**Before the**

**Federal Communications Commission**

**Washington, D.C. 20554**

+----------------------------------+---+------------------------------+
| In the Matter of                 | * | ET Docket 01-278             |
|                                  | * |                              |
| Review of Part 15 and other      | ) |                              |
| Parts of the Commission's Rules. | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  |   |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | ) |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  |   |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | ) |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  |   |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | ) |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
+----------------------------------+---+------------------------------+

**FIRST REPORT AND ORDER**

**Adopted: July 12, 2002 Released: July 19, 2002**

By the Commission:

# Introduction

1.  By this action, we are requiring that radar detectors comply with
    radiated emission limits in the 11.7-12.2 GHz band under Part 15 of
    the rules, and that all radar detectors be certified to demonstrate
    compliance with the emission limits before they can be marketed.[^1]
    The requirements will become effective thirty days from the
    publication of the rules in the Federal Register for radar detectors
    being manufactured and imported, and sixty days after publication of
    the rules in the Federal Register for radar detectors being
    marketed. This action will significantly reduce interference from
    radar detectors to very small aperture satellite terminals
    (VSATs.)[^2]

# BACKGROUND

2.  Most receivers contain one or more oscillators that generate radio
    frequency signals intended to be used internally within the device
    in tuning the received signal. These generated signals can radiate
    from the receiver and have the potential to interfere with other
    nearby receivers. For this reason, Part 15 of the Commission's rules
    requires certain receivers to meet the radiated emission limits for
    "unintentional radiators" to minimize the possibility of
    interference.[^3] The current rules require only receivers that tune
    in the range of 30-960 MHz and Citizen's Band receivers to comply
    with these limits.[^4] Other receivers are not required to comply
    with the limits, but the rules require that any receiver that causes
    interference must cease operation.[^5] When these requirements were
    established, most consumer receivers tuned only below 960 MHz.
    Because there was less probability of receivers that tune above 960
    MHz causing interference, the rules did not require such receivers
    to meet emission limits or to receive an equipment authorization.
    The emission limit that applies to unintentional radiators other
    than receivers at frequencies above 960 MHz is a field strength
    limit of 500 µV/m measured at a distance of 3 meters.[^6]

3.  Radar detectors that warn of the presence of police speed-measuring
    radars are currently exempt from complying with the Part 15 emission
    limits because they are receivers that tune only above 960 MHz. They
    are designed to monitor for the presence of police radar in several
    frequency bands, including the 10.50-10.55 GHz, 24.05-24.25 GHz and
    33.4-36.0 GHz bands.[^7] Radar detectors contain a tuning oscillator
    that operates above the 10.50-10.55 GHz band. In older models this
    oscillator generally operated on frequencies below the 11.7-12.2 GHz
    VSAT downlink band, and we have not received complaints of
    interference to VSATs from such models. However, the potential for
    radar detectors to interfere with VSATs has recently increased
    because radar detector manufacturers have begun using oscillators at
    higher frequencies that place swept frequency emissions within the
    VSAT downlink band. The purpose of these changes was to enhance
    detection of police radar while making it more difficult for police
    to detect the presence of radar detectors in vehicles.[^8]

4.  On October 15, 2001, the Commission adopted a *Notice of Proposed
    Rule Making and Order* (*"Notice"*) that proposed to make a number
    of changes to Part 15 and other parts of the rules.[^9] The *Notice*
    sought comment on whether there is a need to require radar detectors
    to comply with radiated emission limits to minimize the possibility
    of interference to authorized services including VSAT operations,
    and if so, the appropriate limits that should be applied.[^10] The
    *Notice* also sought comments on whether there are other receivers
    that tune above 960 MHz that should be required to comply with
    emission limits, and if so, the appropriate limits and frequency
    bands where they should apply.[^11] Further, the *Notice* sought
    comment concerning the timeframe for affected receivers that should
    be required to comply with any new emission limits.[^12]

# DISCUSSION

5.  We have found that radar detectors being marketed emit high level
    radio signals that can cause interference to VSATs. Accordingly, we
    are adopting rules that will protect VSATs from interference caused
    by radar detectors. As defined below, a radar detector is a receiver
    that signals the presence of radio signals used for determining the
    speed of motor vehicles.

6.  Comments from the satellite industry strongly support imposing
    emission limits on radar detectors. Spacenet, Inc. and StarBand
    Communications Inc. (Spacenet/StarBand), PanAmSat Corporation
    (PanAmSat), and Comsearch claim that radar detectors cause
    interference to VSAT operations, including both digital data and
    video.[^13] PanAmSat and the Satellite Industry Association (SIA)
    state that interference is also caused to telemetry, tracking and
    control (TT&C) stations, which could potentially cause permanent
    loss of satellite control.[^14] Loral Skynet (Loral) and Hughes
    Network Systems (Hughes) state that they have investigated several
    cases of interference to VSATs reported to them and determined that
    the interference was caused by radar detectors.[^15] Loral, Hughes,
    SIA, Comsearch and Spacenet/StarBand all believe that the Commission
    should require radar detectors to comply with radiated emission
    limits to reduce interference to VSATs.[^16] Loral recommends that
    these devices be required to comply with the current Part 15 limit
    of 500 µV/m at 3 meters; Hughes recommends 30 µV/m at 3 meters; SIA
    recommends 85 µV/m at 3 meters; Comsearch recommends 60 µV/m at 3
    meters; and Spacenet/Starband recommends ‑154 dBm/100 kHz.[^17]
    PanAmSat recommends that emission limits apply in all bands where
    satellites operate and Comsearch recommends that the limits apply in
    the 11.7-12.2 GHz band used by earth stations.[^18] SIA recommends
    that the limits apply in the 10.7-12.2 GHz band.[^19]

