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.
Federal Communications Commission
Washington, D.C. 20554
In the Matter of File No. EB-05-SE-225
Rocky Mountain Radar NAL/Acct. No. 200732100010
El Paso, TX FRN # 0007500796
NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE
Adopted: January 29, 2007 Released: January 31, 2007
By the Chief, Spectrum Enforcement Division, Enforcement Bureau:
1. In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL"), we find
Rocky Mountain Radar ("RMR") apparently liable for a forfeiture in the
amount of twenty-five thousand dollars ($25,000) for willful and
repeated violation of Section 302(b) of the Communications Act of
1934, as amended ("Act"), and Sections 2.803, 15.205 and 15.209 of the
Commission's Rules ("Rules"). The noted apparent violations involve
RMR's marketing of its RMR-S201 and RMR-C450 models of police radar
jamming devices ("jammers").
2. The Spectrum Enforcement Division ("Division") of the Enforcement
Bureau obtained information, through several informal complaints,
alleging that RMR was manufacturing and marketing unauthorized police
radar jammers in the United States. The Division's investigation
indicates that the radar jammers are intended for use by motorists to
prevent law enforcement officials from measuring the speed of the
users' vehicles. The Division preliminarily determined that at least
two of the models, the RMR-S201 (also known as the Phazer II) and the
RMR-C450 jammers, were intentional radiators, devices which are
generally required under Section 15.201 of the Rules to be approved
prior to marketing through the certification procedures described in
Sections 2.1031 - 2.1060 of the Rules. The Division also concluded,
however, that the devices under investigation were apparently not
eligible to receive a grant of certification because their intended
purpose is to interfere with a licensed radio service, a violation of
Section 333 of the Act.
3. On August 9, 2005, the Division sent RMR a letter of inquiry ("LOI")
seeking further information with regard to its devices. In its
response to the LOI, RMR acknowledges that it markets and manufactures
the devices, but denies that the devices under investigation are
intentional radiators, stating "I hereby certify and affirm that none
of the products listed [in the LOI]... are intentional radiators as
defined by Part 15 .... None of the products is designed as an
intentional radiator nor are they manufactured for that purpose or
with that capability .... [W]e neither market nor manufacture any such
4. Subsequently, the Commission's Office of Engineering and Technology
("OET") Laboratory 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 radio service (licensed 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. In addition,
the OET Laboratory's tests indicated that the RMR-C450 device produced
a radiated emission in the restricted frequency band at 11.23 GHz that
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.
5. Research conducted by Division staff indicates that, as of January 19,
2007, RMR continued to market the RMR-S201 and RMR-C450 on its company
6. 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 Commission's implementing regulations provides in
pertinent part that:
Except as provided elsewhere in this section, 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 radiofrequency 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 chapter.
As noted above, under Section 15.201 of the Rules, intentional radiators
must ordinarily be authorized in accordance with the certification
procedure prior to marketing. Section 2.803(g) of the Rules, 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 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 radar 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
A. Marketing of unauthorized radio frequency devices
7. RMR claims that the RMR-S201 and RMR-C450 devices cannot generate RF
energy of their own, but that they simply reflect an altered version
of an incoming radar signal. Therefore, RMR asserts, its devices
cannot be considered intentional radiators as defined in the
Commission's rules. This argument is without merit. The Commission has
previously ruled that similar devices marketed by RMR were indeed
intentional radiators. In 1997, the former Compliance and Information
Bureau issued an official citation to RMR advising it that the
manufacture and marketing of its Spirit II radar jammer violated
Section 302 of the Act and Section 2.803 of the Rules. In a subsequent
Memorandum Opinion and Order, the Commission denied an application for
review and petition to stay the official citation. The Commission
concluded that "[t]he Spirit II, and any other similar device, meets
the definition of an intentional radiator contained in Section 15.3(o)
of the rules and therefore we hold that marketing of the Spirit II and
any other similar device without FCC equipment authorization is in
violation of Sections 15.201(a) and 2.803 of the Commission's Rules."
