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

******************************************************** 
                      NOTICE
********************************************************

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-01-TS-040       
                              )                               
     ACR Electronics, Inc.        NAL/Acct. No. 200532100004  
                              )                               
     Fort Lauderdale, Miami       FRN No. 0008044232          
                              )                               


                                FORFEITURE ORDER

   Adopted: March 21, 2006 Released: March 23, 2006

   By the Commission:

   I. introduction

    1. By this Forfeiture Order ("Order"), we find that ACR Electronics, Inc.
       ("ACR") marketed intentional radiating equipment prior to obtaining
       Commission certification in willful and repeated violation of the
       equipment marketing requirements of Section 302(b) of the
       Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Act") and Section 2.803(a) of
       the Commission's Rules ("Rules"). For these violations, we impose a
       monetary forfeiture in the amount of sixty five thousand dollars
       ($65,000).

   II. background

    2. Section 302(b) of the Act provides that "[n]o person shall
       manufacture, import, sell, offer for sale, or ship devices of home
       electronic equipment and systems, or use devices, which fail to comply
       with regulations promulgated pursuant to this section." Section
       2.803(a) of the Commission's implementing regulations prohibits
       manufacturers from selling, leasing, or offering for sale or lease
       (including advertising for sale or lease) radio devices subject to
       certification, unless the Commission certificates that such devices
       are compliant with applicable equipment technical standards.
       Additionally, Section 15.201(b) of the Commission's implementing
       regulations requires manufacturers to obtain certification "prior to
       marketing" intentional radiating devices. An exception to the above
       equipment marketing restrictions, however, allows manufacturers to
       display and advertise devices that are in the development, design or
       pre-production stages prior to certification, provided their displays
       are accompanied by and their advertisements contain a conspicuously
       placed notice, which states:

   This device has not been authorized by the rules of the Federal
   Communications Commission. This device is not, and may not be, offered for
   sale or lease, or sold or leased, until authorization is obtained.

   The exception to the equipment marketing restrictions is designed to
   afford manufacturers greater flexibility in marketing their developing
   products, while preserving the Commission's long-standing requirement that
   trade show displays and advertisements be accompanied by a conspicuous
   notice alerting potential business customers and consumers that the
   devices have not been authorized by the Commission and may not be offered
   for sale or lease, or sold or leased, until such authorization is
   obtained.

    3. The Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") proposed a
       $75,000 forfeiture against ACR for its apparent willful and repeated
       violations of the above equipment marketing restrictions. As discussed
       herein, we find, as the underlying NAL found, that ACR unlawfully
       marketed its personal location beacon 406 GPS PLB-200 ("PLB-200"), an
       intentional radiating device, to the industry and the general public
       before it obtained certification  and without the conspicuous
       disclaimer notice required by Section 2.803(c) of the Rules ("required
       disclaimer notice").

    4. Specifically, the NAL found that ACR marketed the PLB-200 to the
       industry prior to obtaining certification, by displaying mock-up
       models of the PLB-200 at two industry trade shows, distributing
       related promotional materials before and during the trade shows, and
       making power point presentations to select business customers. The NAL
       found that ACR did not include any disclaimer notice with its trade
       show displays and several of its power point presentations. Moreover,
       the NAL found that ACR did not include any disclaimer notice in the
       over 700 PLB-200 brochures it distributed. To the contrary, one of the
       brochures distributed by ACR included language on the "PLB
       Specifications" page, under "Certification," that proclaimed that the
       PLB-200 was "FCC approved." The other brochure distributed by ACR
       stated prominently on the front cover "Personal Locator Beacon
       APPROVED for sale in the U.S." The NAL further found that while ACR
       included language in its own internal price lists that indicated that
       FCC approval was pending, ACR did not include any disclaimer notice in
       the price lists it actually distributed at the trade shows. And, the
       NAL found that ACR did not  include the required disclaimer notice in
       the approximately 25 press kit folio it distributed -- but, instead,
       included language that prominently proclaimed on the folder's front
       cover in bold print "Personal Locator Beacons, New and Improved, For
       Sale in the U.S." and, in contrast, included language on the folder's
       back cover in a black border in small print "New Integral GPS PLB
       Available April -- pending FCC approval." The NAL concluded that ACR's
       displays, industry presentations, and distributed promotional
       materials, without any disclaimer notice and/or without the requisite
       disclaimer notice, constituted apparent willful and repeated
       violations of the Commission's equipment marketing restrictions.

