Click here for Adobe Acrobat version
Click here for Microsoft Word version


This document was converted from Microsoft Word.

Content from the original version of the document such as
headers, footers, footnotes, endnotes, graphics, and page numbers
will not show up in this text version.

All text attributes such as bold, italic, underlining, etc. from the
original document will not show up in this text version.

Features of the original document layout such as
columns, tables, line and letter spacing, pagination, and margins
will not be preserved in the text version.

If you need the complete document, download the
Microsoft Word or Adobe Acrobat version.


                         Before the
              Federal Communications Commission
                   Washington, D.C. 20554

In the Matter of                  )
                                 )   File No. EB-03-SE-291
Schumacher              Electric  )   NAL/Acct. No. 200432100010
Corporation,                      )   FRN # 0010291185
Mt. Prospect, Illinois 


Adopted:  April 8, 2004                 Released:  April 12, 

By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau:

                      I.   INTRODUCTION

     1.   In   this  Notice   of   Apparent  Liability   for 
Forfeiture   (``NAL''),   we    find   Schumacher   Electric 
Corporation   (``Schumacher'')  apparently   liable  for   a 
forfeiture in the amount  of seven thousand dollars ($7,000) 
for marketing unauthorized equipment in 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  

                      II.    BACKGROUND

     2.   On  November  5,   2003,  the  Enforcement  Bureau 
(``Bureau'') received  a complaint alleging  that Schumacher 
was marketing  a new line of  SpeedCharge automobile battery 
chargers  (``SpeedChargers'')  at   the  ongoing  Automobile 
Aftermarket Products Expo (``AAPEX'') in Las Vegas, Nevada.3  
According  to the  complaint, Schumacher  did not  label the 
exhibited  SpeedChargers under  Section  15.19(a)(3) of  the 
Rules,4  and did  not display  the trade  show notice  under 
Section 2.803(c) of the  Rules.  The complaint was supported 
by a sworn declaration of  an individual who attended AAPEX.  
In the  declaration, the  individual states that  he visited 
Schumacher's  AAPEX booth,  that he  observed a  notice that 
categorized the Speedchargers as  ``FCC Class B Compliant,'' 
that he  noted that  the SpeedChargers  were not  labeled as 
verified,  that  he  was   given  ``product  catalogue  tear 
sheets'' describing  the SpeedChargers  (copies of  which he 
attached), and that Schumacher's Sales Manager told him that 
all displayed  units were  ``final production  units,'' were 
``for sale,''  and were ready to  ship or would be  ready to 
ship within two weeks. 

     3.   On  November   14,  2003,   in  response   to  the 
complaint, the  Bureau issued a letter  of inquiry (``LOI'') 
to Schumacher.5   On December 4, 2003,  Schumacher responded 
to the  LOI.6   In its  response, Schumacher stated  that it 
exhibited ``mock-ups'' (i.e.,  non-working display units) of 
SpeedCharger models SC 600A, SSC 1000A, SC 1200A, SSC 1500A, 
SC 2500A,  SC 4000A,  SC 6000A  and SC  10000A.7  Schumacher 
further represented that it did  not sell and/or take orders 
to sell any of the exhibited SpeedChargers at AAPEX.8  

     4.   Of the exhibited  models, Schumacher admitted that 
SpeedChargers SC 2500A, SC 4000A  and SC 10000A had not been 
verified  in  accordance  with the  equipment  authorization 
procedures  prior to  AAPEX.9   Schumacher further  admitted 
that it did not display the  trade show notice in its booth, 
or in the promotional materials  it distributed, at AAPEX as 
required under  Section 2.803(c). Schumacher  explained that 
it did  not believe  such notice  was required,  because the 
models  were  mock-ups  and   not  actual  working  units.10  
Schumacher stated that in the  future, it will implement ``a 
policy of using the notice set forth in Section 2.803(c) for 
any  units  for  which  verification testing  has  not  been 
completed prior  to public  display and for  any promotional 
materials depicting such units  even though the materials do 
not constitute  an advertisement offering the  sale or lease 
of the units.''11  

