Federal Communications Commission FCC 08-110
Before the
Federal Communications Commission
Washington, D.C. 20554
In the Matter of
Polaroid Corporation 
)
)
)
)
)
File No. EB-07-SE-257
NAL/Acct. No. 200832100038
FRN No. 0004902185
NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE
Adopted:  April 9, 2008 Released:  April 10, 2008
By the Commission:
I. INTRODUCTION
1. In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (NAL), we find Polaroid Corporation 
(Polaroid) apparently liable for a forfeiture in the amount of seven hundred seventy five thousand 
dollars ($775,000) for its willful and repeated violations of Section 330(c) of the Communications Act of 
1934, as amended, (Act),1 and Section 15.120(d)(2) of the Commissions Rules (Rules).2 The 
apparent violations involve Polaroids interstate shipment, after March 15, 2006, of digital television 
receivers that do not comply with the Commissions rules requiring that such receivers have the capability 
to respond to changes in the content advisory rating system.
II. BACKGROUND
2. Sections 303(x) and 330(c) of the Act were added by the Telecommunications Act of 
1996.3 Section 303(x) directs the Commission to prescribe rules that require that television receivers with 
picture screens 13 inches or greater shipped in interstate commerce or manufactured in the United States 
to be equipped with a feature designed to enable viewers to block the display of all programs with a 
common rating.  Section 330(c) provides that no person shall ship in interstate commerce or manufacture 
in the United States television receivers that do not comply with rules prescribed by the Commission 
pursuant to Section 303(x).  The Commission adopted program blocking capability requirements for both 
analog and digital (DTV) television receivers in 1998.4 In 2004, the Commission adopted specific 
technical standards to implement V-Chip functionality for DTV receivers (V-Chip technology 
requirement).5 The DTV V-Chip technology requirements provide that, effective March 15, 2006, 
digital television receivers with picture screens 13 inches or greater that are shipped in interstate 
  
1 47 U.S.C.  330(c).
2 47 C.F.R.  15.120(d)(2). 
3 See Pub. L. No. 104-104, 110 Stat. 56 (1996).  
4 In the Matter of Technical Requirements to Enable Blocking of Video Programming Based on Program Rating, 
Report and Order, 13 FCC Rcd 11248 (1998) (V-Chip Report and Order).
5 In the Matter of Second Periodic Review of the Commissions Rules and Policies Affecting the Conversion to 
Digital Television, Report and Order, 19 FCC Rcd 18279 (2004) (Second DTV Periodic Review Report and 
Order).  The V-Chip technology requirements also apply to devices sold without an accompanying display device.  
Id. at 18348 (Similar to our requirements for closed caption capabilities in digital television receivers, the rules will 
also be applicable to DTV tuners which are sold without an associated display device.).
Federal Communications Commission FCC 08-110
2
commerce must be equipped with V-Chip technology to allow blocking of the display of programming 
based on its content.6 Specifically, Section 15.120(d)(2) provides that:
Digital television receivers shall react in a similar manner as analog televisions when 
programmed to block specific rating categories.  Effective March 15, 2006, digital 
television receivers will receive program rating descriptors transmitted pursuant to 
industry standard EIA/CEA-766-A U.S. and Canadian Region Rating Tables (RRT) and 
Content Advisory Descriptors for Transport of Content Advisory Information using 
ATSC A/65-A Program and System Information Protocol (PSIP), 2001 (incorporated by 
reference, see  15.38).  Blocking of programs shall occur when a program rating is 
received that meets the pre-determined user requirements.  Digital television receivers 
shall be able to respond to changes in the content advisory rating system.  