    5. Additionally, the NAL found that several retail websites were offering
       the PLB-200 for sale, and that these websites included prices,
       specified delivery dates and allowed customers to place orders. The
       NAL noted that one website stated that the PLB-200 was "FCC approved"
       and another website represented that the PLB-200 "[e]xceeds rigorous
       testing standards of ... [the] FCC." As late as the week of September
       7, 2004, the NAL found that the PLB-200 was being offered for sale,
       without the requisite disclaimer notice, in a sporting outdoor mail
       order catalogue sent to consumers.

    6. Moreover, the NAL found that ACR launched a substantial media campaign
       by advertising the PLB-200 "in multiple outdoor and sporting magazines
       and catalogues that were clearly directed and targeted to the
       consuming general public," notwithstanding the company's
       representations that its marketing efforts were "never directed at the
       general public." Indeed, the NAL found that ACR devoted approximately
       one third of its entire first quarter 2004 advertising budget
       ($100,000 out of $300,000) promoting the PLB-200 in full-page ads in
       multiple publications available and targeted to consumer end-users.
       The NAL further found that ACR did not  include the required
       disclaimer notice in its consumer advertisements. Rather, the NAL
       found that ACR's full-page ads described the "NEW  [TerraFix or
       AquaFix] 406 Personal Locator Beacon, the best way to be found fast,"
       and depicted the model in terms of actual model size. Only at the
       bottom of the page in black border did the ads include the language,
       "New Integral GPS PLB Available April - Pending FCC Approval." The NAL
       concluded that ACR apparently willfully and repeatedly violated the
       Commission's equipment marketing restrictions because its consumer
       advertisements did not comport with the requirements of Section
       2.803(c).

    7. In its response to the NAL, ACR acknowledges that it did not include
       the requisite disclaimer notice in its marketing materials for the
       PLB-200 prior to obtaining certification from the Commission's Office
       of Engineering and Technology on October 5, 2004. Nevertheless, ACR
       seeks cancellation or a substantial reduction of the proposed
       forfeiture. ACR reiterates the arguments it made in its response to
       the Enforcement Bureau's Letter of Inquiry ("LOI"), which it claims
       "have not been properly analyzed by the Commission." ACR also notes
       that it "has had a long history of compliance with Commission rules,"
       and further contends that the "quantum" of the proposed forfeiture was
       unreasonable.

   III. discussion

    8. The forfeiture amount proposed in this case was assessed in accordance
       with Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended
       ("Act"), Section 1.80 of the Rules, and the Commission's Forfeiture
       Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to
       Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines. In assessing forfeitures,
       Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act requires that we 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. We have considered ACR's arguments in light of the above
       statutory factors, and have determined that the proposed forfeiture
       should be reduced on the basis of the company's past history of
       compliance with the Commission's equipment marketing regulations.

    9. In its response, ACR argues that the NAL failed to take into account
       the nature of the trade shows at which it marketed the PLB-200.
       Specifically, ACR asserts that the trade shows "were closed venues
       allowing equipment suppliers to share information with customers, and
       not to negotiate pricing or to inform end user consumers about the
       product." Since end user consumers do not attend the trade shows, ACR
       maintains that those who did attend "could reasonably have been
       expected to understand that the PLB-200 was not for sale."

