**Before the**

**Federal Communications Commission**

**Washington, D.C. 20554**

In the Matter of )

)

Amendment of Parts 2 and 15 of the )

Commission\'s Rules to Further Ensure That ) ET Docket No. 98-76

Scanning Receivers Do Not Receive Cellular )

Radio Signals )

)

**MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER**

**Adopted: May 10, 2001 Released: May 22, 2001**

By the Commission:

**INTRODUCTION**

1.  By this action, the Commission grants in part the petitions for
    partial reconsideration filed by Tandy Corporation ("Tandy") and
    Uniden of America, Inc. ("Uniden")[^1] of the Commission\'s *Report
    and Order* (\"*Order*\") in this proceeding.[^2] We affirm our
    decision to require manufacturers to make scanning receivers more
    difficult to modify by making the circuitry inaccessible; relax the
    warning label requirements for certain devices; and clarify the
    compliance measurement rules.

**BACKGROUND**

2.  On October 28, 1992, the *Telephone Disclosure and Dispute
    Resolution Act* (the "*TDDRA*") was signed into law.[^3] The
    Commission subsequently adopted rules that satisfy the mandates
    specified in the *TDDRA*.[^4] These rules prohibit the manufacture
    and importation of scanning receivers that are capable of receiving,
    or that can be readily altered to receive, transmissions in the
    frequencies allocated to the Cellular Radiotelephone Service
    ("cellular service").[^5] In order to ensure compliance with these
    regulations, scanning receivers must be authorized (certificated) by
    the Commission before they may be imported or marketed.[^6]

3.  In the *Order* in this proceeding, the Commission adopted rules that
    require scanning receivers to include adequate filtering so that
    they do not pick up cellular service transmissions.[^7] In addition,
    the amended rules require that scanning receivers be designed so
    that their tuning, control and filtering circuitry are not easily
    accessible and that any attempts to modify the scanning receiver to
    receive cellular service transmissions will likely render the
    scanning receiver inoperable.[^8] Further, the Commission modified
    the rules to require that a warning label be affixed to scanning
    receivers to indicate that modification of the receiver to receive
    cellular service transmissions is a violation of FCC rules and
    Federal law.[^9] To further ensure that parties do not circumvent
    these requirements by developing a scanning receiver that tunes the
    cellular frequencies but automatically switches among only two or
    three frequencies, the Commission modified the definition of a
    scanning receiver to include receivers that switch between "two or
    more" frequencies instead of "four or more" frequencies.[^10] The
    manufacture or importation of scanning receivers and frequency
    converters designed or marketed for use with scanning receivers that
    do not comply with these new provisions were required to cease on or
    before October 25, 1999.

**DISCUSSION**

4.  In their petitions for reconsideration, Tandy and Uniden request
    that the Commission exempt scanning receivers that are built with
    the capability to receive only frequencies much lower than those
    capable of intercepting cellular signals from the circuitry
    inaccessibility requirement and the warning label requirement.[^11]
    Specifically, Tandy and Uniden state that scanners that only operate
    in the range of 30 MHz to 512 MHz should be exempted. The
    petitioners state that the inaccessibility requirement is
    over-burdensome to both manufacturers and consumers because it will
    likely increase the manufacturing cost and make it impossible to
    make future repairs for those scanning receivers that do not have a
    tuning range of concern for intercepting cellular service.[^12]
    Further, Tandy and Uniden request that scanning receivers that tune
    at or below 512 MHz be exempted from the warning label requirement
    because it will require additional steps in the manufacturing
    process or require changes to the tooling equipment, with either
    option likely to increase production costs. [^13]

