Click here for Adobe Acrobat 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.

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



                             Federal Communications Commission               FCC 18-67 

                                   Before the 
                         Federal Communications Commission 
                              Washington, DC 20554  

 In the Matter of                      )
                                       )
 Bear Down Brands, LLC dba Pure Enrichment )     File No.:  EB-SED-17-00024115 
                                       )        NAL/Acct. No.:  201832100007 
                                       )        FRN:  0027130327   

                NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE 

Adopted:  May 30, 2018                                      Released:  May 30, 2018 

By the Commission: Commissioner O Rielly issuing a separate statement. 

I.    INTRODUCTION 
      1.    We propose a penalty of $590,380 against Bear Down Brands, LLC, doing business as
Pure Enrichment (Pure Enrichment or Company), for marketing noncompliant radio frequency devices in 
apparent violation of the Federal Communications Commission s (Commission or FCC) equipment 
marketing rules.  Specifically, Pure Enrichment marketed 14 models of consumer-grade electronic 
personal hygiene and wellness devices that were apparently noncompliant because they lacked proper 
equipment authorization, user manual disclosures, and/or FCC labels.  Even after becoming aware of the 
apparent violations, Pure Enrichment continued to market the 14 models while it took corrective 
measures.  Pure Enrichment apparently achieved compliance for 13 of the 14 models as of February 15, 
2018, but continues to market one noncompliant model that lacks the proper user manual disclosures and 
FCC labeling in apparent violation of the Commission s rules. 
      2.    As discussed below, Pure Enrichment apparently willfully and repeatedly violated
Section 302(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (Act),1 and Sections 2.803(b)(2), 
15.101(a), 15.105(b), 15.19(a)(3), 18.203(a), 18.213 and 18.209(b) of the Commission s rules in effect at 
the time of the violations, including the violations that occurred in the year preceding release of this 
Notice of Apparent Liability (NAL).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.   


 1 47 U.S.C. § 302a(b).  
 2 47 CFR §§ 2.803(b)(2), 15.101(a), 15.105(b), 15.19(a)(3), 18.203(a), 18.213, 18.209(b) (2017).  We note that, in 
 an order released on July 14, 2017, the requirements under Sections 2.803(b)(2), 15.101(a), 15.19(a)(3), 18.203(a), 
 and 18.209(b) of the Commission s rules were modified effective 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, 32 FCC Rcd 8746 (Jul. 14, 2017) (2017 Authorization of 
 Radiofrequency Equipment Report and Order) Authorization of Radiofrequency Equipment, 82 Fed. Reg. 50820, 
 50825, 50830, 50832, 50834 (Nov. 2, 2017).  The rulemaking, among other things, consolidated two equipment 
 authorization processes, Declaration of Conformity (DoC) and Verification into Supplier s Declaration of 
 Conformity (SDoC) authorization and eliminated the requirement for displaying the FCC logo for all equipment 
 approved under the SDoC.  Because the violations at issue occurred before the rule modifications became effective 
 and none of the devices were approved under the SDoC, the rule changes have no bearing on the current matter.  
 Thus, unless indicated otherwise, the rule sections referred to throughout this decision refer to the rules in effect 
 prior to November 2, 2017. 
                               Federal Communications Commission                        FCC 18-67 
   
II.     BACKGROUND 
        3.     Bear Down Brands, LLC is a Delaware limited liability company.3  Pure Enrichment is a 
trade name of Bear Down Brands, LLC, which refers to itself as a  leading manufacturer of premium 
home, health, and personal care products, 4 and which markets and imports branded home, health and 
 wellness products.  Its products are sold online and at brick-and-mortar retail establishments, 5 and include 
ultrasonic humidifiers, air purifiers, diffusers, electronic stimulator massagers, and personal care products 
such as hair and nail trimmers, many of which are subject to the Commission s radio frequency 
regulations.6  Bear Down Brands, LLC is a fast-growing company, with gross revenues of $34.4 million 
in 2016.7   
        4.     In March 2017, the FCC received a complaint that Pure Enrichment was marketing 
humidifiers that were not compliant with FCC requirements.  Specifically, the complaint alleged that 
certain humidifiers marketed by Pure Enrichment had no identification showing whether the model was 
tested and compliant with the FCC requirements.  The complaint noted that the humidifiers use an 
ultrasonic disc that oscillates at a high frequency to create fine water particles to be dispersed into the air.  
According to the complaint, the electronic circuits that control these humidifiers can put out radio 
frequency emissions that may interfere with other appliances if not properly tested under the 
Commission s rules.   
        5.     On May 26, 2017, the Enforcement Bureau s (Bureau) Spectrum Enforcement Division 
issued a Letter of Inquiry (LOI)8 to Pure Enrichment, which directed the Company to submit a sworn 
 written response to questions about its marketing of potentially noncompliant humidifiers, as well as other 
 radio frequency devices.9  Pure Enrichment responded on June 26, 2017,10 with subsequent responses on 
                                                      
