Radio Scanners That Receive Cellular Telephone Transmissions

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

47 CFR Parts 2 and 15

[ET Docket No. 93-1; FCC 94-183]

Radio Scanners That Receive Cellular Telephone Transmissions

AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.

ACTION: Final rule; petition for reconsideration.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: This Memorandum Opinion and Order denies a petition for

reconsideration of new regulations that deny equipment authorization to

radio scanners capable of receiving transmissions in the Domestic

Public Cellular Radio Telecommunications Service. This action is taken

in response to a petition for reconsideration filed by Kenwood

Communications Corporation. The intended effect of this action is to

help ensure the privacy of cellular telephone conversations.

EFFECTIVE DATE: July 22, 1994.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

David Wilson, Office of Engineering and Technology, (202) 653-8138.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a summary of the Commission's

Memorandum Opinion and Order in ET Docket No. 93-1, FCC 94-183, adopted

July 8, 1994, and released July 19, 1994. The full text of this

decision is available for inspection and copying during normal business

hours in the FCC Dockets Branch (Room 230), 1919 M Street NW.,

Washington, DC. The complete text of this decision also may be

purchased from the Commission's duplicating contractor, International

Transcription Services at (202) 857-3800 or 2100 M Street NW., Suite

140, Washington, DC 20037.

Summary of the Memorandum Opinion and Order

1. By this action, the Commission denies a request by Kenwood

Communications Corporation (Kenwood) for reconsideration of portions of

the rules adopted in the Report and Order in this proceeding. These

rules were adopted in response to the Telephone Disclosure and Dispute

Resolution Act (TDDRA), Pub. L. 102-556, and generally prohibit the

manufacture and importation of radio scanners capable of receiving

cellular telephone communications. See Report and Order in ET Docket

No. 93-1, 58 FR 25574, April 27, 1993.

2. In its Petition for Reconsideration, Kenwood raises three

issues. First, it argues that the deadlines for complying with the

rules adopted in this proceeding should be extended. Second, it

requests that scanners sold to Military Affiliate Radio Service (MARS)

and Civil Air Patrol (CAP) licensees be exempt from the regulations

adopted in this proceeding. Finally, it argues that the definition of

``readily altered by the user'' that was adopted in this proceeding

should include only scanners that can be modified ``quickly'' by ``non-

technical'' consumers. There were no comments filed in response to the

Kenwood petition.

3. Implementation dates. Kenwood contends that the April 26, 1993,

cutoff date for equipment authorization and the April 26, 1994, cutoff

date for manufacture and importation of scanners that do not comply

with the new rules do not provide sufficient time to design and build

new products to replace those being prohibited. This short period of

time is, however, mandated by the TDDRA and reflects the position of

Congress that reception of cellular communications by means of scanning

receivers is a serious problem that must be resolved expeditiously.

Accordingly, we are denying Kenwood's request for an extension of the

cutoff dates.

4. Exemption for equipment sold to MARS and CAP licensees. Kenwood

states that it manufactures two-way transceivers that are generally set

up to operate only on frequencies available within a particular radio

service. Kenwood indicates that some of its transceivers are routinely

modified at its factory to operate on additional frequencies, such as

those used by MARS and CAP licensees, in order to accommodate the needs

of its customers. Kenwood states that these factory modifications can

result, incidentally, in the ability to scan cellular telephone

frequencies.

5. We see no reason why it is not possible to manufacture equipment

to operate on MARS and CAP frequencies without resulting in that

equipment also having the capability to receive the cellular

frequencies, since MARS and CAP frequencies are far removed from the

cellular frequencies. Consequently, we find that there is no technical

justification for exempting scanning equipment from the rules adopted

in this proceeding based on its intended use by MARS or CAP licensees,

and we are denying Kenwood's request.

6. The definition of ``readily altered by the user.'' Kenwood

requests that we modify the definition of ``readily altered by the

user'' to include only devices that can be quickly modified by ``non-

technical consumers.''

7. We believe that Kenwood's proposed definition would make it too

easy to modify scanners. Most of the examples given in our definition

of scanners that can be ``readily altered by the user'' are

modifications that perhaps could not be done by ``non-technical

consumers.'' Yet, they are examples of precisely the kind of easy

modifications that we believe the TDDRA was intended to prohibit.

Accordingly, we are rejecting Kenwood's request.

8. In accordance with the above discussion and pursuant to the

authority contained in Sections 4(i), 302 and 303 of the Communications

Act of 1934, as amended, and the Telephone Disclosure and Dispute

Resolution Act, it is ordered that the Petition for Reconsideration

filed by Kenwood Communications Corporation is denied.

9. For further information on this proceeding, contact David

Wilson, Technical Standards Branch, Office of Engineering and

Technology, at (202) 653-8138.

List of Subjects in 47 CFR Parts 2 and 15

Communications equipment, wiretapping and electronic surveillance.

Federal Communications Commission.

William F. Caton,

Acting Secretary.

[FR Doc. 94-17846 Filed 7-21-94; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6712-01-M