******************************************************** 
                      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.

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



Federal Communications Commission DA 17-1131
Before the
Federal Communications Commission
Washington, DC 20554 
In the Matter of
Acuity Brands, Inc.
)
)
)
)
)
File No.:  EB-SED-16-00021597
NAL/Acct. No.:  201832100002
FRN:  0023988462  
NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE
Adopted:  November 21, 2017 Released:  November 21, 2017
By the Acting Deputy Chief, Enforcement Bureau:
I. INTRODUCTION
1. We propose a penalty of $25,000 against Acuity Brands, Inc. (Acuity or Company) for 
apparently marketing radio frequency devices that were not labeled in accordance with the Commission’s 
rules.  Specifically, Acuity marketed three models of consumer-grade electronic fluorescent lighting 
ballasts—two since 2006 and one since 2009—that did not have the FCC logo affixed to them.  
Moreover, after becoming aware of these apparent violations, Acuity continued to market two models of 
the ballasts at issue for approximately six months, thus warranting an increased penalty.
2. As discussed below, Acuity apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 302(b) 
of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (Act),1 and Sections 2.803(b)(2) and 18.209(b) of the 
Commission’s rules.2  We take this action today as part of our duty to ensure that radio frequency devices 
are marketed in accordance with the Commission’s rules.  Consistent with this goal, we find it necessary 
to enforce the rules requiring that devices subject to equipment authorization are properly labeled to 
inform a consumer that such devices have been tested for compliance under the Commission’s technical 
rules because those devices could easily cause interference if they do not conform to those rules. 
II. BACKGROUND
3. Acuity is a publicly-traded company that provides lighting and building management 
solutions for commercial and residential uses throughout North America, and in Europe and Asia.  In 
January 2016, the Office of Engineering and Technology (OET) conducted tests on Acuity’s AccuPro 
Model AP-RC-432IP-120-1 fluorescent lighting ballast after receiving complaints of interference 
reportedly caused by the Company’s ballasts.  In April 2016, OET referred the matter to the Enforcement 
Bureau (Bureau) for investigation and possible enforcement action on whether Acuity marketed the 
AccuPro Model AP-RC-432IP-120-1 prior to receiving the appropriate equipment authorization under the 
Commission’s rules.  On June 22, 2016, the Bureau’s Spectrum Enforcement Division (SED) issued a 
Letter of Inquiry (LOI) to Acuity which directed the Company to submit a sworn written response to 
  
1 47 U.S.C. § 302a(b).  
2 47 CFR §§ 2.803(b)(2), 18.209(b).  We note that, in an order released on July 14, 2017, the requirement under 
Section 18.209(b) of the Commission’s rules was modified so that use of the FCC logo became voluntary on 
November 2, 2017, as published in the Federal Register.  See Amendment of Parts 0, 1, 2, 15 and 18 of the 
Commission’s Rules Regarding Authorization of Radiofrequency Equipment, First Report and Order, FCC 17-93, 
ET Docket No. 15-170 (rel. July 14, 2017).  Because the violations at issue occurred while Section 18.209(b) was in 
effect, the modification of the rule has no bearing on the current matter.
