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


                        )                               
                            File No. EB-06-SE-420       
     In the Matter of   )                               
                            NAL/Acct. No. 200832100012  
     Ryzex, Inc.        )                               
                            FRN 0017365321              
                        )                               


                  Notice of apparent Liability for forfeiture

   Adopted: January 25, 2008  Released:   January 29, 2008

   By the Chief, Spectrum Enforcement Division, Enforcement Bureau:

   I. introduction

    1. In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL"), we find
       Ryzex, Inc. ("Ryzex") apparently liable for a forfeiture in the amount
       of eight thousand dollars ($8,000) for willful and repeated violation
       of Section 302(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended
       ("Act"), and Section 2.803(a) of the Commission's Rules ("Rules"). The
       noted apparent violations involve Ryzex's marketing of noncompliant
       portable data terminals ("PDTs").

   II. BACKGROUND

    2. The Enforcement Bureau's Spectrum Enforcement Division ("Division")
       received a complaint alleging that Ryzex had modified PDTs
       manufactured by Symbol Technologies, Inc. ("Symbol") by replacing
       their two megabytes per second ("mbps") radio assemblies with 11 mbps
       radio assemblies without authorization from Symbol. The complaint also
       asserted that the PDTs' original labels were affixed to the modified
       PDTs and that those labels included information relating to the radio
       assemblies originally installed in the PDTs rather than to the
       replacement radio assemblies.

    3. The PDTs involved in this matter are equipped with internal radio
       assemblies which transmit the data collected by the PDTs. The internal
       radio assemblies at issue are designated by Symbol as the LA3021,
       which has a data transmission rate of two mbps and the LA4121, which
       has a data transmission rate of 11 mbps. Symbol holds grants of
       equipment certification for both of these radio assemblies.

    4. After its receipt of the complaint, the Division began an
       investigation. As part of the investigation, the Division conducted
       internet research on Ryzex's website, www.ryzex.com, on January 11 and
       July 17, 2007. The internet research indicates that, on those dates,
       Ryzex advertised numerous Symbol PDTs for sale.

    5. On July 18, 2007, the Division directed a letter of inquiry ("LOI") to
       Ryzex. Ryzex responded on September 12, 2007. Ryzex is a privately
       owned company headquartered in Bellingham, Washington, and is in the
       business of servicing "legacy PDTs" and reselling them to end-users.

    6. After a follow-up e-mail message from the Division on September 24,
       2007, Ryzex filed a further response to the LOI on October 15, 2007.
       Ryzex states that it modified 507 Symbol PDTs between November 2003
       and August 2007 as follows. Eighty-nine of these modifications
       involved removing the LA3021 radio assembly from a PDT6840 and
       replacing it with the LA4121 radio assembly (39 performed during
       2004-2005 and 50 during February 2007). Ryzex describes this type of
       modification as a "PDT6840 to PDT6846 modification." Two hundred
       thirty-four modifications involved removing the U.S. version of the
       LA4121 radio assembly from a PDT6846 and replacing it with the
       "worldwide" version of the LA4121 radio assembly (187 performed
       between February and June 2007 and 47 during July and August 2007).
       Ryzex describes this type of modification as a "PDT6846 T2 to WW
       modification." One hundred twenty-three modifications involved
       removing the U.S. version of the LA4121 radio assembly from a PDT6846
       and replacing it with a later U.S. version of the LA4121 radio
       assembly (105 performed during 2003-2006 and 18 during February 2007).
       Ryzex describes this type of modification as a "PDT6846 T2 to T2+
       modification." Forty-seven modifications involved removing the LA3021
       radio assembly from a PDT6842 and replacing it with the LA4121 radio
       assembly (performed during 2004 and 2006). Ryzex describes this type
       of modification as a "PDT6842 to PDT6846 modification." The remaining
       14 modifications involved removing the LA4121 radio assembly from a
       PDT6846 and replacing it with the LA3021 radio assembly (performed
       during 2006). Ryzex describes this type of modification as a "PDT6846
       to PDT6842 modification."

    7. Ryzex asserts that it "was authorized by Symbol to repair, refurbish,
       and provide additional `value added services' to Symbol PDTs and other
       products. Ryzex, however never specifically sought approval from
       Symbol to modify Symbol's PDTs ...." Additionally Ryzex asserts that
       "Symbol did not object to the practice of third-parties modifying PDTs
       ... until late 2004." Ryzex also asserts that most of the PDTs it
       modified were sold to end-users or resellers and that the 507
       modifications between November 2003 and September 2007 were performed
       with the intention of resale.

