Click here for Adobe Acrobat version
Click here for Microsoft Word version
Statement of Commissioner Jonathan S. Adelstein

******************************************************** 
                      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


                           )                               
                                                           
                           )                               
                               File No. EB-06-SE-320       
     In the Matter of      )                               
                               NAL/Acct. No. 200732100035  
     Regent U.S.A., Inc.   )                               
                               FRN # 0016535528            
                           )                               
                                                           
                           )                               


                  Notice of apparent Liability for forfeiture

   Adopted: May 30, 2007   Released:  May 30, 2007

   By the Commission: Commissioner Adelstein issuing a statement.

   I. introduction

    1. In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL"), we find
       Regent U.S.A., Inc. ("Regent") apparently liable in the amount of
       $63,650 for its willful and repeated violations of Section
       15.117(i)(1)(i) of the Commission's Rules ("Rules"). The apparent
       violations involve Regent's importation and interstate shipment of
       television receivers that do not comply with the Commission's rules
       regarding digital television ("DTV") reception capability.

   II. Background

    2. The Commission adopted the DTV reception capability requirement in
       2002. The DTV reception requirement, which also is often termed 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. The DTV tuner requirement was
       intended to facilitate the transition to digital television by
       promoting the availability of DTV reception equipment and to protect
       consumers by ensuring that their television receivers will provide
       off-the-air television reception of digital signals just as they have
       provided off-the-air television reception of analog signals.

    3. To minimize the impact of the DTV tuner requirement on both
       manufacturers and consumers, the Commission adopted a phase-in
       schedule that applied the requirement first to receivers with the
       largest screens and then to progressively smaller screen receivers and
       other television receiving devices that do not include a viewing
       screen, i.e., VCRs and DVD players. This phase-in plan was intended to
       allow increasing economies of scale with production volume to be
       realized so that DTV tuner costs would be lower when they are required
       to be included in smaller sets and other television receiving devices.
       As modified by the Commission in 2005, this phase-in schedule is as
       follows:

   Receivers with screen sizes 36" and above -- 50% of units imported or
   shipped interstate by responsible parties were required to include DTV
   tuners effective July 1, 2004; 100% of such units were required to include
   DTV tuners effective July 1, 2005;

   Receivers with screen sizes 25" to 35" -- 50% of units imported or shipped
   interstate by responsible parties were required to include DTV tuners
   effective July 1, 2005; 100% of such units were required to include DTV
   tuners effective March 1, 2006;

   Receivers with screen sizes less than 25" - 100% of units imported or
   shipped interstate by responsible parties were required to include DTV
   tuners effective March 1, 2007; and

   Other video devices (videocassette recorders (VCRs), digital video
   recorders such as hard drive and DVD recorders, etc.) that receive
   television signals - 100% of units imported or shipped interstate by
   responsible parties were required to include DTV tuners effective March 1,
   2007.

    4. In August 2006, the Enforcement Bureau received a complaint alleging
       that Regent was marketing, and thus apparently shipping interstate,
       television receivers with screen sizes larger than 25" that did not
       include a DTV tuner. Review of Customs importation data by Enforcement
       Bureau staff confirmed that Regent had apparently imported quantities
       of large (36" and above) screen size television receivers that did not
       include DTV tuners after the July 1, 2005 deadline applicable to large
       screen receivers. On September 5, 2006, the Enforcement Bureau issued
       a letter of inquiry ("LOI") to Regent. Regent filed a response to the
       LOI on October 17, 2006.

    5. In its LOI Response, Regent admits that it imported and shipped
       interstate four models of large screen television receivers that do
       not include DTV tuners after July 1, 2005. Specifically, Regent
       imported and shipped interstate the following four models of large
       screen television receivers: Model LME-37X8, described as a 37"
       HD-ready liquid crystal display ("LCD") screen television; Model
       PME-42X10, described as a 42" HDTV-ready plasma screen television;
       Model LME-42X8, described as a 42" HD-ready LCD screen television; and
       Model PME-50X10, described as a 50" HDTV-ready plasma screen
       television. Regent admits that on five dates between March 24, 2006
       and July 11, 2006, it imported a total of 891 non-DTV-compliant large
       screen televisions. Regent also admits that it made 368 interstate
       shipments comprising a total of 1,288 non-DTV-compliant large screen
       televisions between February 6, 2006 and October 3, 2006.