To account for manufacturers product development cycles, the Commission allowed an 18-month 
transition period for implementation of the DTV V-Chip technology requirements.7
3. The V-Chip technology requirements implement Congresss determination, in the 
Telecommunications Act of 1996, that parents should be provided with timely information about the 
nature of upcoming video programming and with the technological tools that allow them easily to block 
violent, sexual, or other programming that they consider harmful to their children.8 This determination 
was based on Congresss finding that television broadcast and cable programming have established a 
uniquely pervasive presence in the lives of American children.9 Further, Congress found that 
empowering parents to control the presence and influence of television in their childrens lives was a 
compelling government interest.10 Finally, Congress concluded that requiring television receiver 
manufacturers to include V-Chip technology in their products is a nonintrusive and narrowly tailored 
means of achieving that compelling government interest.11  
4. In July 2007, the Enforcement Bureau (Bureau) received a complaint alleging that 
Polaroid was shipping in interstate commerce digital television receivers that did not include the required 
V-Chip technology.  On August 6, 2007, the Bureau issued a letter of inquiry (LOI) to Polaroid.12  
Polaroid filed a response to the LOI on October 9, 2007.13 Polaroid requested confidentiality of its LOI 
Response and that request remains pending.14 Accordingly, Polaroids LOI Response is discussed in an 
Appendix hereto, and we are treating the Appendix as confidential at this time.   
  
6 Id. at 18347-49 155-59.  
7 Id. at 18348-49 159.
8 V-Chip Report and Order, 13 FCC Rcd at 11248  2.
9 Pub. L. No. 104-104, 110 Stat. 56 (1996).  
10 Id.
11 Id.
12 See Letter from Kathryn S. Berthot, Chief, Spectrum Enforcement Division, Enforcement Bureau to Polaroid 
Corporation, Telecom Department (August 6, 2007) (LOI).
13 See Letter from William M. Boyd, Senior Vice President and General Counsel, Polaroid Corporation, to Kathryn 
Berthot, Chief, Spectrum Enforcement Division, Enforcement Bureau (September 19, 2007) (LOI Response); 
Letter from Scott W. Hardy, Executive Vice President, Technology and Management, Polaroid Corporation, to 
Kathryn Berthot, Chief, Spectrum Enforcement Division, Enforcement Bureau (December 19, 2007) (Supplemental 
Response).
14 Id. 
Federal Communications Commission FCC 08-110
3
III. DISCUSSION
A. Polaroid Apparently Shipped Interstate Digital Television Receivers In Violation of 
Section 330(c) of the Act and Section 15.120(d)(2) of the Rules
5. As noted above, under Section 330(c) of the Act and Section 15.120(d)(2) of our rules, 
digital television receivers that are shipped in interstate commerce and/or manufactured in the United 
States15 shall be able to respond to changes in the content advisory rating system.16 Based on our 
review of Polaroids LOI Response and Supplemental Response, we find that the company apparently 
willfully and repeatedly shipped in interstate commerce digital television receivers that did not comply 
with this requirement.  Polaroid does not dispute this finding.
B. Proposed Forfeiture
6. Based on the analysis set forth below, we conclude that Polaroid is apparently liable for a 
forfeiture in the amount of $775,000 for willfully and repeatedly shipping in interstate commerce 
television receivers that do not comply with the DTV V-Chip technology requirements because they lack 
the ability to adapt to new rating systems in violation of Section 330(c) of the Act and Section 
15.120(d)(2) of the Rules.
7. 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.17 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.18 The Commission will then issue a forfeiture if it finds by a preponderance 
of the evidence that the person has violated the Act or a Commission rule.19  We conclude under this 
standard that, as explained more fully in the Appendix, Polaroid is apparently liable for forfeiture for its 
apparent willful and repeated violations of Section 330(c) of the Act and Section 15.120(d)(2) of the 
Rules. 
8. Under Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act,20 we may assess an entity that is neither a 
common carrier, broadcast licensee or cable operator a forfeiture of up to $11,000 for each violation or 
each day of a continuing violation, up to a statutory maximum forfeiture of $97,500 for any single 
continuing violation.  In exercising such authority, we are required to take into account the nature, 
  
15 See 47 U.S.C.  303(c)(1); 47 C.F.R.  15.120(b).
16 47 C.F.R.  15.120(d)(2).
17 47 U.S.C.  503(b)(1)(B); 47 C.F.R.  1.80(a)(1).  