    8. With respect to its labeling practices, Ryzex states that:

   The PDTs that Ryzex purchases [for modification] typically contain labels
   affixed to them by Symbol. But Symbol's labeling practices are
   inconsistent and confusing. In many cases, for example, the equipment
   product code portion of the FCC ID corresponds to the radio cards
   contained within the devices, but not to the devices themselves. [footnote
   omitted] Frequently, Symbol's radio cards contain labels with no FCC ID on
   them ....

   Because of Symbol's poor labeling practices, Ryzex is forced to conduct
   certain labeling practices of its own in order to ensure the PDTs are
   identified. However, Ryzex never alters or adds an FCC ID number to any
   PDT.

   If a PDT has a label that is legible and in good condition, Ryzex makes no
   changes .... If the Symbol label itself is badly damaged or missing, Ryzex
   applies its own generic label containing a serial number, the model or
   reconfiguration model. [footnote omitted]

   In all cases, Ryzex attaches a label that states "Warranty: Void if
   Removed - May contain 3rd party parts from one or more sources." Ryzex
   utilizes this label to make it clear that the PDTs are modified by Ryzex,
   and not Symbol.

   Additionally, Ryzex asserts that it "has not changed the FCC ID Numbers on
   any of the PDTs it has modified." Question (4) of the LOI directed Ryzex
   to provide, for each modified PDT, a reproduction or facsimile of both the
   original label and any new label affixed after modification. In response,
   Ryzex provides copies of four Symbol labels (but with no indication as to
   whether the labels were affixed to modified or unmodified devices) and
   copies of four labels that are "examples of Ryzex' labeling practices." 

    9. Ryzex contends that original equipment certifications granted to
       Symbol cover the PDTs it has modified but that counsel has been unable
       to ascertain the original equipment certifications. Ryzex also
       contends that it is not a responsible party as a result of the
       modifications under Section 2.909 of the Rules, arguing that:

   [t]he modifications as described herein and in Ryzex' Initial Response do
   not require recertification or notice to the Commission.[footnote omitted]
   As such, they do not fall within the meaning of Section 2.909 of the
   Commission's Rules, and consequently that rule does not appear to apply
   with respect to the PDTs Ryzex has modified.

   III. Discussion

     A. Marketing of Improperly  Labeled Devices 

   10. 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)(1) of the Commission's implementing regulations provides in
       pertinent part 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 radiofrequency device unless
   ... [i]n the case of a device [that is] 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....

   11. Ryzex claims that it is not the "responsible party" with respect to
       the PDTs that it modified and therefore is not responsible for
       compliance with Section 302(b) of the Act and Section 2.803(a)(1) of
       the Rules. We disagree. Section 2.909(a) of the Rules provides in
       pertinent part:

   If the radio frequency equipment is modified by any party other than the
   grantee and that party is not working under the authorization of the
   grantee pursuant to Sec. 2.929(b), the party performing the modification
   is responsible for compliance of the product with the applicable
   administrative and technical provisions in this chapter.

   Ryzex modified Symbol PDT6840s, 6842s and 6846s by replacing their radio
   assemblies. Because Ryzex is not the grantee of the equipment
   certifications and was not working under the authorization of the grantee,
   we find that, under Section 2.909(a) of the Rules, Ryzex became the party
   responsible for the compliance of the modified PDTs with the applicable
   technical and administrative provisions, including the labeling
   requirements.

   12. Section 2.909(d) of the Rules provides:

   If, because of modifications performed subsequent to authorization, a new
   party becomes responsible for ensuring that a product complies with the
   technical standards and the new party does not obtain a new equipment
   authorization, the equipment shall be labeled, following the
   specifications in S:2.925(d), with the following: `This product has been
   modified by [insert name, address and telephone number of the party
   performing the modifications].'

   Since Ryzex did not obtain its own certifications to cover the modified
   PDTs, it was required to label the devices as specified in Section
   2.909(d). We have examined the copies of labels Ryzex provided in its
   response to our LOI. One of these labels states "Warranty: Void if Removed
   - May contain 3rd party parts from one or more sources." Ryzex states that
   it attaches this label "in all cases" and utilizes it "to make it clear
   that the PDTs are modified by Ryzex, and not Symbol."  This label,
   however, does not contain the information required by Section 2.909(d) of
   the Rules. Our examination of the other labels provided by Ryzex indicates
   that these labels also do not contain the information required by Section
   2.909(d). We find, accordingly that Ryzex did not label the 507 modified
   devices as specified by Section 2.909(d).

