 reception will not occur, while the
base station duty cycle permits the growth of a competitive SVRS
marketplace. The rule change adopted will accommodate the use of an
early warning detector and, thus, enhance police performance in the
recovery of stolen vehicles and apprehension of individuals suspected of
committing these thefts.

8\. Amendment of the duty cycle rule does not impose any new reporting
or compliance requirements, however, it does permit an additional use of
SVRS technology. The proposal contained herein has been analyzed with
respect to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980 and found to contain no
new or modified form, information collection and/or record keeping,
labeling, disclosure, or record retention requirements, and will not
increase or decrease burden hours imposed on the public.

**VI. Federal Rules that May Duplicate, Overlap, or Conflict with the
Proposed Rules**

9\. None

**Report to Congress:** The Commission will send a copy of this *Report
and Order*, including the FRFA,

in a report to be sent to Congress pursuant to the Small Business
Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, *see* 5 U.S.C. §
801(a)(1)(A). In addition, the Commission will send a copy of this
*Report and Order*, including FRFA, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of
the Small Business Administration. A copy of the *Report and Order* and
FRFA (or summaries thereof) will also be published in the Federal
Register. *See* 5 U.S.C.§604(b).

**APPENDIX B**

**FINAL RULES**

Part 90 of Chapter 1 of Title 47 of the Code of Federal Regulations is
amended as follows:

1\. The authority citation for Part 90 continues to read as follows:

**Authority: Sections 4(i), 11, 303(g), 303(r), and 332(c)(7) of the
Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 154(i), 303(g),
303(r), and 332(c)(7).**

2\. Section 90.20 is amended by revising paragraph (e)(6) to read as
follows:

**§ 90.20 Public Safety Pool**

\* \* \* \* \*

\(e\) \* \* \*

\(6\) The frequency 173.075 MHz is available for stolen vehicle recovery
systems on a shared basis with the Federal Government. Stolen vehicle
recovery systems are limited to recovering stolen vehicles and are not
authorized for general purpose vehicle tracking or monitoring. Mobile
transmitters operating on this frequency are limited to 2.5 watts power
output and base transmitters are limited to 300 watts ERP. F1D and F2D
emissions may be used within a maximum authorized 20 kHz bandwidth.
Transmissions from mobiles shall be limited to 200 milliseconds every 10
seconds, except that when a vehicle is being tracked actively
transmissions may be 200 milliseconds every second. Alternatively,
transmissions from mobiles shall be limited to 1800 milliseconds every
300 seconds with a maximum of six such messages in any 30 minute period.
Transmissions from base stations shall be limited to a total time of one
second every minute. Applications for base stations operating on this
frequency shall require coordination with the Federal Government.
Applicants shall perform an analysis for each base station located
within 169 km (105 miles) of a TV Channel 7 transmitter of potential
interference to TV Channel 7 viewers. Such stations will be authorized
if the applicant has limited the interference contour to fewer than 100
residences or if the applicant:

> \* \* \* \* \*

[^1]: Amendment of Section 90.20(e)(6) of the Commission's Rules to
    revise the Authorized Duty Cycle on 173.075 MHz, *Notice of Proposed
    Rulemaking*, WT Docket No. 01-97, 16 FCC Rcd 9998 (2001) (*Notice*).

[^2]: This proceeding was initiated by LoJack Corporation (LoJack).
    *See* LoJack Petition for Rulemaking, RM-9798 (filed Dec. 20, 1999)
    (Petition).

[^3]: *Notice*, 16 FCC Rcd at 10003 ¶ 12.

[^4]: 47 C.F.R. § 90.20(e)(6).

[^5]: LoJack proposed amendment of 47 C.F.R. § 90.20(e)(6) to add the
    1800 milliseconds duty cycle to the current rule. *See* Petition at
    1.

[^6]: LoJack is currently operating under the proposed duty cycle
    pursuant to a rule waiver that was granted subject to the outcome of
    this proceeding. *See* In the Matter of LoJack Corporation, Request
    for Waiver of Section 90.20(e)(6) of the Commission's Rules,
    *Order*, 15 FCC Rcd 18939 (WTB PSPWD 2000) (*Waiver Order*).

[^7]: Prior to that time, the Massachusetts Department of Public Safety
    had been operating this system experimentally under the auspices of
    the Federal Bureau of Investigation of the U.S. Department of
    Justice. *See* Amendment of Parts 2 and 90 of the Commission's Rules
    to Provide for Stolen Vehicle Recovery Systems, *Notice of Proposed
    Rulemaking,* Gen. Docket No. 88-566**,** 3 FCC Rcd 7195, 7195 ¶ 2
    (1988).

[^8]: *Id.*

[^9]: *See* Amendment of Parts 2 and 90 of the Commission's Rules to
    Provide for Stolen Vehicle Recovery Systems, *Report and Order,*
    Gen. Docket No. 88-566**,** 4 FCC Rcd 7558, 7558 ¶ 1 (1989) (*SVRS
    Report and Order*).