7.  Uniden America Corporation (Uniden), Shure, Inc. (Shure) and Cisco
    Systems, Inc. (Cisco) support the adoption of radiated emission
    limits on all receivers that operate above 960 MHz. Uniden states
    that singling out radar detectors as the only receiver subject to
    emission limits merely addresses one potential interference problem
    without addressing future issues.[^20] It states that the adoption
    of a universal emission standard for all unlicensed devices
    operating above 960 MHz is more equitable and more likely to promote
    innovation by manufacturers because it will provide certainty by
    setting forth a definitive technical standard.[^21] Shure states
    that because there are now more receivers operating above 960 MHz
    than in the past, the Commission should impose radiated emission
    limits on all types of unintentional radiators, as well as receivers
    such as radar detectors.[^22] Cisco believes that cheap receivers
    with high levels of radiated emissions could cause interference with
    high-tech transceivers used in bands above 1000 MHz.[^23]
    Interlogix, Inc. (Interlogix) disagrees with Uniden and Cisco,
    stating that the consequences of over-regulation could be disastrous
    to other, non-offending products.[^24] The Short Range Automotive
    Radar Frequency Allocation Group (SARA) states that the Commission
    should not require all receivers operating above 960 MHz to comply
    with the Part 15 emission limits because an overly broad rule could
    impact the ability of manufacturers to deploy affordable short range
    radar devices.[^25]

8.  Cobra Electronics Corporation (Cobra) and Escort, Inc./BEL, Inc.
    (Escort/BEL) claim that there is insufficient evidence of harmful
    interference caused by radar detectors.[^26] RADAR Members (RADAR)
    state that the VSAT community may have exacerbated the problem
    through unwise siting of its antennas or poor receiver or antenna
    design.[^27] However, SES Americom disagrees, stating that there is
    little a VSAT operator can do to prevent radar detector
    interference.[^28]

9.  The Whistler Group, Inc. (Whistler) opposes emission limits on radar
    detectors, stating that a substantial redesign would be required for
    anything more than trivial emission reductions, which would cripple
    the industry and result in a significant loss of jobs and retail
    sales.[^29] RADAR states that any significant reduction in local
    oscillator emissions applied to a wide region of spectrum would
    require a redesign that would yield a product that is too expensive
    for its market.[^30] Nevertheless, RADAR acknowledges that there are
    reports of interference from radar detectors to VSAT receivers.[^31]
    RADAR, Whistler, Escort/BEL and Cobra state that the radar detector
    industry has developed a plan to reduce radar detector emissions to
    500 µV/m at 3 meters in the 11.7-12.2 GHz VSAT band by June 1,
    2003.[^32] Under this plan, RADAR members would redesign their
    equipment so that the oscillator frequencies fall in the 10.7-11.7
    GHz band, and would cease the manufacture and importation of radar
    detectors with emissions above the Class B limit in the 11.7-12.2
    GHz band by June 1, 2003. RADAR states that manufacturers are
    already implementing these changes, and that compliance will be
    essentially complete by January 2003.[^33] RADAR alleges that the
    *Notice* did not provide adequate information for meaningful comment
    because it did not propose regulations, but merely asks whether
    regulations are necessary. It therefore believes that a Further
    Notice of Proposed Rule Making is needed before the adoption of
    rules.[^34]

10. We conclude that there is a need for limits on the radiated
    emissions from radar detectors to protect VSATs from interference.
    Tests on several radar detectors at the Commission's laboratory
    found emission levels ranging from 33,000 µV/m to 231,000 µV/m at 3
    meters within the VSAT band.[^35] The information in the record in
    this proceeding claims that some radar detector emissions exceed
    100,000 µV/m at 3 meters in the VSAT band, which is consistent with
    our measurements.[^36] These levels are far greater than the
    satellite receive signal levels in the 11.7-12.2 GHz band. These
    levels are also greater than the levels Part 15 permits for some
    transmitters operating in Industrial, Scientific and Medical (ISM)
    bands, and are over 200 times greater than the Part 15 limit for
    spurious emissions above 960 MHz.[^37] Such levels have a high
    potential for causing interference to satellite operations, and the
    information in the record does in fact document many instances of
    harmful interference caused by radar detectors to satellite
    operations. VSATs use relatively small receive antenna dishes, on
    the order of one to two meters, which are less directional and less
    able to reject signals outside the main receive axis than larger
    antenna dishes. Also, VSATs are commonly used by small businesses
    such as stores and gas stations, so they are typically located close
    to the ground and in close proximity to automobiles. For these
    reasons, they can not tolerate the levels of interfering signals
    being emitted by radar detectors.

