Skip Navigation

Federal Communications Commission

English Display Options

Commission Document

Order on Reconsideration, LoJack Corp.

Download Options

Released: March 20, 2012

Federal Communications Commission

DA 12-429

Before the

Federal Communications Commission

Washington, D.C. 20554

In the Matter of
)
)
Request by LoJack Corporation for a Partial
)
WT Docket No. 06-142
Waiver of Section 90.20(e)(6) and Part 2
)
of the Commission’s Rules
)

ORDER ON RECONSIDERATION

Adopted: March 19, 2012

Released: March 20, 2012

By the Chief, Public Safety and Homeland Security Bureau:

I.

INTRODUCTION

1.
On October 3, 2011, Hammett & Edison, Inc., Consulting Engineers (H&E) requested
reconsideration1 of a September 14, 2011, Declaratory Ruling and Order (DR&O) that granted a partial
waiver to LoJack Corporation (LoJack) concerning Stolen Vehicle Recovery Systems (SVRS).2 For the
reasons below, we dismiss the Amended Petition.

II.

BACKGROUND

2.
The DR&O declared that mobile and portable SVRS devices may transmit activation
signals on frequency 173.075 MHz; waived Section 2.106 of the Commission’s rules3 to permit any non-
law enforcement, Public Safety Pool eligible entity to transmit activation signals using mobile and
portable SVRS devices; and waived Section 90.20(e)(6)(v) and (vi) of the Commission’s rules4 to allow
SVRS transmitters to use a new duty cycle.5 H&E states that two aspects of the DR&O “are not
supported by the docket record.”6 First, H&E disagrees that increasing the universe of SVRS eligibles
from police to all public safety eligibles will not increase the use of LoJack signals.7 Second, H&E
challenges the DR&O’s analysis and conclusion that a SVRS signal operating just below TV Channel 7
will be incapable of causing interference to DTV reception.8 H&E argues that it is not in the public


1 Petition for Reconsideration of Hammett & Edison, Inc., Consulting Engineers, WT Docket No. 06-142, (filed Oct.
3, 2011, amended Oct. 12, 2011) (Amended Petition).
2 Request by LoJack Corporation for a Partial Waiver of Section 90.20(e)(6) and Part 2 of the Commission’s Rules,
WT Docket No. 06-142, Declaratory Ruling and Order, 26 FCC Rcd 12991 (PSHSB 2011) (DR&O).
3 47 C.F.R. § 2.106.
4 47 C.F.R. § 90.20(e)(6)(v), (vi).
5 See DR&O.
6 Amended Petition at 1.
7 See Amended Petition at 1-2.
8 See Amended Petition at 2; see also DR&O, 26 FCC Rcd at 12999 ¶ 18. Frequency 173.075 MHz is 925 kHz
below the lower edge of the TV Channel 7 band (174-180 MHz).

Federal Communications Commission

DA 12-429

interest to grant the waiver until such time as OET has completed laboratory tests on the effects of narrow
band SVRS signals to the reception of digital television (DTV) Channel 7.9
3.
On October 17, 2011, LoJack filed an Opposition to Petition for Reconsideration
(Opposition) including a new technical exhibit supporting that part of the DR&O’s conclusion that DTV
receivers are more tolerant to SVRS transmissions than are analog receivers.10 On October 25, 2011,
H&E filed a Reply to Opposition to Petition for Reconsideration stating that “the WT 06-142 record now
includes a basis for concluding that a narrow band SVRS signal would not be an interference threat to
DTV Channel 7 reception,” and that the issues that H&E raised in the Amended Petition have “become
moot.”11
4.
Specifically, based on tests by the Digital HDTV Grand Alliance System included in the
Opposition, H&E concludes that a narrow band signal at 925 kHz below the lower channel edge of a
DTV channel (i.e., the displacement of a 173.075 MHz SVRS signal from the lower boundary of TV
Channel 7) would produce a desired-to-undesired signal ratio of -47 dB.12 Because this ratio is
“substantially more relaxed” than the assumed ratio of -33 dB from the DR&O, H&E states that “the
issues of higher power SVRS signals, increased SVRS transmissions, and longer duty cycle become
moot.”13 Based on the updated record, H&E suggests that the Commission amend Section 90.20(e)(6) to
update the TV Channel 7 protection criteria and interference analysis requirements to reflect the transition
from analog to digital television.14

III.

