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        | ) |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  |   |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | ) |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  |   |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | ) |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  |   |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | ) |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
+----------------------------------+---+------------------------------+

**NOTICE OF PROPOSED RULEMAKING**

**Adopted: April 27, 2001 Released: May 7, 2001**

**Comment Date:** \[Thirty days after publication in the Federal
Register\]

**Reply Comment Date:** \[Forty-five days after publication in the
Federal Register\]

By the Commission:

# INTRODUCTION

1.  This *Notice of Proposed Rulemaking* (*Notice*) seeks comment on a
    proposal to amend Section 90.20(e)(6) of the Commission's Rules[^1]
    to revise the authorized duty cycle for stolen vehicle recovery
    system (SVRS) operations on 173.075 MHz. In its Petition for
    Rulemaking (Petition), LoJack Corporation (LoJack) proposes to add a
    duty cycle 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.[^2] Contemporaneous with the
    submission of the Petition, LoJack sought a waiver (Waiver Request)
    of Section 90.20(e)(6) of the Commission's Rules to allow it to use
    a duty cycle conforming to the above proposal.[^3] The Waiver
    Request was granted subject to the resolution of the Petition.[^4]
    We believe that this rule change could enhance police performance in
    the recovery of stolen vehicles and apprehension of individuals
    suspected of committing these thefts. Therefore, we are initiating
    this rulemaking proceeding proposing a modification of the
    authorized duty cycle for SVRS operations, and believe that the
    proposal furthers the public interest.

# BACKGROUND

2.  In 1989, the Commission allocated the frequency 173.075 MHz for
    stolen vehicle recovery systems, and established service rules for
    these systems.[^5] While the Commission recognized that some
    potential for interference from SVRS base stations to broadcast
    operations on Television (TV) Channel 7 existed, it stated that this
    risk of interference could be made minimal.[^6] Thus, to minimize
    any possible difficulty, the Commission required an analysis of
    potential interference to TV Channel 7 viewers and the development
    of a plan to correct any interference.[^7]

3.  Pursuant to Section 90.20(e)(6) of the Commission's Rules, the
    frequency 173.075 MHz is available for SVRS operations on a shared
    basis with the Federal Government. SVRSs are limited to recovering
    stolen vehicles and are not authorized for general purpose vehicle
    tracking or monitoring. Tracking of suspected stolen vehicles prior
    to the filing of a stolen vehicle report is considered permissible
    under this rule.[^8] The rule limits mobile transmitters operating
    on 173.075 MHz to 2.5 watts power output and base transmitters to
    300 watts. Duty cycle 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).

4.  Lojack operates a stolen vehicle recovery network with state and
    local police departments across the nation.[^9] It currently is the
    only company licensed for SVRS operations in the United States.
    LoJack's system is installed in more than a million vehicles and
    aids in tracking and recovery of these vehicles.[^10] It has
    assisted in the retrieval of tens of thousands of vehicles with an
    estimated total value of more than \$500,000,000.[^11] With the
    initial 200 milliseconds cycle, vehicles are fitted with a
    transponder unit (TU) which is dormant until the vehicle owner
    reports it stolen.[^12] Once the vehicle owner submits a stolen
    vehicle report to the police, 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.[^13]

5.  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) in conjunction with its "Early Warning
    Detector" (EWD). 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"). The EWD instructs
    the TU to send out an alert. 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. This "uplink" transmission from the mobile
    unit to the base station is limited to six messages per mobile unit
    in any thirty-minute period [^14]

# discussion

6.  [Petition for Rulemaking]{.underline}. LoJack seeks amendment of
    Section 90.20(e)(6) of the Commission's Rules in order to codify the
    1800 milliseconds duty cycle.[^15] LoJack indicates that it needs
    this amendment because the current duty cycle limits the length of
    mobile unit transmissions to 200 milliseconds, but the "uplink"
    signal requires approximately 1800 milliseconds to transmit.[^16]
    The initial duty cycle limits were imposed more than a decade ago.
    LoJack asserts that new technology permits an early warning feature
    that minimizes lag time and thereby assists, among other things, in
    the recovery of the stolen vehicle.[^17] LoJack submits that in
    order to benefit from these technological advances, however, it must
    utilize the 1800 milliseconds cycle in addition to the 200
    milliseconds cycle.[^18]