11. Part 15 requires the operator of an unlicensed device (in this case,
    the user of a radar detector) to cease operation in the event the
    device causes harmful interference, even if that device is not
    subject to specific emission limits.[^38] However, identifying each
    individual source of interference from radar detectors is not
    practical for a satellite operator because these devices are mobile
    and therefore interfere intermittently. Further, these interference
    sources are not under the control of the satellite operator, so in
    most cases it is not possible for the satellite operator to remedy
    the interference even if the source could be identified. Under
    Section 302 of the Communications Act, the Commission has authority
    to make reasonable regulations governing the interference potential
    of devices which in their operation are capable of emitting radio
    frequency radiation in sufficient degree to cause harmful
    interference to radio communications, and to require devices
    marketed to comply with these regulations.[^39] We conclude that the
    only reasonable solution to this interference situation is to
    require radar detectors to comply with emission limits before they
    are marketed.

12. We will define a radar detector as a receiver designed to signal the
    presence of radio signals used for determining the speed of motor
    vehicles because that is the type of device that has caused
    interference to VSATs and this definition best covers the general
    range of these products. We do not intend for this definition to
    encompass the receiver incorporated within a radar transceiver
    certified under the Commission's rules such as a police radar gun or
    an anti-collision radar because those devices have not been a source
    of interference to VSATs.

13. We will require radar detectors to comply with the same limit in the
    11.7-12.2 GHz VSAT band that applies to other unintentional
    radiators operating under Part 15 of the rules. This limit is 500
    µV/m measured at a distance of 3 meters, and is based on the use of
    measurement equipment with a 1 MHz measurement bandwidth and an
    average detector function.[^40] As with other Part 15 devices, the
    emission levels measured with a peak detector function may not
    exceed the average limit by more than 20 dB.[^41] This emission
    limit has a long and successful history of controlling interference
    to authorized services and will protect VSATs from harmful
    interference caused by radar detectors in virtually all cases. In
    those rare cases where radar detector emissions at that level cause
    harmful interference, the non-interference requirement of Section
    15.5 will continue to apply.[^42] We are applying emission limits in
    only the VSAT downlink band because the only complaints of
    interference that we have received are to VSAT receivers in the
    11.7-12.2 GHz band. We expect that adopting these limits will result
    in manufacturers changing receiver local oscillators to frequencies
    outside this band, so as a practical matter only spurious emissions
    will fall within the VSAT downlink band. These emissions will
    typically be far below the emission limit we are adopting and are
    unlikely to result in harmful interference to VSATs.

14. As stated in Part 15 of the rules, we expect manufacturers to use
    good engineering practice in the design of their equipment and
    suppress emissions as much as practicable.[^43] We will consider
    modifying the emission limits we are adopting for radar detectors if
    a need is shown for such changes, such as if interference to VSAT
    operations or other authorized services occurs. We are also willing
    to consider, in future proceedings, limiting radar detector primary
    oscillators to particular frequencies, should that prove necessary
    to avoid harmful interference.

15. Because many radar detectors being marketed today emit high level
    signals that can cause interference to VSATs, we conclude that the
    public interest is best served by requiring that all radar detectors
    marketed within the United States meet the new emission limits
    quickly. Accordingly, we are requiring that all radar detectors
    marketed beginning sixty days after publication of this decision and
    the associated rules in the Federal Register must comply with the
    new rules. This plan will provide a reasonable amount of time for
    manufacturers, wholesalers and retailers to be notified of the rule
    changes so they can cease marketing non-compliant units.[^44]
    Furthermore, we are requiring that radar detectors imported into the
    United States or manufactured in this country for use within this
    country comply with the new rules beginning thirty days after
    publication of this decision and the associated rules in the Federal
    Register.[^45] In requiring that manufacturing and importation of
    radar detectors meet the new requirements before the marketing
    cut-off date, we are providing manufacturers time to introduce
    compliant models before the sixty-day marketing cutoff. This will
    also prevent the manufacture or importation of large numbers of
    non-compliant devices prior to the marketing cutoff date. The new
    rules will apply only to devices being imported, manufactured and
    marketed after the specified effective dates. We are not adopting
    specific rules concerning devices already sold, but such devices
    will continue to be subject to the non-interference requirement in
    Section 15.5 of the rules.[^46]

16. We will require that radar detectors be authorized under our
    certification procedure because they have been found to emit
    spurious RF energy at levels that can cause harmful interference to
    authorized radio services. The certification procedure provides a
    higher level of oversight of equipment compliance prior to marketing
    than either the Declaration of Conformity (DoC) or the verification
    self-approval procedures.[^47] As we noted previously, equipment
    with the potential to create significant interference to
    communication services requires a higher level of oversight than
    manufacturer's self-approval.[^48] In view of the fact that the new
    rules we are establishing for radar detectors are clear and the
    testing methods used to determine compliance with the rules are
    straightforward, we will permit Telecommunication Certification
    Bodies (TCBs) to certify them.[^49] Allowing TCBs to certify radar
    detectors will permit manufacturers to obtain an equipment approval
    in an expeditious manner because manufacturers will have more than
    one approval body to choose from. The tests that will be required
    for radar detectors are field strength measurements over a single
    frequency band, which TCBs accredited to make radiated measurements
    above 1 GHz are already capable of performing. The staff of the
    Office of Engineering and Technology will work with TCBs to promptly
    address any implementation issues which may arise.

