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-08-SE-100       
     In the Matter of            )                               
                                     NAL/Acct. No. 200832100068  
     Invision Industries, Inc.   )                               
                                     FRN # 0018034611            
                                 )                               
                                                                 
                                 )                               


             Notice of apparent Liability for forfeiture and order

   Adopted: August 14, 2008 Released: August 18, 2008

   By the Commission:

   I. introduction

    1. In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture and Order ("NAL"),
       we find Invision Industries, Inc. ("Invision") apparently liable for a
       forfeiture in the amount of $324,000 for its willful and repeated
       violation of Section 15.117(i)(1)(iii) of the Commission's Rules
       ("Rules"). These apparent violations involve Invision's importation
       and interstate shipment, after January 30, 2008, of television
       receivers that do not comply with the Commission's rules regarding
       digital television ("DTV") reception capability. Additionally, we find
       Invision apparently liable for a forfeiture in the amount of $4,000
       for providing to the Commission, during the course of its
       investigation, material factual information that is incorrect without
       a reasonable basis for believing the material factual information was
       correct, in willful violation of Section 1.17(a)(2) of the Rules. In
       light of evidence that the company has continued to import and ship
       interstate television receivers in violation of our rules, we further
       order Invision to submit a report within 10 days of release of this
       NAL certifying that it has ceased all such unlawful conduct.

   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 over-the-air the signals
       of DTV broadcast stations. 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 over-the-air
       television reception of digital signals just as they have provided
       over-the-air television reception of analog signals.

    3. In order 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, such as 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. The Commission's 2005 DTV Tuner Second Report and Order also amended
       the rules to apply the DTV tuner requirement to new receivers with
       screen sizes smaller than 13" on this same schedule (i.e., March 1,
       2007). Although the Commission  adopted this requirement for receivers
       with screen sizes smaller than 13" through the appropriate notice and
       comment procedures, and modified the rules to show March 1, 2007, as
       the accelerated deadline, the Commission inadvertently failed to
       delete the exception in Section 15.117(i)(2) for "units with
       integrated tuners/displays that have screen sizes measuring less than
       7.8 inches vertically, i.e., the vertical measurement of a screen in
       the 4:3 aspect ratio that measures 13' [sic] diagonally across the
       picture viewing area." The Commission subsequently corrected Section
       15.117(i)(2) by striking the inappropriate language, and the DTV tuner
       requirements for receivers with screen sizes smaller than 13" became
       effective on January 30, 2008.

    5. Invision is a retailer headquartered in Kissimmee, Florida that sells
       rear seat entertainment accessories to the automotive industry. Among
       the devices marketed by the company are monitors and television
       broadcast receivers with screen sizes less than 13" measured
       diagonally. A consumer wishing to purchase equipment marketed by
       Invision can do so only by placing an order through an automotive
       dealership. Invision imports the devices from a foreign manufacturer
       and ships them to automotive dealers. The equipment is then integrated
       into the vehicle by the dealer.

    6. In February 2008, Enforcement Bureau ("Bureau") staff visited the
       Invision web site and observed that Invision was marketing television
       broadcast receivers that apparently did not comply with the DTV tuner
       requirements. Specifically, the Bureau observed the following models
       displayed on Invision's web site: (1) Revolution III (7" screen); (2)
       Revolution II (7" screen); (3) Revolution IIG (7" screen); (4) SL (7"
       or 8" screen); (5) G10 (10.2" screen); (6) G9 (9" screen); and (7)
       Camry Center Console (7" screen). The Bureau issued a letter of
       inquiry ("LOI") to Invision on March 4, 2008 regarding the importation
       and interstate shipment of these devices. Invision filed a response to
       the LOI on April 18, 2008, and in response to staff's request for
       clarification, an Amended Response on May 12, 2008.

    7. In its LOI Response, Invision stated that two of its models -- G10 and
       G9 -- contained a "built-in TV tuner" but did not state whether these
       models were equipped with DTV tuners. The LOI Response further stated
       that for these models, since January 30, 2008, twelve units had been
       shipped interstate and zero units had been imported.

