**Before the**

**Federal Communications Commission**

**Washington, D.C. 20554**

+----------------------------------+---+-------------------------------+
| In the Matter of                 | * | File No. EB-08-SE-052         |
|                                  | * |                               |
| Inter Tech FM                    | ) | NAL/Acct. No. 200932100041    |
|                                  | * |                               |
|                                  | * | FRN \# 0018458026             |
|                                  |   |                               |
|                                  | * |                               |
|                                  | * |                               |
|                                  | ) |                               |
|                                  | * |                               |
|                                  | * |                               |
|                                  |   |                               |
|                                  | * |                               |
|                                  | * |                               |
|                                  | ) |                               |
|                                  | * |                               |
|                                  | * |                               |
|                                  |   |                               |
|                                  | * |                               |
|                                  | * |                               |
|                                  | ) |                               |
|                                  | * |                               |
|                                  | * |                               |
+----------------------------------+---+-------------------------------+

**NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE**

**Adopted:** January 29, 2009 **Released:** February 2, 2009

By the Chief, Spectrum Enforcement Division, Enforcement Bureau:

# introduction

1.  In this *Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture* ("*NAL*"), we
    find Inter Tech FM ("Inter Tech") apparently liable for a forfeiture
    in the amount of seven thousand dollars (\$7,000) for willful and
    repeated violation of Section 302(b) of the Communications Act of
    1934, as amended ("Act"),[^1] and Section 2.803(a) of the
    Commission's Rules ("Rules").[^2] The noted apparent violation
    involves Inter Tech's marketing of an unauthorized FM broadcast
    transmitter. In addition, we propose a forfeiture in the amount of
    eleven thousand dollars (\$11,000) against Inter Tech for providing
    to the Commission, during the course of this investigation, material
    factual information that is incorrect without a reasonable basis for
    believing the material factual information was correct, in willful
    violation of Section 1.17(a)(2) of the Rules.[^3] We accordingly
    propose a total forfeiture of eighteen thousand dollars (\$18,000).

# background

2.  In response to complaints alleging that Inter Tech was marketing[^4]
    unauthorized FM broadcast transmitters in the United States, the
    Spectrum Enforcement Division of the Enforcement Bureau ("Division")
    began an investigation. As part of this investigation, Division
    Staff reviewed Inter Tech's website[^5] on February 7, 2008, noting
    that Inter Tech was marketing a broad array of FM broadcast
    equipment. Because it appeared that Inter Tech may have been using
    this website to market unauthorized broadcast equipment, the
    Division sent Inter Tech a letter of inquiry[^6] on March 28, 2008
    to further investigate whether Inter Tech was marketing unauthorized
    FM broadcast equipment.

3.  In its April 23, 2008 response to the First LOI,[^7] Inter Tech
    stated that it manufactured and marketed fifteen different
    transmitter models.[^8] Of the fifteen transmitter models, Inter
    Tech stated that it currently markets fourteen of these models in
    the United States, and that it only recently discontinued marketing
    the remaining model, the Cybermax FM TX1 (also sold as the Cybermax
    FM TXV-1 and TXV-2, and Cyclone TX1, TXV-1 and TXV-2) ("Cybermax FM
    TX1"), in the United States in November of 2007.[^9] Inter Tech
    states that all of these models were marketed to full power FM
    stations operating in the broadcast services under Part 73 of the
    Rules, and verified in accordance with the requirements set forth in
    Section 73.1660(a)(1) of the Rules.[^10] As proof of verification,
    Inter Tech provided verification records for an exciter that Inter
    Tech claims is incorporated into each of the fifteen models.[^11]

4.  Because Inter Tech did not provide the requested verification
    paperwork for the transmitters, including the Cybermax FM TX1
    transmitter, the Division issued follow-up LOIs on July 10,
    2008[^12] and November 24, 2008.[^13] In its July 23, 2008 Response
    to the Second LOI,[^14] Inter Tech stated that it believed that by
    verifying the exciter, it had complied with Section 73.1660(a)(1) of
    the Rules.[^15] In the Division's Third LOI, the Division sought an
    explanation for Inter Tech's statement in its First LOI Response
    that it had discontinued marketing the Cybermax FM TX1 Transmitter
    in November of 2007, despite evidence that the Cybermax FM
    Transmitter TX1 was marketed on the website as late as February 7,
    2008 under the name Cyclone TXV-2.[^16] Inter Tech claimed that it
    had accidentally uploaded a previous version of its website on that
    date, and that Inter Tech had removed the marketing material
    associated with the Cyclone TXV-2 "as soon as \[the marketing
    material\] was discovered."[^17]