5.  We decline to adopt the requested exemptions of the circuitry
    inaccessibility requirement and the warning label requirement for
    scanning receivers that tune at or below 512 MHz. The fact that a
    scanner is intended to tune only below 512 MHz does not ensure that
    reception of cellular telephone frequencies will not occur. For
    example, a superheterodyne receiver is capable of receiving images
    at frequencies separated from the tuned frequency by twice the first
    intermediate frequency (\"IF\") of the receiver. Within a scanner
    having a first IF frequency of 250 MHz, image reception of the 800
    MHz cellular telephone bands could occur when the scanner is tuned
    in the 300 MHz range. For this reason, some scanners that tune only
    up to 512 MHz could potentially be modified to receive cellular
    telephone frequencies. Therefore, we will not exempt scanners from
    the circuitry inaccessibility and labeling requirements based on the
    512 MHz frequency cutoff proposed by the petitioners. With regard to
    the petitioners\' concerns about increased manufacturing costs and
    the inability to make future repairs, we find no other reasonable
    alternative to the inaccessibility requirement that will provide the
    same level of prevention of unlawful modifications. We find that
    these requirements are the best method available to continue to
    satisfy the requirement of the *TDDRA* that scanning receivers not
    be capable of readily being altered by the user to receive cellular
    service transmissions.[^14] We also note that in the *Order,* the
    Commission allowed flexibility in the ways that a manufacturer may
    make tuning and control circuitry inaccessible in order to minimize
    any burdens imposed by the new rules.[^15] We also find that the
    rules imposed for scanners that tune only below 512 MHz are no more
    burdensome than for other scanners. We therefore reaffirm our
    finding that the rules adopted in the O*rder* represent the most
    efficient and least restrictive method to accomplish the
    Commission's policies and objectives and the statutory mandate of
    Congress.[^16]

6.  Additionally, Tandy and Uniden request that the Commission reword
    the language contained in the labeling requirement to state that
    \"intentional reception or disclosure of certain radio
    communications may violate Federal law.\"[^17] Tandy and Uniden
    believe that this wording would more closely satisfy language
    contained in a bill that was pending in the House of Representatives
    at the time the petitions were filed.[^18] We note Congress did not
    pass H.R. 514 or any subsequent bill that would require a change in
    the warning label wording. Absent specific legislative action, we
    find that it would be overly burdensome to scanning receiver
    manufacturers to adopt any additional changes to the warning label
    at this time. In addition, we are concerned that the language
    proposed by Tandy and Uniden does not clearly state that
    modification of the device to receive cellular service transmissions
    is a violation of FCC rules and Federal law. We therefore decline to
    adopt the requested changes in the warning label wording.

7.  The petitioners further request that the rules be modified to permit
    the warning label to be placed on the outside of the device
    packaging material and in the owners manual as is provided for in
    Section 15.19(b)(3) of the Commission's rules for certain other
    devices.[^19] Tandy and Uniden state that some scanning receivers
    are so small or compact as to make the inclusion of the full label
    impossible without significant design modification.[^20] Uniden
    states that it would intentionally have to make the casing larger
    than is otherwise required for the enclosed device, resulting in
    considerable waste with regard to production materials, and
    inconvenience for the consumer who must handle and carry a unit
    larger than necessary. We believe that an exception of the labeling
    requirement can be made for small devices and are amending the rules
    accordingly. For devices that are so small that it is not
    practicable to place the warning label on the device, the warning
    label shall be placed in a prominent location in the instruction
    manual or pamphlet supplied to the user, and also on the container
    in which the device is marketed. The FCC identifier must be
    displayed on the device.[^21]

8.  Uniden is concerned that the adoption of a new definition for
    scanning receivers will require the filing of new applications for
    equipment authorization for devices that were not previously
    considered scanning receivers such as a typical weather band
    scanner.[^22] The Commission's intention of enacting a new
    definition of a scanning receiver was to prevent individuals from
    manufacturing a scanning receiver that scans fewer than four
    frequencies to circumvent our scanning receiver rules. It was not
    the intention of the Commission to change the definition of a
    scanning receiver to encompass receivers that have not been
    considered scanning receivers in the past. We agree with Uniden that
    receivers designed solely for the reception of National Oceanic &
    Atmospheric Administration (\"NOAA\") broadcast weather band signals
    should continue to be exempt from the scanning receiver definition.
    The scanning receiver definition will be modified to include the
    weather radio exemption. We also note that scanning receivers
    designed solely for the reception of broadcast signals under Part 73
    of our rules or used as part of a licensed service, continue to be
    exempt from the scanning receiver regulations.[^23] In order to
    further clarify this in the definition, we are replacing the words
    \"licensed station\" with \"licensed service.\"

