![](media/image1.png){width="1.2902777777777779in"
height="1.229861111111111in"} January 31, 2007

**[VIA CERTIFIED MAIL]{.underline}**

**[RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED]{.underline}**

**[AND FACSIMILE]{.underline}**

Mr. Roland W. Hoeffener

Hoeffener International

625 Mildred Avenue, Apt.7

Webster Groves, MO 63119-1836

[]{.mark}

> Re: File No. EB-05-SE-273

Dear Mr. Hoeffener:

This is an official **CITATION**, issued pursuant to Section 503(b)(5)
of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Act"), 47 U.S.C. §
503(b)(5), for marketing in the United States certain police radar
jamming devices manufactured by Rocky Mountain Radar ("RMR"),
specifically, the RMR-S201 and RMR-C450 devices, in violation of Section
302(b) of the Act, 47 U.S.C. § 302a(b), and Sections 2.803, 15.205 and
15.209 of the Commission's Rules ("Rules"), 47 C.F.R. §§ 2.803, 15.205
and 15.209. As explained below, future violations of the Commission's
rules in this regard may subject your company to monetary forfeitures.

The Spectrum Enforcement Division ("Division") of the Enforcement Bureau
obtained information through several informal complaints alleging that
various entities, including Hoeffener International, were marketing
police radar jamming devices in the United States. On June 9, 2005,
Division staff visited two of Hoeffener International's internet web
sites, www.radar-robs-rocky-mountain-scramblers.com and
www.rocky-mountain-radar.com, and observed that Hoeffener International
was marketing[^1] the RMR-S201 (also known as the Phazer II) and the
RMR-C450 devices. On September 1, 2005, the Division issued a letter of
inquiry ("LOI") to Hoeffener International requesting certain
information concerning its marketing of these devices.[^2] Hoeffener
International did not submit a response to the LOI. Rather, on September
6, 2005, RMR responded to the LOI on behalf of Hoeffener International,
claiming that the RMR-S201 and the RMR-C450 devices are not intentional
radiators and "have been tested and certified by the FCC."[^3]

The Commission's Office of Engineering and Technology ("OET") Laboratory
subsequently obtained samples of the RMR-S201 and RMR-C450 devices
directly from RMR for testing. Testing of the samples indicated that
both units are designed to emit a signal that intentionally interferes
with a licensed radio service (police radar), and are indeed capable of
interfering with police radar. Therefore, the OET Laboratory concluded
that the devices are intentional radiators, as described in Section
15.3(o) of the Rules, 47 C.F.R. § 15.3(o).[^4] In addition, the OET
Laboratory's tests indicated that the RMR-C450 device produced a
radiated emission at 11.23 GHz, a restricted frequency band listed in
Section 15.205 of the Rules, 47 C.F.R. § 15.205, and that this radiated
emission substantially exceeds the radiated emission limits for
intentional radiators specified in Section 15.209 of the Rules, 47
C.F.R. § 15.209. The OET Laboratory also concluded that the RMR-C450
device was improperly certified.[^5] 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."[^6]
As explained above, however, the OET Laboratory found that the device is
an intentional radiator.

On January 22, 2007, the Division staff again visited Hoeffener
International's internet web sites,
www.radar-robs-rocky-mountain-scramblers.com and
www.rocky-mountain-radar.com, and observed that Hoeffener International
was continuing to market the RMR-S201 and RMR-C450 devices.

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 to this section." Section 2.803(a)(1) of
the Rules, 47 C.F.R. § 2.803(a)(1), provides that:

> no person shall sell or lease, or offer for sale or lease (including
> advertising for sale or lease), or import, ship, or distribute for the
> purpose of selling or leasing or offering for sale or lease, any radio
> frequency device unless ... \[i\]n the case of a device subject to
> certification, such device has been authorized by the Commission in
> accordance with the rules in this chapter and is properly identified
> and labeled as required by § 2.925 and other relevant sections in this
> chapter.

Pursuant to Section 15.201 of the Rules, 47 C.F.R. § 15.201, intentional
radiators must ordinarily be authorized in accordance with the
certification procedure prior to marketing. Section 2.803(g) of the
Rules, 47 C.F.R. § 2.803(g), however, provides in pertinent part that:

\[R\]adio frequency devices that could not be authorized or legally
operated under the current rules ... shall not be operated, advertised,
displayed, offered for sale or lease, sold or leased, or otherwise
marketed absent a license issued under part 5 of this chapter or a
special temporary authorization issued by the Commission.

Further, Section 333 of the Act, 47 U.S.C. § 333, prohibits any person
from willfully or maliciously interfering with or causing interference
to any radio communications of any station licensed or authorized by the
Commission. Moreover, Section 15.205 of the Rules, 47 C.F.R. § 15.205,
prohibits radiated emissions, other than spurious emissions,[^7] in any
of the restricted frequency bands listed in that section. Thus,
intentional radiators that cannot legally be operated -- because, for
example, they interfere with or jam licensed police radio facilities or
operate in restricted frequency bands -- are not eligible for a grant of
equipment certification. Finally, Section 15.209 of the Rules sets forth
the radiated emission limits applicable to intentional radiators.