   10. We find that the NAL properly considered and rejected ACR's arguments
       concerning the nature of the trade shows. As noted in the NAL, the
       Commission recognized in adopting the trade show exception that
       industry trade shows are specialized and limited venues; nevertheless,
       the Commission required that manufacturers displaying devices and
       distributing related materials at trade shows conspicuously post the
       requisite disclaimer notice to alert prospective wholesalers and
       retailers that the devices have not been approved by the FCC and may
       not be legally sold or offered for sale until approval is obtained.
       Moreover, we find ACR's suggestion that its business customers "could
       reasonably have been expected to understand that the PLB-200 was not
       for sale" unpersuasive. Manufacturers may use industry trade shows to
       display and advertise both new equipment that has been FCC-authorized,
       as well as new equipment that is in the development stage or is
       awaiting FCC authorization. In the latter situations, the disclaimer
       notice required by Section 2.803(c) is necessary to ensure that
       distributors and retailers clearly understand that the unauthorized
       device may not be either sold or offered for sale. Absent the required
       disclaimer notice, we are not persuaded that customers would
       understand that the PLB-200 could not be sold or offered for sale,
       particularly given that brochures distributed by ACR at the trade
       shows inaccurately stated that the device was "FCC approved" or
       "APPROVED for sale in the U.S."

   11. ACR also argues that the NAL failed to take into account that "in
       almost every instance," ACR "made it known that the equipment at issue
       was unavailable for sale until such time as the FCC had provided its
       approval," by including disclaimer notices that "at least partially
       complied" with the requirements of Section 2.803(c). In this regard,
       ACR asserts that "the Commission must acknowledge that the trade show
       brochures describing the PLB-200 were largely enclosed within a press
       kit folder, the back of which included the words `Pending FCC
       Approval' in yellow print within a black border."

   12. We find ACR's claim that it made it known that the PLB-200 was
       unavailable for sale pending FCC approval "in almost every instance"
       is belied by the record. As set forth in the NAL, ACR acknowledged in
       its response to the LOI that it distributed approximately 700
       brochures to potential distributors and retailers at the trade shows.
       These brochures did not include any disclaimer, much less the specific
       disclaimer required by Section 2.803(c), and, in fact, incorrectly
       stated that the device was "FCC approved" or "APPROVED for sale in the
       U.S." Moreover, the NAL found, and ACR does not dispute, that its
       displays of the PLB-200 at the trade shows and the price lists
       distributed at the trade shows did not include any disclaimer. The NAL
       noted, by contrast, that ACR distributed only 25 complete press kit
       folio at the trade shows, which included the words "APPROVED for sale
       in the U.S." on the front cover and only included the words "Pending
       FCC Approval" on the back cover. The vast majority of promotional
       materials distributed by ACR at the trade shows did not include any
       disclaimer notice, contrary to ACR's claims.

   13. ACR asserts that the NAL "makes a great deal of independent Bureau
       research findings that at least one retailer was accepting purchase
       orders and that `several retail websites were offering the Terrafix
       and Aquafix PLB-200s for sale." In this regard, ACR submits that it
       "has no control over its customers' websites or advertising
       materials." ACR also submits that violations attributed to retailer
       websites and catalogues should not be deemed "willful" since ACR was
       not aware of the content included in those sources.

   14. As an initial matter, we note that the NAL did not find the marketing
       of the PLB-200 on the retail websites and in retail catalogues to
       constitute "willful" violations by ACR, nor did it propose forfeitures
       against ACR for those violations. Rather, the NAL cited the retail
       websites and catalogues to refute ACR's claim that its retailers are
       professional buyers who are familiar with the equipment authorization
       requirements and would not offer unauthorized devices for sale.
       Further, while we recognize that ACR does not exert control over its
       customers' websites and catalogues, it does control and is responsible
       for brochures, price lists and other promotional materials it
       distributed to its customers. As explained in the NAL and set forth
       above, not only did these promotional materials fail to inform ACR's
       customers that the PLB-200 could not be sold or offered for sale until
       Commission authorization is obtained, some of the brochures
       incorrectly stated that the device was "FCC Approved" or "APPROVED for
       sale in the U.S." Thus, as noted in the NAL, it is hardly surprising
       that the PLB-200s were offered for sale on retail websites and in
       retail catalogues.

