******************************************************** 
                      NOTICE
********************************************************

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.

*****************************************************************




                                   Before the

                       Federal Communications Commission

                             Washington, D.C. 20554

   In the Matter of )

   ) File No.: EB-06-SD-184

   Sentry Tech Systems )

   2544 East Highland Avenue ) Citation No.: C20063294001

   Highland, California 92346  )

                                    CITATION

                                                    Released: August 23, 2006

   By the District Director, San Diego District Office, Western Region,
   Enforcement Bureau:

    1. This is an Official Citation issued pursuant to Section 503(b)(5) of
       the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Act"), to Sentry Tech
       Systems for violation of Section 302(b) of the Act and Section
       2.803(a)(1) of the Commission's Rules.

    2. Investigation by the Enforcement Bureau's San Diego Office and reports
       from County of Riverside personnel revealed that on August 1, 2006,
       the source of harmful radio interference to a Public Safety two-way
       radio communications system in the 820 MHz band was a wireless video
       camera transmitting in the same frequency band. The video camera was
       located at the Club Royale Apartments in Rialto, California. No labels
       were found on the transmitter unit indicating the manufacture had
       certified the equipment as required in the Act or the Commission's
       Rules. The management of the Club Royale Apartments advised they had
       purchased the wireless transmitter from Sentry Tech Systems.

    3. Section 302(b) of the Act states:"[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 Rules 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: (1) In
       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...." Sale of this
       device by Sentry Tech Systems violates both sections.

    4. Violations of the Act or the Commission's Rules may subject the
       violator to substantial monetary forfeitures, seizure of equipment
       through in rem forfeiture action, and criminal sanctions, including
       imprisonment.

    5. Pursuant to Sections 4(i), 4(j), and 403 of the Act, Sentry Tech
       Systems is directed to provide the documents and information specified
       herein, within 10 days from the date of this Citation:

     a. Was the wireless video transmitter found at the Club Royale
        Apartments installed by Sentry Tech Systems? If yes, was this
        transmitter certified?

     b. Has Sentry Tech Systems sold wireless video transmitters of the same
        make and model? If yes, how many of these transmitters are currently
        in use and their locations?

     c. Has Sentry Tech Systems sold other non-certified transmitters? If so,
        what are the make and models of these units, and how many of these
        transmitters are currently in use and their locations?

    6. Sentry Tech Systems may request an interview at the closest FCC
       Office, which is Federal Communications Commission, 18000 Studebaker
       Road, Suite 660, Cerritos, CA 90703. You may contact this office by
       telephone, XXX-XXX-XXXX to schedule this interview, which must take
       place within 10 days of this Citation. Sentry Tech Systems may also
       submit a written statement to the above address within 10 days of the
       date of this Citation. Any written statements should specify what
       actions have been taken to correct the violation[s] outlined above.
       Please reference the case number EB-06-SD-184 when corresponding with
       the Commission.

    7. Any statement or information provided by you may be used by the
       Commission to determine if further enforcement action is required. Any
       knowingly or willfully false statement made in reply to this Citation
       is punishable by fine or imprisonment.

    8. IT IS ORDERED that copies of this Citation shall be sent by First
       Class U.S. Mail and Certified Mail, Return Receipt Requested to Sentry
       Tech Systems at its address of record.

   FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

   William R. Zears, Jr.

   District Director, San Diego District Office

   Western Region

   Enforcement Bureau

   47 U.S.C. S 503(b)(5).

   47 U.S.C. S 302(b).

   47 C.F.R. 2.803(a)(1).

   47 C.F.R. S 1.80(b)(3).

   47 U.S.C. SS 401, 501, 503, 510.

   47 U.S.C. S 503(b)(5).

   See Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. S 552a(e)(3).

   See 18 U.S.C. S 1001 et seq.

                       Federal Communications Commission

   2

                       Federal Communications Commission