******************************************************** 
                      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 20, 2007

   VIA CERTIFIED MAIL

   RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED

   AND FACSIMILE AT 718-437-8892

   Mr. Anthony Berkowitz, President

   Focus Camera, Inc.

   905 McDonald Avenue

   Brooklyn, New York 11218

   Re: File No. EB-07-SE-071

   Dear Mr. Berkowitz:

   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 in the United States a police radar jamming device manufactured
   by Rocky Mountain Radar ("RMR"), specifically, the RMR-C450 device, in
   violation of Section 302(b) of the Act, 47 U.S.C. S 302a(b), and Sections
   2.803, 15.205 and 15.209 of the Commission's Rules ("Rules"), 47 C.F.R. SS
   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.

   On February 22, 2007, the Spectrum Enforcement Division ("Division") of
   the Enforcement Bureau received a complaint alleging that Focus Camera,
   Inc. is marketing the RMR-S201 and RMR-C450 device. On April 4, 2007, the
   Division staff visited Focus Camera, Inc.'s Internet web site at
   [1]www.Focuscamera.com and observed that Focus Camera, Inc. is marketing
   the RMR-C450 device. The Division staff observed that Focus Camera, Inc.
   was not marketing the RMR-S201 device at that time.

   On January 31, 2007, the Division issued a Notice of Apparent Liability
   for Forfeiture ("NAL")  proposing a $25,000 forfeiture against RMR for
   marketing the RMR-C450 device 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. In the NAL, we noted that the Commission's Office of Engineering
   and Technology ("OET") Laboratory had obtained samples of the RMR-C450
   device directly from RMR for testing. Testing of the samples indicated
   that the unit is designed to emit a signal that intentionally interferes
   with a licensed radio service (police radar), and is indeed capable of
   interfering with police radar. Therefore, the OET Laboratory concluded
   that the device is an intentional radiator, as described in Section
   15.3(o) of the Rules, 47 C.F.R. S 15.3(o). 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 and that this radiated emission substantially exceeds
   the radiated emission limits for intentional radiators specified in
   Section 15.209 of the Rules. The OET Laboratory also concluded that the
   RMR-C450 device was improperly certified. 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." As explained above, however, the OET Laboratory found that the
   device is an intentional radiator.

   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 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.

   Pursuant to Section 15.201 of the Rules, 47 C.F.R. S 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. S 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. S 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 prohibits radiated
   emissions, other than spurious emissions, 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-C450 device is an
   intentional radiator. This device is not, however, eligible for a grant of
   certification because its 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 this device in fact is 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.

   Additionally, the record before us indicates that Focus Camera, Inc.
   apparently is and has been marketing the RMR-C450 device. Accordingly, it
   appears that Focus Camera, Inc. has violated Section 302(b) of the Act and
   Section 2.803 of the Rules by marketing the RMR-C450 device, which is not
   eligible for a grant of equipment certification because it is intended to
   interfere with licensed police radar, in violation of Section 333 of the
   Act. Focus Camera, Inc. has also apparently violated Section 302(b) 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, Focus Camera, Inc.  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 Focus
   Camera, Inc. 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 New York Office in  New York
   City, New York.   Please call Katherine Power at 202-418-0919 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. 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

   The NAL also included the RMR-S201 device which is not relevant to this
   citation.

   Rocky Mountain Radar, Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture, 22 FCC
   Rcd 1334 (Enf. Bur., Spectrum Enf. Div., 2007) ("RMR").

   Id. at 1335.

   Id.

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

   RMR, 22 FCC Rcd at 1335.

   Id. 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."

   RMR, 22 FCC Rcd at 1335. An "unintentional radiator" is defined by Section
   15.3(z) of the Rules, 47 C.F.R. S 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.

   Section 2.1(c) of the Rules, 47 C.F.R. S 2.1(c), defines a spurious
   emission as "[e]mission 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."

   RMR, 22 FCC Rcd at 1337-8.

   Id. at 1338.

   Id.

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

   Federal Communications Commission DA 07-1764

   2

   Federal Communications Commission DA 07-1764

                       FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

                            WASHINGTON, D.C.  20554

References

   Visible links
   1. http://www.ambientweather.com/