17. We recognize that requiring radar detectors to be certified within
    thirty days after publication of the new rules in the Federal
    Register may pose some logistical problems for manufacturers. Many
    radar detectors may already comply with the new emission limits and
    could thus be certified quickly. However, because many of these
    units may already be in transit from the manufacturer to wholesalers
    and retailers, it would be difficult for manufacturers to bring
    these devices into compliance with the administrative requirements
    for certified devices within this timeframe. Specifically, all
    equipment authorized under the certification procedure is required
    to be labeled with an FCC identification number.[^50] In addition,
    Part 15 requires a warning label stating that the device may not
    cause harmful interference and must accept any interference
    received, and requires the user's manual to contain a statement that
    unauthorized changes or modifications could void the user's
    authority to operate the equipment.[^51] It is unlikely that
    manufacturers could comply with these administrative requirements
    within thirty days because the time needed to make changes on the
    assembly line and ship products would generally be greater than
    thirty days. We believe that the rules' intention to notify
    customers can be satisfied by other means without causing delays to
    manufacturers. We will therefore permit radar detectors manufactured
    or imported within 180 days of the publication of the new rules in
    the Federal Register to be labeled with the FCC identification
    number and Part 15 warning statement on the individual equipment
    carton rather than on the device itself, so long as certification
    has been obtained for those units. In addition, we will not require
    the statement about unauthorized changes to be placed in the user's
    manual during this time period. This approach will eliminate the
    need for manufacturers to cease manufacturing and importing
    equipment to implement the new labeling requirements, and will
    provide a practical means to label products that comply with the
    technical requirements but that were produced without labels.

18. Radar detector manufacturers have offered to provide the Commission
    with lists of radar detector serial numbers to assist in identifying
    products manufactured before and after the date on which equipment
    authorization is required.[^52] We believe that such lists could
    assist us in determining whether radar detectors being marketed were
    legally manufactured and imported. Accordingly, we will require all
    parties that manufacture or import radar detectors as of the
    manufacturing and importation cutoff date we are adopting to supply
    such lists. The Office of Engineering and Technology will issue a
    public notice that will ask parties to supply this information once
    the necessary Office of Management and Budget (OMB) approval to
    collect this information has been obtained.

19. We disagree with RADAR's assertion that a Further Notice of Proposed
    Rule Making is needed before we can adopt emission limits for radar
    detectors because the *Notice* did not propose specific regulations.
    Under the Administrative Procedure Act, it is not necessary for the
    *Notice* to propose specific regulations. Rather, it must include
    either the terms or substance of the proposed rules, or a
    description of the subjects and issues involved.[^53] The *Notice*
    clearly described the subject and issues involved, which is that we
    were considering adopting emission limits for radar detectors, and
    sought comment on the appropriate limits.[^54] The large number of
    comments received from both the satellite industry and the radar
    detector industry show that parties had adequate notice of potential
    rule changes, so a Further Notice of Proposed Rule Making is
    unnecessary.

20. Finally, we decline to adopt emission limits for other receivers
    operating above 960 MHz as recommended by Uniden, Shure and Cisco.
    There is not sufficient information in the record in this proceeding
    to justify emission limits for receivers above 960 MHz other than
    radar detectors. We are adopting emission limits for radar detectors
    because they have been found to emit high level signals that can
    cause interference to VSATs. No information was provided to show
    that similar circumstances exist with other receivers operating
    above 960 MHz. Therefore, we find that requiring other receivers
    operating above 960 MHz to comply with emission limits is not
    necessary at this time. This does not preclude our ability to impose
    such limits in the future if the need becomes apparent.

# PROCEDURAL MATTERS

21. [Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis]{.underline}. The Final
    Regulatory Flexibility Analysis for this First Report and Order,
    pursuant to the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. § 604, is
    contained in Appendix C.

22. [Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 Analysis]{.underline}. This Report
    & Order contains new information collections subject to the
    Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), Public Law 104-13. It will be
    submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review
    under Section 3507(d) of the PRA. OMB, the general public, and other
    Federal agencies are invited to comment on the new or modified
    information collection contained in this proceeding.

23. To make cited sources more easily available to the readers, we are
    testing the use of hyperlinks to some FCC documents that are cited
    in this document. The World Wide Web addresses/URLs that we give
    here were correct at the time this document was prepared but may
    change over time. We also advise that the only definitive text of
    FCC documents is the one that is published in the FCC Record. In
    case of discrepancy between the electronic documents cited here and
    the FCC Record, the version in the FCC Record is definitive.

# ORDERING CLAUSES

# Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that pursuant to the authority contained in Sections 4(i), 301, 302, 303(e), 303(f), 303(r), 304 and 307 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 USC Sections 154(i), 301, 302, 303(e), 303(f), 303(r), 304, and 307, Part 15 of the Commission's Rules is amended as set forth in Appendix A.

# IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Commission\'s Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau, Reference Information Center, SHALL SEND a copy of this Report and Order, including the Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration.

24. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, when requested by Public Notice, all
    parties that manufactured or imported radar detectors as of thirty
    days after publication of these rules in the Federal Register shall
    supply a list of radar detector models and information on their
    serial numbers which permits identification of their manufacturing
    date to the Office of Engineering and Technology. This requirement
    is subject to OMB review and approval and will become effective
    after such approval is obtained.

25. For further information regarding this First Report and Order,
    contact Mr. Hugh L. Van Tuyl, Office of Engineering and
    Technology, (202) 418-7506, e-mail <hvantuyl@fcc.gov>.

> FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
>
> Marlene H. Dortch
>
> Secretary

# Appendix A: FINAL Rule Changes {#appendix-a-final-rule-changes .unnumbered}

Part 15 of Title 47 of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended as
follows:

1.  The authority citation for Part 15 continues to read as follows:

**AUTHORITY: 47 U.S.C. 154, 302, 303, 304, 307 and 544A.**

2.  Section 15.3 is amended by adding a new paragraph (ee) to read as
    follows:

**§ 15.3 Definitions**

\* \* \* \* \*

(ee) *Radar detector.* A receiver designed to signal the presence of
radio signals used for determining the speed of motor vehicles. This
definition does not encompass the receiver incorporated within a radar
transceiver certified under the Commission's rules.

#  {#section .unnumbered}

3.  Section 15.37 is amended by adding a new paragraph (k) to read as
    follows:

**§ 15.37 Transition provisions for compliance with the rules.**

\* \* \* \* \*

\(k\) Radar detectors manufactured or imported after **\[30 days from
publication in Federal Register\]** and marketed after **\[60 days from
publication in Federal Register\]** shall comply with the regulations
specified in this part. Radar detectors manufactured or imported prior
to **\[180 days from publication in Federal Register\]** may be labeled
with the information required by §§ 2.925 and 15.19(a) of this chapter
on the individual equipment carton rather than on the device, and are
exempt from complying with the requirements of § 15.21.

4.  Section 15.101, paragraph (a) is amended by adding a new entry to
    the table following the entry for "Scanning receiver", and by
    revising paragraph (b) to read as follows:

**§ 15.101 Equipment authorization of unintentional radiators.**

\(a\) \* \* \*

  -------------------------------------------------------- -----------------------------------
  Type of device                                           Equipment authorization required

  \* \* \*                                                 

  Radar                                                    Certification.
  detector..........................................\...   

  \* \* \*                                                 
  -------------------------------------------------------- -----------------------------------

\(b\) Only those receivers that operate (tune) within the frequency
range of 30-960 MHz, CB receivers and radar detectors are subject to the
authorizations shown in paragraph (a) of this section. However,
receivers indicated as being subject to Declaration of Conformity that
are contained within a transceiver, the transmitter portion of which is
subject to certification, shall be authorized under the verification
procedure. Receivers operating above 960 MHz or below 30 MHz, except for
radar detectors and CB receivers, are exempt from complying with the
technical provisions of this part but are subject to § 15.5.

\* \* \* \* \*

5.  Section 15.109 is amended by adding a new paragraph (h) to read as
    follows:

**§ 15.109 Radiated emission limits.**

\* \* \* \* \*

\(h\) Radar detectors shall comply with the emission limits in paragraph
(a) of this section over the frequency range of 11.7-12.2 GHz.

# Appendix B: LIST OF PARTIES filing comments on {#appendix-b-list-of-parties-filing-comments-on .unnumbered}

# receivers operating above 960 MHz {#receivers-operating-above-960-mhz .unnumbered}

**[Comments]{.underline}**

1.  Uniden America Corporation

2.  Shure Incorporated

3.  The Whistler Group, Inc.

4.  Loral Skynet

5.  Spacenet, Inc. and StarBand Communications, Inc.

6.  Hughes Network Systems, Inc.

7.  RADAR Members

8.  PanAmSat Corporation

9.  Cobra Electronics Corporation

10. Short Range Automotive Radar Frequency Allocation Group

11. Interlogix, Inc.

12. Satellite Industry Association

13. SES Americom, Inc.

14. Comsearch

15. Escort, Inc. and BEL, Inc.

16. Cisco Systems, Inc.

**[Reply comments]{.underline}**

1.  Interlogix, Inc.

2.  Satellite Industry Association

3.  SES Americom, Inc.

4.  Hughes Network Systems, Inc.

5.  RADAR Members

6.  Short Range Automotive Radar Frequency Allocation Group

7.  Escort Incorporated and BEL Incorporated

# Appendix C: FINAL Regulatory Flexibility Analysis {#appendix-c-final-regulatory-flexibility-analysis .unnumbered}

As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA),[^55] an Initial
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) was incorporated in the *Notice
of Proposed Rule Making, Review of Part 15 and other Parts of the
Commission's Rules* (*Notice*).[^56] The Commission sought written
public comments on the proposals in the Notice, including comment on the
IRFA.[^57] This present analysis conforms to the RFA.[^58]

**A. Need for, and Objectives of, the First Report and Order**

Section 11 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and Section
202(h) of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 require the Commission (1)
to review biennially its regulations pertaining to telecommunications
service providers and broadcast ownership; and (2) to determine whether
economic competition has made those regulations no longer necessary in
the public interest. The Commission is directed to modify or repeal any
such regulations that it finds are no longer in the public interest.