#  discussion

**A. Marketing of Unauthorized Equipment**

5.  Section 302 of the Act authorizes the Commission to make reasonable
    regulations, consistent with the public interest, governing the
    interference potential of equipment that emits radio frequency
    energy, and prohibits, among other things, the offering for sale of
    radio frequency devices to the extent that such activity does not
    comply with these regulations.[^18] Specifically, 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)(2) of the
    Rules prohibits the sale or lease, offer of sale or lease,
    importation, or shipment of radio frequency devices,[^19] as well as
    the distribution of such devices for the purpose of selling such
    devices, unless the device complies with applicable administrative,
    technical, labeling and identification requirements of the Rules.

6.  Section 73.1660(a)(1) of the Rules[^20] requires verification of AM,
    FM, or TV transmitters used in the broadcast services, in accordance
    with the procedures described in Part 2 of the Rules. Under Section
    2.811 of the Rules,[^21] the requirements of Section 2.803(a)
    through (d) of the Rules are not applicable to transmitters operated
    in any of the Part 73 radio broadcast services, provided that the
    conditions set forth in Part 73 for the acceptability of such
    transmitter for using under licensing are met. Therefore, absent
    compliance with the verification requirement set forth in Section
    73.1660 of the Rules, Part 73 transmitters are considered to be
    "unauthorized" and may not be marketed in the United States.

7.  Inter Tech states that the Cybermax FM TX1 Transmitter has been
    verified in accordance with Section 73.1660(a)(1) of the Rules for
    use in the broadcast service. Section 73.1660(a)(1) of the Rules,
    however, requires verification of transmitters, not component parts
    thereof. As proof of verification, Inter Tech submitted partial
    verification records[^22] for the Max 15 DSP FM exciter, an exciter
    that Inter Tech claims is incorporated into the Cybermax FM TX1
    Transmitter. Because transmitters are a combination of several
    functional components that interact with one another to produce
    unique emanating characteristics and power levels, verification of
    an exciter incorporated into a transmitter is insufficient to verify
    the final transmitter. Therefore, we conclude that the Cybermax FM
    TX1 transmitter has not been verified. Accordingly, we find that
    Inter Tech apparently marketed the Cybermax FM TX1 Transmitter in
    the United States, in willful[^23] and repeated[^24] violation of
    Section 302(b) of the Act and Section 2.803(a) of the Rules.[^25]

    **B. Providing Incorrect Material Information to the Commission**

8.  Section 1.17 of the Rules states that no person may provide, in any
    written statement of fact, "material factual information that is
    incorrect or omit material information that is necessary to prevent
    any material factual statement that is made from being incorrect or
    misleading without a reasonable basis for believing that any such
    material factual statement is correct and not misleading."[^26] Any
    person who has received a letter of inquiry from the Commission or
    its staff or is otherwise the subject of a Commission investigation
    is subject to the Rule.[^27] In expanding the scope of Section 1.17
    of the Rules in 2003 to include written statements that are made
    without a reasonable basis for believing the statement is correct
    and not misleading, the Commission explained that this requirement
    was intended to more clearly articulate the obligations of persons
    dealing with the Commission, ensure that they exercise due diligence
    in preparing written submissions, and enhance the effectiveness of
    the Commission's enforcement efforts.[^28] Thus, even in the absence
    of an intent to deceive, a false statement provided without a
    reasonable basis for believing that the statement is correct and not
    misleading constitutes an actionable violation of Section 1.17 of
    the Rules.[^29]

