31598 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 113 / Tuesday, June 12, 2001 / Proposed Rules

PART 73—RADIO BROADCAST

SERVICES

1. The authority citation for Part 73

continues to read as follows:

Authority: 47 U.S.C. 154, 303, 334 and 336.

§ 73.202 [Amended]

2. Section 73.202(b), the Table of FM

Allotments under Kentucky, is amended

by adding Morgantown, Channel 256A.

3. Section 73.202(b), the Table of FM

Allotments under Michigan, is amended

by adding Au Gres, Channel 295A.

Federal Communications Commission.

John A. Karousos,

Chief, Allocations Branch, Policy and Rules

Division, Mass Media Bureau.

[FR Doc. 01–14806 Filed 6–11–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6712–01–U

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS

COMMISSION

47 CFR Part 95

[WT Docket No. 01–97; FCC 01–148]

Revision of the Authorized Duty Cycle

for Stolen Vehicle Recovery Systems

(SVRSs)

AGENCY: Federal Communications

Commission.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

SUMMARY: This document proposes to

amend a Commission rule in order to

revise the authorized duty cycle for

SVRS operations on 173.075 MHz. The

rule change was proposed in response to

a Petition for Rulemaking filed by

LoJack Corporation. Specifically, we

propose to permit a duty cycle for

mobile units of 1800 milliseconds every

300 seconds, in addition to the current

duty cycle of 200 milliseconds every 10

seconds.

DATES: Comments must be submitted on

or before July 16, 2001, and reply

comments are due on or before July 31,

2001.

ADDRESSES: Federal Communications

Commission, 445 12th Street, S.W.,

Washington, DC 20554.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Freda Lippert Thyden, Public Safety

and Private Wireless Division, Wireless

Telecommunications Bureau, Federal

Communications Commission, 445 12th

Street, SW., Room 4–C325, Washington,

DC 20554, telephone (202) 418–0627 or

by e-mail to fthyden@fcc.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a

summary of the Commission’s Notice of

Proposed Rulemaking, FCC 01–148,

adopted April 27, 2001, and released

May 7, 2001. The full text of this Notice

of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) is

available for inspection and copying

during normal business hours in the

FCC Reference Center, Room CY–A257,

445 Twelfth St., SW., Washington DC.

The complete text may be purchased

from the Commission’s copy contractor,

International Transcription Service,

Inc., 1231 20th Street, NW.,

Washington, DC 20036, telephone (202)

857–3800, facsimile (202) 857–3805.

The full text of the NPRM also can be

downloaded at: http://www.fcc.gov/

Bureaus/Wireless/Orders/2001/

fcc01148.wp. Alternate 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 at bmillin@fcc.gov.

Summary of Notice of Proposed

Rulemaking

1. On December 20, 1999, LoJack

Corporation (LoJack) filed a Petition for

Rulemaking seeking amendment of 47

CFR 90.20(e)(6) to revise the authorized

duty cycle for SVRS operations on

173.075 MHz. LoJack indicates that use

of a duty cycle of 1800 milliseconds

permits the stolen vehicle recovery

system to be activated by unauthorized

movement. The mobile-to-base station

‘‘uplink’’ transmissions can be used to

alert a control center, alert the vehicle

owner in order to effect a prompt police

theft report, and acknowledge base

station activation and deactivation

messages. LoJack submits that the new

‘‘uplink’’ feature obviates the need for

repetitive transmissions by highpowered base stations, reducing the

actual transmitting time on the channel

by as much as a factor of 100:1. In order

to benefit from these technological

advances, a system must utilize the

1800 milliseconds cycle in addition to

the 200 milliseconds cycle.

2. We believe the record warrants

proposing amendment of 47 CFR

90.20(e)(6) to reflect current

technological advancements that will

benefit law enforcement and vehicle

owners. 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. 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.

3. We believe that spectrum efficiency

is an additional benefit of utilizing this

new technology for recovering stolen

vehicles. The ‘‘uplink’’ feature of the

new system would be used to

acknowledge base station activation and

deactivation messages, thereby

obviating the need for repetitive

transmissions by high-powered base

stations. 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. Viewing the

proposal in its entirety, we believe that

it would significantly reduce channel

occupancy, and thereby promote

spectrum efficiency. Commenters

should address whether adoption of the

proposal would advance efficient

spectrum utilization.

4. 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.

The possibility of interference to TV

Channel 7 is largely determined by

power and proximity. As such, it is the

base station sites rather than the

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.

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.

5. In addition to proposing to modify

the duty cycle rule, we invite comment

on whether the public interest continues

to be served by specification of the

relevant duty cycles in our Rules. 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. 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?

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 113 / Tuesday, June 12, 2001 / Proposed Rules 31599

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.

Procedural Matters

6. 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 CFR 1.1202, 1.1203,

1.1206(a).

7. Comment Dates. Pursuant to

§§ 1.415 and 1.419 of the Commission’s

Rules, 47 CFR 1.415, 1.419, interested

parties may file comments on or before

July 12, 2001, and reply comments on

or before July 27, 2001. Comments may

be filed using the Commission’s

Electronic Comment Filing System

(ECFS) or by filing paper copies. See

Electronic Filing of Documents in

Rulemaking Proceedings, 63 FR 24121

(May 1, 1998).

8. 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.

9. Parties who choose to file by paper

must file an original and four copies of

each filing. If more than one docket or

rulemaking number 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.

10. Paperwork Reduction Analysis.

The proposal contained herein has been

analyzed with respect to the Paperwork

Reduction Act of 1980 and found to

contain no proposed information

collection.

