******************************************************** 
                      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.

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



   April 19, 2007

   VIA CERTIFIED MAIL

   RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED

   AND FACSIMILE AT (845) 246-1757

   Mr. Erick Krein

   Senior Vice President

   Tower Products, Inc.

   812 Kings Highway

   Saugerties, NY 12477

   Re: File No. EB-06-SE-365

   Dear Mr. Krein:

   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. S 503(b)(5), for
   marketing unauthorized radio frequency devices in the United States in
   violation of Section 302(b) of the Act, 47 U.S.C. S 302a(b), and Section
   2.803 of the Commission's Rules ("Rules"), 47 C.F.R. S 2.803; for
   importing radio frequency devices that do not meet one or more of the
   specified import conditions in violation of Section 2.1204(a) of the
   Rules, 47 C.F.R. S 2.1204(a); and for being unable to document compliance
   with the selected import conditions in violation of Section 2.1204(b) of
   the Rules, 47 C.F.R. S 2.1204(b). As explained below, future violations of
   these rules may subject Tower to monetary forfeitures.

   Marketing Unauthorized Radiofrequency Devices in the United States

   After receiving a complaint, the Spectrum Enforcement Division
   ("Division") of the Enforcement Bureau began an investigation to determine
   whether Tower was marketing an unauthorized video transmitter identified
   as Laird Telemedia model LTM-WAVE-AG Wireless Monitoring System
   ("LTM-WAVE-AG") in the United States without an equipment certification.

   As part of the investigation, the Division sent a letter of inquiry
   ("LOI") to Tower on October 24, 2006. In its response, Tower identified
   VideoComm Technologies, a Canadian company, as the manufacturer of the
   LTM-WAVE-AG and stated that it purchased approximately 306 units of that
   device from VideoComm and sold them in the United States. Additionally,
   Tower stated that it "learned after receipt of the Commission's letter
   that the Device does not have a Commission certification" and that
   "[c]onsistent with Tower's belief that the Device was authorized for sale
   in the United States, the Device carries an incorrect FCC ID." Tower also
   stated that it ceased marketing the LTM-WAVE-AG on November 8, 2006.

   On December 27, 2006, the Division issued an LOI to VideoComm. In its
   response, VideoComm stated that Tower, not VideoComm, was the manufacturer
   of the LTM-WAVE-AG. Specifically, VideoComm stated that it manufactured
   two subassemblies on an OEM basis for Tower - the TC-440 transmitter
   ("TC-440") and an associated antenna - which Tower used to manufacture the
   LTM-WAVE-AG. Additionally, VideoComm stated that it sold the TC-440 to
   Tower without any FCC ID number or other labeling. VideoComm further
   stated that Tower returned some fully assembled LTM-WAVE-AG devices for
   repairs and that, while performing the repairs, VideoComm discovered that
   FCC ID NIMT900 had been engraved onto the TC-440. VideoComm also stated
   that, after this discovery, it contacted Tower's Engineering Manager and
   told him that the TC-440 does not have an FCC ID number because it is not
   an FCC approved device and that it is inappropriate to label the
   LTM-WAVE-AG with FCC ID NIMT900.

   On February 27, 2007, the Division issued a second LOI to Tower. In its
   response, Tower states that it carried out no manufacture or assembly of
   the LTM-WAVE-AG and simply passed the transmitters and antennas acquired
   from VideoComm on to its customers "in the same state and condition as
   received." Additionally, Tower states that it labeled the LTM-WAVE-AG with
   FCC ID NIMT900 but asserts that it "believed in good faith that VideoComm
   had meant for Tower to apply FCC ID NIMT900 and took this as evidence that
   the Device was authorized for sale in the United States." Tower, however,
   also states that its Engineering Manager "believes that [a representative]
   of VideoComm mentioned to him in passing that the FCC ID on the Device was
   erroneous or improperly carried over from a previous product."

   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.
   S 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 S 2.925 and other relevant sections in this
   chapter.

   Section 15.201(b) of the Rules, 47 C.F.R. S 15.201(b), provides that
   intentional radiators, such as the Wireless A/V Transmitter and Receiver,
   must be certified prior to the initiation of marketing in the United
   States.

   As set forth above, Tower acknowledges that the LTM-WAVE-AG, an
   intentional radiator, is not certified and that it marketed this device in
   the United States. Accordingly, it appears that Tower has violated Section
   302(b) of the Act and Section 2.803(a) of the Rules by marketing
   unauthorized radiofrequency devices in the United States.

   Illegal Importation of Radio Frequency Devices

   Customs data examined during the Division's investigation indicates that
   Tower imported video transmitters manufactured by VideoComm on November
   22, 2005, on the basis that the video transmitters met import condition
   (2): that "the radio frequency device is not required to have an equipment
   authorization and the device complies with the FCC technical
   administrative regulations." This information is apparently false or
   inaccurate because the devices imported by Tower are required to be
   certified before marketing.