(emphasis added). The Commission's determination was upheld by the
United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit.
8. The RMR-S201and RMR-C450 model devices function in a similar manner to
the Spirit II model. Specifically, the Spirit II was designed with "a
mixer diode inside a wave guide cavity with ridged antenna and
matching screw." The current RMR-S201and RMR-C450 models contain "an
FM chirp generator, a mixer diode and a dual ridge wave-guide
antenna." The radar jamming functionality of each device occurs when
an incoming signal from police radar is used to create a new signal by
the internal circuitry of the jammers, and then is re-transmitted.
Based on the OET Laboratory's analysis, we conclude that if a device
mixes an FM chirp generator with an incoming signal and sends the
resultant signal to an antenna, then by definition it is an
intentional radiator as described in Section 15.3(o) of the Rules.
Accordingly, based on the information before us, the RMR-S201 and
RMR-C450 devices are intentional radiators.
9. As noted above, research by Division staff indicates that as of
January 19, 2007, RMR was continuing to market the RMR-S201 and
RMR-C450 devices through its company website. As intentional
radiators, these devices would ordinarily be required to be certified
prior to marketing. 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. We accordingly conclude that RMR
apparently violated Section 302(a) of the Act and Section 2.803 of the
Rules by willfully and repeatedly 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.
10. We further conclude that there are two additional grounds for finding
RMR's 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.
Accordingly, we conclude that RMR apparently willfully and repeatedly
violated Section 302(a) 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.
A. Proposed Forfeiture
11. Section 503(b)(1) of the Act and Section 1.80(a)(1) of the Rules
authorize the Commission to assess a forfeiture for each willful or
repeated violation of the Act or of any rule, regulation, or order
issued by the Commission under the Act. In determining the appropriate
forfeiture amount, Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act directs us to
consider factors, such as "the nature, circumstances, extent, and
gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree
of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and
such other matters as justice may require."
12. Under Section 503(b)(2)(C) of the Act and Section 1.80(b)(3) of the
Rules, the Commission is authorized to assess a maximum forfeiture of
$11,000 for each violation, or each day of a continuing violation, by
a non-common carrier or other entity not specifically designated in
Section 503(b)(2), up to a statutory maximum forfeiture of $97,500 for
any single continuing violation. In addition, under Section 1.80 of
the Rules the Commission has established a base forfeiture amount of
$7,000 for the marketing of unauthorized equipment.
13. In this case, RMR is marketing two models of unauthorized intentional
radiators. RMR's marketing of each of these unauthorized models is a
separate violation. We find that a base forfeiture amount of $7,000 is
apparently warranted for each model, for a total proposed base
forfeiture of $14,000. That aggregate base forfeiture amount is,
however, subject to an upward adjustment.
14. Having considered the statutory factors enumerated above, we conclude
that a significant upward adjustment is warranted. We find the
violations here are intentional given that RMR marketed these devices
after the Commission's 1997 Memorandum Opinion and Order and the
subsequent Tenth Circuit Order put it on explicit notice that the
marketing of these types of devices is unlawful. RMR's continuing
violation of the equipment authorization requirements evinces a
pattern of intentional non-compliance with and disregard for these
rules. Accordingly, we find that an upward adjustment of $11,000 over
the $14,000 base forfeiture amount is warranted. We conclude that RMR
is apparently liable for a $25,000 forfeiture.
IV. ORDERING CLAUSES
15. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to pursuant to Section
503(b) of the Act and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80 of the Rules,
Rocky Mountain Radio IS hereby NOTIFIED of its APPARENT LIABILITY FOR
A FORFEITURE in the amount of twenty-five thousand dollars ($25,000)
for willfully and repeatedly violating Section 302(b) of the Act and
Sections 2.803, 15.205 and 15.209 of the Rules.
16. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 1.80 of the Rules,
within thirty days of the release date of this Notice of Apparent
Liability for Forfeiture, Rocky Mountain Radar SHALL PAY the full
amount of the proposed forfeiture or SHALL FILE a written statement
seeking reduction or cancellation of the proposed forfeiture.