18 47 U.S.C.  503(b); 47 C.F.R.  1.80(f). 
19 See, e.g., SBC Communications, Inc., Forfeiture Order, 17 FCC Rcd 7589, 7591  4 (2002).  
20 47 U.S.C.  503(b)(2)(D).  The Commission twice amended Section 1.80(b)(3) of the Rules, 47 C.F.R.  
1.80(b)(3), 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 Commissions Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, Order, 15 FCC Rcd 18221 (2000) 
(adjusting the maximum statutory amounts from $10,000/$75,000 to $11,000/$87,500); Amendment of Section 1.80 
of the Commissions Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 10945 
(2004) (adjusting the maximum statutory amounts from $11,000/$87,500 to $11,000/$97,500).
Federal Communications Commission FCC 08-110
4
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.21
9. The Commissions Forfeiture Policy Statement22 and Section 1.80 of the Rules do not 
establish a specific base forfeiture for violation of the DTV V-Chip technology requirements.  The 
Commission has substantial discretion, however, in proposing forfeitures.23 We may apply the base 
forfeiture amounts described in the Forfeiture Policy Statement and our rules, or we may depart from 
them altogether as the circumstances demand.24
10. We recently issued Notices of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture proposing forfeitures 
against two manufacturers for importing and shipping interstate television receivers that did not comply 
with the Commissions DTV tuner requirement, reasoning that such a failure is more egregious, in 
general, than many other types of equipment marketing cases that come before us.25 In those cases, we 
found that applying a proposed forfeiture on a per model basis, as we have in other more routine 
equipment marketing cases, would result in forfeiture amounts that are not commensurate with the 
seriousness of the violation, and thus, we proposed a forfeiture based on each noncompliant unit shipped 
or imported.26 We proposed a similar approach for violations of our DTV V-Chip technology 
requirements involving the interstate shipment of receivers that are incapable of receiving program rating 
descriptors and blocking programs from viewing when the program rating meets pre-determined user 
requirements.27 We imposed a lower per unit forfeiture in the Funai NAL, however, because we 
recognized that television receiving devices without digital tuners, which were at issue in the Syntax-
Brillain and Regent NALs, lack the ability to receive digital television broadcast signals altogether, 
  
21 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.
22 See The Commissions Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate 
the Forfeiture Guidelines, Report and Order, 12 FCC Rcd 17087, 17115 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 
(1999) (Forfeiture Policy Statement).
23 See, e.g., InPhonic, Inc., Order of Forfeiture and Further Notice of Apparent Liability, 22 FCC Rcd 8689, 8699  
24 (2007); Globcom, 21 FCC Rcd at 4723-24  34.  
24 See 47 C.F.R. 1.80(b)(4) (The Commission and its staff may use these guidelines in particular cases [, and] 
retain the discretion to issue a higher or lower forfeiture than provided in the guidelines, to issue no forfeiture at all, 
or to apply alternative or additional sanctions as permitted by the statute.) (emphasis added).
25 Syntax-Brillian Corporation, Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture, 22 FCC Rcd 10530 (2007), response 
pending (Syntax-Brillian NAL); Regent U.S.A., Inc., Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture, 22 FCC Rcd 
10520 (2007) (forfeiture paid) (Regent NAL).  The DTV tuner requirement requires that all new television 
broadcast receivers that are imported into the United States or shipped in interstate commerce be capable of 
receiving the signals of DTV broadcast stations over-the-air.  See 47 C.F.R.  15.117(i)(1)(i).