7.  Use of a duty cycle of 1800 milliseconds permits the stolen vehicle
    recovery system to be activated by unauthorized movement, *i.e.*,
    use of the vehicle without the owner's permission to do so. LoJack
    submits that the mobile-to-base station "uplink" transmissions not
    only can be used to alert a control center and then the vehicle
    owner in order to effect a prompt police theft report, but can be
    used to acknowledge base station activation and deactivation
    messages.[^19] Because there is no "uplink" transmission in the
    current system, 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. LoJack submits that the new
    "uplink" feature obviates the need for repetitive transmissions by
    high-powered base stations, reducing the actual transmitting time on
    the channel by as much as a factor of 100:1.[^20] LoJack maintains
    that its proposal will (a) result in improved stolen vehicle
    recovery time; (b) increase stolen vehicle recovery rates; (c) make
    more efficient use of radio spectrum; and (d) reduce the potential
    for interference to television reception.[^21]

8.  [Discussion]{.underline}. We believe the record warrants proposing
    amendment of Section 90.20(e)(6) of the Commission's Rules to
    reflect current technological advancements that will benefit law
    enforcement and vehicle owners. Until recently, the duty cycle
    provisions of this rule adequately met the needs of SVRS operations.
    However, this no longer appears to be the case. The current 200
    milliseconds duty cycle is incompatible with a new innovative
    feature \-- an early warning device \-- of SVRS technology that can
    significantly benefit the public and the law enforcement
    community.[^22] According to LoJack, using the proposed 1800
    milliseconds cycle, the lag time between when a vehicle is
    discovered stolen and when the theft is reported to the police can
    be greatly reduced.

9.  It is the police report under either technology that triggers the
    active tracking of a stolen vehicle in the SVRS network. Therefore,
    the sooner a report is filed, the greater the chance of recovering
    the vehicle and apprehending the alleged thief. Under the current
    system, the stolen vehicle is not tracked until the vehicle owner
    discovers the theft and reports it to the police.[^23] This may be
    hours or days after the theft. However, under LoJacks's proposal,
    the mobile-to-base "uplink" transmissions are used to alert a
    control center whose personnel alert the owner that the vehicle has
    been stolen. [^24] The owner is then able to immediately notify the
    police of the vehicle theft. By expediting the theft detection and
    reporting process, the "uplink" technology appears to greatly
    improve the chances for successful vehicle recovery and improves
    tracking efficiency.[^25] We invite comment on the merits of the
    proposal, specifically the public interest and public safety
    benefits associated with revising the duty cycle to permit the use
    of this new technology.

10. Based upon our review of LoJack's rulemaking petition, we believe
    that spectrum efficiency is an additional benefit of utilizing this
    new technology for recovering stolen vehicles. While the "uplink"
    transmission path incorporates the early warning feature, it also
    would be used to acknowledge base station activation and
    deactivation messages, thereby obviating the need for repetitive
    transmissions by high-powered base stations.[^26] This result
    significantly reduces the number of base station transmissions
    required for each theft/recovery activity.[^27] In practice, it
    would appear that the number of downlink transmissions are reduced
    from 889 to as few as nine.[^28] Although the "uplink" transmission
    will be greater in length then the tracking signal, the "uplink"
    transmissions will be fewer in number than the tracking signal.[^29]
    Specifically, "uplink" transmissions will occur once every 300
    seconds with a maximum of six messages in any thirty-minute period,
    while the tracking signal occurs once every ten seconds -- and once
    every second while a vehicle is tracked actively.[^30] Viewing the
    proposal in its entirety, we believe that it would significantly
    reduce channel occupancy, and thereby promote spectrum
    efficiency.[^31] We ask commenters to address whether adoption of
    the proposal would advance efficient spectrum utilization.