17. Payment of the forfeiture must be made by check or similar instrument,
payable to the order of the Federal Communications Commission. The
payment must include the NAL/Acct. No. and FRN No. referenced above.
Payment by check or money order may be mailed to Federal
Communications Commission, P.O. Box 358340, Pittsburgh, PA 15251-8340.
Payment by overnight mail may be sent to Mellon Bank/LB358340, 500
Ross Street, Room 1540670, Pittsburgh, PA 15251. Payment by wire
transfer may be made to ABA Number 043000261, receiving bank Mellon
Bank, and account number 911-6106.
18. The response, if any, must be mailed to the Office of the Secretary,
Federal Communications Commission, 445 12th Street, S.W., Washington,
D.C. 20554, ATTN: Enforcement Bureau - Spectrum Enforcement Division,
and must include the NAL/Acct. No. referenced in the caption.
19. The Commission will not consider reducing or canceling a forfeiture in
response to a claim of inability to pay unless the petitioner submits:
(1) federal tax returns for the most recent three-year period; (2)
financial statements prepared according to generally accepted
accounting practices; or (3) some other reliable and objective
documentation that accurately reflects the petitioner's current
financial status. Any claim of inability to pay must specifically
identify the basis for the claim by reference to the financial
20. Requests for payment of the full amount of this NAL under an
installment plan should be sent to: Associate Managing
Director--Financial Operations, 445 12th Street, S.W., Room 1-A625,
Washington, D.C. 20554.
21. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this Notice of Apparent Liability
for Forfeiture shall be sent by first class mail and certified mail
return receipt requested to Michael B. Churchman, President, Rocky
Mountain Radar, 6469 Doniphan Dr., El Paso, Texas 79932.
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
Kathryn S. Berthot
Chief, Spectrum Enforcement Division
47 U.S.C. S 302a(b).
47 C.F.R. SS 2.803, 15.205 and 15.209.
RMR markets the RMR-S201 device as a radar "scrambler." RMR markets the
RMR-C450 device as a combination radar detector and radar "scrambler."
Based on the operative goals and characteristics of the devices, which are
to cause police radar gun receivers to fail, we refer to the devices as
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."
47 C.F.R. S 15.201.
"Marketing" is defined as "sale or lease, or offering for sale or lease,
including advertising for sale or lease, or importation, shipment, or
distribution for the purpose of selling or leasing or offering for sale or
lease." 47 C.F.R. S 2.803(e)(4).
47 C.F.R. SS 2.1031 - 2.1060.
47 U.S.C. S 333.
Letter from Kathryn S. Berthot, Deputy Chief, Spectrum Enforcement
Division, to Michael B. Churchman, President, Rocky Mountain Radar (August
9, 2005). Attachment A listed RMR models: RMR-C410, RMR-C430, RMR-C450,
RMR-S201 (Phazer II), and RMR-DLS312.
Letter from Michael B. Churchman, President, Rocky Mountain Radar, to
Susan Magnotti, Spectrum Enforcement Division, Enforcement Bureau
(September 6, 2005).
Id. RMR obtained certification of the RMR C-450 under FCC ID No. QKK-C03
by representing to a Telecommunications Certification Body that the device
was a radar detector. The use of radar detectors by motorists is not a
violation of Commission rules. As noted above, however, RMR markets the
RMR C-450 as both a radar detector and a radar "scrambler."
47 C.F.R. S 15.209.
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.
47 C.F.R. S 2.801 defines a radiofrequency device as "any device which in
it its operation is capable of emitting radiofrequency energy by
radiation, conduction, or other means."
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."
Rocky Mountain Radar, Citation (Compliance and Inf. Bur., Compliance Div.,
Inv. Group, February 13, 1997). The citation was issued pursuant to 47
U.S.C. S 503(b)(5).
Rocky Mountain Radar Application for Review, Request for Expedited Action,
and Emergency Petition for Stay of Official Citations, Memorandum Opinion
and Order, 12 FCC Rcd 22453 (1997).
Id. at 22456.