9.  As the Commission has stated, parties must "use due diligence in
    providing information that is correct and not misleading to the
    Commission, including taking appropriate affirmative steps to
    determine the truthfulness of what is being submitted. A failure to
    exercise such reasonable diligence would mean that the party did not
    have a reasonable basis for believing in the truthfulness of the
    information."[^30] In its First Response, Inter Tech stated that in
    November of 2007, it ceased marketing the Cybermax FM TXI (also
    marketed under the trade name Cyclone TXV-2).[^31] As of February 7,
    2008, however, Inter Tech's website listed this transmitter for sale
    under the name Cyclone TXV-2.[^32] Had Inter Tech exercised even
    minimal diligence prior to the submission of its First LOI Response,
    it would not have submitted incorrect and misleading material
    factual information in its LOI response.[^33] Although there is
    insufficient information to conclude that Inter Tech\'s provision of
    incorrect material factual information was intentional in violation
    of Section 1.17(a)(1) of the Rules,[^34] we find that Inter Tech
    apparently willfully violated Section 1.17(a)(2) of the Rules by
    providing material factual information that was incorrect without a
    reasonable basis for believing that the information was correct and
    not misleading.[^35]

    **C. Proposed Forfeiture**

10. Under Section 503(b)(1)(B) of the Act, any person who is determined
    by the Commission to have willfully or repeatedly failed to comply
    with any provision of the Act or any Rule, regulation, or order
    issued by the Commission shall be liable to the United States for a
    forfeiture penalty.[^36] To impose such a forfeiture penalty, the
    Commission must issue a notice of apparent liability and the person
    against whom such notice has been issued must have an opportunity to
    show, in writing, why no such forfeiture penalty should be
    imposed.[^37] The Commission will then issue a forfeiture if it
    finds by a preponderance of the evidence that the person has
    violated the Act or Rule.[^38] As set forth below, we conclude under
    this standard that Inter Tech is apparently liable for a forfeiture
    in the amount of seven thousand dollars (\$7,000) for its apparent
    willful and repeated violations of Section 302(b) of the Act and
    Section 2.803(a) of the Rules, and a forfeiture in the amount of
    eleven thousand dollars (\$11,000) for its willful violation of
    Section 1.17(a)(2) of the Rules, for a total proposed forfeiture of
    eighteen thousand dollars (\$18,000).

11. At the time of Inter Tech's apparent violations, under Section
    503(b)(2)(B) of the Act,[^39] we were authorized to assess a
    forfeiture penalty against certain entities, such as Inter Tech, who
    are not common carriers, broadcast licensees, or cable operators, of
    eleven thousand dollars (\$11,000) for each violation, or for each
    day of a continuing violation, up to a total of ninety seven
    thousand five hundred dollars (\$97,500) for any single act or
    failure to act. In exercising such authority, we are required to
    take into account "the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of
    the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of
    culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such
    other matters as justice may require."[^40]

12. Section 503(b)(6) of the Act[^41] bars the Commission from proposing
    a forfeiture for violations that occurred more than a year prior to
    the issuance of an NAL. Section 503(b)(6) does not, however, bar the
    Commission from assessing whether Inter Tech's conduct prior to that
    time period apparently violated the provisions of the Act and Rules
    and from considering such conduct in determining the appropriate
    forfeiture amount for violations that occurred within the one-year
    statutory period.[^42] Thus, while we may consider the fact that
    Inter Tech's conduct has continued since 2006 or earlier, the
    forfeiture amount we propose herein relates only to Inter Tech's
    apparent violations that have occurred within the past year.

13. Under the Commission's *Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of
    Section 1.80 of the Rules to incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines*
    ("*Forfeiture Policy Statement*")[^43] and Section 1.80 of the
    Rules,[^44] the base forfeiture amount for the marketing of
    unauthorized equipment is seven thousand dollars (\$7,000). We
    conclude that Inter Tech marketed the unauthorized Cybermax FM TX1
    transmitter. Accordingly, we find that a proposed forfeiture in the
    amount of seven thousand dollars (\$7,000) is warranted for the
    willful and repeated marketing of an unauthorized transmitter in
    violation of Section 302(b) of the Act and Section 2.803(a) of the
    Rules.[^45]