11. Initial Regulatory Flexibility

Analysis. As required by the Regulatory

Flexibility Act (RFA), 5 USC 603, the

Commission has prepared an Initial

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA)

of the possible significant economic

impact on small entities by the policies

and rules proposed in the Notice of

Proposed Rule Making (NPRM). Written

public comments are requested on this

IRFA. These comments must be filed in

accordance with the same filing

deadlines as comments on the rest of the

NPRM but they must have a separate

and distinct heading designating them

as responses to the IRFA. The

Commission will send a copy of the

NPRM, including the IRFA, to the Chief

Counsel for Advocacy of the Small

Business Administration. See 5 U.S.C.

603(a). In addition, the NPRM and IFRA

(or summaries thereof) will be

published in the Federal Register. See

id.

I. Need for, and Objectives of, the

Proposed Rules

In the NPRM, 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.

II. 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).

III. 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. See 5 U.S.C. 603(b)(3).

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. See

5 U.S.C. 601(b)(3). 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. See 5 U.S.C. 632.

Nationwide, as of 1992, there were

approximately 275,801 small

organizations. ‘‘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.’’ See 5 U.S.C. 601(5).

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.

IV. Description of Projected Reporting,

Recordkeeping, and Other Compliance

Requirements

The NPRM solicits comments that

will not entail reporting, recordkeeping,

and/or third-party consultation.

V. 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.

VI. Federal Rules that May Duplicate,

Overlap, or Conflict with the Proposed

Rules

None.

Ordering Clauses

12. 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 § 90.20(e)(6) of

the Commission’s rules, 47 CFR

90.20(e)(6), as described.

31600 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 113 / Tuesday, June 12, 2001 / Proposed Rules

13. 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.

14. 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.

List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 90

Communications equipment, radio.

Federal Communications Commission.

Magalie Roman Salas,

Secretary.

Proposed Rules

For the reasons discussed in the

preamble, the Federal Communications

Commission proposes to amend 47 CFR

part 90 as follows:

PART 90—PRIVATE LAND MOBILE

RADIO SERVICES

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) introductory

text 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:

* * * * *

[FR Doc. 01–14802 Filed 6–11–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6712–01–U

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric

Administration

50 CFR Part 223

[I.D. 052301C]

Endangered and Threatened Species;

Take of Anadromous Fish

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA),

Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of final determination

and discussion of underlying biological

analysis.

SUMMARY: NMFS has evaluated the joint

resource management plan (RMP),

provided by the Washington

Department of Fish and Wildlife and the

Point-No-Point Treaty Tribes (Comanagers) for harvest of Hood Canal and

Strait of Juan de Fuca summer-run

chum salmon pursuant to the protective

regulations promulgated for Hood Canal

summer-run chum salmon under the

Endangered Species Act (ESA). The

RMP (the harvest component of the

Summer Chum Salmon Conservation

Initiative - An Implementation Plan to

Recover Summer Chum Salmon in the

Hood Canal and Strait of Juan de Fuca

Region [SCSCI]) specifies the future

management of commercial,

recreational, and tribal salmon fisheries

that potentially affect listed Hood Canal

summer-run chum salmon.

This document serves to notify the

public that NMFS, by delegated

authority from the Secretary of

Commerce, has determined that

implementing and enforcing the RMP

will not appreciably reduce the

likelihood of survival and recovery of

the Hood Canal summer-run chum

salmon Evolutionarily Significant Unit

(ESU). This document also includes a

summary of the underlying biological

analysis used in the determination

(Evaluation).

DATES: The final determination on the

take limit was made on April 27, 2001.

ADDRESSES: Sustainable Fisheries

Division, National Marine Fisheries

Service, 7600 Sand Point Way NE,

Seattle, Washington 98115–0070.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Keith Schultz at: 206/526–4447, or email: keith.schultz@noaa.gov regarding

the RMP.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This

notice is relevant to the Hood Canal

Summer-Run Chum Salmon

(Oncorhynchus keta) ESU.

Electronic Access

The full texts of NMFS’

determination, and the final Evaluation

are available on the Internet at the

NMFS, Sustainable Fisheries Division

wed site at: http://www.nwr.noaa.gov/

1sustfsh/limit6/index.html.

The Summer Chum Salmon

Conservation Initiative - An

Implementation Plan to Recover

Summer Chum Salmon in the Hood

Canal and Strait of Juan de Fuca Region

is available on the Internet at the State

of Washington, Department of Fish and

Wildlife web site: http://www.wa.gov/

wdfw/fish/chum/chum.htm.

Background

The Washington Department of Fish

and Wildlife and the Point-No-Point

Treaty Tribes provided NMFS a jointly

developed RMP for Hood Canal and

Strait of Juan de Fuca summer-run

chum salmon. The RMP encompasses

Washington Coastal and Puget Sound

salmon fisheries affecting the Hood

Canal summer-run chum salmon ESU.

Harvest objectives specified in the RMP

account for fisheries-related mortality

throughout the migratory range of Hood

Canal and Strait of Juan de Fuca

summer chum salmon, from Northern

British Columbia, Canada to South

Puget Sound. The RMP also includes

implementation, monitoring and

evaluation procedures designed to

ensure fisheries are consistent with

these objectives.

On March 13, 2001, at 66 FR 14551,

NMFS published a notice of availability

for public review and comment on its

evaluation of how the Hood Canal

summer-run chum salmon RMP

addressed the criteria in § 223.203(b)(4)

of the ESA 4(d) rule (65 FR 42477).

As required by § 223.203 (b)(6) of the

ESA 4(d) rule, NMFS must determine

pursuant to 50 CFR 223.209 and

pursuant to the government to

government processes therein whether

the RMP for Hood Canal summer-run

chum salmon would appreciably reduce

the likelihood of survival and recovery

of the Hood Canal Summer-Run Chum

Salmon ESU and other affected

threatened ESUs. NMFS must take

comments on how the RMP addresses