26 Syntax-Brillian NAL, 22 FCC Rcd at 10535-36  13-15 (concluding that applying a proposed forfeiture on a per-
model basis for shipment of television receivers that were not compliant with the DTV tuner mandate would result 
in forfeiture amounts incommensurate with the seriousness of the violations); Regent NAL, 22 FCC Rcd at 10525-26 
 13-15 (same).  To reflect the increasing seriousness of the violation as the number of non-compliant units shipped or 
imported rises, we assessed forfeiture amounts on a tier-by-tier basis, increasing the forfeiture amount as the number of 
units shipped or imported increased.  See e.g., Syntax-Brillian NAL, 22 FCC Rcd 10535-36  15 (Tiers and per-unit 
forfeiture amounts were:  0-1000 units: $50 per unit, 1001-2500 units:  $75 per unit, 2501-5000 units:  $100 per unit, 
5001-10000 units:  $125 per unit, 10001-20000 units: $150 per unit, 20001-30000 units:  $175 per unit, 30001-40000 
units:  $200 per unit, 40001-50000: $225 per unit, and 50001+ units: $250 per unit.).
27 Funai Corporation, Inc., Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture, 22 FCC Rcd 19663, 19667-8  14 (2007), 
response pending (Funai NAL).  
Federal Communications Commission FCC 08-110
5
whereas devices without V-Chip functionality deprive consumers of the important capability to block 
unwanted programming but may still receive digital television signals.28
11. Considering these precedents, we conclude that violations of the requirement to ensure 
that digital television receivers have the capability to respond to changes in the content advisory rating 
system, while serious, are not as egregious as violations of the DTV tuner requirement or violations 
involving the failure to provide any V-Chip blocking capability.  Significantly, television receivers that do 
not include digital tuners or do not include any V-Chip technology both deprive consumers of a key 
functionality altogether.  By contrast, digital television receivers that lack the ability to adapt to a new 
rating system are still able to receive the existing program rating descriptors and block unwanted 
programming.  Therefore, although each time a digital television receiver that lacks the ability to adapt to 
a new rating system is shipped interstate constitutes a separate violation subject to forfeiture, we find that 
such an approach would be excessively punitive, given the nature of these violations.  Therefore, we will 
follow a per-model approach to the forfeiture calculation for cases involving the interstate shipment of 
receivers that do not have the capability to respond to changes in the rating system.  
12. Section 503(b)(6) of the Act bars the Commission from proposing a forfeiture for 
violations that occurred more than a year prior to the issuance of a NAL.29 Section 503(b)(6) does not, 
however, bar the Commission from assessing whether Polaroids conduct prior to that time period 
apparently violated the rules and from considering such conduct in determining the appropriate forfeiture 
amount for violations that occurred within the one-year statutory period.30 Thus, while we may consider 
that Polaroids prior conduct violated the rules, the forfeiture amount we propose herein relates to 
Polaroids apparent violations that have occurred within the past year.  
13. As noted above, in this case we may propose a forfeiture of up to $11,000 for each 
violation or each day of a continuing violation, up to a statutory maximum forfeiture of $97,500 for any 
single continuing violation.  In view of the important public policy considerations underlying this 
requirement, we conclude that, generally, the appropriate per model forfeiture amount in such cases will 
be $25,000.31 We find that calculating forfeitures for the failure to include the capability to respond to 
changes in the rating system using this per model approach will result in forfeiture amounts that reflect 
  
28 Id. (Tiers and per-unit forfeiture amounts were:  0-1000 units: $12.50 per unit, 1001-2500 units:  $18.75 per unit, 
2501-5000 units:  $25 per unit, 5001-10000 units:  $31.25 per unit, 10001-20000 units: $37.50 per unit, 20001-30000 
units:  $43.75 per unit, 30001-40000 units:  $50 per unit, 40001-50000: $56.25 per unit, and 50001+ units: $62.50 per 
unit.).
29 47 U.S.C.  503(b)(6).  
30 See 47 U.S.C.  503(b)(2)(E), 47 C.F.R.  1.80(b)(4); see also Behringer USA, Inc., Notice of Apparent Liability 
for Forfeiture, 21 FCC Rcd 1820, 1827-28  22 (2006), forfeiture ordered, Forfeiture Order, 22 FCC Rcd 10451 
(2007); Globcom, Inc. d/b/a Globcom Global Communications, Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture, 18 FCC 
Rcd 19893, 19903  23 (2003), forfeiture ordered, Forfeiture Order, 21 FCC Rcd 4710 (2006) (Globcom);
Roadrunner Transportation, Inc., Forfeiture Order, 15 FCC Rcd 9669, 9671-72  8 (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, 37-38  3 (1967) recon. denied, 11 FCC 2d 193, 195  6 (1967).