14. Pursuant to the *Forfeiture Policy Statement* and Section 1.80(b)(4)
    of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for misrepresentation or
    lack of candor is the statutory maximum,[^46] or, in this case as
    based on the date of the violation, eleven thousand dollars
    (\$11,000).[^47] In determining the appropriate forfeiture amount,
    we may adjust the base amount upward or downward by considering the
    factors enumerated in Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act, including
    "the nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation,
    and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any
    history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as
    justice may require."[^48]

15. Considering all of the enumerated factors and the particular
    circumstances of this case, we find that Inter Tech in responding to
    our First LOI apparently willfully violated Section 1.17(a)(2) of
    the Rules by providing incorrect or misleading material factual
    information to Commission staff without a reasonable basis for
    believing the information was correct and not misleading. The
    Commission has stated that it relies "heavily on the truthfulness
    and accuracy of the information provided to us. If information
    submitted to us is incorrect, we cannot properly carry out our
    statutory responsibilities."[^49] Inter Tech's failure to exercise
    due diligence to ensure that the information provided in its LOI
    Response was correct and not misleading hampered our ability to
    properly carry out our statutory responsibilities and consumed
    scarce Commission resources. Although Inter Tech ultimately provided
    the correct information, it did so only after the Division sent
    Inter Tech a Third LOI that specifically directed Inter Tech to
    explain why, if Inter Tech ceased marketing the Cybermax TX1
    transmitter in November of 2007, Inter Tech's website offered this
    transmitter for sale on February 7, 2008.[^50] Accordingly, we find
    that a proposed forfeiture of eleven thousand dollars (\$11,000) is
    warranted for Inter Tech's violation of Section 1.17(a)(2) of the
    Rules.

# iV. ORDERING CLAUSES {#iv.-ordering-clauses .unnumbered}

16. Accordingly, **IT IS ORDERED** that, pursuant to pursuant to Section
    503(b) of the Act[^51] and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80 of the
    Rules,[^52] Inter Tech FM **IS** hereby **NOTIFIED** of its
    **APPARENT LIABILITY FOR A FORFEITURE** in the amount of seven
    thousand dollars (\$7,000) for willfully and repeatedly violating
    Section 302(b) of the Act and Section 2.803(a) of the Rules, and
    eleven thousand dollars (\$11,000) for willfully violating Section
    1.17(a)(2) of the Rules, for a total proposed forfeiture of fifteen
    thousand dollars (\$18,000).

17. **IT IS FURTHER ORDERED** that, pursuant to Section 1.80 of the
    Rules, within thirty days of the release date of this *Notice of
    Apparent Liability for Forfeiture and Order*, Inter Tech FM **SHALL
    PAY** the full amount of the proposed forfeiture or **SHALL FILE** a
    written statement seeking reduction or cancellation of the proposed
    forfeiture.

18. Payment of the forfeiture must be made by check or similar
    instrument, payable to the order of the Federal Communications
    Commission. The payment must include the NAL/Account Number and FRN
    Number referenced above. Payment by check or money order may be
    mailed to Federal Communications Commission, P.O. Box 979088, St.
    Louis, MO 63197-9000. Payment by overnight mail may be sent to U.S.
    Bank -- Government Lockbox #979088, SL-MO-C2-GL, 1005 Convention
    Plaza, St. Louis, MO 63101. Payment by wire transfer may be made to
    ABA Number 021030004, receiving bank TREAS/NYC, and account
    number 27000001. For payment by credit card, an FCC Form 159
    (Remittance Advice) must be submitted. When completing the FCC Form
    159, enter the NAL/Account number in block number 23A (call
    sign/other ID), and enter the letters "FORF" in block number 24A
    (payment type code). Requests for full payment under an installment
    plan should be sent to: Chief Financial Officer -- Financial
    Operations, 445 12th Street, S.W., Room 1-A625, Washington,
    D.C. 20554. Please contact the Financial Operations Group Help Desk
    at 1-877-480-3201 or Email: ARINQUIRIES@fcc.gov with any questions
    regarding payment procedures. Inter Tech FM will also send
    electronic notification on the date said payment is made to
    Neal.McNeal@fcc.gov and Nissa.Laughner@fcc.gov.