   13. Section 2.925(a)(1) of the Rules provides:

   Each equipment covered in an application for equipment authorization shall
   bear a nameplate or label listing the following: (1) FCC Identifier
   consisting of the two elements in the exact order specified in S:2.926.
   The FCC Identifier shall be preceded by the term FCC ID in capital letters
   on a single line, and shall be of a type size large enough to be legible
   without the aid of magnification.

   It is clear from Ryzex's description of its labeling practices - in
   particular its statement that it does not change the FCC ID numbers on the
   devices that it modifies -- that the labels on certain of the modified
   PDTs do not contain the correct FCC ID number. The correct FCC ID number
   for the label of a modified PDT is the FCC ID number of the replacement
   internal radio assembly. We find that the labels of the PDTs that were
   modified by replacing their radio assemblies with radio assemblies having
   different FCC ID numbers do not include the correct FCC ID numbers and,
   therefore, are not labeled as specified by Section 2.925(a)(1) of the
   Rules.

   14. We, accordingly, find that the 507 PDT6840s, 6842s and 6846s that
       Ryzex modified by replacing their radio assemblies are not properly
       labeled and are, therefore, noncompliant. It is clear that Ryzex
       marketed -- through sale or through advertising for sale -- three
       models of modified Symbol PDTs that were not properly labeled: the
       PDT6840 (as modified by replacing the LA3021 radio assembly with the
       LA4121 radio assembly), the PDT6842 (as modified by replacing the
       LA3021 radio assembly with the LA4121 radio assembly), and the PDT6846
       (as modified by replacing the LA4121 radio assembly with the LA3021
       radio assembly, by replacing the U.S. version of the LA4121 radio
       assembly with the "worldwide" version of the LA4121 radio assembly, or
       by replacing the U.S. version of the LA4121 radio assembly with a
       later U.S. version of the LA4121 radio assembly). Ryzex describes the
       end products or "final configuration models" resulting from the
       modification of these devices as either the PDT6842 or the PDT6846. In
       this regard, on January 11 and July 17, 2007, the Division staff
       observed Ryzex advertising the final configuration models PDT6842 and
       PDT6846 on Ryzex's website. Ryzex acknowledges that all of the
       modifications were performed with the intention of resale. Ryzex also
       acknowledges that it sold most of the PDTs it modified to end users or
       resellers. Based on Ryzex's statement that it modified units of the
       PDT6840 between June 2004 and February 2007, we find that Ryzex
       apparently marketed the modified PDT6840 until at least February 2007.
       Based on Ryzex's statement that it modified units of the PDT6842
       between May 2006 and August 2006, we find that Ryzex apparently
       marketed the modified PDT6842 until at least 2006. Finally, based on
       Ryzex's statement that it modified units of the PDT6846 between
       November 2003 and August 2007, we find that Ryzex apparently marketed
       the modified PDT6846 until at least August 2007.

   15. We find, therefore, that Ryzex apparently marketed three models of
       noncompliant radio frequency devices, in willful and repeated
       violation of Section 302(b) of the Act and Section 2.803(a) of the
       Rules.

   B. Proposed Forfeiture

   16. Section 503(b) of the Act authorizes the Commission to assess a
       forfeiture for each willful or repeated violation of the Act or of any
       rule, regulation, or order issued by the Commission under the Act. 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."

   17. 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 Ryzex's conduct prior to that time
       period apparently violated the provisions of the Act and 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 Ryzex's
       conduct has continued over a period that began during 2003, the
       forfeiture amount we propose herein relates only to Ryzex's apparent
       violations that have occurred within the past year.

   18. Under  The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of
       Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines
       ("Forfeiture Policy Statement") and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the
       base forfeiture amount for the marketing of unauthorized equipment is
       $7,000. In this case, Ryzex marketed two models of improperly labeled
       PDTs, the modified Symbol PDT6840 and PDT6846, within the past year.
       Ryzex's marketing of each of these two improperly labeled models is a
       separate violation. We find that the base forfeiture amount of $7,000
       is apparently warranted for each of the two models for total of
       $14,000. The base forfeiture amount is typically imposed for marketing
       devices that are not in compliance with applicable technical
       requirements or are not authorized by an equipment authorization. In
       this case, however, these two models are not properly labeled as
       required by Sections 2.909(d) and 2.925(a)(1) of the Rules. Because
       marketing an improperly labeled device is not as significant a
       violation as marketing an unauthorized or technically non-compliant
       device, we find that a downward adjustment of the base forfeiture
       amount from $7,000 to $4,000 for each violation is warranted. Thus, we
       propose a total forfeiture of $8,000.