11. To date, the only interference issue raised regarding the subject
    proposal is whether it would have a negative impact on DTV
    stations.[^32] The LoJack system transmits on a frequency of 173.075
    MHz with an authorized bandwidth of 20 kHz. Therefore, interference
    to TV Channel 7 (174-180 MHz) reception is a concern.[^33] An
    independent engineering analysis, provided by LoJack, concluded that
    harm to DTV operations is unlikely to result when DTV transmission
    replaces the current NTSC transmission standard.[^34] The
    possibility of interference to TV Channel 7 is largely determined by
    power and proximity. As such, it is the base station sites operating
    with 300 watts effective radiated power (ERP), and not the 2.5 watt
    ERP transponder units, that are of greater consequence. Nonetheless,
    transmissions by mobile units are restricted in order to reduce the
    impact of any potential interference from mobile units to TV Channel
    7 reception. More then a decade ago, the Commission felt that the
    200 millisecond duty cycle struck a proper balance between the
    desire to reduce the interference impact on TV broadcasting and the
    need for more frequency transmissions when actively tracking a
    vehicle.[^35] In this proceeding, LoJack is requesting an increase
    in the duty cycle in order to permit the "uplink" signal. LoJack is
    not proposing to increase the length or the duty cycle of the
    tracking signal. LoJack simply seeks to amend the duty cycle
    requirements to allow it to transmit the "uplink" signal, once every
    300 seconds, in addition to the tracking signal. The "uplink" signal
    will be limited to six transmissions in any thirty minutes.
    Therefore, instituting the 1800 millisecond duty cycle will not
    significantly increase the number of mobile transmissions.
    Consequently, we tentatively conclude that the possibility of
    interference from mobile units to TV Channel 7 will not
    significantly increase. Conversely, the number of base station
    transmissions needed for a typical stolen vehicle recovery sequence
    will be greatly reduced. Therefore, we tentatively conclude that the
    proposal will likely reduce the possibility of harmful interference
    to DTV and TV Channel 7 reception. Nevertheless, we invite
    commenters to address any concerns regarding interference to
    digital, as well as analog, broadcast operations on TV Channel 7. We
    particularly seek comment regarding any interference experienced as
    a result of LoJack's modified operations under the current waiver.

12. In addition to proposing to modify the duty cycle rule as requested
    by LoJack, we invite comment on whether the public interest
    continues to be served by specification of the relevant duty cycles
    in our Rules. In establishing service rules for SVRS operations, the
    Commission set a duty cycle for mobile units in order to reduce the
    interference impact on TV broadcast Channel 7 operations,[^36] and
    set a duty cycle for base stations so that multiple SVRS licensees
    would be able to share the single frequency (173.075 MHz) that is
    available.[^37] We seek comment on whether these concerns continue
    to merit specifying duty cycles, in whole or in part, or whether it
    is now appropriate to develop a rule permitting greater technical
    flexibility.[^38] Would elimination of a specified duty cycle for
    mobiles cause harmful interference to TV Channel 7 reception? Would
    removal of a duty cycle for base stations prevent competitive SVRS
    operations from commencing? In addition, would spectrum efficiency
    be impaired without specified duty cycles? Commenters favoring
    removal of duty cycle limits also should explain the possible effect
    on the sharing of 173.075 MHz by the Federal Government, given that
    this is a shared frequency. Finally, we ask interested parties to
    address the question of what specific benefits could accrue from
    elimination of duty cycles for mobile and base transmitters.

13. In summary, we believe that the public interest will be served by
    permitting the incorporation of an early warning feature in SVRSs.
    Therefore, in this Notice, we are proposing to 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 proposed 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. In this
    rulemaking proceeding, we also invite comment on whether eliminating
    specified duty cycles would serve the public interest.

# V. PROCEDURAL MATTERS {#v.-procedural-matters .unnumbered}

14. *Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis*. As required by the
    Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) of 1980,[^39] we have prepared an
    Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) of the possible
    significant economic impact on small entities of the policies and
    rules proposed by this Notice of Proposed Rule Making. The IRFA is
    set forth in Appendix A. We request written public comment on the
    IRFA. Comments must be filed in accordance with the same filing
    deadlines as comments filed in this rulemaking proceeding. They must
    have a separate and distinct heading designating them as responses
    to the IRFA. The Consumer Information Bureau, Reference Information
    Center, shall send a copy of this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking,
    including the IRFA, to the Chief Counsel of the Small Business
    Administration, in accordance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

15. *Paperwork Reduction Analysis*. This Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
    does not contain either a proposed or modified information
    collection.

16. *Ex Parte Rules Presentations.* This is a permit-but-disclose notice
    and comment rulemaking proceeding. Ex parte presentations are
    permitted, except during the Sunshine Agenda period, provided they
    are disclosed as provided in the Commission's Rules. *See generally*
    47 C.F.R. §§ 1.1202, 1.1203, 1.1206(a).

17. *Alternative formats.* Alternative formats (computer diskette, large
    print, audio cassette, and Braille) are available from Brian Millin
    at (202) 418-7426, TTY (202) 418-7365, or at \<bmillin@fcc.gov\>.
    This Notice of Proposed Rulemaking can also be downloaded at
    \<http://www.fcc.gov/dtf\>.