As part of the biennial review for the year 2000, the Commission
reviewed its regulations pertaining to telecommunications service
providers and broadcast ownership and recommended a number of changes to
those rules. While not specifically required by statute, the Commission
also reviewed Parts 2, 15 and 18 of the Commission's Rules as part of
this process.[^59]

The First Report and Order requires radar detectors, which have been
currently exempt from complying with emission limits, to meet the Part
15 limits in the 11.7-12.2 GHz band to avoid causing interference to
satellite services.

**B. Summary of Significant Issues Raised by Public Comments in Response
to the IRFA**

Comments on the IRFA were received from radar detector manufacturers,
who state they are small entities. RADAR Members, a trade association,
argues that the adoption of limits across a wide band of spectrum would
eliminate radar detectors from the consumer market, and that some
companies would be unable to survive in the face of such a regulation.
It states that as an alternative, manufacturers will voluntarily reduce
emission in the 11.7-12.2 GHz band where interference to satellite
operations was actually reported. Cobra Electronics Corporation states
that it is a small entity that deserves consideration under the
Regulatory Flexibility Act. It states that redesigning its product line,
especially considering the very real possibility that doing so would
eliminate the market for this product, obviously would be detrimental to
small businesses such as Cobra. It further states that there is evidence
that the industry is already addressing the satellite interference
complaints.

**C. 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.[^60] The RFA generally
defines the term \"small entity\" as having the same meaning as the
terms \"small business,\" \"small organization,\" and \"small
governmental jurisdiction.\"[^61] In addition, the term \"small
business\" has the same meaning as the term \"small business concern\"
under the Small Business Act.[^62] A small business concern is one
which: (1) is independently owned and operated; (2) is not dominant in
its field of operation; and (3) satisfies any additional criteria
established by the SBA.[^63]

Our present action will affect some manufacturers of radio frequency
equipment (RF manufacturers). The U.S. Small Business Administration
(SBA) has designated a small business size standard for entities engaged
in Radio and Television Broadcasting or Wireless Communications
Equipment Manufacturing.[^64] According to SBA, such a manufacturer must
have 750 or fewer employees in order to qualify as a small
business.[^65] According to Census Bureau data from 1992, there were 858
such firms in the United States, and 778 had 750 or fewer
employees.[^66]

**D. Description of Projected Reporting, Recordkeeping, and Other
Compliance Requirements**

The First Report and Order requires radar detectors used on vehicles to
meet the Part 15 emission limits in the 11.7-12.2 GHz band to prevent
interference to satellite services. It requires that radar detectors be
certified to show that they comply with these requirements before they
can be imported or marketed. Certification requires the manufacturer to
have the equipment tested for compliance with the rules, and then file
an application with the test data and information on the product with
the Commission or a designated Telecommunication Certification Body
(TCB). The manufacturer must wait until the application is granted
before the equipment can be imported or marketed. Equipment that is
certified must also be labeled with an FCC identification number and
warning label stating that operation of the equipment must cease in the
event it causes harmful interference to authorized radio services.

As a result of the rule change, some manufacturers will be required to
redesign radar detectors to reduce emissions in the 11.7-12.2 GHz band.
This could be accomplished by a change in the internal oscillator
frequencies. Radar detector manufacturers state that 73 percent of units
currently marketed can meet the emission limits in the 11.7-12.2 GHz
band, and that the remainder will meet the limit by January 2003.

Because many radar detectors being marketed today emit high level
signals that can cause interference to VSATs, the First Report and Order
requires that all radar detectors marketed within the United States meet
the new emission limits beginning sixty days after publication of this
decision and the associated rules in the Federal Register must comply
with the new rules. This plan will provide a reasonable amount of time
for manufacturers, wholesalers and retailers to be notified of the rule
changes so they can cease marketing non-compliant units. The First
Report and Order also requires that radar detectors imported into the
United States or manufactured within this country comply with the new
rules beginning thirty days after publication of this decision and the
associated rules in the Federal Register. This will provide
manufacturers time to introduce compliant models before the sixty-day
marketing cutoff. This will also avoid the manufacture or importation of
large numbers of non-compliant devices prior to the marketing cutoff
date. Manufacturers will be permitted to label radar detectors on the
individual carton, rather than on the device itself, for a period of 180
days. In addition, manufacturers will not be required to place a
statement about "unauthorized changes" in the instruction manuals until
after this time period. These new rules will apply only to devices being
imported, manufactured and marketed after the specified effective dates.

