Click here for Adobe Acrobat version
Click here for Microsoft Word version
This document was converted from Microsoft Word.
Content from the original version of the document such as
headers, footers, footnotes, endnotes, graphics, and page numbers
will not show up in this text version.
All text attributes such as bold, italic, underlining, etc. from the
original document will not show up in this text version.
Features of the original document layout such as
columns, tables, line and letter spacing, pagination, and margins
will not be preserved in the text version.
If you need the complete document, download the
Microsoft Word or Adobe Acrobat version.
April 20, 2007
VIA CERTIFIED MAIL
RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED
AND FACSIMILE AT 231-933-4303
Mr. Mike Waggener
1580 N. East Silver Lake Road
Traverse City, Michigan 49684-8030
Re: File No. EB-07-SE-081
Dear Mr. Waggener:
This is an official CITATION, issued pursuant to Section 503(b)(5) of the
Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Act"), 47 U.S.C. S 503(b)(5), for
marketing in the United States certain police radar jamming devices
manufactured by Rocky Mountain Radar ("RMR"), specifically, the RMR-S201
and RMR-C450 devices, in violation of Section 302(b) of the Act, 47 U.S.C.
S 302a(b), and Sections 2.803, 15.205 and 15.209 of the Commission's Rules
("Rules"), 47 C.F.R. SS 2.803, 15.205 and 15.209. As explained below,
future violations of the Commission's rules in this regard may subject
your company to monetary forfeitures.
On February 22, 2007, the Spectrum Enforcement Division ("Division") of
the Enforcement Bureau received a complaint alleging that DSMiller.com is
marketing the RMR-S201 and the RMR-C450 devices. On April 4, 2007, the
Division staff visited DSMiller.com's Internet web site at www.
DSMiller.com and observed that DSMiller.com is marketing the RMR-S201 and
On January 31, 2007, the Division issued a Notice of Apparent Liability
for Forfeiture ("NAL") proposing a $25,000 forfeiture against RMR for
marketing the RMR-S201 and RMR-C450 devices in apparent willful and
repeated violation of Section 302(b) of the Act and Sections 2.803, 15.205
and 15.209 of the Rules. In the NAL, we noted that the Commission's Office
of Engineering and Technology ("OET") Laboratory had obtained samples of
the RMR-S201 and RMR-C450 devices directly from RMR for testing. Testing
of the samples indicated that both units are designed to emit a signal
that intentionally interferes with a licensed radio service (police
radar), and are indeed capable of interfering with police radar.
Therefore, the OET Laboratory concluded that the devices are intentional
radiators, as described in Section 15.3(o) of the Rules, 47 C.F.R. S
15.3(o). In addition, the OET Laboratory's tests indicated that the
RMR-C450 device produced a radiated emission at 11.23 GHz, a restricted
frequency band listed in Section 15.205 of the Rules, and that this
radiated emission substantially exceeds the radiated emission limits for
intentional radiators specified in Section 15.209 of the Rules. The OET
Laboratory also concluded that the RMR-C450 device was improperly
certified. In this regard, the OET Laboratory noted that the grant of
certification issued for the RMR-C450 device indicates that the device was
tested as an "unintentional radiator." As explained above, however, the
OET Laboratory found that the device is an intentional radiator.
Section 302(b) of the Act provides that "[n]o person shall manufacture,
import, sell, offer for sale, or ship devices or home electronic equipment
and systems, or use devices, which fail to comply with regulations
promulgated pursuant to this section." Section 2.803(a)(1) of the Rules,
47 C.F.R. S 2.803(a)(1), provides that:
no person shall sell or lease, or offer for sale or lease (including
advertising for sale or lease), or import, ship, or distribute for the
purpose of selling or leasing or offering for sale or lease, any radio
frequency device unless ... [i]n the case of a device subject to
certification, such device has been authorized by the Commission in
accordance with the rules in this chapter and is properly identified and
labeled as required by S 2.925 and other relevant sections in this
Pursuant to Section 15.201 of the Rules, 47 C.F.R. S 15.201, intentional
radiators must ordinarily be authorized in accordance with the
certification procedure prior to marketing. Section 2.803(g) of the Rules,
47 C.F.R. S 2.803(g), however, provides in pertinent part that:
[R]adio frequency devices that could not be authorized or legally operated
under the current rules ... shall not be operated, advertised, displayed,
offered for sale or lease, sold or leased, or otherwise marketed absent a
license issued under part 5 of this chapter or a special temporary
authorization issued by the Commission.
Further, Section 333 of the Act, 47 U.S.C. S 333, prohibits any person
from willfully or maliciously interfering with or causing interference to
any radio communications of any station licensed or authorized by the
Commission. Moreover, Section 15.205 of the Rules prohibits radiated
emissions, other than spurious emissions, in any of the restricted
frequency bands listed in that section. Thus, intentional radiators that
cannot legally be operated - because, for example, they interfere with or
jam licensed police radio facilities or operate in restricted frequency
bands - are not eligible for a grant of equipment certification. Finally,
Section 15.209 of the Rules sets forth the radiated emission limits
applicable to intentional radiators.