19. The response, if any, must be mailed to the Office of the Secretary,
    Federal Communications Commission, 445 12th Street, S.W.,
    Washington, D.C. 20554, ATTN: Enforcement Bureau -- Spectrum
    Enforcement Division, and must include the NAL/Acct. No. referenced
    in the caption.

20. The Commission will not consider reducing or canceling a forfeiture
    in response to a claim of inability to pay unless the petitioner
    submits: (1) federal tax returns for the most recent three-year
    period; (2) financial statements prepared according to generally
    accepted accounting practices; or (3) some other reliable and
    objective documentation that accurately reflects the petitioner's
    current financial status. Any claim of inability to pay must
    specifically identify the basis for the claim by reference to the
    financial documentation submitted.

21. **IT IS FURTHER ORDERED** that a copy of this Notice of Apparent
    Liability for Forfeiture shall be sent by first class mail and
    certified mail return receipt requested to Chris Rea, Inter Tech FM,
    8725 W. Sunset Road, Suite 200, Niles, Illinois 60714.

**FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION**

Kathryn S. Berthot

Chief, Spectrum Enforcement Division

> Enforcement Bureau

[^1]: 47 U.S.C. § 302a(b).

[^2]: 47 C.F.R. § 2.803(a).

[^3]: 47 C.F.R. § 1.17(a)(2).

[^4]: "Marketing" includes the sale or lease, offer for sale or lease
    (including advertising for sale or lease), importing, shipping,
    and/or distribution for the purpose of selling or leasing or
    offering for sale or lease. 47 C.F.R. § 2.803(e)(4).

[^5]: www.intertechfm.com (accessed February 7, 2008).

[^6]: *See* Letter from Kathryn S. Berthot, Chief, Spectrum Enforcement
    Division, Enforcement Bureau, Federal Communications Commission, to
    Chris Rea, Inter Tech FM (March 28, 2008) ("First LOI").

[^7]: *See* Letter from Chris Rea, Inter Tech FM to Spectrum Enforcement
    Division, Enforcement Bureau, Federal Communications Commission
    (April 23, 2008) ("First Response").

[^8]: *Id*. at 6.

[^9]: *Id*. at 1 (stating that InterTech discontinued marketing the
    Cybermax FM TX1 or TXV-1 or TXV-2 in November 2007). *See also id.*
    at 4 (identifying the Cybermax TX1 or TXV-1 or TXV-2 under the names
    Cyclone TX1, Cyclone TXV-1, and Cyclone TXV-2). We note that our
    findings in this *NAL* pertain only to the marketing of the Cybermax
    FM TX1 transmitter. Our investigation into Inter Tech's marketing of
    several other FM broadcast equipment models is ongoing, and
    therefore is not addressed in this *NAL*.

[^10]: *Id*. at 4. *See also* 47 C.F.R. § 73.1660(a)(1). Verification is
    a self-authorization procedure where the manufacturer or the
    importer, in the case of imported equipment, makes measurements or
    takes the necessary steps to insure that the equipment complies with
    the appropriate technical standards. *See* 47 C.F.R. §§ 2.902 and
    2.909(b).

[^11]: *Id*. *See also* 47 C.F.R. § 2.955 (describing those verification
    records required to be maintained by the manufacturer).

[^12]: *See* Letter from Kathryn S. Berthot, Chief, Spectrum Enforcement
    Division, Enforcement Bureau, Federal Communications Commission, to
    Chris Rea, Inter Tech FM (July 10, 2008) ("Second LOI").

[^13]: *See* Letter from Kathryn S. Berthot, Chief, Spectrum Enforcement
    Division, Enforcement Bureau, Federal Communications Commission, to
    Chris Rea, Inter Tech FM (November 24, 2008) ("Third LOI").

[^14]: *See* Letter from Chris Rea, Inter Tech FM to Kathryn S. Berthot,
    Chief, Spectrum Enforcement Division, Enforcement Bureau, Federal
    Communications Commission (July 23, 2008) ("Second Response").

[^15]: *Id*. at 2.

[^16]: *See* Third LOI at 2. *See* *also* *supra* para. 2*.*

[^17]: *See* Third Response at 1.

[^18]: 47 U.S.C. § 302a(a).