   15. ACR further asserts that "[w]ithout exception, every single ACR
       account knew that the [PLB-200] was not [authorized] and could not be
       sold until it was." In support of this claim, ACR provides an e-mail
       dated September 16, 2003 from an ACR sales manager to a buyer for one
       of its retailers, Mountain Gear. In this e-mail, the ACR sales manager
       states, in relevant part:

   We are anticipating having the new model to show at OR winter, however,
   until we get final approval from the FCC we cannot sell or ship it. Worst
   case scenario, this will be the end of March '04 or Beginning of April
   '04. With this in mind, it may not be a good idea to show the new model in
   your Spring book, since it may create some back order problems.

   This e-mail does not support ACR's position or demonstrate that ACR
   provided complete and accurate information to its retailers regarding the
   status of the PLB-200. First, we note that the e-mail only states that ACR
   could not sell or ship the PLB-200 until it received FCC approval. It does
   not convey that the device could not even be offered for sale or that
   orders could not be taken for the device prior to obtaining FCC approval.
   To the contrary, the e-mail indicates that including the PLB-200 in the
   Spring book "may create some back order problems," which suggests that it
   would be permissible for Mountain Gear to offer the device for sale and
   take orders prior to FCC approval.

   16. Second, the e-mail indicates that under the worst case scenario, the
       device would be FCC approved by the end of March or beginning of April
       2004. The device, however, was approved in October 2004. ACR offers no
       evidence that it subsequently informed Mountain Gear or any of its
       retailers that the PLB-200 was not in fact approved by the FCC in
       March or April. Third, as detailed above, ACR distributed over 700
       brochures inaccurately promoting the PLB-200 as "FCC approved" to its
       potential distributors and retailers. As Mountain Gear was one of
       ACR's retailers, Mountain Gear might reasonably rely upon the false
       information contained in such brochures and identify the PLB-200 as
       "FCC approved" on its retail website.

   17. ACR contends that the proposed $75,000 forfeiture is unreasonable,
       given that it included "Pending FCC approval" language in its press
       kit folio. While ACR concedes that the language fell short of the
       exact wording required by Section 2.803(c), it contends that the
       language nevertheless "significantly fulfilled the purpose" of Section
       2.803(c) and "represented a good faith effort" on its part. ACR's
       contentions notwithstanding, we find that the language "Pending FCC
       approval" not only fell short of Section 2.803(c)'s exact wording, but
       that it failed to state that the PLB-200 could not be sold, leased or
       offered for sale or lease until FCC approval was obtained and thus
       failed to include an essential and necessary component of the Section
       2.803(c) notice requirement.

   18. ACR also complains that it was "grossly unfair" and unprecedented for
       the NAL "to pass over the wording that was included on the backside of
       the folio and dismiss it as `nonconspicuous.'" ACR's complaint is
       disingenuous. ACR only distributed 25 press kit folio, which
       prominently stated that the PLB-200 was for sale on its front cover,
       and only stated that FCC approval was pending in small print in the
       bottom darkened border on its back cover. We find that, consistent
       with precedent, the NAL correctly found that ACR's inconspicuous
       placement of the language was designed to obscure, not inform, and in
       any event, contrasted with and was negated by the folio's front cover
       and the enclosed brochure, which falsely stated that the PLB-200 was
       FCC-approved. Therefore, we find that ACR's inclusion of the language
       "Pending FCC approval" in its press kit folio did not demonstrate a
       good faith effort to comply with, and did not fulfill the objectives
       and requirements of, Section 2.803(c).