     5.   With respect  to SpeedCharger models SC  600A, SSC 
1000A,  SC  1200A,  SSC  1500A,  and  SC  6000A,  Schumacher 
represented,    and   provided    supporting   documentation 
confirming,  that  the  actual   working  devices  had  been 
verified  as compliant  with  Commission technical  emission 
standards prior  to AAPEX.12  Schumacher explained  that the 
models exhibited at AAPEX were not labeled because they were 
only  non-working mock-ups,  but that  the requisite  labels 
under  Section  15.19(a)(3)  were properly  affixed  to  the 
models' actual working units.13   

                   III.        DISCUSSION

     6.   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 Commission's implementing regulations provides that: 

     Except as  provided elsewhere in this  section, 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 that  is not required to  have a 
     grant  of equipment  authorization  issued by  the 
     Commission,  but   which  must  comply   with  the 
     specified technical  standards prior to  use, such 
     device   also   complies   with   all   applicable 
     administrative  (including   verification  of  the 
     equipment or authorization  under a Declaration of 
     Conformity,  where required),  technical, labeling 
     and identification requirements  specified in this 
     chapter [emphasis added].

As discussed  below, the  SpeedChargers are Class  B digital 
devices that  employ switching power supply  assemblies, and 
as  such  are  subject   to  the  Commission's  verification 
equipment authorization procedures,  marketing, labeling and 
identification requirements.  

     III.A.    Non-verified equipment.  

     7.   Under   Section   15.101(a)    of   the   Rules,14 
manufacturers are required  to test and verify  that Class B 
external   switching  power   supply  devices   comply  with 
Commission technical standards, ``prior to the initiation of 
marketing.''15    However,  under  Section  2.803(c) of  the 
Rules, in  limited circumstances, a manufacturer  is allowed 
to market  devices prior  to completion of  the verification 
procedure.   Specifically,  Section 2.803(c)  provides  that 
devices may be  ``advertised or displayed, e.g.,  at a trade 
show or exhibition,  prior to equipment authorization  . . . 
provided that  the advertising contains, and  the display is 
accompanied by, a conspicuous  [disclaimer] notice worded as 
follows:  This device has not been authorized as required by 
the rules  of the  Federal Communications  Commission.  This 
device is  not, and may not  be, offered for sale  or lease, 
until  authorization is  obtained.''   Thus, Schumacher  was 
allowed to exhibit models of SpeedCharger SC 2500A, SC 4000A 
and SC 10000A that were  not verified at AAPEX provided that 
it conspicuously displayed the requisite disclaimer notice.  

     8.   The  Commission has  not  exempted exhibited  non-
working mock-ups  of non-authorized  devices from  the trade 
show's   disclaimer  notice   requirement.   In   1976,  the 
Commission stated that  non-authorized ``prototypes, working 
models  or  mockups''  of  devices could  be  advertised  or 
exhibited  at   trade  shows,  only  if   accompanied  by  a 
conspicuous   notice  that   the   devices   had  not   been 
authorized.16  In  1997, the Commission reaffirmed  that the 
Section   2.803(c)  trade   show  exception   and  attendant 
disclaimer notice requirement  applies to all radiofrequency 
devices   that  are   in   the   ``development,  design   or 
preproduction stages'' and that are subject to its equipment 
authorization  procedures,17  including  those  subject  the 
verification procedures.18 Consistent  with these Commission 
decisions,  manufacturers who  exhibited and/or  distributed 
promotional  materials  regarding  non-working  mock-ups  or 
prototypes  of  radio  frequency  devices  at  trade  shows, 
without the  conspicuous disclaimer notice, have  been found 
in violation  of Section 2.803.19   In the instant  case, we 
find that Schumacher  displayed, and distributed promotional 
materials regarding, SpeedCharger models  SC 2500A, SC 4000A 
and  SC 10000A  without the  requisite disclaimer  notice in 
apparent willful and repeated violation of Section 2.803(a).  

