![](media/image1.png){width="1.2902777777777779in"
height="1.229861111111111in"}

April 20, 2007

**[VIA CERTIFIED MAIL]{.underline}**

**[RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED]{.underline}**

**[AND FACSIMILE AT 718-437-8892]{.underline}**

Mr. Anthony Berkowitz, President

Focus Camera, Inc.

905 McDonald Avenue

Brooklyn, New York 11218

[]{.mark}

> 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. §
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. §
302a(b), and Sections 2.803, 15.205 and 15.209 of the Commission's Rules
("Rules"), 47 C.F.R. §§ 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
[www.](http://www.ambientweather.com/)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[^1] 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.[^2] 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.[^3]
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.[^4] 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. § 15.3(o).[^5] 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.[^6] The OET Laboratory also concluded that the RMR-C450 device
was improperly certified.[^7] 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."[^8] 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. § 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 § 2.925 and other relevant sections in this
> chapter.

Pursuant to Section 15.201 of the Rules, 47 C.F.R. § 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. § 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. § 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,[^9] 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.[^10] 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.[^11] This radiated
emission also substantially exceeds the radiated emission limits for
intentional radiators specified in Section 15.209 of the Rules.[^12]

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.]{.underline}**[^13]

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. § 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. § 1001.

Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation.

Sincerely,

Kathryn S. Berthot

> Chief, Spectrum Enforcement Division

Enforcement Bureau

[^1]: The *NAL* also included the RMR-S201 device which is not relevant
    to this citation.

[^2]: *Rocky Mountain Radar*, Notice of Apparent Liability for
    Forfeiture, 22 FCC Rcd 1334 (Enf. Bur., Spectrum Enf. Div., 2007)
    ("*RMR*").

[^3]: *Id.* at 1335.

[^4]: *Id*.

[^5]: *Id.* An intentional radiator is defined by Section 15.3(o) of the
    Rules, 47 C.F.R. § 15.3(o), as "\[a\] device that intentionally
    generates and emits radio frequency energy by radiation or
    induction."

[^6]: *RMR*, 22 FCC Rcd at 1335.

[^7]: *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."

[^8]: *RMR*, 22 FCC Rcd at 1335. An "unintentional radiator" is defined
    by Section 15.3(z) of the Rules, 47 C.F.R. § 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.

[^9]: Section 2.1(c) of the Rules, 47 C.F.R. § 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."

[^10]: *RMR*, 22 FCC Rcd at 1337-8.

[^11]: *Id.* at 1338.

[^12]: *Id.*

[^13]: *See* 47 C.F.R. § 1.80(b)(3).