Federal Communications Commission DA 17-1131
2
questions about its marketing of potentially non-compliant fluorescent lighting ballasts.3 Acuity 
responded on August 22, 2016 (LOI Response).4  
4. Under the Commission’s equipment authorization procedures, consumer-grade ballasts 
are subject to either the Declaration of Conformity or certification procedure, and non-consumer-grade 
(i.e., non-residential) ballasts are subject to the verification procedure.5 These procedures require 
responsible parties to ensure that certain radio frequency devices, such as Acuity’s lighting ballasts, 
adhere to the applicable technical and labeling requirements prior to being marketed.6  
5. In its LOI Response, Acuity states that it markets consumer-grade and non-consumer-
grade lighting ballasts.7 Additionally, Acuity submitted test reports which showed that the two types of 
fluorescent lighting ballasts it markets are compliant with the relevant technical requirements.8 However, 
Acuity admitted that three models of its consumer-grade lighting ballasts did not have the FCC logo 
affixed to them, despite acknowledging the applicability of this labeling requirement for those models 
under Section 18.209(b) of the Commission’s rules.9 Additionally, Acuity provided that it had been 
marketing two of these non-compliant models since 2006 and one since 2009.10 The Company ceased 
marketing one of the models in July 2016, but continued marketing the other two models without 
appropriate labeling until February 2017.11
III. DISCUSSION
A. Acuity Apparently Violated Section 302(b) of the Act and Sections 2.803(b)(2) and 
18.209(b) of the Commission’s Rules
6. We find that Acuity apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 302(b) of the 
Act12 and Sections 2.803(b)(2) and 18.209(b) of the Commission’s rules.13 Section 302(b) of the Act 
prohibits the marketing of radio frequency devices which do not comply with the Commission’s rules.14  
Section 2.803(b)(2) of the Commission’s rules provides that radio frequency devices that are subject to 
verification or Declaration of Conformity procedures may not be marketed unless the device complies 
  
3 See Letter from Bruce D. Jacobs, Chief, Spectrum Enforcement Division, FCC Enforcement Bureau, to Vernon J. 
Nagel, Chairman, President, and Chief Executive Officer, Acuity Brands, Inc. (June 22, 2016) (on file in EB-SED-
16-00021597).
4 See Letter from David H. Solomon, Esq. and Timothy J. Cooney, Esq., Counsel for Acuity Brands, Inc., to Bruce 
D. Jacobs, Chief, Spectrum Enforcement Division, FCC Enforcement Bureau (Aug. 22, 2016) (LOI Response) (on 
file in EB-SED-16-00021597).  The Spectrum Enforcement Division had previously granted Acuity’s request for an 
extension of time to file its response.  See E-mail from Paul Noone, Attorney Advisor, Spectrum Enforcement 
Division, FCC Enforcement Bureau, to David H. Solomon, Esq., Counsel for Acuity Brands, Inc. (July 8, 2016, 
13:35 ET) (on file in EB-SED-16-00021597). 
5 See 47 CFR § 18.203.  
6 See 47 CFR §§ 2.803, 2.909.  
7 See LOI Response at 5.
8 47 CFR § 18.307(c).
9 See LOI Response at 10.
10 See LOI Response at 6.
11 See E-mail from Timothy Cooney, Esq., Counsel to Acuity Brands, Inc., to Paul Noone, Attorney Advisor, 
Spectrum Enforcement Division, FCC Enforcement Bureau (Mar. 21, 2017, 14:19 ET) (on file in EB-SED-16-
00021597) (Mar. 21, 2017 E-mail).
12 47 U.S.C. § 302a(b).  
13 47 CFR §§ 2.803(b)(2), 18.209(b).
14 47 U.S.C. § 302a(b).
Federal Communications Commission DA 17-1131
3
with all applicable technical, labeling, identification and administrative requirements.15 Section 18.209(b) 
requires that devices authorized under the Declaration of Conformity procedure be labeled with the FCC 
logo.16  
7. In its LOI response, Acuity admitted that it marketed three models of its fluorescent 
lighting ballasts, including the AccuPro Model AP-RC-432IP-120-1, without the FCC logo affixed to 
them, in violation of Section 18.209(b) of the Commission’s rules.  Moreover, Acuity had been marketing 
these models for at least eight years with a considerable market presence; for instance, the Company sold 
hundreds of thousands of units of these models from January 2016 to July 2016.17 After receiving the 
LOI, Acuity took preliminary steps to bring the labeling of the subject ballasts into compliance.  In mid-
February 2017, the Company informed SED that the three ballast models were in compliance with the 
labeling requirements.18 Between receiving the LOI and coming into compliance, however, and after 
becoming aware of the violations, the Company continued to market two models of the subject ballasts 
without the appropriate labeling.19  Accordingly, we find that Acuity apparently violated Section 302(b) 
of the Act and Sections 2.803(b)(2) and 18.209(b) of the Commission’s rules.