    8. After the Bureau contacted Invision for clarification on another issue
       in its LOI response, Invision clarified, in its Amended Response, that
       the G10 and G9 models were not equipped with DTV tuners and provided
       further information concerning two additional models -- the G8 (10.2"
       screen) and the G7 (10.4" screen) -- that contained television
       receivers that were not equipped with DTV tuners. Invision stated that
       4,115 units of the G10 and G9 units and 0 units of the G8 and G7
       models were manufactured by its foreign manufacturer between January
       2008 and April 30, 2008. Invision further stated that it imported a
       total of 4,115 units and that it shipped interstate 2,968 units of the
       four subject models between January 30, 2008 and April 30, 2008.

    9. Invision asserted its belief that the non-DTV-compliant television
       receivers may lawfully be imported and shipped because the devices are
       "parts" specifically designed for use in the automotive industry.
       Invision further submitted that the television reception capability of
       the devices is an option "that is, rarely, if ever utilized for its
       intended purpose." Thus, it is Invision's belief that the devices are
       not subject to the DTV tuner requirements.

   III. DISCUSSION

          A. Failure to Comply with DTV Tuner Requirement

   10. We conclude that Invision 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)(iii). Invision admits that, after January 30, 2008, it
       imported 4,115 and shipped interstate 2,968 television broadcast
       receivers that were not equipped with DTV tuners.

   11. We reject Invision's argument that the DTV tuner requirement does not
       apply to the sale of television receivers designed specifically for
       the automotive industry. The DTV tuner requirement is clearly not
       limited to receivers produced for any particular segment of American
       commerce and provides no exception for the possibility of incidental
       use of the television tuning function. In analogous situations, the
       Commission has rejected arguments that the DTV tuner requirement does
       not apply to television receivers that are part of a specialized video
       system distributed for use in the health care industry and to
       television receivers that are used primarily as monitors. In rejecting
       these arguments, the Commission noted that the DTV tuner requirement
       does not exclude television receivers used as monitors, that it was
       likely these devices would be used as television receivers at some
       point, and therefore, we would not assume that owners of these devices
       would never attempt to use them to receive over-the-air broadcasts.
       Similarly, no exception to the DTV tuner requirements exists for units
       like those at issue here simply because they are sold for use in cars
       and might not be used to receive over-the-air broadcasts by the
       consumer. The rule applies to all receivers imported into the United
       States or shipped interstate that are capable of receiving
       over-the-air television broadcast signals. Accordingly, the rule
       covers the Invision devices and the company is subject to enforcement
       for violating the rule.

     A. Provision of Incorrect Material Information to the Commission

   12. Section 1.17(a)(2) of the Rules provides that no person may provide,
       in any written statement of fact, "material factual information that
       is incorrect or omit material information that is necessary to prevent
       any material factual statement that is made from being incorrect or
       misleading without a reasonable basis for believing that any such
       material factual statement is correct and not misleading." Any person
       who has received a letter of inquiry from the Commission or its staff
       or is otherwise the subject of a Commission investigation is subject
       to this rule. In expanding the scope of Section 1.17 in 2003 to
       include written statements that are made without a reasonable basis
       for believing the statement is correct and not misleading, the
       Commission explained that this requirement was intended to more
       clearly articulate the obligations of persons dealing with the
       Commission, ensure that they exercise due diligence in preparing
       written submissions, and enhance the effectiveness of the Commission's
       enforcement efforts. Thus, even absent an intent to deceive, a false
       statement may constitute an actionable violation of Section 1.17 of
       the Rules if it is provided without a reasonable basis for believing
       that the statement is correct and not misleading.

   13. As noted above, Invision stated in its LOI response that it had
       imported zero units and shipped interstate twelve units of the G10 and
       G9 models between January 30, 2008 and April 15, 2008. In its Amended
       Response, however, which was submitted only after Bureau staff
       contacted Invision to clarify another statement provided in its LOI
       Response, Invision stated that it had imported 4,115 units and shipped
       interstate 2,928 units between January 30, 2008 and April 30, 2008.
       Invision did not proffer any explanation in its Amended Response for
       its submission of incorrect information in its earlier LOI Response.

   14. As we have stated, parties must "use due diligence in providing
       information that is correct and not misleading to the Commission,
       including taking appropriate affirmative steps to determine the
       truthfulness of what is being submitted. A failure to exercise such
       reasonable diligence would mean that the party did not have a
       reasonable basis for believing in the truthfulness of the
       information." Though provided ample time to compile a very limited
       amount of data from its business records, Invision inexplicably
       provided the Commission with grossly inaccurate information. We think
       that, had it exercised even minimal diligence prior to the submission
       of its initial LOI Response, Invision would not have submitted the
       incorrect and misleading material factual information that it
       submitted in its LOI response. We conclude, therefore, that Invision
       apparently lacked a reasonable basis for its belief that its LOI
       Response was correct and not misleading in violation of Section
       1.17(a)(2) of the Rules.