     III.B.    Verified equipment.

     9.   Section  15.19(a)(3) of  the  Rules provides  that 
``[i]n  addition  to the  requirements  in  part 2  of  this 
chapter, a device subject to .  . . verification . . . shall 
bear the  following statement  in a conspicuous  location on 
the device:   This device complies  with part 15 of  the FCC 
Rules. Operation is subject to the following two conditions: 
(1) This device may not  cause harmful interference, and (2) 
this device must accept any interference received, including 
interference  that may  cause undesired  operation.''  Thus, 
verified devices must be  labeled and marketed in accordance 
with Sections 15.19 and 2.803, respectively. 

     10.  The Commission  has not exempted  a manufacturer's 
display of prototypes or  mock-ups of authorized (tested and 
verified) devices from the above requirements.  However, the 
Commission  has recognized  that  ``when  the product  being 
demonstrated  or  displayed  is  a  prototype  that  is  not 
authorized but the actual product being marketed is properly 
authorized''  the language  of the  disclaimer notice  under 
Section 2.803 may not be appropriate.20   The Commission has 

     In  many  cases,  manufacturers  continue  to  use 
     prototypes for display  or demonstration purposes, 
     even  after obtaining  authorization of  the final 
     product.  If the prototype  is consistent with the 
     equipment that  was authorized, the  prototype may 
     be  labeled as  authorized and  could be  marketed 
     without  the disclaimer  notice.  However,  if the 
     prototype  is not  consistent  with the  equipment 
     that was  authorized, it  may not be  displayed or 
     marketed except  under the  conditions . .  . [set 
     forth in Section 2.803(c)(1)  of the Rules with an 
     alternative  advisory  notice  being  ``Prototype.  
     Not for  Sale] .  . . However,  parties displaying 
     prototypes   of   authorized  products   may   use 
     additional language, if desired.21

Thus,  Schumacher   was  allowed  to  exhibit   mock-ups  of 
SpeedChargers SC 600A, SSC 1000A,  SC- 1200A, SSC 1500A, and 
SC  6000A (which  were consistent  with the  verified actual 
devices), provided  that it  either labeled each  mock-up or 
displayed an appropriate alternative disclaimer notice.  

     11.  According to Schumacher,  the actual working units 
of SpeedChargers  SC 600A, SSC  1000A, SC 1200A,  SSC 1500A, 
and SC 6000A were labeled,  but the mock-up models exhibited 
at AAPEX were  not.  Although the exhibited  models were not 
labeled,  Schumacher's  booth  did  display  an  alternative 
disclaimer  notice,  which  described the  SpeedChargers  as 
``FCC Class B Compliant.''  Because Schumacher displayed the 
alternative  disclaimer  notice,  we  do not  find  that  it 
violated the  labeling and marketing provisions  of Sections 
15.19(a)(3)   and   2.803(a).     However,   the   displayed 
alternative disclaimer  notice may  not have  provided AAPEX 
participants   with   adequate   information,   given   that  
Schumacher's  booth exhibited  mock-ups of  both authorized, 
and non-authorized,  equipment.  We thus  caution Schumacher 
to  exercise   greater  care,   by  labeling   or  providing 
alternative  advisory   notice  for   identified  authorized 
devices and by utilizing  the standard disclaimer notice for 
identified non-authorized devices.   