9.  We agree with Tandy and Uniden that the wording of the signal
    rejection ratio rule adopted in the *Order* was not clear. The rule
    as written in the rules appendix to the *Order*, Section 15.121(b),
    states that only cellular service signals that are "38 dB or higher"
    than the receiver sensitivity should be rejected. This was not the
    Commission's intended meaning for Section 15.121(b). As stated in
    the *Order*, the Commission adopted the proposal from the *Notice of
    Proposed Rule Making* in this proceeding, which stated that scanning
    receivers must reject cellular service signals that are up to 38 dB
    higher than the minimum receiver sensitivity.[^24] Therefore, we
    will amend Section 15.121(b) so that it is clearly understood that
    scanning receivers must reject cellular service signals that are 38
    dB or lower based upon a 12 dB SINAD specification.[^25]

**ORDERING CLAUSES**

10. In accordance with the above discussion and pursuant to the
    authority contained in Sections 4(i), 302, 303(e), 303(f), 303(g),
    303(r), and 405 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, IT IS
    ORDERED that the Petitions for Reconsideration filed by Tandy
    Corporation and Uniden America Corporation, ARE GRANTED in part and
    DENIED in all other respects.

11. IT IS ORDERED, that Part 15 of the Commission\'s Rules and
    Regulations ARE AMENDED as specified in Appendix A, effective 30
    days after publication in the Federal Register. Authority for
    issuance of this Report and Order is contained in Section 4(i), 301,
    302, 303(e), 303(f), 303(g), 303(r), 304, and 307 of the
    Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. Section 154(i),
    301, 302, 303(e), 303(f), 303(g), 303(r), 304 and 307.

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

Magalie Roman Salas

Secretary

**APPENDIX A**

**FINAL RULES**

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

PART 15\--RADIO FREQUENCY DEVICES

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

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

\* \* \* \* \*

Section 15.3 is amended by modifying paragraph (v) to read as follows:

Section 15.3 [Definitions]{.underline}.

\* \* \* \* \*

\(v\) Scanning receiver. For the purpose of this part, this is a
receiver that automatically switches among two or more frequencies in
the range of 30 to 960 MHz and that is capable of stopping at and
receiving a radio signal detected on a frequency. Receivers designed
solely for the reception of the broadcast signals under part 73 of this
chapter, for the reception of NOAA broadcast weather band signals, or
for operation as part of a licensed service are not included in this
definition.

\* \* \* \* \*

Section 15.121 is amended by modifying paragraph (b) and paragraph (f)
to read as follows:

Section 15.121 [Scanning receivers and frequency converters used with
scanning receivers]{.underline}.

\* \* \* \* \*

(b) Except as provided in paragraph (c) of this section, scanning
    receivers shall reject any

signals from the Cellular Radiotelephone Service frequency bands that
are 38 dB or lower based upon a 12 dB SINAD measurement, which is
considered the threshold where a signal can be clearly discerned from
any interference that may be present.

\* \* \* \* \*

\(f\) Scanning receivers shall have a label permanently affixed to the
product, and this label shall be readily visible to the purchaser at the
time of purchase. The label shall read as follows:

WARNING: MODIFICATION OF THIS DEVICE TO RECEIVE CELLULAR

RADIOTELEPHONE SERVICE SIGNALS IS PROHIBITED UNDER FCC

RULES AND FEDERAL LAW.

\(1\) "Permanently affixed" means that the label is etched, engraved,
stamped, silkscreened, indelible printed or otherwise permanently marked
on a permanently attached part of the equipment or on a nameplate of
metal, plastic or other material fastened to the equipment by welding,
riveting, or permanent adhesive. The label shall be designed to last the
expected lifetime of the equipment in the environment in which the
equipment may be operated and must not be readily detachable. The label
shall not be a stick-on, paper label.