   Tower states in its March 26, 2007, LOI response that it typically
   received copies of FCC Form 740 from VideoComm four to five days after the
   date on the form and provides copies of four such forms. The forms
   indicate that Tower imported VideoComm's TC-440 "video sender modules" on
   the following dates: November 21, 2005 (4 devices), December 8, 2005 (43
   devices), January 11, 2006 (6 devices), and April 10, 2006 (46 devices).
   All of these forms indicate that the TC-440 met import condition (4): that
   "the radio frequency device is being imported in limited quantities for
   demonstration at industry trade shows and the device will not be offered
   for sale or marketed." This information is apparently false or inaccurate
   because all of the TC-440 devices imported by Tower were apparently
   imported for the purpose of sale.

   Section 2.1204(a) of the Rules provides that radio frequency devices may
   be imported only if they meet one or more of ten specified import
   conditions. Section 2.1204(b) of the Rules provides that "[t]he ultimate
   consignee must be able to document compliance with the selected import
   condition and the basis for determining the import condition applied."

   VideoComm apparently filed the above-described customs declarations in
   Tower's behalf and thus acted as Tower's agent. We find, accordingly, that
   Tower is apparently responsible for VideoComm's declaration of apparently
   false or inaccurate import conditions. Furthermore, Tower - having
   received copies of VideoComm's filings - apparently had actual knowledge
   of the import conditions declared by VideoComm. Accordingly, it appears
   that Tower has violated Section 2.1204(a) of the Rules by importing radio
   frequency devices that do not meet one or more of the ten specified import
   conditions and that it has violated Section 2.1204(b) of the Rules by
   being unable to document compliance with the selected import conditions.

   If, after receipt of this citation, Tower 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.

   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 Tower is
   taking to ensure that it does not violate the Commission's rules governing
   the marketing and importation of radiofrequency devices in the future.

   The nearest Commission field office is the New York Field  Office in New
   York, NY. Please call Thomas D. Fitz-Gibbon 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:

   Thomas D. Fitz-Gibbon

   Attorney Advisor

   Spectrum Enforcement Division

   Enforcement Bureau

   Federal Communications Commission

   445-12^th Street, S.W., Rm. 3-A460

   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
   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. S 1001.

   Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation.

   Sincerely,

   Kathryn S. Berthot

   Chief, Spectrum Enforcement Division

   Enforcement Bureau

   cc: Mitchell Lazarus, Esq.

   A "radiofrequency device" is defined as "any device which in its operation
   is capable of emitting radio frequency energy by radiation, conduction, or
   other means." 47 C.F.R. S 2.801.

   Laird Telemedia is a trade name used by Tower.

   See Letter from Kathryn Berthot, Deputy Chief, Spectrum Enforcement
   Division, Enforcement Bureau, Federal Communications Commission, to Laird
   Telemedia. (October 24, 2006).

   See Letter from Mitchell Lazarus, Esq., to Thomas D. Fitz-Gibbon, Attorney
   Advisor, Spectrum Enforcement Division, Enforcement Bureau, Federal
   Communications Commission (November 20, 2006).

   See Letter from Kathryn S. Berthot, Deputy Chief, Spectrum Enforcement
   Division, Enforcement Bureau, Federal Communications Commission to
   VideoComm Technologies (December 27, 2006).

   See Letter from Henry Goldberg, Esq., and Laura A. Stefani, Esq., to
   Thomas D. Fitz-Gibbon, Attorney Advisor, Spectrum Enforcement Division,
   Enforcement Bureau, Federal Communications Commission (February 12, 2007).

   FCC ID No. NIMT900 is assigned to another device. It was granted to
   Electra Enterprises for a "small video transmitter" operating on the
   frequency 916.5 MHz.

   See Letter from Kathryn S. Berthot, Deputy Chief, Spectrum Enforcement
   Division, Enforcement Bureau, Federal Communications Commission to
   Mitchell Lazarus (February 27, 2007).

   See Letter from Mitchell Lazarus, Esq., to Thomas D. Fitz-Gibbon, Attorney
   Advisor, Spectrum Enforcement Division, Federal Communications Commission
   (March 26, 2007) ("March 26, 2007, LOI response").

   See Section 2.1204(a)(2) of the Rules, 47 C.F.R. S 2.1204(a)(2).

   FCC Form 740 is used to report customs data. See 47 C.F.R. S 2.1205(a).

   See Section 2.1204(a)(4) of the Rules, 47 C.F.R. S 2.1204(a)(4).

   Section 2.1203(a) of the Rules, 47 C.F.R. S 2.1203(a), permits the
   importation of a radiofrequency device only if "the importer or ultimate
   consignee, or their designated customs broker, declares that the device
   meets one of the conditions for entry set out in this section."

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

   Federal Communications Commission DA 07-1753

   4

   Federal Communications Commission DA 07-1753

                       FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

                             WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554