B. Proposed Forfeiture 
8. Section 503(b) of the Act authorizes the Commission to impose a forfeiture against any 
entity that “willfully or repeatedly fails to comply with any of the provisions of the Act or of any rule, 
regulation, or order issued by the Commission.”20 In exercising our forfeiture authority, we must consider 
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.”21 In addition, the Commission has established forfeiture guidelines, which provide base 
penalties for certain violations and identify criteria that we consider when determining the appropriate 
penalty in any given case.22 Under these guidelines, we may adjust a forfeiture upward for violations that 
are egregious, intentional, or repeated, or that cause substantial harm or generate substantial economic 
gain for the violator.23
  
15 47 CFR § 2.803(b)(2).
16 47 CFR § 18.209(b).
17 See LOI Response at Attachment No. 7.  
18 See Mar. 21, 2017 E-mail.  
19 See E-mail from Paul Noone, Attorney Advisor, Spectrum Enforcement Division, FCC Enforcement Bureau, to 
Timothy Cooney, Esq., Counsel to Acuity Brands, Inc. (Jan. 10, 2017, 14:38 ET) and Reply E-mail from Timothy 
Cooney, Esq., Counsel to Acuity Brands, Inc., to Paul Noone, Attorney Advisor, Spectrum Enforcement Division, 
FCC Enforcement Bureau (Jan. 10, 2017, 14:44 ET) (on file in EB-SED-16-00021597). 
20 47 U.S.C. § 503(b).  
21 Id. § 503(b)(2)(E).  See 47 CFR § 1.80(b)(8); 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, 17100–
01, para. 27 (1997) (Forfeiture Policy Statement), recons. denied, Memorandum Opinion and Order, 15 FCC Rcd 
303 (1999).
22 47 CFR § 1.80(b)(8); Forfeiture Policy Statement, 12 FCC Rcd at 17098-99, para. 22. 
23 47 CFR § 1.80(b), Note to paragraph (b)(8).  See Forfeiture Policy Statement, 12 FCC Rcd at 17098-99, 
para. 22 (noting that “[a]lthough we have adopted the base forfeiture amounts as guidelines to provide a measure of 
predictability to the forfeiture process, we retain our discretion to depart from the guidelines and issue forfeitures on 
a case-by-case basis, under our general forfeiture authority contained in Section 503 of the Act”).
Federal Communications Commission DA 17-1131
4
9. Under the Forfeiture Policy Statement24 and Section 1.80 of the Commission’s rules,25 the 
base forfeiture amount for the marketing of unauthorized equipment is $7,000 per model.  In similar cases 
involving the marketing of improperly labeled equipment, the Bureau used a $7,000 per model approach 
as a starting point, using the base forfeiture amount for unauthorized equipment marketing.26 Indeed, 
Section 2.803(b)(2) specifically prohibits the marketing of a radio frequency device unless “the device 
complies with all applicable technical, labeling, identification and administrative requirements.”27 We 
find this base forfeiture amount applicable in this case since it too involves a labeling violation.  
Accordingly, we propose a total base forfeiture of $14,000, using the $7,000 per model approach for each 
of the two instances in which Acuity marketed lighting ballasts without the required labeling.  