   19. Ryzex also marketed another improperly labeled model, the modified
       Symbol PDT6842. Although we believe that a forfeiture would be
       warranted for this violation, we note that the statute of limitations
       for proposing a forfeiture for this violation is one year from the
       date of violation. Accordingly, because it is not clear from the
       record before us whether Ryzex marketed the modified PDT6842s after
       2006, we will not propose a forfeiture for marketing this model. We
       find, however, that an admonishment is warranted.

   iV. ordering clauses

   20. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the
       Act, and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80 of the Rules, Ryzex, Inc., IS
       NOTIFIED of its APPARENT LIABILITY FOR A FORFEITURE in the amount of
       eight thousand dollars ($8,000) for marketing two models of improperly
       labeled PDTs in willful and repeated violation of Section 302(a) of
       the Act and Section 2.803(a) of the of the Rules.

   21. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Ryzex IS ADMONISHED  for marketing one
       model of improperly labeled PDTs in violation of Section 302(a) of the
       Act and Section 2.803(a) of the of the Rules.

   22. 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, Ryzex SHALL PAY the full amount of the
       proposed forfeiture or SHALL FILE a written statement seeking
       reduction or cancellation of the proposed forfeiture.

   23. Payment of the forfeiture must be made by credit card through the
       Commission's Debt and Credit Management Center at (202) 418-1995, or
       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. 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.

   25. 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.

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

   27. 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 Ryzex , Inc., 4600 Ryzex Way, Bellingham,
       Washington 98226-7691, and to its attorneys, Ian D. Volner and Ronald
       E. Quirk, Jr., Venable LLP, 575 7th Street, NW, Washington, DC
       20004-1601.

   FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

   Kathryn S. Berthot

   Chief, Spectrum Enforcement Division

   Enforcement Bureau

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

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

   PDTs are radio frequency devices that collect data. They are primarily
   used to take inventory.

   FCC ID H9PLA3021 and FCC ID H9PLA4121.

   See Letter from Kathryn S. Berthot, Chief, Spectrum Enforcement Division,
   Enforcement Bureau, Federal Communications Commission to Ryzex, Inc. (July
   18, 2007).

   See Letter from Ian A. Volner and Ronald E. Quirk, Jr., Counsel for Ryzex,
   Inc., to Thomas D. Fitz-Gibbon, Esq., Spectrum Enforcement Division,
   Enforcement Bureau, Federal Communications Commission (September 12, 2007)
   ("First LOI Response").

   First LOI Response at 2.

   See Letter from Ian A. Volner and Ronald E. Quirk, Jr., Counsel for Ryzex,
   Inc., to Thomas D. Fitz-Gibbon, Esq., Spectrum Enforcement Division,
   Enforcement Bureau, Federal Communications Commission (October 15, 2007)
   ("Second LOI Response").

   Id. at 4.

   First LOI Response at 6-10, second LOI response  at 4 and Exhibit 1.

   Second LOI Response at 4.

   Id. at 5 and Exhibit 1.

   Id. at 5.

   Id. at 5 and Exhibit 1.

   Id. at 5.

   First LOI Response at 6-10, second LOI response  at 5 and Exhibit 1.

   Second LOI response  at 5.

   Id. at 4-5 and Exhibit 1.

   Id. at 5.

   Id. at 3.

   Id. at 3.

   First LOI Response at 13.

   Second LOI Response at 6.

   First LOI Response at 8 - 9.

   First LOI Response at 12.

   LOI at 1.

   See First LOI Response, Exhibit 11; Second LOI Response, Exhibit 2.

   First LOI Response at 11.

   47 C.F.R. S: 2.909.

   Second LOI Response at 7.

   47 C.F.R. S: 2.801 defines a radiofrequency device as "any device which in
   it its operation is capable of emitting radiofrequency energy by
   radiation, conduction, or other means."

   47 C.F.R. S: 2.909(a).

   47 C.F.R. S: 2.909(d).

   First LOI Response at 8 - 9.

   47 C.F.R. S: 2.925(a)(1).

   See Unlicensed Modular Transmitter Approval, Public Notice, 15 FCC Rcd
   25415 (OET 2000).

   These include the modifications that involved removing the LA3021 radio
   assembly from a PDT6840 and replacing it with the LA4121 radio assembly,
   the modifications that involved removing the LA3021 radio assembly from a
   PDT6842 and replacing it with the LA4121 radio assembly and the
   modifications that involved removing the LA4121 radio assembly from a
   PDT6846 and replacing it with the LA3021 radio assembly.