We are also requiring a one-time filing of radar detector serial numbers
to aid in our enforcement of the new rules.[^67]

E.  **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.[^68]

The First Report and Order requires emission limits on radar detectors,
which will have an impact on small equipment manufacturers. We find that
emission limits on radar detectors are necessary because manufacturers
have been building them without any suppression on radiated emissions,
and the radiated signals have been found to cause interference to
satellite radio services. Because interference has been reported only in
the 11.7-12.2 GHz satellite band, and in light of comments filed by
small businesses in this proceeding, we are requiring radiated emission
limits in only the one band. This will minimize the impact on small
manufacturers, because emission limits applied across a wide band would
require significant redesign of the equipment, which would substantially
increase its cost.

The effective dates for our actions are necessary for an orderly
transition to compliance. Alternative time frames might assist small
businesses to comply, yet would be inconsistent with the goal of
reducing interfering equipment. Because many radar detectors may already
comply with the new emission limits, the requirement to obtain
certification within 30 days is not expected to have a significant
impact on manufacturers. The impact on small manufacturers will be
further reduced by allowing labeling to appear on the individual
equipment carton rather than the device for a period of 180 days,
because that will permit manufacturers to obtain certification for, and
label equipment already in shipment.

Finally, we are requiring a one-time filing of serial numbers to aid in
our enforcement efforts, and believe that this is a minimal compliance
burden.

*Report to Congress*: The Commission will send a copy of the *First
Report and Order*, including this FRFA, in a report to be sent to
Congress pursuant to the Congressional Review Act, *see* 5 U.S.C. §
801(a)(1)(A). In addition, the Commission will send a copy of the *First
Report and Order*, including FRFA, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of
the Small Business Administration. A copy of the *First Report and
Order* and FRFA (or summaries thereof) will also be published in the
Federal Register. *See* 5 U.S.C. § 604(b).

[^1]: Radar detectors are designed to warn motorists of the presence of
    police speed-measuring radars.

[^2]: VSATs are used for a number of purposes including linking retail
    establishments with remote computers for verifying credit card
    transactions and providing video, data and audio broadcast services
    to businesses. They typically operate with a 14 GHz satellite uplink
    frequency and an 11 GHz satellite downlink frequency. The downlink
    frequency is much more susceptible to interference than the uplink
    frequency.

[^3]: An unintentional radiator is defined in Section 15.3(z) of the
    rules 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. Examples of unintentional radiators include radio
    receivers, computers and VCRs. The radiated emission limits for
    unintentional radiators are set for in Section 15.109 of the rules.
    The requirement for certain receivers to meet these radiated
    emission limits is set forth in Section 15.101(a) of the rules.

[^4]: *See* 47 C.F.R. § 15.101(b).

[^5]: All devices operating under Part 15 of the rules are required to
    cease operation in the event they cause interference to an
    authorized radio service. *See* 47 C.F.R. § 15.5(b).

[^6]: *See* 47 C.F.R. § 15.109(a).

[^7]: *See* 47 C.F.R. § 90.103.

[^8]: Police in some states use a special receiver to determine whether
    motorists are using radar detectors. This receiver is designed to
    detect the presence of radar detector oscillator signals in certain
    bands. If the frequency of a radar detector oscillator is moved
    outside the range of this receiver, the police radar detector
    receivers will no longer be able to detect the presence of that
    radar detector.

[^9]: *See* *Notice of Proposed Rule Making and Order* in ET Docket No.
    01-278, 16 FCC Rcd 18205 (2001).

[^10]: *See Notice* at ¶ 14.

[^11]: *Id.*

[^12]: *Id.*

[^13]: *See* Spacenet/Starband comments at 8, 10-11, PanAmSat comments
    at 1-2 and Comsearch comments at 2.

[^14]: *See* PanAmSat comments at 2 and SIA comments at 2-3.

[^15]: *See* Loral comments at 4 and Hughes comments at 4.

[^16]: *See* Loral comments at 4, Hughes comments at 4 and
    Spacenet/Starband comments at 16-17.

[^17]: *See* Loral comments at 4, Hughes comments at 4, SIA *ex parte*
    submission dated May 31, 2002 at 1, Comsearch comments at 3, and
    Spacenet/Starband comments at 16-17.

[^18]: *See* PanAmSat comments at 3 and Comsearch comments at 3.

[^19]: *See* SIA comments at 4 and SIA *ex parte* submission dated May
    31, 2002.

[^20]: *See* Uniden comments at 3.

[^21]: *See* Uniden comments at 3.

[^22]: *See* Shure comments at 1-2.

[^23]: *See* Cisco comments at 3-5.

[^24]: *See* Interlogix reply comments at 2.

[^25]: *See* SARA comments at 9-10.

[^26]: *See* Cobra comments at 1 and Escort/BEL comments at 2.

[^27]: *See* RADAR comments at 4.

[^28]: *See* SES Americom reply comments at 6.

[^29]: *See* Whistler comments at 2-3.

[^30]: *See* RADAR comments at 4-5.

[^31]: *See* RADAR *ex parte* submission dated June 11, 2002.

[^32]: *See* Whistler comments at 2, Escort/BEL comments at 3-4, Cobra
    comments at 5, and RADAR comments at 5.

[^33]: *See* RADAR *ex parte* submission dated June 11, 2002.

