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

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



   January 31, 2007

   VIA CERTIFIED MAIL

   RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED

   AND FACSIMILE

   Mr. Harlan E. Gauger, Jr.

   Electronic Retail Solutions, Inc.

   5601 Roanne Way, Suite 608

   Greensboro, North Carolina 27409

   Re: File No. EB-05-SE-268

   Dear Mr. Gauger:

   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 certain police radar jamming devices
   manufactured by Rocky Mountain Radar ("RMR"), specifically, the RMR-S201
   and RMR-C450 devices, in violation of Section 302(b) of the Act, 47 U.S.C.
   S 302a(b), and Sections 2.803 and 15.205 of the Commission's Rules
   ("Rules"), 47 C.F.R. SS 2.803 and 15.205. As explained below, future
   violations of the Commission's rules in this regard may subject your
   company to monetary forfeitures.

   The Spectrum Enforcement Division ("Division") of the Enforcement Bureau
   obtained information through several informal complaints alleging that
   various entities, including Electronic Retail Solutions, Inc., were
   marketing police radar jamming devices in the United States. On June 8,
   2005 and June 9, 2005, Division staff visited Electronic Retail Solutions,
   Inc.'s affiliated internet web sites, www.carwaves.com,
   www.ismellbacon.com, and [1]www.jammercity.com, and observed that
   Electronic Retail Solutions, Inc. was marketing the RMR-S201 (also known
   as the Phazer II) and the RMR-C450 devices. On September 1, 2005, the
   Division issued a letter of inquiry ("LOI") to Electronic Retail
   Solutions, Inc. requesting certain information concerning its marketing of
   these devices. In its response to the LOI, filed on September 19, 2005,
   Electronic Retail Solutions, Inc. failed to respond to the questions set
   forth in the LOI as directed. Instead, Electronic Retail Solutions, Inc.
   simply stated that it had contacted the manufacturer, RMR, which claimed
   that the RMR-S201 and the RMR-C450 devices are not intentional radiators
   and "have been tested and certified by the FCC."

   The Commission's Office of Engineering and Technology ("OET") Laboratory
   subsequently obtained samples of the RMR-S201 and RMR-C450 devices
   directly from RMR for testing. Testing of the samples indicated that both
   units are designed to emit a signal that intentionally interferes with a
   licensed radio service (police radar), and are indeed capable of
   interfering with police radar. Therefore, the OET Laboratory concluded
   that the devices are intentional radiators, 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, 47 C.F.R. S 15.205, and that this radiated emission
   substantially exceeds the radiated emission limits for intentional
   radiators specified in Section 15.209 of the Rules, 47 C.F.R. S 15.209.
   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.

   On January 22, 2007, the Division staff again visited one of Electronic
   Retail Solutions, Inc.'s internet web sites,
   www.electronicretailsolutions.com, and observed that Electronic Retail
   Solutions, Inc. was continuing to market the RMR-S201 and RMR-C450
   devices.

   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.

   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, 47 C.F.R. S 15.205,
   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-S201 and RMR-C450
   devices are intentional radiators. These devices are not, however,
   eligible for a grant of certification because their 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 these devices in fact are 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. We note that on
   January 31, 2007, concurrently with the issuance of this Citation, the
   Division issued a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture proposing a
   $25,000 forfeiture against RMR for marketing the RMR-S201 and RMR-C450
   devices 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.

   The record before us indicates that Electronic Retail Solutions has
   marketed and continues to market the RMR-S201 and the RMR-C450 devices.
   Accordingly, it appears that Electronic Retail Solutions has violated
   Section 302(b) of the Act and Section 2.803 of the Rules by marketing the
   RMR-S201 and RMR-C450 devices, which are not eligible for a grant of
   equipment certification because they are intended to interfere with
   licensed police radar, in violation of Section 333 of the Act. Electronic
   Retail Solutions has also apparently violated Section 302(a) 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, Electronic Retail Solutions, 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
   Electronic Retail Solutions, Inc.-Detectors 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 Norfolk Resident Agent  Office
   in Chesapeake, VA. Please call Jacqueline Johnson at 202-418-2871 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

   "Marketing" is defined as "sale or lease, or offering for sale or lease,
   including advertising for sale or lease, or importation, shipment, or
   distribution for the purpose of selling or leasing or offering for sale or
   lease." 47 C.F.R. S 2.803(e)(4).

   See Letter from Kathryn Berthot, Deputy Chief, Spectrum Enforcement
   Division, Enforcement Bureau, Federal Communications Commission to
   Electronic Retail Solutions, Inc. (September 1, 2005).

   See Letter from Harlan E. Gauger, Jr., Electronic Retail Solutions, Inc.,
   to Susan Magnotti, Spectrum Enforcement Division, Enforcement Bureau,
   Federal Communications Commission (September 19, 2005).

   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 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."

   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 "Emission 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."

   Rocky Mountain Radar, Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture, DA
   07-299 (Enf. Bur., Spectrum Enf. Div., rel. January 31, 2007).

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

   Federal Communications Commission DA 07-308

   4

   Federal Communications Commission DA 07-308

                       FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

                            WASHINGTON, D.C.  20554

References

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