   19. Similarly, ACR contends that the NAL erroneously focused on the exact
       wording of the advertisements it placed in consumer publications.
       Again, ACR concedes that this disclaimer "fell short of the exact
       requirements of the rule" but asserts that it "nevertheless indicated
       that the device was not for sale until the necessary scrutiny had been
       given by the Commission." We agree with the NAL's conclusion that the
       language, "Pending FCC approval," included in ACR's advertisements did
       not comport with the requirements of Section 2.803(c) and certainly
       did not alert consumer end-users "that FCC approval must be obtained
       prior to any sales, leases, or offers to sell and/or lease such
       equipment." In this connection, we note that the Commission has
       cautioned manufacturers, as the responsible parties, to "exercise due
       caution in both the selection of the medium and the presentation
       employed" to ensure that consumers are fully apprised and not unfairly
       targeted. We think consumers are even less likely than industry to
       understand that "Pending FCC approval" means that a device cannot be
       sold or offered for sale. Accordingly, we find that ACR's
       advertisements did not convey the requisite information to consumer
       end-users and thus did not constitute mere technical violations of the
       requirements of Section 2.803(c).

   20. ACR also contends that a substantial reduction in the proposed
       forfeiture is warranted because it had "no intent to violate a rule in
       order to profit or gain," and it made a "swift commitment" to take
       corrective action and amend its disclaimer with the exact words
       required. By displaying and distributing promotional materials at
       industry trade shows, by making selective presentations to select
       customers, and by placing advertisements in consumer publications, ACR
       engaged in deliberate acts, which are deemed willful violations of the
       Act and the Rules, irrespective of any intent to commit violations,
       profit or gain. As for ACR's corrective actions, which were not taken
       until after the Bureau issued the LOI to ACR, such actions do not
       mitigate or excuse liability for its past violations and thus do not
       warrant any reduction in the proposed forfeiture amount.

   21. Finally, ACR contends that the proposed $75,000 forfeiture is
       excessive in light of the recent decision Pilot Travel Centers, LLC,
       and ACR's own "long history of overall compliance with the Commission
       rules and ... leadership position in its industry." ACR's reliance
       upon Pilot Travel Centers, LLC is misplaced. In Pilot Travel Centers,
       LLC, the Commission proposed an upwardly adjusted $125,000 forfeiture
       against a retailer who continued to market un-certificated devices
       after having had received nine citation warnings. Although ACR
       correctly noted that there were no prior findings of its
       non-compliance with the equipment marketing restrictions, it ignored
       the NAL's findings that the "degree" of its marketing of the PLB-200
       was so "substantial" that a "straightforward application of the
       [$7,000] base forfeiture amount for each violation" would have
       resulted in "a significantly higher proposed forfeiture amount." Given
       the "quantum" of ACR's violations, we find that the $75,000 proposed
       forfeiture was not excessive and that Pilot Travel Center, LLC does
       not support ACR's case for reduction. We do find, however, that a
       reduction of the proposed amount to $65,000 is warranted based on
       ACR's prior history of overall compliance with the Commission's
       equipment related regulations.

   I. Ordering clauses

   22. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the
       Act, and Sections and 1.80 of the Rules, ACR Electronics, Inc. IS
       LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of the sixty five
       thousand dollars ($65,000) for willfully and repeatedly violating
       Section 302(b) of the Act and Section 2.803(a) of the Rules.

   23. 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/Acct. No. and FRN No. referenced above.
       Payment by check or money order may be mailed to Federal
       Communications Commission, P.O. Box 358340, Pittsburgh, PA
       15251-8340.  Payment by overnight mail may be sent to Mellon
       Bank /LB 358340, 500 Ross Street, Room 1540670, Pittsburgh, PA
       15251.   Payment by wire transfer may be made to ABA Number 043000261,
       receiving bank Mellon Bank, and account number 911-6106.

   24. 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.