     A. Proposed Forfeiture

   15. 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. Based on
       the analysis set forth below, we conclude that Invision is apparently
       liable for a forfeiture in the amount of $324,000 for its willful and
       repeated violation of Section 15.117(i)(1)(iii) of the Rules and a
       forfeiture in the amount of $4,000 for its willful violation of
       Section 1.17(a)(2), for a total proposed forfeiture of $328,000.

   16. 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."

   17. The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Section 1.80 of the
       Rules do not establish a specific base forfeiture for 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.

   18. The DTV tuner requirement promotes the important public policy goal of
       helping to speed the transition to digital television, and we
       therefore have found 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 over-the-air TV reception of digital signals when analog TV
       operation ceases. Thus, we have concluded 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.

   19. In the Syntax-Brillian NAL and the Regent NAL, we determined that, in
       cases involving the interstate shipping or importation of television
       receivers that did not comply with the DTV tuner requirements, 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, we noted, "gets to the root of the apparent
       violation - non-compliant televisions in the hands of American
       consumers." Furthermore, to reflect the increasing seriousness of the
       violation as the number of non-compliant units shipped or imported
       rises, we concluded that we would propose forfeitures on a
       tier-by-tier basis, applying an escalating per-unit forfeiture amount
       separately to each successive tier.

   20. In Syntax-Brillian and Regent, we applied the following tiers and
       per-unit penalties for violation of our DTV tuner requirements:

   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.

   Consistent with Syntax-Brillian and Regent, we will use the tier-by-tier,
   per-unit methodology articulated in those NALs to assess the forfeiture
   here.

   21. In the Precor NAL, we noted that the DTV tuner requirement imposes two
       distinct prohibitions on responsible parties: it prohibits both the
       importation and the interstate shipment of television receivers that
       do not contain digital tuners. We found, however, that treating the
       importation and subsequent interstate shipment of the same television
       receiver as two separate violations is not warranted. Given that the
       DTV tuner rule is meant to ensure that all television receiving
       devices are equipped with a digital tuner, we concluded that the
       purpose of the rule will best be served by treating the importation
       and subsequent interstate shipment of the same receiver as a single
       violation. We determined, therefore, that in future forfeiture actions
       taken for violations of the DTV tuner requirement, we would assess the
       facts of each case in determining how best to enforce the requirements
       of Section 15.117. In this case, we propose a forfeiture only for
       those non-compliant television receivers that Invision imported after
       the January 30, 2008 deadline for television receivers with screen
       sizes less than 13 inches.

   22. Based on the record in this case, Invision's violations merit a
       significant proposed forfeiture. The unlawful importation was
       substantial in terms of the number of non-DTV compliant units -- more
       than 4,000 -- between the January 30, 2008 deadline and Invision's May
       12, 2008 Amended Response. Moreover, many of these units were imported
       after receipt of our LOI, which provided the company with explicit and
       individualized notice of the regulation over and above its publication
       in the Federal Register.

   23. Invision imported 4,115 non-DTV-compliant television receivers between
       January 30, 2008 and April 30, 2008. Applying the forfeiture
       calculation methodology outlined above results in a proposed
       forfeiture of $324,000 for Invision's willful and repeated importation
       and interstate shipment of television receivers that do not comply
       with the DTV tuner requirement in violation of Section
       15.117(i)(1)(iii) of the Rules.

   24. Pursuant to the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Section
       1.80(b)(4) of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for
       misrepresentation or lack of candor is the statutory maximum, or, in
       this case, $11,000. In determining the appropriate forfeiture amount,
       we may adjust the base amount upward or downward by considering the
       factors enumerated in Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act, including "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."