     12.  Section 503(b)  of the Act,22 and  Section 1.80(a) 
of the  Rules,23 provide  that any  person who  willfully or 
repeatedly fails to comply with the provisions of the Act or 
the Rules  shall be  liable for  a forfeiture  penalty.  For 
purposes of Section 503(b) of  the Act, the term ``willful'' 
means that the  violator knew that it was  taking the action 
in  question,  irrespective of  any  intent  to violate  the 
Commission's  rules,  and  ``repeatedly''  means  more  than 
once.24  Based upon the material  before us, it appears that 
Schumacher willfully and  repeatedly violated Section 302(b) 
of the Act  and Section 2.803(a) of the  Rules by exhibiting 
and  advertising SpeedCharger  models,  which  had not  been 
authorized in accordance with the verification procedures.  

     13.  Section  1.80(b)   of  the   Rules  sets   a  base 
forfeiture  amount of  $7,000.00 for  marketing unauthorized 
equipment.25  The  Commission's Forfeiture  Policy Statement 
also  specifies that  the base  forfeiture amounts  shall be 
adjusted based upon consideration  of the factors enumerated 
in   Section  503(b)(2)(D)   of   the  Act,   47  U.S.C.    
503(b)(2)(D),  such as  ``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.''26    The  marketing  of   each  unauthorized 
Speedcharger model is a  separate violation.  However, under 
the  circumstances  presented  here, where  no  unauthorized 
units were actually sold, we find that it is appropriate and 
consistent with  precedent to assess a  $7,000 forfeiture.27  
We further  find Schumacher's commitment to  comply with the 
marketing  provisions  of  Section 2.803(c)  in  the  future 
commendable, but such post-remedial measure does not lessen, 
mitigate,  or excuse  its past  violations of  the equipment 
marketing requirements.28  

                   IV.    ORDERING CLAUSES

     14.  Accordingly,  IT  IS  ORDERED  that,  pursuant  to 
pursuant to Section 503(b) of  the Act29 and Sections 0.111, 
0.311  and   1.80  of   the  Rules,30   Schumacher  Electric 
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.

     15.   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, 
Schumacher Electric Corporation SHALL PAY the full amount of 
the proposed  forfeiture or  SHALL FILE a  written statement 
seeking   reduction   or   cancellation  of   the   proposed 

     16.    Payment of the forfeiture may be made by mailing 
a check or  similar instrument, payable to the  order of the 
Federal   Communications  Commission,   to  the   Forfeiture 
Collection Section,  Finance Branch,  Federal Communications 
Commission,  P.O. Box  73482, Chicago,  Illinois 60673-7482.  
The payment  must include the FCC  Registration Number (FRN) 
and the NAL/Acct. No. referenced in the caption. 

     17.     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.

     18.     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;  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.

     19.    Requests for payment of  the full amount of this 
NAL  under an  installment plan  should be  sent to:  Chief, 
Revenue and  Receivable Operations  Group, 445  12th Street, 
S.W., Washington, D.C. 20554.31

     20.   Under the Small  Business Paperwork Relief Act of 
2002, Pub L. No. 107-198, 116 Stat. 729 (June 28, 2002), the 
FCC is engaged in a  two-year tracking process regarding the 
size of entities involved in forfeitures.  If you qualify as 
a small  entity and  if you  wish to be  treated as  a small 
entity for tracking purposes, please so certify to us within 
thirty (30) days of this NAL, either in your response to the 
NAL or  in a separate filing  to be sent to  the Enforcement 
Bureau - Spectrum  Enforcement Division.  Your certification 
should indicate  whether you,  including your  parent entity 
and its subsidiaries, meet one  of the definitions set forth 
in the list  provided by the FCC's  Office of Communications 
Business Opportunities (``OCBO'') set  forth in Attachment A 
of this  NAL.  This  information will  be used  for tracking 
purposes only.  Your response or  failure to respond to this 
question   will  have   no   effect  on   your  rights   and 
responsibilities pursuant to Section  503(b) of the Act.  If 
you  have   questions  regarding  any  of   the  information 
contained in Attachment A, please contact OCBO at (202) 418-

     21.   IT IS FURTHER ORDERED  that a copy of this Notice 
of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture and Order shall be sent 
by  first  class  mail  and certified  mail  return  receipt 
requested  to   John  Waldron,  Executive   Vice  President, 
Schumacher Electric Corporation,  801 Business Center Drive, 
Mount  Prospect,  Illinois  20056-2179,   and  to  David  E. 
Hilliard, Wiley,  Rein & Fielding,  LLP, 1776 K  Street, NW, 
Washington, DC 20006.  