 3 This investigation was initially conducted against Bear Down Consulting dba Pure Enrichment, a California 
corporation.  Bear Down Consulting was converted into a Delaware limited liability company called Bear Down 
Brands, LLC on September 27, 2017.  See Letter from David H. Solomon, Esq. and Timothy J. Cooney, Esq., 
Counsel for Bear Down Brands, LLC, to Pamera D. Hairston, Special Counsel, Spectrum Enforcement Division, 
FCC Enforcement Bureau (Oct. 24, 2017) (on file in EB-SED-17-00024115).   
 4 See Pure Enrichment, Who We Are. Why We re Here, http://pureenrichment.com/about-us/ (last visited on Feb. 
 20, 2018); see also LOI Response at 1 (Pure Enrichment is a trade name for the company now known as Bear Down 
 Brands, LLC). 
 5 See Household Durables:  Company Overview of Bear Down Brands, LLC Snapshot,  
 https://www.bloomberg.com/research/stocks/private/snapshot.asp?privcapId=541391508  (last visited Mar. 9, 2018).  
 Unintentional radiators are discussed, infra, at paragraph III.A.1.  
 6 See LOI Response at 3-4.  Pure Enrichment s products are unintentional radiators, which are discussed, infra, at 
 paragraph III.A.1. 
 7 According to various publicly available sources, Bear Down Brands, LLC has launched more than 200 products 
 since its 2011 inception and is ranked No. 405 on Inc. Magazine s 2017  Inc. 5,000 Fastest Growing Private 
 Companies  with 1,080 percent three-year growth and 2016 revenue of $34.4 million, surpassing Bear Down 
 Brands, LLC s prior 549 ranking in 2016 which reflected 2015 revenue of $16.9 million and growth of 706.15 
 percent.  Andrea Popa,  Intrepid Advises Bear Down Brands on its Growth Investment with Topspin Partners,  
 http://www.prweb.com/releases/2017/11/prweb14872907 htm (last visited Mar. 8, 2018); see also Inc.,  The Inc. 
 5000 2017: The Full List,  https://www.inc.com/profile/bear-down-consulting (last visited Mar.8, 2018).  
 8 Pure Enrichment is the importer of the devices that require equipment authorization and thus is the responsible 
 party for compliance with the applicable equipment marketing rules.  See 47 CFR § 2.909(b)-(c). 
 9 See Letter from Aspasia A. Paroutsas, Chief, Spectrum Enforcement Division, Enforcement Bureau, FCC to 
 Mathew Weiss, Vice President, Bear Down Consulting dba Pure Enrichment (May 26, 2017) (on file in EB-SED-
 17-00024115).  EB also sent supplemental LOI inquiries.  See E-mail from Kathy Harvey, Spectrum Enforcement 
 Division, Enforcement Bureau, FCC, to David H. Solomon, Esq. and Timothy J. Cooney, Esq., Counsel to Pure 
 Enrichment, (June 28, 2017, 18:57 EDT) (June 28 Supplemental LOI); E-mail from Pamera D. Hairston, Special 
Counsel, Spectrum Enforcement Division, Enforcement Bureau, FCC, to David H. Solomon, Esq. and Timothy J. 
Cooney, Esq., Counsel to Pure Enrichment,  (Aug. 25, 2017, 17:17 EDT) (August 25 Supplemental LOI); E-mail 
                                                                                      (continued& ) 
                                                 2 
                               Federal Communications Commission                        FCC 18-67 
   