As noted above, contrary to the claims of RMR, the RMR-S201 and RMR-C450
devices are intentional radiators. These devices are not, however,
eligible for a grant of certification because their intended purpose is
to interfere with Commission authorized radio facilities, specifically,
licensed police radar, in violation of Section 333 of the Act, and the
OET Laboratory has determined that these devices in fact are capable of
interfering with police radar. Moreover, there are two additional
grounds for finding the marketing of the RMR-C450 device to be unlawful.
The RMR-C450 device is not eligible for a grant of certification because
it produces a radiated emission in the restricted frequency band at
11.23 GHz in violation of Section 15.205 of the Rules. This radiated
emission also substantially exceeds the radiated emission limits for
intentional radiators specified in Section 15.209 of the Rules. We note
that on January 31, 2007, concurrently with the issuance of this
Citation, the Division issued a Notice of Apparent Liability for
Forfeiture proposing a \$25,000 forfeiture against RMR for marketing the
RMR-S201 and RMR-C450 devices in apparent willful and repeated violation
of Section 302(b) of the Act and Sections 2.803, 15.205 and 15.209 of
the Rules.[^8]

The record before us indicates that Hoeffener International has marketed
and continues to market the RMR-S201 and the RMR-C450 devices.
Accordingly, it appears that Hoeffener International has violated
Section 302(b) of the Act and Section 2.803 of the Rules by marketing
the RMR-S201 and RMR-C450 devices, which are not eligible for a grant of
equipment certification because they are intended to interfere with
licensed police radar, in violation of Section 333 of the Act. Hoeffener
International has also apparently 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.

**[If, after receipt of this citation, Hoeffener International violates
the Communications Act or the Commission's rules in any manner described
herein, the Commission may impose monetary forfeitures not to exceed
\$11,000 for each such violation or each day of a continuing
violation.]{.underline}** [^9]

If you choose to do so, you may respond to this citation within 30 days
from the date of this letter either through (1) a personal interview at
the Commission's Field Office nearest to your place of business, or (2)
a written statement. Your response should specify the actions that
Hoeffener International-Detectors is taking to ensure that it does not
violate the Commission's rules governing the marketing of intentional
radiating jamming devices in the future.

**The nearest Commission field office is the** **Kansas City District
Office in Lee's Summit, MO. Please call Jacqueline Johnson at
202-418-2871 if you wish to schedule a personal interview. You**

**should schedule any interview to take place within 30 days of the date
of this letter. You should send any written statement within 30 days of
the date of this letter to:**

> Kathryn S. Berthot

Chief, Spectrum Enforcement Division

Enforcement Bureau

Federal Communications Commission

445-12^th^ Street, S.W., Rm. 3-C366

Washington, D.C. 20554

Under the Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(e)(3), we are informing
you that the Commission's staff will use all relevant material
information before it, including information that you disclose in your
interview or written statement, to determine what, if any, enforcement
action is required to ensure your compliance with the Communications Act
and the Commission's rules.

The knowing and willful making of any false statement, or the
concealment of any material fact, in reply to this citation is
punishable by fine or imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. § 1001.

Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation.

Sincerely,

Kathryn S. Berthot

> Chief, Spectrum Enforcement Division

Enforcement Bureau

[^1]: "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. § 2.803(e)(4).

[^2]: *See* Letter from Kathryn Berthot, Deputy Chief, Spectrum
    Enforcement Division, Enforcement Bureau, Federal Communications
    Commission to Hoeffener International (September 1, 2005).

[^3]: *See* Letter from Michael B. Churchman, President, Rocky Mountain
    Radar to Susan Magnotti, Spectrum Enforcement Division, Enforcement
    Bureau, Federal Communications Commission (September 6, 2005)
    (referencing File No. EB-05-SE-273, the file number assigned to
    Hoeffener International).

[^4]: An intentional radiator is defined by Section 15.3(o) of the
    Rules, 47 C.F.R. § 15.3(o), as "\[a\] device that intentionally
    generates and emits radio frequency energy by radiation or
    induction."

[^5]: RMR obtained certification for the RMR-C450 under FCC ID No.
    QKK-C03 by representing to a Telecommunications Certification Body
    that the device was a radar detector. We note, however, that RMR
    marketed the device as a radar detector and a radar "scrambler."

[^6]: An "unintentional radiator" is defined by Section 15.3(z) of the
    Rules, 47 C.F.R. § 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.

[^7]: Section 2.1(c) of the Rules, 47 C.F.R. § 2.1(c), defines a
    spurious emission as "Emission 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."

[^8]: *Rocky Mountain Radar*, Notice of Apparent Liability for
    Forfeiture, DA 07-299 (Enf. Bur., Spectrum Enf. Div., rel. January
    31, 2007).

[^9]: *See* 47 C.F.R. § 1.80(b)(3).