    6. Regent states in its LOI Response that it is a small company that
       imports monitors and televisions for commercial/educational customers
       and for wholesale to retailers and that the receivers at issue were
       part of its commercial/educational line of products. Regent claims
       that most of its commercial/educational customers use its products as
       monitors, not as televisions. According to Regent, on products sold to
       those customers, the tuner is a secondary feature and not the focus of
       Regent's marketing efforts. Regent also maintains that it complied at
       all times with the DTV tuner requirement for wholesale products sold
       to retailers.

   III. Discussion

          A. Failure to Comply with DTV Tuner Requirement

    7. We conclude that Regent apparently willfully and repeatedly imported
       and shipped in interstate commerce television receivers that do not
       comply with the DTV tuner requirement in violation of Section
       15.117(i)(1)(i) of the Rules. Regent admits that, after July 1, 2005,
       it imported on five dates a total of 891 non-DTV-compliant television
       receivers. Regent also admits that, after July 1, 2005, it made 368
       interstate shipments of a total of 1,288 non-DTV-compliant television
       receivers. In all, Regent imported and shipped interstate on 373
       occasions a total of 2,179 non-DTV-compliant television receivers. All
       of these television receivers are large (36" and above) screen
       receivers and therefore were subject to the July 1, 2005 deadline for
       compliance with the DTV tuner requirement.

     A. Proposed Forfeiture

    8. Based on the analysis set forth below, we conclude that Regent is
       apparently liable for a forfeiture in the amount of $63,650 for
       willfully and repeatedly importing and shipping in interstate commerce
       television receivers that do not comply with the DTV tuner requirement
       in violation of Section 15.117(i)(1)(i) of the Rules.

    9. 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. 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. 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. We conclude
       under this standard that Regent is apparently liable for forfeiture
       for its apparent willful and repeated violations of Section
       15.117(i)(1)(i) of the Rules.

   10. 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 an NAL. Section 503(b)(6) does not, however, bar the
       Commission from assessing whether Regent's 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. Thus, while we may
       consider the fact that Regent's prior conduct violated the rules, the
       forfeiture amount we propose herein relates only to Regent's apparent
       violations that have occurred within the statute of limitations.
       Regent imported 603 non-DTV-compliant televisions and shipped
       interstate 394 non-DTV-compliant televisions more than one year prior
       to the date of this NAL. The non-compliant receivers represented by
       these importations and interstate shipments are therefore beyond the
       applicable one-year statute of limitations and are not subject to
       forfeiture. Accordingly, the forfeiture we propose relates only to the
       288 non-DTV-compliant televisions imported, and the 894
       non-DTV-compliant televisions shipped interstate, within the statute
       of limitations.

   11. Under Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act, 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, 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."

   12. The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Section 1.80 of the
       Rules do not establish a specific base forfeiture for the violation of
       the DTV tuner requirement. The Commission has substantial discretion,
       however, in proposing forfeitures. 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.

   13. The DTV tuner requirement promotes an important public policy goal of
       helping to speed the transition to digital television, and we
       therefore find violations of this requirement to be more egregious, in
       general, than many other types of equipment marketing cases that come
       before us. DTV receivers are a necessary element of digital broadcast
       television service. Consumers must have the capability to receive DTV
       signals for the DTV transition to move forward to successful
       completion. The DTV tuner requirement is intended to protect consumers
       by ensuring that their TV receivers will provide off-the-air TV
       reception of digital signals when analog TV operation ceases. Thus, we
       find 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.

   14. Accordingly, in cases involving the shipping or importation of
       non-compliant DTV tuners, we will propose a forfeiture based on each
       unit shipped or imported within the statute of limitations, regardless
       of the number of models shipped or imported. This approach, in our
       view, gets to the root of the apparent violation - non-compliant
       televisions in the hands of American consumers. Moreover, to reflect
       the increasing seriousness of the violation as the number of
       non-compliant units shipped or imported rises, we will propose
       forfeitures on a tier-by-tier basis, applying an increased per-unit
       forfeiture separately to each successive tier.