July 5, 2017, September 11, 2017, February 7, 2018, March 20, 2018, and April 4, 2018.11  On March 27, 
 2018, Pure Enrichment filed an amended response, superseding the February 7 and March 20 responses.12  
        6.      In its LOI Response and supplemental responses, and as summarized in Appendices A 
 and B, Pure Enrichment provided a list of the apparently noncompliant Part 15 and Part 18 radio 
 frequency devices it marketed and imported into the United States, as well as information about its sales 
 of such noncompliant devices.13  Pure Enrichment stated that it initially became aware that it was 
marketing unauthorized models upon receipt of the LOI.14  Pure Enrichment also stated that it initially 
 believed it did not need authorization for some models, but scheduled testing immediately  once it 
 became clear that authorization was needed. 15  Pure Enrichment s response further revealed that, for a 
 period spanning up to three years, it marketed five models that lacked proper authorization as required 
 under Parts 15 and Part 18 of the Commission s rules within the last year.16   
        7.      Pure Enrichment also admitted that it failed to comply with the labeling and user manual 
disclosure requirements for certain models.17  Pure Enrichment stated that it made requests to the overseas 

 (Continued from previous page& )                                                      
 from Pamera D. Hairston, Special Counsel, Spectrum Enforcement Division, Enforcement Bureau, FCC, to David 
 H. Solomon, Esq. and Timothy J. Cooney, Esq., Counsel to Pure Enrichment, (Jan. 29, 2018, 17:36 EST) (January 
 29 Supplemental LOI); E-mail from Pamera D. Hairston, Special Counsel, Spectrum Enforcement Division, 
Enforcement Bureau, FCC, to David H. Solomon, Esq. and Timothy J. Cooney, Esq., Counsel to Pure Enrichment, 
(Mar.15, 2018, 18:05 EST) (March 15 Supplemental LOI) (all on file in EB-SED-17-00024115). 
 10 See Letter from David H. Solomon, Esq. and Timothy J. Cooney, Esq., Counsel to Pure Enrichment, to Kathy 
 Harvey, Spectrum Enforcement Division, FCC Enforcement Bureau (June 26, 2017) (LOI Response) (on file in EB-
 SED-17-00024115). 
 11 See E-mail from Timothy J. Cooney, Esq. and David H. Solomon, Esq., Counsel to Pure Enrichment, to Kathy 
Harvey, Spectrum Enforcement Division, FCC Enforcement Bureau (July 5, 2017, 17:33 EDT) (July 5 
Supplemental LOI Response); E-mail from Timothy J. Cooney, Esq. and David H. Solomon, Esq., Counsel to Pure 
Enrichment, to Pamera D. Hairston, Special Counsel, Spectrum Enforcement Division, FCC Enforcement Bureau 
(Sept. 11, 2017, 15:02 EDT) (September 11 Supplemental LOI Response); E-mail from Timothy J. Cooney, Esq. 
and David H. Solomon, Esq., Counsel to Pure Enrichment to Pamera D. Hairston, Special Counsel, Spectrum 
Enforcement Division, FCC Enforcement Bureau (Feb. 7, 2018, 14:43 EST) (February 7 Supplemental LOI 
Response);  E-mail from Timothy J. Cooney, Esq. and David H. Solomon, Esq., Counsel to Pure Enrichment, to 
Pamera D. Hairston, Special Counsel, Spectrum Enforcement Division, FCC Enforcement Bureau (Mar. 20, 2018; 
14:13 EDT) (March 20 Supplemental LOI Response); E-mail from Timothy J. Cooney, Esq. and David H. Solomon, 
Esq., Counsel to Pure Enrichment, to Pamera D. Hairston, Special Counsel, Spectrum Enforcement Division, FCC 
Enforcement Bureau, (Mar. 27, 2018, 13:20 EST) (March 27 Supplemental LOI); Letter from Timothy J. Cooney, 
Esq. and David H. Solomon, Esq., Counsel to Pure Enrichment, to Pamera D. Hairston, Special Counsel, Spectrum 
Enforcement Division, FCC Enforcement Bureau (Apr. 4, 2018) (April 4 Letter) (all on file in EB-SED-17-
00024115). 
 12 See E-mail from Timothy J. Cooney, Esq. and David H. Solomon, Esq., Counsel to Pure Enrichment, to Pamera 
D. Hairston, Special Counsel, Spectrum Enforcement Division, FCC Enforcement Bureau (Mar. 27, 2018; 13:20 
EDT) (March 27 Supplemental LOI Response) (on file in EB-SED-17-00024115). 
 13 See LOI Response at 5; see also Appendix A (incorporated herein by this reference). 
 14 See July 5 Supplemental LOI Response at 1.   
 15 See LOI Response at 11.  Pure Enrichment stated that, based on previous information from its various overseas 
 suppliers, internal research and market research it believed that it did not need authorization for some products.  For 
 example, it believed from its supplier that the PEHUMIDIF was exempt because it is a humidifier and the OET 
 Knowledge Database (KDB) Publication No. 772105 lists humidifiers as exempt, but subsequent research revealed 
 that because of the ultrasonic nature of this product, it required approval.  Id.   
 16 See LOI Response at 5, 10-11.  Pure Enrichment states it obtained authorization for two of the five models in May 
2017 and the remaining two in June 2017.  See LOI Response at 10-11; see also Appendix B.   
 17 Pure Enrichment stated in its LOI Response that the labels were  being updated.   See LOI Response at 12, 15-16. 

