![](media/image1.png){width="1.2902777777777779in"
height="1.229861111111111in"} April 19, 2007

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

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

**[AND FACSIMILE AT (845) 246-1757]{.underline}**

Mr. Erick Krein

Senior Vice President

Tower Products, Inc.

812 Kings Highway

Saugerties, NY 12477

[]{.mark}

> 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. §
503(b)(5), for marketing unauthorized radio frequency devices[^1] in the
United States in violation of Section 302(b) of the Act, 47 U.S.C. §
302a(b), and Section 2.803 of the Commission's Rules ("Rules"), 47
C.F.R. § 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. § 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. § 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]{.underline}**

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[^2] 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.[^3] In its response,[^4] 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.[^5] In
its response,[^6] 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[^7] 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.[^8] In
its response,[^9] 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. § 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.

Section 15.201(b) of the Rules, 47 C.F.R. § 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]{.underline}**

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."[^10] 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[^11] 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."[^12] 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.[^13] 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.]{.underline}** [^14]

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. § 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

cc: Mitchell Lazarus, Esq.

[^1]: 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. § 2.801.

[^2]: Laird Telemedia is a trade name used by Tower.

[^3]: *See* Letter from Kathryn Berthot, Deputy Chief, Spectrum
    Enforcement Division, Enforcement Bureau, Federal Communications
    Commission, to Laird Telemedia. (October 24, 2006).

[^4]: *See* Letter from Mitchell Lazarus, Esq., to Thomas D.
    Fitz-Gibbon, Attorney Advisor, Spectrum Enforcement Division,
    Enforcement Bureau, Federal Communications Commission (November 20,
    2006).

[^5]: *See* Letter from Kathryn S. Berthot, Deputy Chief, Spectrum
    Enforcement Division, Enforcement Bureau, Federal Communications
    Commission to VideoComm Technologies (December 27, 2006).

[^6]: *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).

[^7]: 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.

[^8]: *See* Letter from Kathryn S. Berthot, Deputy Chief, Spectrum
    Enforcement Division, Enforcement Bureau, Federal Communications
    Commission to Mitchell Lazarus (February 27, 2007).

[^9]: *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").

[^10]: *See* Section 2.1204(a)(2) of the Rules, 47 C.F.R. §
    2.1204(a)(2).

[^11]: FCC Form 740 is used to report customs data. *See* 47 C.F.R. §
    2.1205(a).

[^12]: *See* Section 2.1204(a)(4) of the Rules, 47 C.F.R. §
    2.1204(a)(4).

[^13]: Section 2.1203(a) of the Rules, 47 C.F.R. § 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."

[^14]: *See* 47 C.F.R. § 1.80(b)(3).