   25. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this Forfeiture Order shall be
       sent by first class mail and certified mail return receipt requested
       to Paul Frank, President, ACR Electronics, Inc., 5757 Ravenswood Road,
       Ft. Lauderdale, Florida 33312, and Bruce A. Eisen, Esq., Kaye Scholer
       LLP, 901 15^th Street, N.W., Suite 1100, Washington, D.C. 20005.

   FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

   Marlene H. Dortch

   Secretary

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

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

   Specifically, Section 2.803(a) provides, in pertinent part:

   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 subject to certification, such device has
   been authorized by the Commission in accordance with the rules in this
   chapter and is properly identified and labeled as required by S 2.925 and
   other relevant sections in this chapter [emphasis added].

   47 C.F.R. S 15.201(b). Section 15.3(o) of the Rules, 47 C.F.R. S 15.3(o),
   defines an intentional radiating device as a "device that intentionally
   generated and emits radio frequency energy by radiation or induction."

   47 C.F.R. S 2.803(c) (excepting trade show displays of equipment, prior to
   authorization, from Section 2.803(a)'s general prohibition provided such
   displays are accompanied by the requisite warning notice). See also
   Revision of Part 2 of the Commission's Rules Relating to the Marketing and
   Authorization of Radio Frequency Devices, 12 FCC Rcd 4533, 4536-37 P 6
   (1997), recon. granted in part, 13 FCC Rcd 12928 (1998) ("1997 Equipment
   Marketing Order") (stating that trade show displays and advertisements
   must be "accompanied by a conspicuous notice warning that the product has
   not been authorized and may not be sold or leased until such authorization
   is obtained"); Interpretation and Amendment of Part 2, Section 2.803 of
   the Commission's Rules Relating to the Marketing (Advertising) of Radio
   Frequency Devices, 62 FCC 2d 728, 729 P 8 (1976) ("1976 Equipment
   Advertising Order") (interpreting the trade show exception to include and
   permit advertisements of equipment, prior to authorization, provided such
   advertisements are accompanied by the requisite disclaimer notice);
   Interpretation and Amendment of Part 2, Section 2.803 of the Commission's
   Rules Relating to the Marketing of Radio Frequency Devices, 58 FCC 2d 784
   (1976) ("1976 Trade Show Order")  (adopting the trade show exception to
   the general prohibition against the marketing of devices prior to
   Commission authorization).

   See 1997 Equipment Marketing Order, 12 FCC Rcd at 4533 P 1, 4545 P 25.

   Id. at 4539-40 P 12, 4544 P 22. See also 1976 Equipment Advertising Order,
   62 FCC 2d at 729 P 6; 1976 Trade Show Order, 58 FCC 2d at 787-88 PP 16-18.

   ACR Electronics, Inc., 19 FCC Rcd 22293 (2004).

   ACR has marketed its PLB-200 under the names TerraFix, AquaFix and AeroFix
   for land, marine and aviation markets, respectively. See NAL, 19 FCC Rcd
   at 22293-94 PP 2, 4.

   See 47 C.F.R. S 2.909(a) (holding manufacturers, such as ACR, who are
   grantees of Commission certifications, responsible for compliance with the
   equipment requirements and standards).

   See NAL, 19 FCC Rcd at 22296 PP 10-11.

   Id. at 22295-96 PP 7-8.

   Id.

   Id. at 22296 P 9.

   Id. at 22294-95 P 6.

   Id. at 22299-301 PP 15-18.

   Id. at 22300-301 P 17.

   Id.

   Id.

   Id. at 22297-98 P 12.

   Id. at 22297 n. 33.