   15. We will base these tiers and per-unit penalties on our reasonable
       judgment of the egregiousness of the number of units involved. For
       example, for the first 1000 non-compliant units shipped or imported by
       Regent, we propose a forfeiture of $50 per unit. For the next 1500
       such units, we propose a forfeiture of $75 per unit. We set forth
       below the precise tiers and per-unit penalties we will apply in this
       and other DTV tuner requirement cases:

   0-1000 units: $50 per unit

   1001-2500 units: $75 per unit

   2501-5000 units: $100 per unit

   5001-10,000 units: $125 per unit

   10,001-20,000 units: $150 per unit

   20,001-30,000 units: $175 per unit

   30,001-40,000 units: $200 per unit

   40,001-50,000 units: $225 per unit

   50,001+ units: $250 per unit

   Application of this tiered, per unit approach clearly demonstrates the
   gravity with which we view this violation and our desire that the proposed
   forfeitures have a strong deterrent effect. We may revisit and change our
   approach if this forfeiture calculation methodology does not adequately
   deter future violations or as other circumstances require. Additionally,
   consistent with the Act and precedent, we may impose more severe sanctions
   and/or utilize different forfeiture calculation methodologies against
   companies that have a history of non-compliance with the DTV tuner
   requirements.

   16. Based on the record in this case, Regent's violations merit a
       significant proposed forfeiture. Importers have known of the DTV tuner
       requirement since 2002. Regent's violations involved large screen
       television receivers, for which the deadline was July 1, 2005. Regent,
       however, continued to import large screen receivers that do not comply
       with the DTV tuner requirement until July 11, 2006, more than twelve
       months after the July 1, 2005 deadline, and to ship such receivers
       interstate until October 3, 2006, more than fourteen months after the
       deadline.

   17. In addition, a significant proposed forfeiture is warranted given the
       large number of non-DTV compliant receivers imported and shipped
       interstate -- more than 1,000 -- and the substantial number of
       importations and interstate shipments made by Regent -- a total of 286
       importations and interstate shipments.

   18. Regent asserts in its LOI Reponse that most of its
       commercial/educational customers use its products as monitors, not as
       televisions, and therefore it should not be subject to a substantial
       forfeiture. We reject that argument. The DTV tuner requirement does
       not include any exception for television receivers that are used as
       monitors. Moreover, even assuming that Regent's commercial/educational
       customers do purchase the receivers primarily for use as monitors, it
       is likely that these or future owners will at least occasionally use
       these products as television receivers. Regent also claims that the
       tuner is a secondary feature and not the focus of Regent's marketing
       efforts with respect to products sold to its commercial/education
       customers, and that it complied at all times with the DTV tuner
       requirement for wholesale products sold to retailers. Regent's claims
       regarding its marketing efforts are irrelevant and do not warrant any
       mitigation of the proposed forfeiture amount. Furthermore, the sales
       data provided by Regent in its LOI Response indicated that significant
       quantities of the receivers were in fact sold to retailers, such as
       Costco and Best Buy.

   19. Regent imported or shipped 1,182 non-compliant DTV tuners within the
       statute of limitations. Applying the approach outlined above results
       in a proposed forfeiture of $63,650 for Regent's willful and repeated
       importation and interstate shipments of television receivers that do
       not comply with the DTV tuner requirement in violation of Section
       15.117(i)(1)(i) of the Rules. We believe that the proposed forfeiture
       reflects the gravity of Regent's apparent violations and will
       sufficiently deter Regent and other companies from future violations
       of the Act and the Rules.

   IV. ordering clauses

   20. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the
       Act, and Section 1.80 of the Rules, Regent U.S.A., Inc. is NOTIFIED of
       its APPARENT LIABILITY FOR A FORFEITURE in the amount of sixty three
       thousand six hundred fifty dollars ($63,650) for willful and repeated
       violation of Section 15.117(i)(1)(i) of the Rules.