   See Revision of Part 2 of the Commission's Rules relating to the Marketing
   and Authorization of Radio Frequency Devices, Report and Order, 12 FCC Rcd
   4533, 4552 (1997) (stating that the marketing of modified equipment by a
   party who fails to perform the steps required by Section 2.909(d) would
   violate the marketing rules).

   Marketing, as defined in 47 C.F.R. S: 2.803(e)(4), "includes sale or
   lease, or offering for sale or lease, including advertising for sale or
   lease, or importation, shipment, or distribution for the purpose of
   selling or leasing or offering for sale or lease."

   Described by Ryzex as a "PDT6840 to PDT6846 modification." Second LOI
   response at 4.

   Describes by Ryzex as a "PDT6842 to PDT6846 modification." Id. at 5.

   Decribed by Ryzex as, respectively, a "PDT6846 to PDT6842 modification," a
   "PDT6846 T2 to WW modification," or a "PDT6846 T2 to T2+ modification."
   Id. at 5.

   Id. at 4-5 and Exhibit 1. The devices described as final configuration
   model PDT6842 are the devices modified by removing the LA4121 radio
   assembly from a PDT6846 and replacing it with the LA3021 radio assembly.
   The devices described as final configuration model PDT6846 include the
   devices modified by removing the LA3021 radio assembly from a PDT6840 and
   replacing it with the LA4121 radio assembly, the devices modified by
   removing the LA3021 radio assembly from a PDT6842 and replacing it with
   the LA4121 radio assembly, the devices modified by removing the U.S.
   version of the LA4121 radio assembly from a PDT6846 and replacing it with
   the "worldwide" version of the LA4121 radio assembly and the devices
   modified by removing the U.S. version of the LA4121 radio assembly from a
   PDT6846 and replacing it with a later U.S. version of the LA4121 radio
   assembly.

   Second LOI Response at 6.

   First LOI Response at 13.

   Section 312(f)(1) of the Act, 47 U.S.C. S: 312(f)(1), which applies to
   violations for which forfeitures are assessed under Section 503(b) of the
   Act, provides that "[t]he term `willful', ... means the conscious and
   deliberate commission or omission of such act, irrespective of any intent
   to violate any provision of this Act or any rule or regulation of the
   Commission authorized by this Act ...." See Southern California
   Broadcasting Co., Memorandum Opinion and Order, 6 FCC Rcd 4387 (1991).

   Section 312(f)(2) 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).

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

   47 U.S.C. S: 503(b)(2)(E).

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

   See 47 U.S.C. S: 503(b)(2)(D), 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(4); see also Behringer
   USA, Inc., Notice of Apparent Liability,  21 FCC Rcd 1820, 1825(2006),
   forfeiture ordered, Forfeiture Order, 22 FCC Rcd. 1051 (2007); Globcom,
   Inc. d/b/a Globcom Global Communications, Notice of Apparent Liability, 18
   FCC Rcd 19893, 19903 (2003), forfeiture ordered, Forfeiture Order,  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 (1967), recon. den.,11
   FCC 2d 193 (1967); Bureau D'Electronique Appliquee, Inc., Notice of
   Apparent Liability, 20 FCC Rcd 3445, 3447-48 (Enf. Bur., Spectrum Enf.
   Div. 2005), forfeiture ordered, Forfeiture Order, 20 FCC Rcd 17893 (Enf.
   Bur., Spectrum Enf. Div. 2005) ("Bureau D'Electronique Appliquee").

   12 FCC Rcd 17087, 17113 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999).

   47 C.F.R. S: 1.80.

   Ryzex's "final configuration models" for these two devices are the PDT6842
   and the PDT6846. Second LOI Response, Exhibit 1. See n. 43 supra.

   See Samson Technologies, Inc., Notice of Apparent Liability, 19 FCC Rcd
   4221, 4225 (2004).

   Ryzex's "final configuration model" for the modified PDT6842 is the
   PDT6846. Second LOI Response, Exhibit 1. Thus, the PDT6842s advertised on
   Ryzex's website do not appear to include any of the modified PDT6842s.

   See 47 U.S.C. S: 503(b)(6); 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(c)(3).

   As noted above, Ryzex modified these units between 2004 and 2006. See
   paragraph 6, supra.

   47 C.F.R. S: 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80.

   See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.1914.

   (Continued from previous page)

   (continued....)

   Federal Communications Commission DA 08-167

   2

   Federal Communications Commission DA 08-167