DISCUSSION

5.
In its reply, H&E states that the record in this proceeding now renders moot H&E’s
earlier concerns and arguments regarding the waiver grant to LoJack in the DR&O. We conclude, based
on the record in this proceeding, that there is no reason for revisiting the decision to grant LoJack a
waiver. Accordingly, we dismiss the Amended Petition.
6.
Regarding H&E’s suggestion that the Commission amend Section 90.20(e)(6), H&E or
any other interested party may file a petition for rulemaking in accordance with Section 1.401 of the
Commission’s rules.15 If granted, such a rulemaking proceeding could seek comment on issues including
the DTV Channel 7 protection criteria of Section 90.20(e)(6) as well as the applicability of the Digital
HDTV Grand Alliance System report to the SVRS-into-DTV Channel 7 scenario. Such a rulemaking


9 Amended Petition at 1.
10 Opposition to Petition for Reconsideration, WT Docket No. 06-142, filed by the LoJack Corporation on Oct. 17,
2011, attached Technical Statement in Response to a Petition for Reconsideration, LoJack Stolen Vehicle Recovery
System, prepared by du Treil, Lundin & Rackley, Inc., Consulting Engineers, dated Oct. 17, 2011 at 2 citing
attached excerpt from Digital HDTV Grand Alliance System, Record of Test Results, submitted to Advisory
Committee on Advanced Television Service of the Federal Communications Commission, October, 1995.
11 Reply to Opposition to Petition for Reconsideration of Hammett & Edison, Inc., Consulting Engineers, WT
Docket No. 06-142, (filed Oct. 25, 2011) (H&E Reply) at 2.
12 See id. at 2. H&E attributes the tests as “by the Advisory Committee on Advanced Television Service,” but it was
submitted to the Advisory Committee on Advanced Television Service of the Federal Communications Commission
by the Digital HDTV Grand Alliance. See supra n. 10.
13 H&E Reply at 2.
14 See id. at 2-4. See also 47 C.F.R. § 90.20(e)(6)(viii).
15 47 C.F.R. § 1.401.
2

Federal Communications Commission

DA 12-429

proceeding also could provide an opportunity to seek comment on amending the rules so that waivers of
the kind granted in the DR&O would no longer be necessary.

IV.

CONCLUSION

7.
Based on the foregoing, we dismiss the Amended Petition.

V.

ORDERING CLAUSES

8.
Accordingly, WE ORDER, pursuant to Section 4(i) of the Communications Act of 1934,
as amended, 47 U.S.C. § 154(i), and Section 1.106 of the Commission’s rules, 47 C.F.R. § 1.106, that the
Petition for Reconsideration, as amended, filed by the Hammett & Edison, Inc., Consulting Engineers, IS
DISMISSED.
9.
We take this action under delegated authority, pursuant to Sections 0.191 and 0.392 of
the Commission’s rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.191, 0.392.
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
James Arden Barnett, Jr., Rear Admiral (Ret.)
Chief
Public Safety and Homeland Security Bureau
3

Note: We are currently transitioning our documents into web compatible formats for easier reading. We have done our best to supply this content to you in a presentable form, but there may be some formatting issues while we improve the technology. The original version of the document is available as a PDF, Word Document, or as plain text.

close
FCC

You are leaving the FCC website

You are about to leave the FCC website and visit a third-party, non-governmental website that the FCC does not maintain or control. The FCC does not endorse any product or service, and is not responsible for, nor can it guarantee the validity or timeliness of the content on the page you are about to visit. Additionally, the privacy policies of this third-party page may differ from those of the FCC.