10. Given the totality of the circumstances, and consistent with the Forfeiture Policy 
Statement, we conclude that upward adjustments of the proposed forfeiture amount are warranted for the 
intentional nature of the violations, the duration of the violations, and the Company’s ability to pay.  First, 
we find that an upward adjustment is merited for Acuity’s apparent intentional violation of the Act and 
Sections 2.803(b)(2) and 18.209(b) of the Commission’s rules, based on the Company’s decision to 
continue marketing two models of the subject ballasts without the appropriate labeling for approximately 
six months after becoming aware of, and acknowledging, the violations.28 Second, we find that an 
upward adjustment is warranted based on the extended duration of Acuity’s violations,29 as evidenced by 
the fact that it marketed three models of improperly labeled lighting ballasts for at least eight years; 
specifically, two models since 2006 and one model since 2009.30 Third, we find an upward adjustment is 
warranted for the Company’s ability to pay.  In the Forfeiture Policy Statement, the Commission 
determined that large or highly profitable companies should expect to pay a higher forfeiture for 
violations of the Act and the Commission’s rules.31 In this regard, we recognize Acuity’s global presence, 
as well as its net sales and gross profits in 2016—approximately $3.2 billion and $1.4 billion 
respectively.32  We therefore apply an upward adjustment of the base forfeiture amount for these three 
  
24 Forfeiture Policy Statement, 12 FCC Rcd at 17113.
25 47 CFR § 1.80.
26 See, e.g., Cellphone-Mate, Inc., Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture, 25 FCC Rcd 8988, 8990, para 5 (EB 
2010) (forfeiture paid); Wireless Extenders, Inc., 25 FCC Rcd 8983, 8985-86, para. 5 (EB 2010) (forfeiture paid).
27 47 CFR § 2.803(b)(2) (emphasis added).  See 47 CFR § 18.209(b) (“Devices authorized under the Declaration of 
Conformity procedure shall be labelled with the logo shown below. . . .  It shall be permanently affixed to the 
product and shall be readily visible to the purchaser at the time of purchase.”).
28 See Behringer USA, Inc., Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture and Order, 21 FCC Rcd 1820, 1827–28, para. 
22 (2006) (Behringer) (upward adjustment for, among other things, Behringer’s continued marketing of 
unauthorized devices despite knowing that it was in violation), forfeiture ordered, 22 FCC Rcd 10451 (2007) 
(forfeiture paid).  
29 See Behringer, 21 FCC Rcd at 1827-28, para. 22 (2006) (upward adjustment for, among other things, extended 
duration of the violations); Union Oil Co. of Cal., Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture, 27 FCC Rcd 13806, 
13810–11, paras. 10–11 (2012) (upward adjustment of the base forfeiture because of extended duration of the 
violation); Midessa Television Ltd. P’ship, Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture, 29 FCC Rcd 13247, 13250-
51, para. 11 (2014) (forfeiture paid) (same).  Although one violation is not actionable due to the expiration of the 
statute of limitations period, the Commission may consider facts arising before the expiration date in determining an 
appropriate forfeiture amount for acts that occurred inside of the statute of limitations period.  See Enserch Corp., 
Forfeiture Order, 15 FCC Rcd 13551, 13554, para. 11 (2000).
30 See LOI Response at 6.
31 Forfeiture Policy Statement, 12 FCC Rcd at 17099-100, para. 24 (1997).
32 In its Form 10-K, the Company also disclosed that it earned $290 million in net income in 2016.  See Acuity 
Brands, Inc., 2016 Annual Report (Form 10-K) at 23 (filed Oct. 27, 2016), available at http://media.corporate-
ir.net/media_files/IROL/13/130194/AR2016/pdf/Acuity_201610-K.pdf.
Federal Communications Commission DA 17-1131
5
factors.33  Taken together, we propose a total upward adjustment of $11,000, which will protect the 
interests of consumers and serve as a deterrent against future violations of the Commission’s rules.
11. In applying the applicable statutory factors, we also consider whether there is any basis 
for a downward adjustment of the proposed forfeiture.  Here, we find none.  In coming to this conclusion, 
we recognize that in the past the Bureau has lowered the proposed forfeiture amount in most cases where 
the device at issue is improperly labeled or lacks the appropriate information disclosure requirements but 
is otherwise compliant with the technical rules, as is the case here.34 In those cases, the Bureau 
rationalized that, since marketing an improperly labeled device is not as significant a violation as 
marketing an unauthorized or technically non-complaint device, a downward adjustment is warranted.35  
We find this reasoning unpersuasive to justify a downward adjustment in this case. 