18. *Comment Dates.* Pursuant to Sections 1.415 and 1.419 of the
    Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 1.415, 1.419, interested parties
    may file comments on or before \[30 days after publication in the
    Federal Register\], and reply comments on or before \[45 days after
    publication in the Federal Register\]. Comments may be filed using
    the Commission's Electronic Comment Filing System (ECFS) or by
    filing paper copies.[^40]

19. Comments filed through the ECFS can be sent as an electronic file
    via the Internet to \<http://www.fcc.gov/e-file/ecfs.html\>.
    Generally, one copy of an electronic submission must be filed. If
    multiple docket or rulemaking numbers appear in the caption of this
    proceeding, however, commenters must transmit one electronic copy of
    the comments to each docket or rulemaking number referenced in the
    caption. In completing the transmittal screen, commenters should
    include their full name, Postal Service mailing address, and the
    applicable docket or rulemaking number. Parties may also submit an
    electronic comment by Internet e-mail. To get filing instructions
    for e-mail comments, commenters should send an e-mail to
    \<ecfs@fcc.gov\>, and should include the following words in the body
    of the message, "get form \<your e-mail address\>." A sample form
    and directions will be sent in reply.

20. Parties who chose to file by paper must file an original and four
    copies of each filing. If more than one docket or rulemaking number
    appear in the caption of this proceeding, commenters must submit two
    additional copies for each additional docket or rulemaking number.
    All filings must be sent to the Commission's Secretary, Magalie
    Roman Salas, Office of the Secretary, federal Communications
    Commission, 445 12th street, S.W., Room TW-A325, Washington, D.C.
    20554.

# VI. ORDERING CLAUSES {#vi.-ordering-clauses .unnumbered}

21. IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to 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), NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN of proposed amendment to
    Section 90.20(e)(6) of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R. §
    90.20(e)(6), as described above.

22. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Petition for Rulemaking, RM-9798,
    submitted by the Lojack Corporation on December 20, 1999 IS GRANTED
    to the extent indicated herein.

23. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Commission's Consumer Information
    Bureau, Reference Information Center, SHALL SEND a copy of this
    Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, including the Initial Regulatory
    Flexibility Analysis, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small
    Business Administration.

24. For further information, contact Freda Lippert Thyden, 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\>.

> FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
>
> Magalie Roman Salas
>
> Secretary

Attachments: Appendices

**APPENDIX A**

**INITIAL REGULATORY FLEXIBILITY ANALYSIS**

As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA),[^41] the Commission
has prepared an Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) of the
possible significant economic impact on small entities of the policies
and rules proposed in this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (Notice).
Written public comments are requested regarding this IRFA. Comments must
be identified as responses to the IRFA and must be filed by the
deadlines for comments on the Notice provided in the item. The
Commission will send a copy of the Notice, including this IRFA, to the
Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration.[^42] In
addition, the Notice and IRFA (or summaries thereof) will be published
in the Federal Register.[^43]

**A. Need for, and Objectives of, the Proposed Rules**

In the Notice, we propose to change the duty cycle for mobile
transmissions in stolen vehicle recovery systems contained in 47 CFR §
90.20(e)(6) to 1800 milliseconds every three hundred seconds to permit
use of new technology. Such modification would be in the public interest
because it would enhance the efficient use of spectrum and permit
greater efficiency in use of police resources to track and recover
stolen vehicles and apprehend more individuals involved in such
activities.

**B. Legal Basis**

Authority for issuance of this item 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), 303(r).

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

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.[^44] 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.[^45] 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.[^46] Nationwide, as of
1992, there were approximately 275,801 small organizations.[^47] "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."[^48]

This proposal 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. We,
therefore, invite specific comments on this point by interested parties.

**D. Description of Projected Reporting, Recordkeeping, and Other
Compliance Requirements**

The Notice solicits comments that will not entail reporting,
recordkeeping, and/or third-party consultation.

**E.** **Steps Taken to Minimize Significant Economic Impact on Small
Entities, and Significant Alternatives Considered**

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.

As an alternative to modification of the subject rule, the Commission
invited public comment on elimination of that rule, *i.e.,* specified
duty cycles for mobile and base transmitters.

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.

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

None.

**APPENDIX B**

**PROPOSED RULES**

Part 90 of Chapter 1 of Title 47 of the Code of Federal Regulations is
proposed to be 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 proposed to be 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 bandwith.
Transmissions from mobiles shall be limited to either 200 milliseconds
every 10 seconds or 1800 milliseconds every 300 seconds, except that
when a vehicle is being tracked actively, the transmissions under either
duty cycle may be increased to 200 milliseconds every second.
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]: 47 C.F.R. § 90.20(e)(6).