Rocky Mountain Radar, Inc. v. FCC, 158 F.3d 1118 (10th Cir. 1998) ("Tenth
Circuit Order"), cert. denied, 525 U.S. 1147 (1999).
See Letter from Hugh V. H. Bishop, RMR consulting engineer, to Mr. Michael
Churchman, President, Rocky Mountain Radar, dated August 12, 1997. The
Spirit II device included an electronic component that produced a new
signal based on the frequency of the incoming police radar signal, then
transmitted the new signal through a specialized antenna back to the
police radar gun receiver.
See http://www.rockymountainradar.com/faq_detail.sstg?id=1. The
RMR-S201and RMR-C450 model devices include an electronic component that
generates a frequency modulated signal which, in combination with another
electronic component, alters the incoming police radar signal to produce a
new signal. The new signal is then transmitted through a specialized
antenna back to the police radar gun receiver.
Section 312(f)(1) of the Act defines "willful" as "the conscious and
deliberate commission or omission of [any] act, irrespective of any intent
to violate" the law, and Section 312(f)(2) of the Act defines "repeated"
as "the commission or omission of such act more than once" and if
continuous "more than one day." 47 U.S.C. S 312(f)(1) and (2). The
legislative history of Section 312(f) establishes that these definitions
apply to forfeitures proposed under Section 503(b) of the Act. See H.R.
Rep. No. 97-765, 97^th Cong. 2d Sess. 51 (1982). See also Southern
California Broadcasting Co., Memorandum Opinion and Order, 6 FCC Rcd 4387,
47 U.S.C. S 503(b)(1); 47 C.F.R. S 1.80(a)(1).
47 U.S.C. S 503(b)(2)(D).
47 U.S.C. S 503(b)(2)(C); 47 C.F.R. 1.80(b)(3).
In 2004, the Commission amended Section 1.80(b)(3) of the Rules, 47 C.F.R.
S 1.80(b)(3), to increase the maximum forfeiture amounts in accordance
with the inflation adjustment requirements contained in the Debt
Collection Improvement Act of 1996, 28 U.S.C. S 2461. See Amendment of
Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima
to Reflect Inflation, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 10945 (2004) (adjusting the
maximum statutory forfeiture amounts from $11,000/$87,500 to
$11,000/$97,500); see also 47 C.F.R. S 1.80(c).
See, e.g., San Jose Navigation, Inc., Notice of Apparent Liability for
Forfeiture, 21 FCC Rcd 2873 (2006), forfeiture ordered, Forfeiture Order,
FCC 07-3 (released January 16, 2007); Samson Technologies, Inc., Notice of
Apparent Liability for Forfeiture, 19 FCC Rcd 4221, 4225 (2004), consent
decree ordered, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 24509 (2004) (both finding that the
marketing of each separate model of unauthorized equipment constitutes a
See The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section
1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, Report and
Order, 12 FCC Rcd 17087, 17112 (1997), recon. denied, Memorandum Opinion
and Order, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) (noting that we "retain the discretion to
issue a higher or lower forfeiture" than the base forfeiture amounts set
forth in our Rules and our Forfeiture Guidelines) ("Forfeiture Policy
See Forfeiture Policy Statement, 12 FCC Rcd at 17100; see also 47 C.F.R. S
1.80(b)(4), Note to paragraph (b)(4): Section II. Adjustment Criteria for
Section 503 Forfeitures (establishing intentional violation as an upward
See e.g., Pilot Travel Centers, LLC, Notice of Apparent Liability for
Forfeiture, 19 FCC Rcd 23113, 23114 (2004) (upwardly adjusting a proposed
forfeiture for marketing non-certified CB transceivers where an entity
continued to market the devices after receiving Citations that put it on
notice that the marketing of this type of equipment was unlawful)
(subsequent history omitted).
47 U.S.C. S 503(b).
47 C.F.R. SS 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80.
See 47 C.F.R. S 1.1914.
(Continued from previous page)
Federal Communications Commission DA 07-299
Federal Communications Commission DA 07-299