[^34]: *See* RADAR comments at 6-7 and RADAR reply comments at 8.

[^35]: *See* memorandum of test results by the Commission's Laboratory
    dated June 25, 2002.

[^36]: *See* PanAmSat/SIA *ex parte* submission dated April 16, 2002 at
    17-20.

[^37]: *See* 47 C.F.R. § 15.249, which permits 50,000 µV/m at 3 meters
    for transmitters operating in the 5.8 GHz ISM band. *See* also 47
    C.F.R. § 15.109 and 15.209, which permit a spurious emission level
    of 500 µV/m at 3 meters from most Part 15 devices.

[^38]: *See* 47 C.F.R. §§ 15.5 and 15.101(b).

[^39]: Section 302(a) of the Communications Act states that, "The
    Commission may, consistent with the public interest, convenience and
    necessity, make reasonable regulations...governing the interference
    potential of devices which in their operation are capable of
    emitting radio frequency energy...in sufficient degree to cause
    harmful interference to radio communications." *See* 47 U.S.C. §
    302(a). Section 302(b) of the Communications Act states that, "No
    person shall manufacture, import, sell, offer for sale, or ship
    devices...which fail to comply with the regulations promulgated
    pursuant to this section." *See* 47 U.S.C. § 302(b).

[^40]: *See* 47 C.F.R. §§ 15.109 and 15.35(b).

[^41]: *See* 47 C.F.R. § 15.35(b).

[^42]: *See* 47 C.F.R. § 15.5.

[^43]: *See* 47 C.F.R. § 15.15(a).

[^44]: *See* 47 C.F.R. § 2.803 for a description of the marketing
    restrictions for devices subject to Commission authorization.

[^45]: Equipment manufactured in this country solely for export is
    exempt from compliance with the requirements promulgated under
    Section 302 of the Communications Act. *See* 47 U.S.C. § 302(c).

[^46]: *See* 47 C.F.R. § 15.5.

[^47]: The certification procedure requires filing an application with
    and having it approved by either the Commission or a designated
    Telecommunication Certification Body (TCB) before the equipment may
    be marketed. DoC is a self-approval procedure which requires having
    the equipment tested at an accredited laboratory, but does not
    require the filing of an application before the equipment may be
    marketed. Verification is similar to the DoC procedure, but the
    laboratory testing the equipment does not have to be accredited.

[^48]: *See* *Report and Order* in GEN Docket No. 98-68, 13 FCC Rcd
    24687, 24692 (1999).

[^49]: *See* 47 C.F.R. § 2.962(f)(5)(i), which states that TCBs may not
    certify equipment for which the Commission's rules and requirements
    do not exist, or for which the application of the rules and
    requirements is unclear.

[^50]: *See* 47 C.F.R. § 2.925.

[^51]: *See* 47 C.F.R. § 15.19(a). The warning statement that applies to
    radar detectors is in paragraph (a)(3) of this section. *See* also
    47 C.F.R. § 15.21.

[^52]: *See* July 11, 2002 *ex parte* submission filed by Mitchell
    Lazarus.

[^53]: *See* 5 U.S.C. § 553(b)(3).

[^54]: *See Notice* at ¶ 14.

[^55]: ^ ?^ *See* 5 U.S.C. § 603. The RFA, *see* 5 U.S.C. § 601 *et.
    seq.*, has been amended by the Contract With America Advancement Act
    of 1996, Pub. L. No. 104-121, 110 Stat. 847 (1996) (CWAAA). Title II
    of the CWAAA is the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness
    Act of 1996 (SBREFA).

[^56]: *See* *Notice of Proposed Rule Making and Order* in ET Docket No.
    01-278, 66 FR 59209 (November 27, 2001).

[^57]: *See id.*

[^58]: *See generally* 5 U.S.C. § 604.

[^59]: *See* 47 C.F.R. Parts 2, 15, 18.

[^60]: 5 U.S.C. § 604.

[^61]: 5 U.S.C. § 601(6).

[^62]: 5 U.S.C. § 601(3) (incorporating by reference the definition of
    \"small business concern\" in 15 U.S.C. §  632). Pursuant to the
    RFA, the statutory definition of a small business applies \"unless
    an agency, after consultation with the Office of Advocacy of the
    Small Business Administration and after opportunity for public
    comment, establishes one or more definitions of such term which are
    appropriate to the activities of the agency and publishes such
    definition(s) in the Federal Register.\" 5 U.S.C. § 601(3).

[^63]: Small Business Act, 15 U.S.C. § 632 (1996).

[^64]: *See* 13 C.F.R. § 121.201, North American Industrial
    Classification System (NAICS) code 334220.

[^65]: *Id.*

[^66]: *See* U.S. Department of Commerce, 1992 Census of Transportation,
    Communications and Utilities (issued May 1995). These data have been
    updated for year 1997, but without the small business breakout.
    *See* Summary, Economic Census, Subject Series: Manufacturing at
    1-19 (issued June 2001). By 1997, the census total for firms in this
    category had increased to 1,096. *Id.*

[^67]: *See* ¶ 18, *supra*.

[^68]: *See* 5 U.S.C. § 603(c).