                         David H. Solomon
                         Chief, Enforcement Bureau

                         Attachment A

                 FCC List of Small Entities

   As described below, a ``small entity'' may be a small 
  a small governmental jurisdiction, or a small business.

(1)  Small Organization 
Any  not-for-profit  enterprise that  is independently  owned 
and operated and 
is not dominant in its field.

(2)  Small Governmental Jurisdiction
Governments of  cities, counties, towns, townships, villages, 
school districts, or 
special  districts,  with a  population  of  less than  fifty 

(3)  Small Business
Any   business  concern  that  is   independently  owned  and 
operated and 
is  not dominant in its  field, and meets the  pertinent size 
criterion described below.

       Industry Type          Description of Small Business 
                                     Size Standards
                 Cable Services or Systems
                             Special Size Standard - 
Cable Systems                 Small Cable Company has 400,000 
                             Subscribers Nationwide or Fewer
Cable   and   Other  Program 
Distribution                      $12.5 Million in Annual 
                                    Receipts or Less

Open Video Systems 
        Common Carrier Services and Related Entities
Wireline     Carriers    and 
Service providers 
                                1,500 Employees or Fewer
Local   Exchange   Carriers, 
Competitive           Access 
Providers,     Interexchange 
Carriers,  Operator  Service 
Providers,          Payphone 
Providers, and Resellers

Note:   With  the   exception  of  Cable  Systems,  all  size 
standards  are expressed  in  either millions  of dollars  or 
number  of employees  and  are generally  the average  annual 
receipts  or the  average employment  of a  firm.  Directions 
for   calculating   average  annual   receipts  and   average 
employment of a firm can be found in 
13 CFR 121.104 and 13 CFR 121.106, respectively.


1 47 U.S.C.  302a(b).

2 47 C.F.R.  2.803(a). 

3 AAPEX was held from November 4 through 7, 2003.  

4 47 C.F.R.  15.19(a)(3). 

5  See  Letter  from   Joseph  P.  Casey,  Chief,  Spectrum 
Enforcement    Division,   Enforcement    Bureau,   Federal 
Communications Commission to Don Schumacher, President/CEO, 
Schumacher Electric Corporation (November 14, 2003).

6 See  Letter from John Waldron,  Executive Vice President, 
Schumacher Electric  Corporation to  Kathy  Berthot, Deputy 
Chief, Spectrum  Enforcement Division,  Enforcement Bureau, 
Federal Communications Commission (December 4, 2003) (``LOI 

7 LOI Response at 1.

8 Id. at 2.  

9 Id. at 2-3.

10 Id. at 3. 

11 Id. at 3.

12 Id.  In support,  Schumacher submitted  the verification 
reports  for SpeedCharger  models  SC 600A,  SSC 1000A,  SC 
1200A,  SSC  1500A, and  SC  6000A.   See LOI  Response  at 

13 See LOI Response at  2.  In support, Schumacher attached 
a representative copy  of a label, which  complied with the 
requirements  of Section  15.19(a)(3)  and  which had  been 
affixed to all of  its verified SpeedCharger actual working 
units.  Id. at SCH000001.    

14 47 C.F.R.  15.101(a).  