[^19]: Section 2.801(a)(1) of the Rules defines a radio frequency device
    as "any device which in its operation is capable of emitting radio
    frequency energy\... ." Radio frequency devices subject to the Rules
    include, among other items, radio communication transmitting devices
    and "any part or component thereof which in use emits radiofrequency
    energy." 47 C.F.R. § § 2.801(a)(1) and (d).

[^20]: 47 C.F.R. § 73.1660(a)(1).

[^21]: *See* 47 C.F.R. § 2.811.

[^22]: 47 C.F.R. § 2.955 (listing records required to be maintained as
    proof of verification). Under the verification procedures, the
    manufacturer of radio frequency devices, or the importer in the case
    of imported devices, must make measurements or take the necessary
    steps to obtain measurements to ensure that the subject devices
    comply with the Commission\'s technical standards. *See* 47 C.F.R. §
    2.902(a).

[^23]: Section 312(f)(1) of the Act defines "willful" as "the conscious
    and deliberate commission or omission of \[any\] act, irrespective
    of any intent to violate" the law. 47 U.S.C. § 312(f)(1). The
    legislative history of Section 312(f)(1) of the Act clarifies that
    this definition of willful applies to both Sections 312 and 503(b)
    of the Act, H.R. Rep. No. 97-765, 97^th^ Cong. 2d Sess. 51 (1982),
    and the Commission has so interpreted the term in the Section 503(b)
    context. *See Southern California Broadcasting Co.,* Memorandum
    Opinion and Order, 6 FCC Rcd 4387, 4388 (1991), *recon. denied,* 7
    FCC Rcd 3454 (1992) ("*Southern California*").

[^24]: Section 312(f)(2) of the Act, which also applies to forfeitures
    assessed pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Act, provides that
    "\[t\]he term 'repeated,'... means the commission or omission of
    such act more than once or, if such commission or omission is
    continuous, for more than one day." 47 U.S.C. § 312(f)(2). *See
    Callais Cablevision, Inc.*, Notice of Apparent Liability for
    Forfeiture, 16 FCC Rcd 1359, 1362 (2001); *Southern California*, 6
    FCC Rcd at 4388.

[^25]: *See Syntax-Brillian Corporation*, Forfeiture Order and Notice of
    Apparent Liability for Forfeiture, 23 FCC Rcd 6323, 6327 (2008)
    (emphasizing that equipment subject to verification but noncompliant
    with our technical and administrative Rules is considered to be
    "unauthorized" under 503(b)(5) of the Act and may not be marketed in
    the United States) ("*Syntax-Brillian Forfeiture Order*"). *See also
    Behringer USA, Inc*., Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture,
    21 FCC Rcd 1820, 1825 (2006) (imposing liability for the marketing
    of non-verified equipment), *forfeiture ordered*, 22 FCC Rcd 10451
    (2007) (forfeiture paid) ("*Behringer USA, Inc.*").

[^26]: 47 C.F.R. § 1.17(a)(2).

[^27]: 47 C.F.R. § 1.17(b)(4).

[^28]: *See Amendment of Section 1.17 of the Commission\'s Rules
    Concerning Truthful Statements to the Commission*, Report and Order,
    18 FCC Rcd 4016**,** 4021 (2003), *recon. denied*, Memorandum
    Opinion and Order, 19 FCC Rcd 5790, *further recon. denied*,
    Memorandum Opinion and Order, 20 FCC Rcd 1250 (2004)("*Amendment of
    Section 1.17*").

[^29]: *See* *id.* at 4017 (stating that the revision to Section 1.17 of
    the Rules is intended to "prohibit incorrect statements of omissions
    that are the results of negligence, as well as an intent to
    deceive").

[^30]: *Amendment of Section 1.17*, 18 FCC Rcd at 4021.

[^31]: *See* First Response at 1.

[^32]: *See* para. 2 *supra*.