[^2]: *See* LoJack Petition for Rulemaking, RM-9798 (filed Dec. 20,
    1999) (Petition).

[^3]: LoJack Request for Waiver (filed Dec. 20, 1999) (Waiver Request).

[^4]: 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*).

[^5]: *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*). Earlier, on March 10, 1986, experimental
    authority was granted to LoJack and the Massachusetts Department of
    Public Safety (Department) to operate and conduct a market test in
    Massachusetts of a stolen vehicle recovery system. Prior to that
    time, the Department had been operating this system experimentally
    under the auspices of the Federal Bureau of Investigation of the
    U.S. Department of Justice. On October 18, 1988, the Commission
    granted LoJack authority to expand its experiment to the state of
    Florida. *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 ¶ 2 (1988).

[^6]: *SVRS Report and Order*, 4 FCC Rcd at 7560 ¶ 27.

[^7]: 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*. at 7560--61 ¶ 27. *See* 47 C.F.R. §
    90.20(e)(6)(i),(ii),(iii).

[^8]: On reconsideration, the Commission clarified certain aspects of
    the *SVRS Report and Order.* At that time, the Commission held that
    tracking prior to the filing of a police report is not general
    purpose vehicle tracking. *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).

[^9]: Petition at 1-2. LoJack systems are also in place in numerous
    foreign countries, such as the United Kingdom, Korea, China, Russia
    and Mexico.

[^10]: *Id*. at 2.

[^11]: *Id.*

[^12]: *Id.*

[^13]: *Id.*

[^14]: *Waiver Order*, 15 FCC Rcd at 18942 ¶ 8.

[^15]: The public was invited to comment on the Petition. *See Public
    Notice*, Report No. 2376 (Jan. 7, 2000). However, no responses were
    received by the Commission. Nevertheless, comments on the same
    proposal were submitted in response to the 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), the only
    commenter in the waiver matter, initially opposed a waiver 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.

[^16]: Petition at 4.

[^17]: *Id* at 5.

[^18]: *Id.* at 1.

[^19]: *Id.* at 3.

[^20]: *Id.*

[^21]: *Id.* at 5, 7.

[^22]: *Id.* at 4.

[^23]: *Id.* at 2.

[^24]: *Id.* at 5.

[^25]: *Id.*

[^26]: *Id.* at 3.

[^27]: *Id.*

[^28]: *Id.* at 6.

[^29]: "Uplink" transmissions will be 1800 milliseconds. The tracking
    signal will remain at 200 milliseconds.

[^30]: *Waiver Order*, 15 FCC Rcd at 18941 ¶ 6.

[^31]: The proposal does not envision either a change in frequency
    (175.075 MHz), or in power limits; the latter being 2.5 watts for
    mobile transmissions and 300 watts for base station transmissions.
    *See* 47 C.F.R. § 90.20(e)(6).

[^32]: 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 17.

[^33]: *SVRS Report and Order*, 4 FCC Rcd at 7560-61 ¶¶ 19-28.

[^34]: 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. *See supra* note 15.

[^35]: *SVRS Report and Order*, 4 FCC Rcd at 7561 ¶¶ 32-34

[^36]: *Id.* at 7561 ¶ 34.

[^37]: *Id.* at 7561 ¶ 35. Section 90.20(e)(6) of the Commission's Rules
    permits competitive systems to be accommodated through time sharing
    of the frequency. Two 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 licensees.
    However, no coordination is needed between mobiles of multiple SVRSs
    because the powers are so low that interference is unlikely.

[^38]: For example, the Commission has eliminated the duty cycle rule
    for the 218-219 MHz service. The basis for this action was the
    ability of licensees to design their system to operate in a cycle
    that will not cause television interference, or their capability to
    operate equipment that is sufficiently removed from television
    receivers to prevent interference. *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).

[^39]: *See* 5 U.S.C. § 603.

[^40]: *See* Electronic Filing of Documents in Rulemaking Proceedings,
    *Memorandum Opinion and Order*, 13 FCC Rcd 11322 (1998).

[^41]: *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).

[^42]: *See* 5 U.S.C. § 603(a).

[^43]: *See* *id.*

[^44]: 5 U.S.C. § 603(b)(3).

[^45]: *Id.* § 601(b)(3).

[^46]: *Id.* § 632.

[^47]: 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).

[^48]: 5 U.S.C. § 601(5).