Click here for Adobe Acrobat version
Click here for Microsoft Word version

******************************************************** 
                      NOTICE
********************************************************

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.

*****************************************************************



                                   Before the

                       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:

   I. introduction

    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").

   II. background

    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
       devices ...."

    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
       website, www.rockymountainradar.com.

   III. discussion

    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
   radiators.

     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
       documentation submitted.

   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

   Enforcement Bureau

   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
   "jammers" herein.

   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.

   See http://www.rockymountainradar.com/products.sstg.

   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,
   4388 (1991).

   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
   separate violation).

   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
   Statement").

   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
   adjustment factor).

   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)

   (continued....)

   Federal Communications Commission DA 07-299

   4

   Federal Communications Commission DA 07-299