12. Reducing the base forfeiture amount in this case would diminish the deterrent effect of 
the proposed forfeiture.  The fact that Acuity continued to market the improperly labeled ballasts for six 
months after learning of the violation highlights the importance of establishing a forfeiture that serves as a 
sufficient incentive to comply with the rules.36 We are also mindful that the equipment marketing rules 
have been in place for almost two decades37 and that Acuity, a publicly-traded corporation established in 
2001, had more than sufficient opportunity to create a compliance program, scaled to the size of the 
company, to ensure that it conformed to our rules.38 Acuity has not provided a reason as to why it 
  
33 See 47 U.S.C. § 503(b)(2)(E); 47 CFR § 1.80(b)(8).  
34 See, e.g., J.J. Mackay Canada Ltd., Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture, 29 FCC Rcd 5043, 5047-48, para. 
11 (EB 2014) (forfeiture paid); Cellphone-Mate, Inc., 25 FCC Rcd at 8990, para. 5; Proxim Wireless Corporation, 
Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture, 24 FCC Rcd 1145, 1149, para. 12 (EB 2009) (forfeiture paid); Multi-Tech 
Systems, Inc., Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture, 23 FCC Rcd 17824, 17827-28, para. 8 (EB 2008) (forfeiture 
paid).
35 See, e.g., Proxim Wireless Corporation, 24 FCC Rcd at 1149, para. 12; Multi-Tech Systems, Inc., 23 FCC Rcd at 
17827-28, para. 8.; Cellphone-Mate, Inc., 25 FCC Rcd at 8990, n.22 (citing to Proxim Wireless Corporation, 24 FCC 
Rcd at 1149).  The Bureau also noted that the $7,000 base forfeiture is typically imposed for the marketing of devices 
that are not in compliance with applicable technical requirements or are not authorized by an equipment authorization.  
See, e.g., Cellphone-Mate, Inc., 25 FCC Rcd at 8990, para. 5. 
36 In other cases, the Bureau has declined to apply downward adjustments established by precedent, citing, as 
reasons for such action, the duration of the violation, and the lack of incentive for parties to comply with the 
Commission’s rules, among other things.  See, e.g., South Bay Aviation, Inc., Notice of Apparent Liability for 
Forfeiture, 26 FCC Rcd 972, 974, para. 7 (EB 2011) (In declining to follow precedent to lower the forfeiture 
amount, noting that the unlicensed operation violation had been ongoing for several years and that the reduced 
forfeiture amounts applied in past cases did not appear to create sufficient incentives for licensees to comply with 
the Commission’s rules), forfeiture ordered, 27 FCC Rcd 3013 (EB 2012) (forfeiture paid); DTG Operations Inc., 
Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture, 25 FCC Rcd 17144, 17146, para. 8 (EB 2010) (Declining to lower 
forfeiture amount, citing that the unlicensed operation was ongoing for 11 years and that such action posed 
significant public safety risk), forfeiture ordered, 27 FCC Rcd 3252 (EB 2012) (forfeiture paid).  
37 See generally Amendment of Parts 2 & 15 of the Commission's Rules to Deregulate the Equip. Authorization 
Requirements for Digital Devices, 11 FCC Rcd 17915 (1996) (Adopting Sections 2.906, Declaration of Conformity, 
and 2.909, Responsible Parties), recon. granted in part, 12 FCC Rcd 10623 (1997); Amendment of Parts 2, 15, 18 & 
Other Parts of the Commission's Rules to Simplify & Streamline the Equip. Authorization Process for Radio 
Frequency Equip., 13 FCC Rcd 11415 (1998) (Revising Section 18.209, Identification of Authorized Equipment); 
Revision of Part 2 of the Commission's Rules Relating to the Mktg. & Authorization of Radio Frequency Devices, 12 
FCC Rcd 43 (1997) (Amending Section 2.803 to incorporate Declaration of Conformity procedure).  We also 
observe that the equipment authorization rules have been in existence almost twice as long as in the earlier cases 
involving labeling violations.  See, e.g., Cellphone-Mate, Inc., 25 FCC Rcd at 8990, para 5; Wireless Extenders, Inc., 