   25. Considering all of the enumerated factors and the particular
       circumstances of this case, we find that forfeiture of $4,000 is
       warranted here for Invision's apparent willful violation of Section
       1.17(a)(2). The Commission has stated that "[we rely] heavily on the
       truthfulness and accuracy of the information provided to us. If
       information submitted to us is incorrect, we cannot properly carry out
       our statutory responsibilities." Invision's failure to exercise due
       diligence to ensure that the information provided in its LOI Response
       was correct and not misleading hampered our ability to properly carry
       out our statutory responsibilities. Although Invision provided the
       correct information, against its interest, in a relatively timely
       manner and prior to any formal Commission action, it did so only after
       the Bureau contacted the company for clarification of another issue in
       its LOI Response and ultimately requested that Invision submit an
       amended response. Nevertheless, given that Invision disclosed the full
       scope of its apparent violations in a timely manner without a specific
       request from the Bureau , we find that a significant downward
       adjustment to the base forfeiture amount is warranted. Based on all of
       the above circumstances, we find that a $4,000 forfeiture is
       appropriate for Invision's apparent willful violation of Section
       1.17(a)(2).

   26. Finally, we note that Invision is apparently continuing to market
       non-DTV-compliant television broadcast receivers. On July 15, 2008,
       Bureau staff again observed that the company was marketing on its
       website the same non-DTV-compliant television receivers that were
       earlier observed. We strongly caution Invision that any continued
       importation and interstate shipment of these receivers will subject it
       to additional and potentially much higher forfeiture penalties. We
       direct Invision to submit a report within 10 days of the release of
       this NAL certifying that it has ceased all unlawful importation and
       interstate shipment of non-DTV-compliant television receivers.

   IV. ordering clauses

   27. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the
       Act, and Section 1.80 of the Rules, Invision Industries, Incorporated
       is NOTIFIED of its APPARENT LIABILITY FOR A FORFEITURE in the amount
       of three hundred twenty-four thousand dollars ($324,000) for willful
       and repeated violation of Section 15.117(i)(1)(iii) and four thousand
       dollars ($4,000) for willful violation of Section 1.17(a)(2), for a
       total proposed forfeiture of three hundred and twenty-eight thousand
       dollars ($328,000).

   28. 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, Invision Incorporated SHALL PAY the full
       amount of the proposed forfeiture or SHALL FILE a written statement
       seeking reduction or cancellation of the proposed forfeiture.

   29. 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/Account Number and FRN Number referenced
       above. Payment by check or money order may be mailed to Federal
       Communications Commission, P.O. Box 979088, St. Louis, MO 63197-9000.
       Payment by overnight mail may be sent to U.S. Bank - Government
       Lockbox #979088, SL-MO-C2-GL, 1005 Convention Plaza, St. Louis, MO
       63101. Payment by wire transfer may be made to ABA Number 021030004,
       receiving bank TREAS/NYC, and account number 27000001. For payment by
       credit card, an FCC Form 159 (Remittance Advice) must be submitted.
       When completing the FCC Form 159, enter the NAL/Account number in
       block number 23A (call sign/other ID), and enter the letters "FORF" in
       block number 24A (payment type code). Requests for full payment under
       an installment plan should be sent to: Chief Financial Officer --
       Financial Operations, 445 12th Street, S.W., Room 1-A625, Washington,
       D.C.  20554. Please contact the Financial Operations Group Help Desk
       at 1-877-480-3201 or Email: ARINQUIRIES@fcc.gov with any questions
       regarding payment procedures. Invision will also send electronic
       notification on the date said payment is made to JoAnn Lucanik at
       JoAnnLucanik@fcc.gov and to Kevin M. Pittman at Kevin.Pittman@fcc.gov.

   30. 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.

   31. 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.

   32. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Invision IS hereby DIRECTED to submit the
       report described in paragraph 26 within 10 days of the release of this
       NAL.

   33. 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 Heather McLeod, Invision Industries,
       Incorporated, 1170 Celebration Boulevard, Suite 100, Kissimmee, FL
       34747.

   FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

   Marlene H. Dortch

   Secretary

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

   See 47 C.F.R. S: 15.3(w) (defining a television broadcast receiver as "a
   device designed to receive television pictures that are broadcast
   simultaneously with sound on the television channels authorized under part
   73 of this chapter").

   47 C.F.R. S: 1.17(a)(2).

   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 (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
   over-the-air television reception. See 47 C.F.R. S: 15.117(i)(1)(iv).

   DTV Review Second Report and Order, 17 FCC Rcd 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 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(b),
   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.

   DTV Tuner Second Report and Order, 20 FCC Rcd at 18614-16.

   See Third Periodic Review of the Commission's Rules and Policies Affecting
   the Conversion to Digital Television, Report and Order, 23 FCC Rcd 2994,
   3081 (2007).