   Specifically, the NAL noted that according to ACR's media schedule, it
   advertised the PLB-200 in the following consumer publications: Outside
   Magazine's 2004 April Buying Guide (circulation 650,000); Backpacker
   Magazine's 2004 March Buyer's Guide, April and Summer issues and Camper
   Magazine (circulation 295,000); Alaska's Magazine 2004 May issue
   (circulation: 185,000); Rock `N Ice Magazine's 2004 June issue
   (circulation: 34,000); Safari Club Magazine's 2004 May/June issue
   (circulation: 39,500); Rocky Mountain Sports Magazine's 2004 April and May
   issues (circulation: 60,000); Paddler Magazine's 2004 May/June issue
   (circulation: 59,000); Kayak Magazine's 2004 May/June issue (circulation:
   59,000); Couloir Magazine's 2004 Winter issue (circulation: 41,000);
   Backcountry Magazine's 2004 January and February issues (circulation:
   14,000); and Adventure Sport Magazine's 2004 April and May issues
   (circulation: 25,000). See NAL, 19 FCC Rcd at 22297 P 12 and n. 35.

   Id. at 22298 P 12.

   Id.

   Id. at 22302 P 21.

   Response of ACR Electronics, Inc. to the Notice of Apparent Liability for
   Forfeiture (filed December 1, 2004) ("Response").

   See FCC Identifier B66ACR-PLB-200; see also NAL, 19 FCC Rcd at 22303 n.
   64.

   Response at 2.

   Id. at 10.

   Id. at 2. See also Letter from Bruce Eisen, Esq., Kaye Scholer LLP, to
   Brian Butler, Spectrum Enforcement Division, Enforcement Bureau, Federal
   Communications Commission (filed April 28, 2004 and supplemented May 4,
   2004).

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

   47 C.F.R. S 1.80.

   12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) ("Forfeiture
   Policy Statement").

   47 U.S.C. S 503(b)(2)(D).

   Response at 3.

   Id.

   See 1976 Trade Show Order, 58 FCC 2d at 786-87 PP 13-16; see also Vortex
   Computers, 9 FCC Rcd 255, 255 P 5 (F.O.B. 1994) (promoting or displaying
   equipment at trade shows, "even though on-the-spot orders might not be
   solicited or accepted" is considered "active marketing" to potential
   distributors and retailers). It should be noted that although the
   Commission has further relaxed the equipment marketing restrictions to
   allow manufacturers to offer pre-authorized devices for sale to
   wholesalers, retailers and other business entities (but not to end-user
   consumers), provided they give the prospective buyers written notice that
   the device has not been authorized but will be authorized at the time of
   delivery, the Commission did not abandon -- but rather reaffirmed -- the
   trade show disclaimer notice requirement. See 1997 Equipment Marketing
   Order, 12 FCC Rcd at 4537-39 PP 8-11.

   Cf. Ace Communications Fishers, 9 FCC Rcd 3084, 3084 P 8 (F.O.B., Enf.
   Div. 1994), forfeiture ordered, 12 FCC Rcd 1558 (F.O.B., Compliance
   Div.1997) (finding that the marketing of an unauthorized device, which was
   falsely labled with a FCC identifier, misled "others into believing that
   the FCC issued an equipment authorization" justifying an upwardly adjusted
   proposed forfeiture).

   Response at 3, 8.

   Id. at 4.

   In its response to the LOI, ACR indicated that it 200 price lists were
   prepared for distribution, but that a "significantly less," unspecified
   number of lists were actually distributed at the trade shows. NAL 19 FCC
   Rcd at 22296 P 9. In its response to the NAL, ACR claims, for the first
   time, that approximately 35-40 price lists were distributed to commercial
   buyers at the trade shows. Response, Statement of Paul D. N. Hardin, ACR
   Vice President of Sales & Marketing ("Hardin Statement"), at 3.

   To the extent that ACR claims that the brochures were "largely enclosed"
   within the press kit folder, it is unclear to us precisely how 700
   brochures could have been included and distributed in only 25 press kit
   folio. Instead, it appears that the majority of the brochures were
   distributed separately from the press kits.

   Response at 5.

   Id. at 7.