25 FCC Rcd at 8985-86, para. 5.  
38 See LOI Response at 1.  Additionally, and as noted above, promoting compliance with the labeling requirement of 
this rule is necessary to inform consumers that a radio frequency device is compliant with the Commission’s rules to 
(continued…)
Federal Communications Commission DA 17-1131
6
marketed three models of its fluorescent lighting ballasts without the FCC logo affixed to them, nor are 
we independently aware of any mitigating reason.39 Thus, under the totality of the evidence, we find no 
basis to make any downward adjustment of the proposed forfeiture.
13. The enforcement of our rules is crucial to ensuring that parties comply with them even 
when faced with a business decision, particularly when the violation involves a rule articulating an 
express and unambiguous requirement.  Therefore, after applying the Forfeiture Policy Statement, Section 
1.80 of the Commission’s rules, and the upward adjustments discussed above, we propose a total 
forfeiture of $25,000, which is the aggregate of $14,000 (total base forfeiture) plus $11,000 (total upward 
adjustment), for which Acuity is apparently liable. 
IV. ORDERING CLAUSES
14. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Act40 and 
Sections 1.80 of the Commission’s rules,41 Acuity Brands, Inc. is hereby NOTIFIED of this 
APPARENT LIABILITY FOR A FORFEITURE in the amount of twenty-five thousand dollars 
($25,000) for willful and repeated violations of Section 302(b) of the Act42 and Sections 2.803(b)(2) and 
18.209(b) of the Commission’s rules.43
15. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 1.80 of the Commission’s 
rules,44 within thirty (30) calendar days of the release date of this Notice of Apparent Liability for 
Forfeiture, Acuity Brands, Inc. SHALL PAY the full amount of the proposed forfeiture or SHALL FILE
a written statement seeking reduction or cancellation of the proposed forfeiture consistent with paragraph 
18 below.
16. Payment of the forfeiture must be made by check or similar instrument, wire transfer, or 
credit card, and must include the NAL/Account Number and FRN referenced above.  Acuity Brands, Inc. 
shall send electronic notification of payment to Paul Noone at Paul.Noone@fcc.gov, Leslie Barnes at 
Leslie.Barnes@fcc.gov, and Samantha Peoples at Samantha.Peoples@fcc.gov on the date said payment is 
made.  Regardless of the form of payment, a completed FCC Form 159 (Remittance Advice) must be 
submitted.45 When completing the FCC Form 159, enter the Account Number in block number 23A (call 
(Continued from previous page…)   
avoid harmful interference.  This policy goal is especially important given the evolution of the wireless marketplace 
since 2010, when the last decision involving solely a labeling violation with a forfeiture reduction was released.  
See, e.g., Cellphone-Mate, Inc., 25 FCC Rcd at 8990, para 5.  Since then, there has been a steady increase of radio 
frequency devices in the wireless marketplace, reflecting the essential and ubiquitous role wireless services has 
played in Americans’ daily lives.  See, e.g., Implementation of Section 6002(b) of the Omnibus Budget 
Reconciliation Act of 1993; Annual Report and Analysis of Competitive Market Conditions With Respect to Mobile 
Wireless, Including Commercial Mobile Services, WT Docket No. 17-69, Twentieth Report, FCC 17-126, 2, 12 (rel. 
Sept. 27, 2017) (CTIA estimates that the number of mobile wireless connections has grown from 296.3 million in 
2010 to 395.9 million in 2016.).  Such change over the course of seven years has also compelled us to adjust our 
approach to ensure that our enforcement actions continue to be consistent with this policy goal.  