   21.  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, Regent U.S.A., Inc. SHALL PAY the full
       amount of the proposed forfeiture or SHALL FILE a written statement
       seeking reduction or cancellation of the proposed forfeiture.

   22. 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.

   23. 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.

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

   25. Requests for payment of the full amount of the NAL under an
       installment plan should be sent to: Associate Managing Director -
       Financial Operations, 445 12^th Street, S.W., Room 1-A625, Washington,
       D.C. 20554.

   26.  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 Regent U.S.A., Inc., 1208
       John Reed Court, City of Industry, CA 91745 and to Lisa Case, Esq.,
       Law Offices of S. J. Christine Yang, 17220 Newhope Street, Suites 101
       & 102, Fountain Valley, CA 92708.

   FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

   Marlene H. Dortch

   Secretary

                                  STATEMENT OF

                       COMMISSIONER JONATHAN S. ADELSTEIN

   Re: In the Matter of Regent U.S.A., Inc., Notice of Apparent Liability for
   Forfeiture, EB-06-SE-320

   Re: In the Matter of Syntax-Brillian Corporation, Notice of Apparent
   Liability for Forfeiture, EB-07-SE-023

   I strongly support these two Notices of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture.
   It is my hope that the forfeitures proposed today, as well as the notice
   of our tiered, per unit forfeiture scale, will serve as a deterrent to
   future potential violators. We need to send a message that the FCC takes
   this matter seriously and will strongly enforce our rules.

   When the Commission adopted the DTV tuner compliance deadlines in June and
   November 2005, we did so in consultation with the consumer electronics
   industry, attempting to limit any undue impact on production cycles and
   shipping schedules. We promulgated rules to protect consumers, ease the
   burden on manufacturers and retailers, and foster a smooth transition to
   digital broadcasting. That is why today I am appalled at the actions of
   Regent U.S.A. and Syntax-Brillian for their willful and repeated
   violations of Commission rules. The American people deserve better than to
   be sold non-DTV-compliant television receivers.

   Today's action demonstrates that, while the Commission will punish
   violators after unsuspecting customers have been harmed, our enforcement
   tools are a poor and inadequate substitute for proactive consumer outreach
   and education. We have not done nearly enough to inform the public of the
   differences between, for example, HD-ready, DTV, or even HD-TV. We owe it
   to our citizens, those that will be harmed by buying a television set that
   cannot receive digital signals, to help them make the right purchases. If
   more citizens had known the differences, and had been aware that the
   televisions in question did not have the capabilities they needed, perhaps
   they would not have purchased the sets. We simply cannot fix the problem
   on the back end. We need to address the problem head on. Education and
   outreach are key to solving this problem.

   47 C.F.R. S 15.117(i)(1)(i).

   Review of the Commission's Rules and Policies Affecting the Conversion to
   Digital Television, Second Report and Order and Second Memorandum Opinion
   and Order, 17 FCC Rcd 15978, 15996 (2002) ("DTV Review Second Report and
   Order").

   DTV reception capability involves more circuitry than just a tuner. To
   provide this capability requires a tuner to receive the digital signal, an
   MPEG decoder/formatter, and associated processing capability and memory.
   See Requirements for Digital Television Receiving Capability, Report and
   Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 20 FCC Rcd 11196 n. 2
   (2005) ("DTV Tuner Report and Order").

   DTV Review Second Report and Order, 17 FCC Rcd at 15996. The DTV tuner
   requirement also applies to other devices such as television interface
   devices that do not include a viewing screen, e.g., devices such as VCRs
   and DVD players that are intended to provide audio-video signals to a
   video monitor with an antenna or antenna terminals that can be used for
   off-the-air television reception. See 47 C.F.R. S 15.117(i)(1)(i).

   Id. at 15979. In this latter regard, the DTV tuner requirement ensures
   that the intent of the All Channel Receiver Act of 1962 ("ACRA"), P.L. No.
   87-529, 76 Stat. 150, is fulfilled. The ACRA, which is codified at 47
   U.S.C. S 303(s), states that the Commission shall "[h]ave authority to
   require that apparatus designed to receive television pictures broadcast
   simultaneously with sound be capable of adequately receiving all
   frequencies allocated by the Commission to television broadcasting ...."
   See DTV Review Second Report and Order, 17 FCC Rcd at 15589-91.