   See Third Periodic Review of the Commission's Rules and Policies Affecting
   the Conversion to Digital Television, Final Rule, 73 Fed. Reg. 5634 (Jan.
   30, 2008).

   See Letter from Kathryn S. Berthot, Chief, Spectrum Enforcement Division,
   Enforcement Bureau, Federal Communications Commission, to Chris Vitito,
   Director, Invision, Inc. (March 4, 2008) ("LOI").

   See Letter from Heather McLeod, Vice President of Marketing, Invision
   Industries, to Kevin M. Pittman, Spectrum Enforcement Division,
   Enforcement Bureau, Federal Communications Commission (April 18, 2008)
   ("LOI Response").

   See Heather McLeod, Vice President of Marketing, Invision Industries, to
   Kevin M. Pittman, Spectrum Enforcement Division, Enforcement Bureau,
   Federal Communications Commission (May 12, 2008) ("Amended Response").

   LOI Response  at 1. Invision stated that the other five models did not
   include television tuners. Id.

   Id.

   See Amended Response at 1.

   Id.

   Id. Invision stated that it shipped interstate 3,294 units but that 326 of
   these units were returned to its facility. Id.

   Id.

   Id. at 2.

   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,
   97th 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.

   Under our rules, "[a]ll TV broadcast receivers shipped in interstate
   commerce or imported into the United States, for sale or resale to the
   public, shall comply" with the regulations set forth by the Commission.
   See 47 C.F.R. S: 15.117(a).

   See Requirements for Digital Television Receiving Capability, Order, 21
   FCC Rcd 9478, 9479-80 (2006) ("PDI Order").

   See Precor, Inc., Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture, 23 FCC Rcd
   6361, 6369 (2008) (forfeiture paid) (proposing a forfeiture for violation
   of DTV tuner requirement where "personal viewing screens" sold to fitness
   facilities were designed to be used in a closed circuit video system)
   ("Precor NAL"); Regent U.S.A., Inc., Notice of Apparent Liability for
   Forfeiture, 22 FCC Rcd 10520, 10526 (2007) (forfeiture paid) (proposing a
   forfeiture for violation of DTV tuner requirement where devices were used
   primarily as monitors by commercial customers) ("Regent NAL"); see also 47
   C.F.R. S: 15.3(w).

   See Precor NAL, 23 FCC Rcd  at 6369; Regent NAL, 22 FCC Rcd at 10526; see
   also PDI Order, 21 FCC Rcd at 9480.

   47 C.F.R. S: 1.17(a)(2).

   47 C.F.R. S: 1.17(b)(4).

   In the Matter of Amendment of Section 1.17 of the Commission's Rules
   Concerning Truthful Statements to the Commission, Report and Order, 18 FCC
   Rcd 4016, 4016-4017, 4021 (2003), recon. denied, Memorandum Opinion and
   Order, 19 FCC Rcd 5790, further recon. denied, Memorandum Opinion and
   Order, 20 FCC Rcd 1250 (2004).

   See In the Matter of Amendment of Section 1.17 of the Commission's Rules
   Concerning Truthful Statements to the Commission, 18 FCC Rcd  at 4017
   (stating that the revision to Section 1.17 is intended to "prohibit
   incorrect statements of omissions that are the results of negligence, as
   well as an intent to deceive").

   LOI Response at 1; see also paragraph 7, supra. Invision provided this
   information in response to question 1(b) of the LOI, which stated "State
   the total number of receivers imported into the United States ("these
   receivers") and the dates of importation," and question 1(d) of the LOI,
   which stated "State the total number of these receivers that were shipped
   interstate." LOI at 2.

   Amended Response at 1. Invision did not provide a specific breakdown, for
   each model, of the number of units imported, as directed in the LOI.
   Nevertheless, based on Invision's statement that 4,115 units of the G10
   and G9 models and zero units of the G8 and G7 models were manufactured
   between January 30, 2008 and April 30, 2008, it appears that most, if not
   all, of the 4,115 units imported during this period were units of the G10
   and G9 models. Invision also failed to provide a specific breakdown, for
   each model, of the number of units shipped interstate, as directed in the
   LOI. Based on the attachment submitted with Invision's Amended Response,
   however, it appears that, although some units of the G8 and G7 models may
   have been shipped interstate between January 30, 2008 and April 30, 2008,
   the bulk of the 2,968 units shipped interstate during this period were
   units of the G10 and G9 models. Id. at Attachment. Invision's disregard
   for our LOI instructions by itself is a violation of a Commission order
   and therefore subject to enforcement action, see SBC Communications, Inc.,
   Forfeiture Order, 17 FCC Rcd 7589 (2002) ("SBC Communications"). Based on
   the totality of the circumstances, including the fact that we are already
   proposing a forfeiture related to Invision's LOI response, however, we
   will exercise our prosecutorial discretion here and not propose an
   additional penalty.