                                                 3 

                         Federal Communications Commission            FCC 18-67 
   
III.  DISCUSSION 
      9.    We find that Pure Enrichment apparently willfully and repeatedly marketed 14 models 
 that are Part 15 and Part 18 devices in violation of the Commission s equipment marketing rules over a 
 three year period.23  Specifically, based on the record evidence and as shown in Appendix A, Pure 
 Enrichment marketed five models that apparently failed to comply with the FCC s equipment 
 authorization, user manual disclosure, and labeling requirements.24  Further, Pure Enrichment marketed 
seven models that were properly authorized but apparently failed to comply with the Commission s user 
manual disclosure and labeling requirements, and two properly authorized models that apparently failed 
to comply with the user manual disclosure requirements.25   
      A.    Pure Enrichment Apparently Violated Section 302(b) of the Act and the 
            Commission s Equipment Marketing Rules 
      10.   We find that radio frequency devices marketed by Pure Enrichment lacked (i) an 
equipment authorization, (ii) user manual disclosures, and/or (iii) FCC labeling in apparent willful and 
repeated violation of Section 302(b) of the Act26 and Sections 2.803(b)(2), 15.101(a), 15.105(b), 
15.19(a)(3), 18.203(a), 18.213, or 18.209(b) of the Commission s rules, as applicable.27  Section 302(b) of 
the Act prohibits the marketing of radio frequency devices which do not comply with the Commission s 
equipment marketing rules.28  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 with all applicable technical, labeling, identification, and 
 administrative requirements.29  As detailed below, the other six rules at issue set forth equipment 
authorization, user manuals, and labeling requirements that pertain to the specific models at issue here.30 
            1.    Part 15 and Part 18 Rules 
      11.   The FCC is responsible for regulating electromagnetic compatibility (EMC) emissions in 
the United States.  As applicable to the devices at issue in this investigation, the rules covering EMC 
emissions are set forth in Commission rules, Part 15 for radio frequency devices31 and Part 18 for 
industrial, scientific and medical equipment (ISM).32  Pure Enrichment marketed radio frequency devices 
that were subject to either Part 15 or Part 18 of the Commission s rules, requiring appropriate 
authorization, user manual disclosures, and FCC labeling.33  

                                                      
 23 See 47 CFR pts.15, 18.  
 24 See LOI Response at 10-11; Appendix A.  
 25 See Appendix A.  
 26 47 U.S.C. § 302a(b).   
 27 47 CFR §§ 2.803(b)(2), 15.101(a), 15.105(b), 15.19(a), 18.203(a), 18.213, 18.209(b) (2017). 
 28 47 U.S.C. § 302a(b).   
 29 47 CFR § 2.803(b)(2). 
 30 See 47 CFR §§ 15.101(a), 15.105(b), 15.19(a), 18.203(a), 18.213, 18.209(b) (2017). 
 31 47 CFR pt. 15. 
 32 Id. pt. 18. 
 33 Following receipt of the LOI, Pure Enrichment admitted that its products were radio frequency devices requiring 
either Part 15 or Part 18 authorization.  LOI Response at 10-11.  Moreover, Pure Enrichment markets ultrasonic 
devices such as ultrasonic humidifiers.  Id. at 9.  The equipment authorization rules specifically mention ultrasonic 
humidifiers as devices that require authorization.  47 CFR § 18.107(g); see also KDB Publication No. 848406, 
https://apps.fcc.gov/oetcf/kdb/forms/FTSSearchResultPage.cfm?id=20533&switch=P (Mar. 26, 2007) ( Similar 
 devices that use RF energy to generate ultrasonic waves for non-communication purposes are regulated under Part 
                                                                     (continued& ) 
                                       5 
                         Federal Communications Commission            FCC 18-67 
   