[^33]: *See Invision Industries, Inc.,* Notice of Apparent Liability for
    Forfeiture, 23 FCC Rcd 13095, 13103-04 (2008) (finding that a
    television importer's failure to exercise due diligence to ensure
    that the information provided in its LOI Response was correct and
    not misleading constituted a violation of Section 1.17(a)(2) of the
    Rules) ("*Invision*"); *Syntax-Brillian Forfeiture Order*, 23 FCC
    Rcd at 6342 (finding that a television manufacturer apparently
    provided incorrect material information concerning its importation
    and interstate shipment of non-DTV-compliant televisions without a
    reasonable basis for believing that the information was correct and
    not misleading, in violation of Section 1.17(a)(2) of the Rules);
    *Citicasters License, L.P., et al.*, Memorandum Opinion and Order
    and Notice of Apparent Liability, 22 FCC Rcd 19324, 19338 (2007)
    (forfeiture paid) (finding that a licensee's false certification
    that it had not violated the Act or any Commission Rules during the
    preceding license term had no reasonable basis and was not made with
    the intent to deceive the Commission but nonetheless, violated
    Section 1.17(a)(2) of the Rules) ("*Citicasters*"). *See also
    Cardinal Broadband LLC, aka Sovereign Telecommunications*, Notice of
    Apparent Liability for Forfeiture, 23 FCC Rcd 12233, 12237 (Enf.
    Bur. 2008) ("*Cardinal Broadband LLC*"), *response pending* (finding
    that the failure to provide information requested in an LOI prior to
    receipt of the Division's follow-up LOI constituted a violation of
    Section 1.17(a)(2) of the Rules).

[^34]: 47 C.F.R. 1.17(a)(1).

[^35]: *See, e.g., Cardinal Broadband* *LLC*, 23 FCC Rcd at 12237.

[^36]: 47 U.S.C. § 503(b).

[^37]: 47 U.S.C. § 503(b); 47 C.F.R. § 1.80(f).

[^38]: *See, e.g.,* *SBC Communications, Inc*., Forfeiture Order, 17 FCC
    Rcd 7589, 7591 (2002) (forfeiture paid).

[^39]: 47 U.S.C. § 503(b)(2)(A). The Commission has amended Section
    1.80(b)(3) of the Rules, 47 C.F.R. § 1.80(b)(3), three times to
    increase the maximum forfeiture amounts, in accordance with the
    inflation adjustment requirements contained in the Debt Collection
    Improvement Act of 1996, 28 U.S.C. § 2461. *See Amendment of Section
    1.80 of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima
    to Reflect Inflation*, 23 FCC Rcd 9845 (2008) (adjusting the maximum
    statutory amounts for non- licensees from \$11,000/\$97,500 to
    \$16,000/\$112,500); *Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's
    Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation,*
    Order, 19 FCC Rcd 10945 (2004) (adjusting the maximum statutory
    amounts for non-licensees from \$11,000/\$87,500 to
    \$11,000/\$97,500); *Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's
    Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation,*
    Order, 15 FCC Rcd 18221 (2000) (adjusting the maximum statutory
    amounts for non-licensees from \$10,000/\$75,000 to
    \$11,000/\$87,500). The most recent inflation adjustment took effect
    September 2, 2008 and applies to violations that occur after that
    date. *See* 73 Fed. Reg. 44663-5.

[^40]: 47 U.S.C. § 503(b)(2)(E). *See also* 47 C.F.R. § 1.80(b)(4), Note
    to paragraph (b)(4): Section II. Adjustment Criteria for Section 503
    Forfeitures.

[^41]: 47 U.S.C. § 503(b)(6).

[^42]: *See* 47 U.S.C. § 503(b)(2)(D), 47 C.F.R. § 1.80(b)(4); *see also
    Behringer USA, Inc.,* 21 FCC Rcd at 1825; *Globcom, Inc. d/b/a
    Globcom Global Communications*, Notice of Apparent Liability for
    Forfeiture, 18 FCC Rcd 19893, 19903 (2003), *forfeiture ordered,*
    Forfeiture Order, 21 FCC Rcd 4710 (2006); *Roadrunner
    Transportation, Inc.,* Forfeiture Order, 15 FCC Rcd 9669, 9671-72
    (2000); *Cate Communications Corp.,* Memorandum Opinion and Order,
    60 RR 2d 1386, 1388 (1986); *Eastern Broadcasting Corp.,* Memorandum
    Opinion and Order, 10 FCC 2d 37 (1967), *recon. denied,* 11 FCC 2d
    193 (1967); *Bureau D'Electronique Appliquee, Inc.*, Notice of
    Apparent Liability for Forfeiture, 20 FCC Rcd 3445, 3447-48 (Enf.
    Bur., Spectrum Enf. Div. 2005), *forfeiture ordered,* Forfeiture
    Order, 20 FCC Rcd 17893 (Enf. Bur., Spectrum Enf. Div. 2005).