   Amendment of Section 1.17, 18 FCC Rcd at 4021.

   The Bureau afforded Invision a total of six weeks' time in which to
   compile information for its LOI Response regarding its interstate shipping
   and importation of seven models of television receivers. We note that an
   importer is expected to have ready access to such information in its
   records.

   See, e.g., In re Applications of Citicasters License, L.P., et al.,
   Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability, 22 FCC Rcd
   19324, 19338 (2007) (forfeiture paid) (finding that a licensee's false
   certification that it had not violated the Act or any Commission rules
   during the preceding license term had no reasonable basis but was not made
   with the intent to deceive Commission and, therefore, violated Section
   1.17(a)(2) of the rules) ("Citicasters"). As stated above, in its Amended
   Response, Invision proffered no explanation for the incorrect information
   it provided. Thus, Invision has not articulated a reasonable basis for its
   belief that the import and interstate shipment data in its LOI Response
   were correct, nor has it provided any reason for its provision of
   incorrect or misleading information.

   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, 17 FCC Rcd at 7591.

   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, 22 FCC Rcd 8689, 8699 (2007); Globcom, Inc. d/b/a
   Globcom Global Commun., Order of Forfeiture, 21 FCC Rcd 4710, 4723-24
   (2006).

   See 47 C.F.R. S:1.80(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).

   Syntax-Brillian Corporation, Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture,
   22 FCC Rcd 10530, 10535 (2007), forfeiture ordered,  23 FCC Rcd 6323
   (2008)  ("Syntax-Brillian NAL"); Regent NAL, 22 FCC Rcd 10520 (2007).

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

   See id.

   Syntax-Brillian NAL, 22 FCC Rcd at 10535-36 (concluding that applying a
   proposed forfeiture on a per-model basis for shipment of television
   receivers that were not compliant with the DTV tuner mandate would result
   in forfeiture amounts incommensurate with the seriousness of the
   violations); Regent NAL, 22 FCC Rcd at 10525-26 (same).

   Id.

   Syntax-Brillian NAL, 22 FCC Rcd at 10535; Regent NAL, 22 FCC Rcd at 10525.

   Syntax-Brillian NAL, 22 FCC Rcd at 10535-36; Regent NAL, 22 FCC Rcd at
   10525-26.

   Syntax-Brillian NAL, 22 FCC Rcd at 10535; Regent NAL, 22 FCC Rcd at 10525.

   Precor NAL,  23 FCC Rcd at 6367.

   Id.

   Id.

   Id.

   We derived this amount as follows: (1000 units * $50/unit) + (1500 units *
   $75/unit) + (1615 units * $100/unit) = $324,000.

   See Forfeiture Policy Statement, 12 FCC Rcd at 17113; 47 C.F.R. S:
   1.80(b)(4), Note to Paragraph (b)(4): Section I. Base Amounts for Section
   503 Forfeitures.

   See 47 U.S.C. S: 503(b)(2)(D) (setting forth the statutory maximum
   forfeiture for entities other than broadcasters and common carriers). See
   also 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 forfeiture amounts for entities other than
   broadcasters and common carriers to $11,000/$97,500). See also
   Syntax-Brillian Forfeiture Order, 23 FCC Rcd at 6343; Citicasters, 22 FCC
   Rcd at 19339 (both using the base forfeiture amount for
   misrepresentation/lack of candor as the base forfeiture for violation of
   Section 1.17 of the rules).

   See Forfeiture Policy Statement, 12 FCC Rcd at 17100; 47 C.F.R. S:
   1.80(b)(4).

   In the Matter of Amendment of Section 1.17 of the Commission's Rules
   Concerning Truthful Statements to the Commission, Notice of Proposed
   Rulemaking, 17 FCC Rcd 3296, 3297 (2002).

   Federal Communications Commission FCC 08-187

   5

   Federal Communications Commission FCC 08-187