Click here for Adobe Acrobat version
Click here for Microsoft Word version
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.
August 10, 2006
VIA CERTIFIED MAIL
RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED
CEO and President
Digital Innovations, L.L.C.
3436 N. Kennicott Avenue, Suite 200
Arlington Heights, IL 60004
Re: File No. EB-06-SE-259
Dear Mr. Mazursky:
This is an official CITATION, issued to Digital Innovations, L.L.C.
("Digital Innovations") pursuant to Section 503(b)(5) of the
Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act"), 47 U.S.C. S
503(b)(5), for marketing two non-compliant radio frequency devices in the
United States in violation of Section 302(b) of the Communications Act, 47
U.S.C. S 302(b), and Section 2.803(a) of the Commission's Rules ("Rules"),
47 C.F.R. S 2.803(a). As explained below, future violations of the
Commission's rules in this regard may subject your company to monetary
Following receipt of a complaint alleging that Digital Innovations is
marketing in the United States two radio frequency devices, specifically,
the Security Dr. PC Defender Screen Lock and the Security Dr. Wireless
Separation Alarm, that do not comply with the periodic operation limits
set forth in Section 15.231(e) of the Rules, 47 C.F.R. S 15.231(e), the
Enforcement Bureau provided samples of the two devices to the Commission's
Office of Engineering and Technology ("OET") Laboratory for testing. The
OET Laboratory tested the devices and determined that they do not comply
with Section 15.231(e) of the Rules.
On June 21, 2006, we issued a Letter of Inquiry ("LOI") to DigitaI
Innovations. In your response dated July 18, 2006, you acknowledged that
you have marketed the Security Dr. PC Defender Screen Lock and the
Security Dr. Wireless Separation Alarm in the United States since May 18,
2005. You stated that Digital Innovations imported 29,008 and sold 17,045
PC Defender Screen Locks and imported 23,520 and sold 8,169 Wireless
Separation Alarms. Furthermore, you indicated that the devices were
certified and manufactured by Keymark Technology Company, Ltd. of Taiwan.
You further stated that on November 18, 2005, you ceased importing the PC
Defender Screen Lock device and on October 25, 2005, you ceased importing
the Wireless Separation Alarm. You indicated that you ceased importation
of these two devices due to the lack of demand for each device.
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 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 S 2.925 and other relevant sections in this
Section 15.201(b) of the Rules, 47 C.F.R. S 15.201(b), provides that
intentional radiators, such as the PC Defender Screen Lock and the
Wireless Separation Alarm, must be certified prior to the initiation of
marketing in the United States. Additionally, Section 15.231(e) of the
Rules provides that devices shall be provided with a means for
automatically limiting operation so that the duration of each transmission
shall not be greater than one second and the silent period between
transmissions shall be in no case less than 10 seconds. As noted above,
the OET Laboratory has tested the PC Defender Screen Lock and the Wireless
Separation Alarm and has determined that the transmitters do not comply
with the periodic operation limits of section 15.231(e) of the Rules.
Accordingly, it appears that Digital Innovations has violated Section
302(b) of the Act, and Section 2.803(a) of the Rules by marketing in the
United States radio frequency devices that do not meet the FCC's technical
requirements. You further stated in your LOI response that you have
stopped the importation of these devices, but you did not indicate if you
intended to cease marketing any inventory that may still remain in your
possession within the U.S. We caution you that the marketing of any
remaining inventory of these non-compliant radiofrequency devices would
constitute a further violation of Section 302(b) of the Act and Section
2.803(a) of the Rules.
If, after receipt of this citation, you violate 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.
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 you are taking to ensure that you
do not violate the Commission's rules governing the marketing of radio
frequency equipment in the future.
The nearest Commission field office appears to be the Chicago Office in
Chicago, Illinois. Please call Peter Waltonen at 202-418-1160 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:
Spectrum Enforcement Division
Federal Communications Commission
445-12^th Street, S.W., Rm. 7-A721
Washington, D.C. 20554
Under the Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. S 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
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. S 1001.
Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation.
Deputy Chief, Spectrum Enforcement Division
Federal Communications Commission
Letter from Kathy Berthot, Deputy Chief, Spectrum Enforcement Division,
Enforcement Bureau, to Richard Mazursky, CEO and President of Digital
Innovations, L.L.C. (June 21, 2006).
Letter from Richard Mazursky, CEO and President of Digital Innovations,
L.L.C., to Peter Waltonen, Spectrum Enforcement Division, Enforcement
Bureau, Federal Communications Commission (July 18, 2006).
Certification is an equipment authorization issued by the Commission or a
Telecommunication Certification Body, based on representations and test
data submitted by the applicant. 47 C.F.R. S 2.907. Keymark was issued a
certification for the PC Defender Screen Lock on December 23, 2003 under
FCC ID: PG8KW101T. Keymark was issued a certification for the Wireless
Separation Alarm on June 3, 2002 under FCC ID: PG8101T01.
See 47 C.F.R. S 1.80(b)(3).
Federal Communications Commission DA 06-1607
Federal Communications Commission DA 06-1607
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554