WPCH 2BVTZ 3|P)?xxxXVZXx6X@DQX@HP LaserJet 4/4M PostScript4HPLA4POS.WRSx  @#!rX@2@RP Z3|PTimes New Roman (TT)Times New Roman (Bold) (TT)Times New Roman (Italic) (TT)HP LaserJet 4/4M PostScript4HPLA4POS.WRSC\  P6Q#!rP I. A. 1. a.(1)(a) i) a) 1. 1. 1. a.(1)(a) i) a)2Z@"@b@ y.C8*XC\  P6QP.y.G8*X(G4  pQ7PC2X4XP\  P6QXP.7UC2XXU4  pQXW!0(X_h0\  P6QhPI(!XO,(\  P6Q,P{,C8*X3֘C*f9 xQX"5@^*7DSS77S^*7*.SSSSSSSSSS..^^^Jxooxf]xx7Axfxx]xo]fxxxxf7.7NS7JSJSJ7SS..S.SSSS7A.SSxSSJP!PZ*7777CE7SSxJxJxJxJxJooJfJfJfJfJ7.7.7.7.xSxSxSxSxSxSxSxSxSxSxJxSxSxSxSxS]SxSxJxJoJoJoJfJfJfJxSxSxxSxSxSxSCS7S777SAxSf.fExSxSxSxo7oE]A]AN:*LS7JSSSSS.4}}S2S}277JJS77SS7J72t7[\\[^\d*C`^.wRSSn\Cfx`xWlRx\]\cdIfIs`Wx\rriwgd*7DSS77S^*7*.SSSSSSSSSS..^^^Jxooxf]xx7Axfxx]xo]fxxxxf7.7NS7JSJSJ7SS..S.SSSS7A.SSxSSJP!PZ7SJSS7]777JJ:S7A7xx*7SSSS!S7.S^7SC[227`L*724S}}}Jxxxxxxoffff7777xxxxxxx^xxxxxx]SJJJJJJoJJJJJ....SSSSSSS[SSSSSSS"5@^*7]SS.77S_*7*.SSSSSSSSSS77___SxoxxofASoxfx]oxxxxo7.7aS7S]J]J7S].7].]S]]JA7]SxSSJB%BW*7777CE7S]xSxSxSxSxSxxJoJoJoJoJA.A.A.A.x]SSSSx]x]x]x]xSxSx]SSxSxSf]xSxSxSxJxJxJoJoJoJSSSS]]C]A]A7A]S]o.oEx]x]SxxJxJ]A]AN:*ZS7SSSSSS27}}S2}}S}277SSS77SS7S72t7[\\[_\d*C`_.wRSSn\Cfx`xWlRx\]\cdIfIs`Wx\rriwgd*7]SS.77S_*7*.SSSSSSSSSS77___SxoxxofASoxfx]oxxxxo7.7aS7S]J]J7S].7].]S]]JA7]SxSSJB%BW7SSSS7]777SS:S7A7xx*7SSSS%S7}2S_7}SC[227`Z*727S}}}SxxxxxxxooooAAAAxx_xxxxxf]SSSSSSxJJJJJ....S]SSSSS[S]]]]S]"5@^2CRdd$CCdq2C28dddddddddd88qqqYzoCNzoozzC8C^dCYdYdYCdd88d8ddddCN8ddddY`(`l2CC!CCPRCddYYYYYYzYzYzYzYC8C8C8C8ddddddddddYdddddoddYYYYYzYzYzYddddddPdCdCCCdNdz8zRdddCRoNoNNF2[dCYddddd7>d<d<CCYYdCCddCYCdYzzzzCCCCqodYYYYYYYYYYY8888dddddddnddddddd2@@T@@"5@^2Coddȧ8CCdr2C28ddddddddddCCrrrdzNdzoȐC8CtdCdoYoYCdo8Co8odooYNCodddYO,Oh2CC!CCPRCdodddddȐYYYYYN8N8N8N8oddddooooddoddddzodddYYYYYYddddooPoNoNCNodo8RoodȐYYoNoNNF2ldCddddddApparent Liability for Monetary Forfeiture (NAL) to Ares proposing a forfeiture penalty of  x[$14,000. In its October 5, 1993, response, Ares requested cancellation of the proposed penalty but provided no facts that would justify such action.  X - III. DISCUSSION ă   Ox6. Section 302(b) of the Act and Section 2.803 of the Commission's Rules prohibit the  Xy- xmarketing>"yi yO- xԍ Equipment for which an equipment authorization has not been granted may be displayed in a retail environment  x-provided the display is accompanied by a conspicuous notice stating: "This device has not been approved by the  xhFederal Communications Commission. This device is not, and may not be, offered for sale or lease, or sold or leased  {OJ-until the approval of the FCC has been obtained." See Section 2.803 of the Commission's Rules. 47 C.F.R. 2.803.> of equipment capable of causing radio interference prior to grant of an equipment  xauthorization by the Commission. Marketing includes display at a trade show or retail store,  xadvertising in printed publications, literature about the equipment, or promotion through telephone  xcalls or personal presentations. Models 48650DX2 and 48666DX2 were advertised in the  xNovember 1992, and February 1993, issues of a trade publication with no disclaimer stating that  xthey had not been granted an equipment authorization. Inclusion of the uncertified computers  xiin the published advertisements was an offer for sale of unauthorized equipment and contravened  xSection 2.803 of the Commission's rules. The advertisement appeared at least one time after Ares  xhad been notified by the Commission on November 30, 1992, that the marketing of uncertified  X- x<equipment was prohibited by the Commission's Rules.i yO - xԍ Ares had also previously been served with an official notice of violation on August 7, 1991, for a prior violation of the Commission's marketing regulations. Although an equipment authorization for  x!those models was granted on April 2, 1993, it is clear that Ares advertised unauthorized equipment even after being notified that this action was prohibited by the Commission's Rules.   