39 Indeed, Acuity appears to understand our equipment authorization rules to some degree, as evidenced by the 
Company’s submission of test reports in response to the LOI, which showed that the two types of fluorescent 
lighting ballasts it markets are compliant with the relevant technical rules.  
40 47 U.S.C. § 503(b).
41 47 CFR § 1.80.
42 47 U.S.C. § 302a(b).
43 47 CFR §§ 2.803(b)(2), 18.209(b).
44 47 CFR § 1.80.
45 An FCC Form 159 and detailed instructions for completing the form may be obtained at 
http://www.fcc.gov/Forms/Form159/159.pdf.
Federal Communications Commission DA 17-1131
7
sign/other ID) and enter the letters “FORF” in block number 24A (payment type code).  Below are 
additional instructions that should be followed based on the form of payment selected:
• Payment by check or money order must be made payable to the order of the Federal 
Communications Commission.  Such payments (along with the completed Form 159) must be 
mailed to Federal Communications Commission, P.O. Box 979088, St. Louis, MO 63197-
9000, or sent via overnight mail to U.S. Bank – Government Lockbox #979088, SL-MO-C2-
GL, 1005 Convention Plaza, St. Louis, MO 63101.
• Payment by wire transfer must be made to ABA Number 021030004, receiving bank 
TREAS/NYC, and Account Number 27000001.  To complete the wire transfer and ensure 
appropriate crediting of the wired funds, a completed Form 159 must be faxed to U.S. Bank 
at (314) 418-4232 on the same business day the wire transfer is initiated.
• Payment by credit card must be made by providing the required credit card information on 
FCC Form 159 and signing and dating the Form 159 to authorize the credit card payment.  
The completed Form 159 must then be mailed to Federal Communications Commission, P.O. 
Box 979088, St. Louis, MO 63197-9000, or sent via overnight mail to U.S. Bank –
Government Lockbox #979088, SL-MO-C2-GL, 1005 Convention Plaza, St. Louis, MO 
63101.
17. Any request for making full payment over time under an installment plan should be sent 
to:  Chief Financial Officer—Financial Operations, Federal Communications Commission, 445 12th 
Street, SW, Room 1-A625, Washington, DC 20554.46 Questions regarding payment procedures should be 
directed to the Financial Operations Group Help Desk by phone, 1-877-480-3201, or by e-mail, 
ARINQUIRIES@fcc.gov.
18. The written statement seeking reduction or cancellation of the proposed forfeiture, if any, 
must include a detailed factual statement supported by appropriate documentation and affidavits pursuant 
to Sections 1.16 and 1.80(f)(3) of the Commission’s rules.47 The written statement must be mailed to the 
Office of the Secretary, Federal Communications Commission, 445 12th Street, SW, Washington, DC 
20554, ATTN:  Enforcement Bureau – Spectrum Enforcement Division, and must include the 
NAL/Account Number referenced in the caption.  The statement must also be e-mailed to Paul Noone at 
Paul.Noone@fcc.gov, Leslie Barnes at Leslie.Barnes@fcc.gov, and Samantha Peoples at 
Samantha.Peoples@fcc.gov.  
19. 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.
  
46 See 47 CFR § 1.1914.
47 47 CFR §§ 1.16, 1.80(f)(3).
Federal Communications Commission DA 17-1131
8
20. 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 Vernon J. Nagel, 
Chairman of the Board, President and Chief Executive Officer, Acuity Brands, Inc., 1170 Peachtree Street 
NE, Suite 2300, Atlanta, Georgia 30309, and to David H. Solomon, Esq. and Timothy J. Cooney, Esq., 
Wilkinson Barker Knauer LLP, 1800 M Street NW, Suite 800N, Washington, DC 20036.
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
Christopher L. Killion 
Acting Deputy Chief
Enforcement Bureau