   Id. at 15998-99.

   Id.

   In June 2005, the Commission modified the rules to advance the date on
   which 100% of new television receivers with screen sizes 25-36" that are
   imported or shipped interstate must include DTV tuners from July 1, 2006
   to March 1, 2006. DTV Tuner Report and Order, 20 FCC Rcd at 11203.
   Subsequently, in November 2005, the Commission modified the rules to
   advance the date on which 100% of new television receivers with screen
   sizes 13-24" and certain other television receiving devices such as VCRs
   and digital video recorders that are imported or shipped interstate must
   include DTV tuners from July 1, 2007 to March 1, 2007. See Requirements
   for Digital Television Receiving Capability, Second Report and Order, 20
   FCC Rcd 18607, 18614-16 (2005) ("DTV Tuner Second Report and Order"). The
   Commission also amended the rules to apply the DTV tuner requirement to
   new receivers with screen sizes smaller than 13" on this same schedule.
   Id.

   The DTV tuner requirement applies to "responsible parties," as defined in
   Section 2.909 of the Rules, 47 C.F.R. S 2.909. Under Section 2.909, the
   party responsible for equipment such as television receivers that are
   subject to our "verification" equipment authorization procedure is the
   manufacturer or, in the case of imported equipment, the importer. If
   subsequent to manufacture and importation, the equipment is modified by
   any party not working under the authority of the responsible party, the
   party performing the modification becomes the new responsible party.

   No radio frequency device may be imported into the Customs territory of
   the United States unless the importer or ultimate consignee declares that
   the device meets one of the conditions for entry specified in Section
   2.1204 of the Rules, 47 C.F.R. S 2.1204. See 47 C.F.R. S 2.1203. Such
   import declarations are filed with the U.S. Customs and Border Patrol on
   FCC Form 740, or electronically where electronic filing is available. 47
   C.F.R. S 2.1205. The Enforcement Bureau, in turn, receives this
   importation data from Customs and uses it to monitor compliance with the
   DTV tuner requirements and other requirements applicable to radio
   frequency devices.

   Letter from Kathryn S. Berthot, Deputy Chief, Spectrum Enforcement
   Division, Enforcement Bureau to James Chen, President, Regent U.S.A., Inc.
   (September 5, 2006).

   Letter from Lisa Case, Esq. Counsel for Regent U.S.A., Inc. to Kathryn
   Berthot, Spectrum Enforcement Division, Enforcement Bureau (September 5,
   2006) ("LOI Response").

   LOI Response, Declaration of Doris Chia, Comptroller of Regent.

   High Definition Television or "HDTV" is one of many DTV formats that
   provides the best quality digital picture, widescreen (16 x 9) display
   with at least 720 progressively scanned lines (720p) or 1080 interlaced
   lines (1080i)  and Dolby digital surround sound.  "HDTV-ready" or
   "HD-ready" generally refers to television monitors or receivers that can
   display HDTV programming if you have a separate HDTV tuner, HD cable
   set-top box or HD satellite set-top-box receiver.

   Id.

   Id. at Appendix 1, Import Information.

   Id. at Appendix 2, Sales Information

   Id. at 1.

   Id.

   Id.

   Id.

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

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

   47 U.S.C. S 503(b)(1)(B); 47 C.F.R. S 1.80(a)(1).

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

   See, e.g., SBC Communications, Inc., Forfeiture Order, 17 FCC Rcd 7589,
   7591 (2002).

   47 U.S.C. S 503(b)(6).

   See 47 U.S.C. S 503(b)(2)(E), 47 C.F.R. S 1.80(b)(4); see also Behringer
   USA, Inc., Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture and Order, 21 FCC
   Rcd 1820, 1828 (2006), response pending; Globcom, Inc. d/b/a Globcom
   Global Communications, Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture, 18 FCC
   Rcd 19893, 19903 (2003), forfeiture ordered, 21 FCC Rcd 4710 (2006);
   Roadrunner Transportation, Inc., Forfeiture Order, 15 FCC Rcd 9669,
   9671-71 (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 (1967) recon. denied, 11 FCC 2d 193, 195
   (1967).