       12.   Authorization.  Part 15 sets forth regulations for the operation of intentional, 
 unintentional, and incidental radiators.  The Part 15 radio frequency devices at issue here are 
unintentional radiators.  An unintentional radiator is  [a] device that intentionally generates radio 
frequency energy for use within the device, or that sends radio frequency signals by conduction to 
associated equipment via connecting wiring, but which is not intended to emit RF energy by radiation or 
induction. 34  There are two classes of unintentional radiators:  Class A (digital/commercial 
environmental markets) and Class B (digital/residential environments).  The rules in effect at the time of 
the apparent violations in this case required equipment authorization for Part 15 unintentional radiators 
 under the certification, Declaration of Conformity, or verification procedures before they could be 
 marketed.35  Pure Enrichment marketed eight models classified as Part 15 Class B digital devices that 
were required to be authorized under the verification procedure prior to the initiation of marketing under 
Section 15.101(a) of the Commission s rules:36  PEAIRPLG (PureZone 3-in-1 True HEPA Air Purifier), 
 PEPULSEPRO/ PEPULSEDUO (electrical nerve stimulators),37 PECLOUD (sound machine), PEPULSE 
(PurePulse TENS Electronic Stimulator), PETRYMPRO (TRYM Pro Beard and Hair Trimmer), 
PENAILSET (PureNails Manicure/Pedicure Set), PESADLIT (PureBliss Energy Lamp), and PESLEEP 
 (W, K, or B) (Wave Sound Therapy Machine).38   
      13.   For the Part 18 devices, the rules in effect at the time of the apparent violations in this 
case required authorization, unless otherwise specified, under either the Declaration of Conformity (DoC) 
or certification procedures prior to use or marketing.39  Pure Enrichment marketed six products that are 
 classified as Part 18 consumer ISM equipment under Section 18.203(a) of the Commission s rules 
 PEHUMIDIF/ PEHUMSML (ultrasonic cool mist humidifiers),40 PEHUMINI (travel ultrasonic water 
 bottle humidifier), PESPAWD (B, N, W) (diffusers),41  PEHUMLRG (Ultrasonic Cool Mist Humidifier 
XL), PEPURSPA (PureSpa Essential Oil Diffuser), and PESPALUX (PureSpa Deluxe Essential Oil 
Diffuser) requiring authorization under one of these procedures before use or marketing.   
      14.   User Manual Disclosures and FCC Labeling.  Additionally, both Part 15 and Part 18 of 
the Commission s rules required responsible parties to include consumer disclosures in the user manuals42 
and labels43 prior to marketing to provide consumers with the information necessary to ensure the device 
 is complaint with technical requirements and to take steps to mitigate any harmful interference caused by 
 the device.  For Part 15 devices authorized under the verification procedure, Section 15.105(b) of the 
 Commission s rules requires that user manuals for Class B digital devices include a warning to consumers 
 of the device s potential for causing interference to other radio communications and also provide a list of 
 (Continued from previous page& )                                                      
 18- industrial, scientific and medical equipment.  The regulations for marking, equipment authorization and 
 importing a regulated device are contained in 47 CFR Part I, J and K respectively[.] ).   
 34 47 CFR § 15.3(z).  All the Part 15 radio frequency devices subject to this enforcement action are unintentional 
 radiators.  LOI Response at 10-11.  
 35 47 CFR § 15.101 (2017).   
 36 Previous Section 15.101(a) required the equipment to be authorized under verification, DoC, or certification 
procedures. 47 CFR § 15.101(a)(2017).   
 37 The PEPULSEPRO and PEPULSEDUO are counted as one model because it is the same device with cosmetic 
differences.  
 38 The PESLEEP (W, B, K) are counted as one model because it is the same device with cosmetic differences.   
 39 Id. § 18.203 (2017).   
 40 The PEHUMIDIF and PEHUMSML are counted as one model because it is the same device with cosmetic 
differences.   
 41 The PESPAWD (B, N, W) are counted as one model because it is the same device with cosmetic differences. 
 42 47 CFR. §§ 15.105, 18.213 (2017).   
 43 Id. §§ 15.19, 18.209 (2017). 