\(2\) When the device is so small that it is not practicable to place
the warning label on it, the information required by this paragraph
shall be placed in a prominent location in the instruction manual or
pamphlet supplied to the user and shall also be placed on the container
in which the device is marketed. However, the FCC identifier must be
displayed on the device.

\* \* \* \* \*

[^1]: Petition for Partial Reconsideration filed by Tandy on May 27,
    1999; Petition for Partial Reconsideration filed by Uniden on April
    27, 1999 and Addendum to Petition for Partial Reconsideration filed
    by Uniden on May 12, 1999.

[^2]: ^?^ *Report and Order* in ET Docket No. 98-76, 14 FCC Rcd 5390
    (1999), adopted March 25, 1999 (\"*Order*\").

[^3]: Pub. L. 102-556.

[^4]: *Report and Order* in ET Docket 93-1, 9 FCC Rcd 2911 (1993);
    *Memorandum Opinion and Order* in ET Docket 93-1, 9 FCC Rcd 3386
    (1994).

[^5]: ^?^ 47 C.F.R. §§ 2.1033, 15.37, and 15.121. The Commission\'s
    regulations regarding the Cellular Radiotelephone Service are set
    forth in Part 22 of the FCC rules, 47 C.F.R. Part 22, Subpart H.
    Cellular telephones use frequencies in the 824-849 MHz and 869-894
    MHz bands to connect mobile users to other cellular system users and
    to the Public Switched Telephone Network.

[^6]: *See* 47 C.F.R. § 15.101(a) and § 2.1031 *et seq*.

[^7]: *Order*, at 5395-96; 47 C.F.R. § 15.121(b).

[^8]: *See* *Order*, at 5396-97; 47 C.F.R. § 15.121(a)(2).

[^9]: *See* *Order*, at 5399-400; 47 C.F.R. §§ 15.121(f)(1)-(f)(2).

[^10]: *See Notice of Proposed Rule Making* in ET Docket No. 98-76, 13
    FCC Rcd 12937, 12942-12943 (1998) (\"*NPRM*\"); *Order* at
    5392-5393.

[^11]: *See* Tandy petition for partial reconsideration at 3-4. *See
    also* Uniden petition for partial reconsideration at 5.

[^12]: *See* Tandy petition for partial reconsideration at 4. *See also*
    Uniden petition for partial reconsideration at 5.

[^13]: *See* Tandy petition for partial reconsideration at 5.

[^14]: Pub. L. 102-556 at Section 403(d)(1)(B); Section 302(d)(1)(B) of
    the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (47 U.S.C. 302a).

[^15]: *Order* at 5397.

[^16]: *See* *Order* at 5409 (Appendix B of *Order*, "*Steps taken to
    Minimize Significant Economic Impact on Small* *Entities, and
    Significant Alternatives Considered*.")

[^17]: *See* Tandy petition for partial reconsideration at 12-15. *See
    also* Uniden petition for partial reconsideration at 5-7.

[^18]: *See* H.R. 514, 106^th^ Congress (1999).

[^19]: 47 C.F.R. § 15.19 (b)(3). *See* Tandy petition for partial
    reconsideration at 4-7. *See also* Uniden petition for partial
    reconsideration at 2-5.

[^20]: *See* Uniden petition for partial reconsideration at 4.

[^21]: *See* 47 C.F.R. §§ 2.925 and 2.926.

[^22]: *See* Tandy petition for partial reconsideration at 7-8. *See
    also* Uniden petition for partial reconsideration at 5-6.

[^23]: *See* 47 C.F.R. § 15.3(v).

[^24]: *See* *Order* at 5395; *NPRM* at 12950 (Appendix B, Section
    15.121(b)).

[^25]: SINAD is a common sensitivity measurement that closely
    approximates a signal to noise ratio of a receiver. The 12 dB SINAD
    specification is normally used in industry for this type of
    receiver.