As noted above, contrary to the claims of RMR, the RMR-S201 and RMR-C450
devices are intentional radiators. These devices are not, however,
eligible for a grant of certification because their intended purpose is to
interfere with Commission authorized radio facilities, specifically,
licensed police radar, in violation of Section 333 of the Act, and the OET
Laboratory has determined that these devices in fact are capable of
interfering with police radar. Moreover, there are two additional grounds
for finding the marketing of the RMR-C450 device to be unlawful. The
RMR-C450 device is not eligible for a grant of certification because it
produces a radiated emission in the restricted frequency band at 11.23 GHz
in violation of Section 15.205 of the Rules. This radiated emission also
substantially exceeds the radiated emission limits for intentional
radiators specified in Section 15.209 of the Rules.
Additionally, the record before us indicates that DSMiller.com apparently
is and has been marketing the RMR-S201 and the RMR-C450 devices.
Accordingly, it appears that DSMiller.com has violated Section 302(b) of
the Act and Section 2.803 of the Rules by marketing the RMR-S201 and
RMR-C450 devices, which are not eligible for a grant of equipment
certification because they are intended to interfere with licensed police
radar, in violation of Section 333 of the Act. DSMiller.com has also
apparently violated Section 302(b) of the Act and Sections 2.803, 15.205
and 15.209 of the Rules by marketing the RMR-C450 device, which is not
eligible for a grant of equipment certification because it produces a
radiated emission in the restricted frequency band at 11.23 GHz, and which
produces emissions that substantially exceed the radiated emission limits
for intentional radiators.
If, after receipt of this citation, DSMiller.com violates the
Communications Act or the Commission's rules in any manner described
herein, the Commission may impose monetary forfeitures not to exceed
$11,000 for each such violation or each day of a continuing violation.
If you choose to do so, you may respond to this citation within 30 days
from the date of this letter either through (1) a personal interview at
the Commission's Field Office nearest to your place of business, or (2) a
written statement. Your response should specify the actions that
DSMiller.com is taking to ensure that it does not violate the Commission's
rules governing the marketing of intentional radiating jamming devices in
The nearest Commission field office is the Detroit Office in Detroit,
Michigan. Please call Katherine Power at 202-418-0919 if you wish to
schedule a personal interview. You should schedule any interview to take
place within 30 days of the date of this letter. You should send any
written statement within 30 days of the date of this letter to:
Kathryn S. Berthot
Chief, Spectrum Enforcement Division
Federal Communications Commission
445 12^th Street, S.W., Rm. 3-C366
Washington, D.C. 20554
Under the Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. S 552(a)(e)(3), we are informing
you that the Commission's staff will use all relevant material information
before it, including information that you disclose in your interview or
written statement, to determine what, if any, enforcement action is
required to ensure your compliance with the Communications Act and the
The knowing and willful making of any false statement, or the concealment
of any material fact, in reply to this citation is punishable by fine or
imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. S 1001.
Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation.
Kathryn S. Berthot
Chief, Spectrum Enforcement Division
Rocky Mountain Radar, Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture, 22 FCC
Rcd 1334 (Enf. Bur., Spectrum Enf. Div., 2007) ("RMR").
Id. at 1335.
Id. An intentional radiator is defined by Section 15.3(o) of the Rules, 47
C.F.R. S 15.3(o), as "[a] device that intentionally generates and emits
radio frequency energy by radiation or induction."
RMR, 22 FCC Rcd at 1335.
Id. RMR obtained certification for the RMR-C450 under FCC ID No. QKK-C03
by representing to a Telecommunications Certification Body that the device
was a radar detector. We note, however, that RMR marketed the device as a
radar detector and a radar "scrambler."
RMR, 22 FCC Rcd at 1335. An "unintentional radiator" is defined by Section
15.3(z) of the Rules, 47 C.F.R. S 15.3(z), as:
[a] device that intentionally generates radio frequency energy for use
within the device, or that sends radio frequency signals by conduction to
associated equipment via connecting wiring, but which is not intended to
emit RF energy by radiation or induction.
Section 2.1(c) of the Rules, 47 C.F.R. S 2.1(c), defines a spurious
emission as "[e]mission on a frequency or frequencies which are outside
the necessary bandwidth and the level of which may be reduced without
affecting the corresponding transmission of information."
RMR, 22 FCC Rcd at 1337-8.
Id. at 1338.
See 47 C.F.R. S 1.80(b)(3).
Federal Communications Commission DA 07-1767
Federal Communications Commission DA 07-1767
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554