[^10]: *Id.* at 7560 ¶ 27.

[^11]: This analysis of potential interference is required whenever an
    SVRS base station is located within 105 miles of a TV Channel 7
    transmitter. Where interference is projected to more than 100
    viewers at a particular site, the applicant must show that no other
    suitable location is available. In addition to the development of a
    plan to correct any interference, the applicant must indicate that
    adjustments to viewers' TV receivers will be made to correct any
    interference. *Id*. *See* 47 C.F.R. § 90.20(e)(6)(i), (ii), (iii).

[^12]: LoJack Comments (filed July 12, 2002) (Comments) at 1.

[^13]: *Id.*

[^14]: *Id.*

[^15]: These vehicles have an estimated total value of more than
    \$500,000,000. *Id.* at 1.

[^16]: LoJack systems are also in place in eighteen foreign countries,
    including the United Kingdom, South Africa, Korea, China, Poland,
    Russia, Mexico, Argentina and Columbia. *Id.* at 1-2.

[^17]: On reconsideration, the Commission clarified certain aspects of
    the *SVRS Report and Order.* At that time, the Commission determined
    that tracking prior to the filing of a police report is considered
    permissible under Section 90.20(e)(6) of the Commission's Rules.
    *See* Amendment of Parts 2 and 90 of the Commission's Rules to
    Provide for Stolen Vehicle Recovery Systems, Gen. Docket No. 88-566,
    *Memorandum Opinion and Order,* 6 FCC Rcd 622, 623 ¶ 10 (1991).

[^18]: Petition at 2.

[^19]: *See supra* note 6.

[^20]: *Notice,* 16 FCC Rcd at 10001 ¶ 5.

[^21]: *Id.* at 10001 ¶ 7.

[^22]: *See supra* note Error: Reference source not found.

[^23]: *Id.* at 10001 ¶ 8.

[^24]: *Id.*

[^25]: *Id.*

[^26]: *Id.*

[^27]: *Id.* at 10001-02 ¶ 9.

[^28]: *Id.* at 10002 ¶ 10.

[^29]: *Id.* at 10002-03 ¶ 11.

[^30]: *Id.*

[^31]: *Id.* at 10003-04 ¶ 12.

[^32]: *Id.*

[^33]: *Id.*

[^34]: Id. at 2.

[^35]: *Id.* at 3-4.

[^36]: *Id.*

[^37]: Comments on the 1800 milliseconds proposal were submitted in
    response to LoJack's waiver request. *See* Request for Waiver by
    LoJack Corporation to Permit Stolen Vehicle Recovery System
    Operation With Different Duty Cycle, *Public Notice*, 15 FCC Rcd
    15741 (WTB PSPWD 2000). A TV Channel 7 broadcaster, Cosmos
    Broadcasting Corporation (Cosmos), initially opposed LoJack's waiver
    request on the basis that the information provided by LoJack was
    insufficient to draw a reasonable conclusion about the impact of
    LoJack's proposal on Digital Television (DTV) stations. After LoJack
    subsequently provided Cosmos with an engineering analysis that
    concluded that harm to DTV operations was unlikely to result from
    LoJack's proposed operation, Cosmos withdrew its objection. *See*
    Cosmos Broadcasting Corporation Further Comments (filed May 30,
    2000) at Attachment, Potential for Interference to DTV Reception
    from LoJack Transmissions, May 9, 2000; *Waiver Order*, 15 FCC Rcd
    at 18942 ¶ 7.

[^38]: Comments at 4.

[^39]: *Id.* at 5-6.

[^40]: *Id.* at 6-7.

[^41]: *[See]{.underline}* *[supra]{.underline},* note 11.

[^42]: Comments at 7.

[^43]: *Id.*

[^44]: *Id.*

[^45]: Under the new technology, the stolen vehicle recovery system is
    activated by unauthorized movement; whereas, under the old
    technology the stolen vehicle could not be tracked until the vehicle
    owner discovered the theft.

[^46]: Comments at 4.

[^47]: *Id.* at 4-5.

[^48]: *Id.* at 5.

[^49]: *Id.* In this connection, we note LoJack's statements that
    experience in utilizing the early warning detector substantiates the
    view that this new technology enhances crime control and augments
    police investigative ability. According to LoJack, when it
    introduced this new technology in South Africa, the vehicle recovery
    rate improved by ten percent (from 82 to 92 percent). *Id*. at 4, 5.

[^50]: *Id.* at 3-4

[^51]: *Id.* at 4.

[^52]: *Id*. at 3.

[^53]: *Id.*

[^54]: *Id.*

[^55]: The interference concern was raised by Cosmos in the waiver
    proceeding. Upon the submission to Cosmos of the engineering
    analysis, Cosmos withdrew its opposition to the grant of LoJack's
    waiver request. *See supra* note Error: Reference source not found.