15 The  Rules describe verification as  ``a procedure where 
the manufacturer makes measurements  or takes the necessary 
steps  to  insure  that  the equipment  complies  with  the 
appropriate  technical standards.   Submittal  of a  sample 
unit   or    representative   data   to    the   Commission  
demonstrating  compliance'' is  generally not required.  47 
C.F.R.   2.902(a).   The  Rules further  provide that  the 
verification  attaches  to   any  device  the  manufacturer 
subsequently  markets  that  is  identical  to  that  which  
tested   complaint  with   applicable technical  standards.  
See 47 C.F.R.  2.902(b)

16 Interpretation and Amendment of Part 2, Section 2.803 of 
the  Commission's  Rules  Relating   to  the  Marketing  if 
Radiofrequency Devices, 58 FCC 2d 784, 787  15-16 (1976).  

17 Matter of  Revision of Part 2 of  the Commission's Rules 
Relating  to  the  Marketing  and  Authorization  of  Radio 
Frequency Devices, 12 FCC Rcd 4533, 4533  1 (1996) (``1996 
Order''), recon. granted, 13 FCC Rcd 12928 (1998). 

18 Id. at 4545   24 (finding that further clarification of 
Section 2.803  to include  devices subject  to verification 
within the conditional trade  show exception is unnecessary 
because  ``[v]erification,  and   the  new  declaration  of 
conformity,  are equipment  authorization procedures''  and 
thus are covered by the Rule). 

19  See Palmcom  International  Ltd., 8  FCC  Rcd 332  (FOB 
1993); see also GVC Technologies, Inc., 8 FCC Rcd 6667 (FOB 
1993).   Regarding the  display of non-authorized equipment 
at trade shows, the Palmcom decision stated: 

     Although the  device itself  may have been  a non-
     functioning prototype, the  displaying of a device 
     that represents a radio  frequency device that had 
     not been  authorized by  the FCC  violates Section 
     2.803 of  the FCC's rules.  The  displaying of the 
     device, moreover, was a  form of advertising which 
     is also prohibited by Section 2.803.  The apparent 
     purpose in displaying the device was to market it, 
     namely,  to generate  either  immediate or  future 
     orders to buy  the device.  Often at  a trade show 
     or even  in a  store, there is  no intent  to sell 
     actual device  on display, but the  device is used 
     to generate  orders.   The  actual device  that is 
     sold may not have been constructed or assembled at 
     the time a purchase order is placed.  

8  FCC   Rcd  at  332.    Regarding   the  distribution  of 
promotional  literature regarding  non-authorized equipment 
at trade shows, the Palmcom decision stated: 

     At  the  computer  trade show,  Palmcom  was  also 
     distributing advertising literature describing the 
     features of  the Palmcom computer.   Since Section 
     2.803  prohibits the  advertising of  devices that 
     have  not   been  authorized  by  the   FCC,  this 
     advertising  literature  violated  Section  2.803.  
     This  violation was  independent of  the violation 
     resulting   from  the   displaying  of   the  non-
     functioning prototype computer.  


20 1996 Order, 12 FCC Rcd at 4546  26.

21 Id. 

22 47 U.S.C.  503(b).

23 47 C.F.R.  1.80(a).

24 See Southern California Broadcasting Co., 6 FCC Rcd 4387 

2547 C.F.R.  1.80(b).

26  The   Commission's  Forfeiture  Policy   Statement  and 
Amendment of Section  1.80 of the Rules  to Incorporate the 
Forfeiture  Guidelines, 12  FCC  Rcd  17087, 17110  (1997), 
recon. denied 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999).  

27 See, e.g., New Image  Electronics, 17 FCC Rcd 3594, 3595 
  4-5  (Enf. Bur.  2002)  (imposing  a $7,000  forfeiture 
against  a  retailer  for  marketing  several  models,  and 
selling  at least  one model,  of non-compliant  long-range 
cordless telephones).  

28  See AT&T  Wireless Services,  Inc., 17  FCC Rcd  21866, 
21871  14 (2002); KGVL, Inc., 42 FCC 2d 258, 259 (1973).

29 47 U.S.C.  503(b).

30 47 C.F.R.  0.111, 0.311 and 1.80.

31 See 47 C.F.R.  1.1914.