   On November 1, 2004, citations were issued to five retailers, which listed
   and offered the PLB-200 for sale, prior to the Commission's certification
   of the device. See Recreational Equipment, Inc., File No. EB-04-SE-281
   (Enf. Bur., Spectrum Enf. Div., November 1, 2004); Boat USA, File No.
   EB-04-SE-291 (Enf. Bur., Spectrum Enf. Div., November 1, 2004); West
   Marine Inc., File No. EB-04-SE-292 (Enf. Bur., Spectrum Enf. Div.,
   November 1, 2004); Mountain Gear, File No. EB-04-SE-293 (Enf. Bur.,
   Spectrum Enf. Div., November 1, 2004); Sportman's Guide, File No.
   EB-04-SE-294 (Enf. Bur., Spectrum Enf. Div., November 1, 2004).

   Response at 3.

   Id. at 9-10.

   See e.g., ASLAN Computer Corporation, 9 FCC Rcd 2030, P 5 (F.O.B. 1994)
   (finding that language "DEMO UNIT NOT FOR SALE" did not comply, and did
   not demonstrate a good faith effort to comply, with the requirements of
   Section 2.803(c) -- because the regulatory "disclaimer language ... is
   very specific and intended to convey to the general public or prospective
   purchasers the fact that a particular device needs FCC authorization, does
   not have it, and cannot be sold or offered for sale until such
   authorization has been granted").

   Response at 4.

   See KFC USA, Inc., 7 FCC Rcd 2398 P 4 (1992), proposed forfeiture
   rescinded on other grounds, Thomas J. & Nancy A. McIlraith et al., 12 FCC
   Rcd 14999 (1997) (finding that the disclaimer notice accompanying a trade
   show's display of an unauthorized device was not "conspicuous," because
   the location was not apparent to attendants). Similarly, we find that the
   location of the "Pending FCC approval" at the backside of the press kit
   folio was not apparent to its recipients.

   Response at 7.

   NAL, 19 FCC Rcd 22301-02 P 20.

   See supra n. 10.

   1997 Equipment Marketing Order, 12 FCC Rcd at 4540 P 12.

   Response  at 10.

   Id. at 9-10.

   See Southern California Broadcasting Co., 6 FCC Rcd 4387, 4388 P 5 (1991),
   recon. denied, 7 FCC Rcd 3454 (1992); see also Profit Enterprises, Inc., 8
   FCC Rcd 2846, 2846 P 5 (1993).

   See AT&T Wireless Services, Inc., 17 FCC Rcd 7891 (2002), forfeiture
   ordered, 17 FCC RCd 21866, 21875-76 PP 26-28 (2002); TCI Cablevision of
   Maryland, Inc., 7 FCC Rcd 6013, 6014 P 8 (1992); Seawest Yacht Brokers, 9
   FCC Rcd 6099, 6099 P 7 (1994); Ace Communications Fishers, 12 FCC Rcd
   1558, 1560 P 8 (Compliance Div. 1997).

   19 FCC Rcd 23113 (2004).

   Response at 10.

   19 FCC Rcd at 22303 P 24.

   See Johannus Orgelbow B.V. The Netherlands, 19 FCC Rcd 7196, 7199 P 10
   (Enf. Bur. 2004); Animation Technologies, Inc., 9 FCC Rcd 2059, 2059 P 3
   (F.O.B. 1994); see also KGB, Inc., 13 FCC Rcd 16396, 16398 P 8 (1998);
   Ad-Venture Media, Inc., 19 FCC Rcd 9848, 9849 P 6 (Enf. Bur. 2004); Max
   Media of Montana, LLC, 18 FCC Rcd 21375, 21379 P 14 (Enf. Bur. 2003).

   47 U.S.C. S 503(b); 47 C.F.R. S 1.80.

   See 47 C.F.R. S 1.1914.

   (Continued from previous page)

   (continued....)

   Federal Communications Commission FCC 06-37

   5

   Federal Communications Commission FCC 06-37