[^56]: LoJack submits that its new system is at least as compatible with
    Channel 7 DTV stations as it is with Channel 7 NTSC stations.
    Comments at 4.

[^57]: [Notice]{.underline}, 16 FCC Rcd at 10002-03 ¶ 11. This
    interference issue first was considered when the SVRS service was
    established. [SVRS]{.underline} *Report and Order*, 4 FCC Rcd at
    7560-61 ¶¶ 19-28.

[^58]: The engineering analysis by Carl T. Jones, Jr., P.E., done on
    behalf of LoJack, was filed by Cosmos as an attachment to its
    Further Comments to LoJack's waiver request. *See supra* note 31.

[^59]: *Notice,* 16 FCC Rcd at 10003 ¶ 11.

[^60]: *SVRS Report and Order,* 4 FCC Rcd at 7561 ¶ 34.

[^61]: *Id.* at 7561 ¶ 35. As noted, licenses for SVRS on 173.075 MHz
    are issued on a shared, nonexclusive basis. Moreover, Section
    90.20(e)(6) of the Commission's Rules permits competitive systems to
    be accommodated through time sharing of the frequency. Two or more
    separate licensees can operate base stations in the same
    geographical area by coordinating the timing of their base station
    transmissions. Coordination of the timing of transmissions can be
    accomplished informally between or among licensees. However, no
    coordination is needed between mobiles of multiple SVRSs because the
    powers are so low that interference is unlikely.

[^62]: Comments at 5-7.

[^63]: *Id.* at 6.

[^64]: *Id.*

[^65]: *See* Amendment of Part 95 of the Commission's Rules to Provide
    Regulatory Flexibility in the 218-219 MHz Service, *Report and Order
    and Memorandum Opinion and Order*, WT Docket No. 98-169, 15 FCC Rcd
    1497, 1551 ¶ 101 (1999).

[^66]: *Id*. As indicated above, the ability of 218-219 MHz licensees to
    design their systems to operate in a cycle that would not cause
    television interference, and to operate equipment that is
    sufficiently removed from television receivers to prevent
    interference, were not the only reasons the Commission removed the
    duty cycle for that service. *See Notice*, 16 FCC Rcd at 10003 n.38;
    Comments at 6.

[^67]: Comments at 7.

[^68]: 47 C.F.R. § 90.20(e)(6)(i), (ii), (iii).

[^69]: *Id*. at 2.

[^70]: *Id*. at 7.

[^71]: *Id*.

[^72]: *Notice*, 16 FCC Rcd at 10003 ¶ 12.

[^73]: Comments at 5-6.

[^74]: *Id.* at 6. In establishing the SVRS service, the Commission did
    not require compatibility or protocol standards for SVRS operations.
    Stolen vehicle recovery technology was relatively new and the
    Commission believed that detailed standards might tend to stifle
    further technological standards. *See SVRS Report and Order,* 4 FCC
    Rcd at 7562 ¶ 38.

[^75]: LoJack was able under the grant of its waiver request, and
    without undue delay, to implement the new technology providing early
    warning to an owner that his vehicle may have been stolen. Yet, by
    retaining a duty cycle rule, the Commission continued to ensure that
    harmful interference to TV broadcast Channel 7 reception would be
    kept at a minimum.

[^76]: Comments at 7.

[^77]: In the earlier SVRS rulemaking proceeding, LoJack argued---and
    the Commission agreed---that competitive systems could be
    accommodated through time sharing of the frequency 173.075 MHz. *See
    SVRS Report and Order*, 4 FCC Rcd at 7560 ¶ 18.

[^78]: *See SVRS Report and Order*, 4 FCC Rcd at 7561 ¶ 35.

[^79]: *Id.*

[^80]: *See* 5 U.S.C. § 604.

[^81]: ^1^ *See* 5 U.S.C. § 603. The RFA, *see* 5 U.S.C. § 601 *et
    seq.*, has been amended by the Contract With America Advancement Act
    of 1996, Pub. L. No. 104-121, 110 Stat. 847 (1996) (CWAAA). Title II
    of the CWAAA is the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness
    Act of 1996 (SBREFA).

[^82]: ^2^ *See* Amendment of Section 90.20(e)(6) of the Commission's
    Rules to Revise the Authorized Duty Cycle on 173.075 MHz, *Notice of
    Proposed Rulemaking*, WT Docket No. 01-97,16 FCC Rcd 9998, 10006
    (2001) (*NPRM*).

[^83]: ^3^ *See* 5 U.S.C. § 604.

[^84]: ^4^ 5 U.S.C. § 603(b)(3).

[^85]: ^5^ *Id.* § 601(b)(3).

[^86]: ^6^ *Id.* § 632.

[^87]: ^7^ 1992 Economic Census, U.S. Bureau of the Census, Table 6
    (special tabulation of data under contract to Office of Advocacy of
    the U.S. Small Business Administration).

[^88]: ^8^ 5 U.S.C. § 601(5).