   This NAL  also includes a number of violations that occurred more than a
   year ago, but remain subject to enforcement action pursuant to a tolling
   agreement. See Tolling Agreement between Regent USA, Inc. and Enforcement
   Bureau, Federal Communications Commission, dated April 30, 2007. For
   purposes of this NAL, references to violations that occurred "within the
   last year" include violations subject to this tolling agreement.

   47 U.S.C. S 503(b)(6)(B).

   47 U.S.C. S 503(b)(2)(D). The Commission twice amended Section 1.80(b)(3)
   of the Rules, 47 C.F.R. S 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. S
   2461. See Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules and
   Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, Order, 15 FCC Rcd
   18221 (2000) (adjusting the maximum statutory amounts from $10,000/$75,000
   to $11,000/$87,500); Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules
   and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, Order, 19 FCC
   Rcd 10945 (2004) (adjusting the maximum statutory amounts from
   $11,000/$87,500 to $11,000/$97,500).

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

   See The Commission's 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").

   See, e.g., InPhonic, Inc., Order of Forfeiture and Further Notice of
   Apparent Liability, FCC 07-58 at P 24 (rel. May 3, 2007); Globcom, Inc.
   d/b/a Globom Global Commun., Order of Forfeiture, 21 FCC Rcd 4710, 4723-24
   (2006). We may use the base forfeiture amounts described in the Forfeiture
   Policy Statement and our rules, or we may depart from them altogether if
   the circumstances demand it. See 47 C.F.R. S1.80(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). We
   find that calculating forfeitures for violations of the DTV tuner
   requirement using a per-unit, tiered approach is reasonable because it
   results in forfeiture amounts that reflect the egregiousness of the
   violations, and that will effectively deter future misconduct. Moreover,
   this forfeiture calculation methodology is consistent and predictable when
   applied to different factual scenarios.

   See DTV Tuner Report and Order, 20 FCC Rcd at 11199; DTV Tuner Second
   Report and Order, 20 FCC Rcd at 18608.

   See id.

   As noted above, Regent shipped or imported a total of four large-screen
   television receivers that did not include DTV tuners after the applicable
   deadlines. See supra P 5. Application of the statutory maximum forfeiture
   ($11,000) for each model would result in a proposed forfeiture of $44,000,
   an amount that fails to reflect the true scope of Regent's apparent
   violations or the public harm of importing and shipping more than 1000
   non-compliant television receivers.

   See Globcom, 21 FCC Rcd at 4723-24 PP 35-38 (finding that the Commission
   had authority to change its forfeiture calculation methodology for
   carriers' failure to meet their universal service contribution
   obligations; Commission found that previous forfeiture calculation
   approach did not sufficiently deter violations). As noted above, we have
   authority to propose forfeitures of up to $11,000 per violation against
   any entity that is not a common carrier, broadcast licensee or cable
   operator. For continuing violations, we may propose forfeitures of $11,000
   per day, up to a maximum of $97,500 per violation.

   See 47 U.S.C. S 503(b)(2)(E) (listing "history of prior offenses" as a
   factor in forfeiture calculation). See also, Ramko Distributors, Inc.,
   Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture, FCC 07-49 at P 23 (rel. March
   30, 2007); AT&T Wireless Services, Notice of Apparent Liability for
   Forfeiture, 17 FCC Rcd 7891, 7896 P 20 (2002), forfeiture ordered,
   Forfeiture Order, 17 FCC Rcd 21866, 21874-75 P 25 (2002).

   LOI Response at 1. Regent did not provide any factual support for this
   assertion.

   Id.

   LOI Response at Appendix 2, Sales Information.

   We derived this amount as follows: (1000 units * $50/unit) + (182 units *
   $75/unit) = $63,650.

   See 47 C.F.R. S 1.1914.

   (Continued from previous page)

   (continued....)

   Federal Communications Commission FCC 07-105

   5

   Federal Communications Commission FCC 07-105