x7. In the NAL, the appropriate amount of the penalty was determined pursuant to the  X7- xCommission's Policy Statement, Standards for Assessing Forfeitures, (Policy Statement), 8 FCC  x!Rcd 6215 (1993). On July 12, 1994, the Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit vacated the  X - xforfeiture guidelines contained in the Policy Statement. United States Telephone Assn. v. FCC,  x28 F.3d 1232 (D.C. Cir. 1994). In setting the appropriate penalty for this order we have  xreevaluated the forfeiture amount pursuant to the statutory guidelines set forth in Section 503 of" ,N(N(ZZ"  xthe Act, 47 U.S.C.503(b)(2)(D). In particular, Section 503(b) of the Act requires that the  xxCommission "take into account the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation, and  x-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." 47 U.S.C.503(b)(2)(D).   x8. In its October 5, 1993, response to the NAL, Ares presented no facts that would  x\warrant reduction or cancellation of the proposed forfeiture. It admitted that the above two  xMmodels lacked equipment authorizations at the time of publication of the advertisements. It  xjclaims the violation was due to an oversight in that it thought the equipment had been granted  xan equipment authorization. Ares' oversight, however, is no excuse for its actions. After  xzreceiving an initial notification in November 1992 about the lack of equipment authorization,  xAres should have ensured that its equipment was authorized by the Commission before publishing the advertisements.  X - IV. CONCLUSION ă   0x9. For the reasons cited above, we conclude that Ares is liable for a monetary forfeiture  xin the amount of $10,000. In determining the amount of the forfeiture, the factors specified in Section 503(b) of the Act were considered. No other adjustments appear warranted.  X4-W V. ORDERING CLAUSES ă   x10. Accordingly, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C.   X- x503(b), and Section 1.80(f) of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R. 1.80(f), IT IS ORDERED ,  X- xthat Ares Microdevelopment, Inc., FORFEIT to the United States the sum of ten thousand  xdollars ($10,000) for the willful violation of Section 302(b) of the Communications Act and Section 2.803 of the Commission's Rules.  X|-  x11. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED , pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Act, 47 U.S.C.   xk503(b), and Section 1.80(h) of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R. 1.80(h), that the forfeiture  XN- xpayment is due and payable immediately upon receipt of this ORDER and must be paid within  X7- x[thirty (30) days of the release date of this Order.mX7i yO- xZԍ Requests for installment plans should be mailed to: Chief, Billings and Collections, Mail Stop 1110A2, 1919  xM Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20554. Payment of the forfeiture in installments may be considered as a separate matter in accordance with Section 1.1914 of the Commission's Rules.m Payment should be made by check or money  xorder payable to the Federal Communications Commission, attention NAL Acct. 315HF0011, and must be mailed to: x` ` Federal Communications Commission x` ` P.O. Box 73482 x` ` Chicago, Illinois 606737482 "",N(N(ZZ!"Ԍ xForfeiture penalties not paid within 30 days may be referred to the U. S. Attorney for recovery  xzin a civil suit. 47 U.S.C.504(a). Petitions for reconsideration or higher level review should  xbe submitted in accordance with Sections 1.106 or 1.115 of the Commission's Rules respectively. 47 C.F.R.1.106, 1.115.  Xv-  x12. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Compliance and Information Bureau send  xby Certified Mail, Return Receipt Requested, one copy of this Order to Ares Microdevelopment, Inc., 23660 A Research Dr., Farmington Hills, Michigan 48335.  X -x` ` hh FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION x` ` hhMagalie R. Salas x` ` hhActing Chief, Compliance Division x` ` hhCompliance and Information Bureau"b,N(N(ZZ" BCC: DD, Detroit Chief, Billings and Collections Branch, FOD OET, Authorization and Evaluation, Div. Retyped 5/23/94 LRL Retyped 9/17/96 LRL Edits 10/18/96 LRL Edits 7/21/97 LRL