31 Because each non-compliant unit shipped interstate is a separate violation, we could impose a far higher forfeiture 
than $25,000 for each model.  As noted above, however, because of the circumstances of this rule and these 
violations, we consider $25,000 per model to be sufficient.  We have used this amount in other contexts.  Cf.
AboCom Systems, Inc., Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture, 21 FCC Rcd 7875, 7878-79  11 (Enf. Bur. 
Spectrum Enf. Div. 2006), forfeiture ordered, 21 FCC Rcd 13140 (Enf. Bur. Spectrum Enf. Div. 2006), recon. 
denied, 22 FCC Rcd 7448 (Enf. Bur. 2007) (proposing a $25,000 forfeiture against an equipment manufacturer for 
marketing one model of radio frequency equipment that did not comply with the terms of its equipment 
authorization and technical requirements specified in the rules).
Federal Communications Commission FCC 08-110
6
the seriousness of the violations and will deter future misconduct.  In cases presenting exacerbating 
factors, or if this enforcement approach proves to be an inadequate deterrent to Polaroid or other entities 
that ship television receivers in interstate commerce, however, we will not hesitate to revisit this forfeiture 
calculation approach.  
14. Pursuant to Polaroids confidentiality request, we will not specify in the NAL the precise 
number of non-compliant models that Polaroid shipped interstate in apparent violation of our rules.  We 
will say, however, that based on the record in this case, Polaroids violations merit a large proposed 
forfeiture.  The regulatory deadlines at issue have been in place in some form since 1998.  The 
Commission announced the application of V-Chip technology requirements for digital television receivers 
in 2004 and gave manufacturers 18 months, consistent with the industrys design cycle for a television 
receiver model, to comply.32 For more than 18 months after the March 15, 2006 deadline, however, 
Polaroid continued to ship in interstate commerce digital television receivers that do not have the ability 
to respond to changes in the content advisory rating system.  These unlawful shipments were substantial 
both in terms of the number of non-compliant models and the total number of non-compliant units.  For 
these reasons, and based on the per model approach described above, we propose a forfeiture of $775,000 
for Polaroids willful and repeated interstate shipment of television receivers that do not comply with the 
DTV V-Chip technology requirements in violation of Section 330(c) of the Act and Section 15.120(d)(2) 
of the Rules.  The interstate shipments on which we are basing this proposed forfeiture all occurred within 
the past year, i.e., within the applicable one-year statute of limitations period.33  
IV. ORDERING CLAUSES
15. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Act, and Section 
1.80 of the Rules, Polaroid Corporation is NOTIFIED of its APPARENT LIABILITY FOR A 
FORFEITURE in the amount of seven hundred seventy five thousand dollars ($775,000) for willful and 
repeated violations of Section 330(c) of the Act and Section 15.120(d)(2) of the Rules.
16. 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, Polaroid Corporation SHALL 
PAY the full amount of the proposed forfeiture or SHALL FILE a written statement seeking reduction or 
cancellation of the proposed forfeiture.   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. 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.
  
32 Second DTV Periodic Review Report and Order, 19 FCC Rcd at 18348-49  159.  
33 See supra paragraph 12.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 08-110
7
17. 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 petitioners current financial 
status.  Any claim of inability to pay must specifically identify the basis for the claim by reference to the 
financial documentation submitted.
18. 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 William M. Boyd, 
Senior Vice President and General Counsel, Polaroid Corporation, 1265 Main Street, Waltham, MA 
02451, and to its counsel, David Hilliard, Esq. and John M. Burgett, Esq., Wiley Rein LLP, 1776 K 
Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20006.  
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
Marlene H. Dortch
Secretary