[^43]: 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), *recon. denied,* 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999).

[^44]: 47 C.F.R. § 1.80.

[^45]: *See, e.g., San Jose Navigation,Inc.,* Notice of Apparent
    Liability for Forfeiture, 21 FCC Rcd 2873, 2877 (2006) (proposing a
    \$28,000 base forfeiture amount for the marketing of four
    unauthorized devices), *forfeiture ordered*, Forfeiture Order, 22
    FCC Rcd 1040 (2007)*; CoachComm, LLC,* Notice of Apparent Liability
    for Forfeiture, 23 FCC Rcd 13278, 13282 (Enf. Bur., Spectrum Enf.
    Div. 2008) (proposing a \$7,000 forfeiture amount for the marketing
    of one unauthorized device); *Ramsey Electronics, Inc.,* Notice of
    Apparent Liability for Forfeiture, 21 FCC Rcd 458, 462 (Enf. Bur.,
    Spectrum Enf. Div., 2006) (proposing a \$28,000 base forfeiture
    amount for the marketing of four unauthorized devices), *forfeiture
    ordered*, Forfeiture Order, 23 FCC Rcd 8652 (Enf. Bur., Spectrum
    Enf. Div.2008).

[^46]: *See Forfeiture Policy Statement*, 12 FCC Rcd at 17113; 47 C.F.R.
    § 1.80(b)(4), Note to Paragraph (b)(4): *Section I. Base Amounts for
    Section 503 Forfeitures. See also Syntax-Brillian Forfeiture Order*,
    23 FCC Rcd at 6343; *Citicasters*, 22 FCC Rcd at 19339 (using the
    base forfeiture amount for misrepresentation/lack of candor as the
    base forfeiture for violations of Section 1.17 of the Rules).

[^47]: *See* 47 U.S.C. § 503(b)(2)(D) (setting forth the statutory
    maximum forfeiture for entities other than broadcasters and common
    carriers). *See also Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's
    Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation*, 23
    FCC Rcd 9845 (2008) (adjusting the maximum statutory amounts for
    non- licensees from \$11,000/\$87,500 to \$16,000/\$112,500). The
    most recent inflation adjustment took effect September 2, 2008 and
    applies to violations that occur after that date. *See* 73 Fed. Reg.
    44663-5. Because this violation occurred on April 23, 2008, the
    statutory maximum prior to this adjustment applies*.*

[^48]: *See Forfeiture Policy Statement*, 12 FCC Rcd at 17100; 47 C.F.R.
    § 1.80(b)(4).

[^49]: *See* Amendment of Section 1.17, 18 FCC Rcd 3293, 3297 (2002).

[^50]: *See Cardinal Broadband LLC,* 23 FCC Rcd at 12237 (proposing a
    forfeiture of \$25,000 when an interconnected Voice over Internet
    Protocol ("VoIP") service provider provided correct information only
    after the Bureau sent a follow-up LOI directing it to provide
    substantially the same information requested in the First LOI);
    *Invision*, 23 FCC Rcd at 13103-04 proposing a forfeiture of \$4,000
    for failure to exercise due diligence to ensure that the information
    provided in a letter of inquiry response was correct and not
    misleading where corrective information was provided in a timely
    manner without a specific request). *See also cf*. *Hauppauge
    Computer Works, Inc*, Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture,
    23 FCC Rcd 3684, 3686-87 (Enf. Bur., Spectrum Enf. Div. 2008)
    (proposing an \$11,000 forfeiture for failure to provide a complete
    response to letter of inquiry) (forfeiture paid).

[^51]: 47 U.S.C. § 503(b).

[^52]: 47 C.F.R. § § 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80.