                                       6 
                         Federal Communications Commission            FCC 18-67 
   
steps that could possibly eliminate the interference.44  Section 15.19(a)(3) of the Commission s rules 
 require a device subject to certification or verification to bear the following statement in a conspicuous 
 location on the device:   This device complies with part 15 of the FCC Rules.  Operation is subject to the 
 following two conditions:  (1) this device may not cause harmful interference, and (2) this device must 
 accept any interference received, including interference that may cause undesired operation. 45   
      15.    For Part 18 devices, Section 18.213 of the Commission s rules requires information on 
the following matters be provided to the user in the instruction manual or on the device packaging if an 
instruction manual is not provided for any type of ISM equipment:  interference potential; maintenance of 
the system; simple measures to correct; and an advisory statement if the device is an RF lighting device.46  
 Section 18.209(b) of the Commission s rules required that each consumer ISM device authorized under 
the Declaration of Conformity procedure be labeled with a stylized FCC logo, permanently affixed to the 
product and readily visible to the purchaser at the time of purchase as described in Section 2.925 (i.e., 
 visible from the outside of the equipment enclosure).47 
            2.    Violations 
      16.   Pure Enrichment admits that it marketed in the United States in the last year 14 models 
which were deficient under the rules in Part 15 or Part 18:  (i) five models lacked proper authorization;48 
(ii) seven models had an authorization but lacked the required user manual disclosures and FCC labeling; 
and (iii) two models had an authorization but lacked user manual disclosures.49   
      17.   In the first category, Pure Enrichment apparently marketed two models classified as Part 
15 Class B digital devices that were not authorized under the verification procedure prior to the initiation 
of marketing in violation of Section 15.101(a) of the Commission s rules:  
PEPULSEPRO/PEPULSEDUO and PECLOUD.50  Pure Enrichment also apparently marketed three 
 models that lacked authorization under either the Declaration of Conformity or certification procedure 
 prior to use or marketing in violation of Section 18.203(a) of the Commission s rules:  
 PEHUMIDIF/PEHUMSML, PEHUMINI, and PESPAWD (B, N, W).51   
       18.   In the second category, Pure Enrichment apparently marketed six other models that were 
 authorized under Part 15, but lacked the user manual disclosures required by Section 15.105 of the 
 Commission s rules, and lacked FCC labeling required by Section 15.19 of the Commission s rules:  
 PEAIRPLG, PEPULSE , PETRYMPRO, PENAILSET, PESADLIT, and PESLEEP (W, B, K).52  
Additionally, Pure Enrichment also apparently marketed one other model that was authorized under Part 
 18 but lacked the user manual disclosures required by Section 18.209(b) of the Commission s rules, and 
 lacked FCC labeling required by Section 18.213 of the Commission s rules:  PEHUMLRG.53 


                                                      
 44 Id. § 15.105(b). 
 45 Id. § 15.19(a)(3).   
 46 Id. § 18.213. 
 47 Id. § 18.209(b); § 2.925. 
 48 Because five models marketed by Pure Enrichment were not authorized, the five models also lacked the proper 
user manual disclosures and FCC labeling.  See id. §§ 15.19(a)(3), 15.105(b), 18.209(b), 18.213.   
 49 See LOI Response at 10-15; see also Appendices A, B.  
 50 LOI Response at 10-12, 16.   
 51 LOI Response at 11-12, 14.   
 52 LOI Response at 13, 16. 
 53 LOI Response at 12-13.   

                                       7 
                               Federal Communications Commission                        FCC 18-67 
   
        19.    Finally, in the third category, Pure Enrichment apparently marketed two models that were 
 authorized under Part 18 but lacked the user manual disclosures required by Section 18.209(b) of the 
 Commission s rules:  PEPURSPA and PESPALUX.54   
        20.     As noted in Appendix B,  Pure Enrichment has apparently come into compliance with the 
 Commission s rules for 13 of the 14 models at issue as of February 15, 2018,55 but has continued to 
market one noncompliant model.56  Accordingly, we find that Pure Enrichment apparently willfully and 
 repeatedly violated Section 302(b) of the Act and Sections 2.803(b)(2), 15.101(a), 15.105(b), 15.19(a)(3), 
 18.203(a), 18.213, and 18.209(b) of the Commission s rules57 for marketing 14 noncompliant models 
within the 12-month period preceding the release of this NAL.  
        B.     Proposed Forfeiture  
        21.    Section 503(b) of the Act authorizes the Commission to impose a forfeiture against any 
entity that  willfully or repeatedly[58] fails to comply with any of the provisions of the Act or of any rule, 
 regulation, or order issued by the Commission. 59  Here, Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act authorizes us to 
assess a forfeiture against Pure Enrichment of up to $19,639 for each violation or each day of a 
continuing violation, up to a statutory maximum of $147,290.60  In exercising our forfeiture authority, we 
                                                      
 54 LOI Response at 14.   
 55 PEHUMIDIF/PEHUMSML; PESPAWD-B/S/W; PEPULSEDO/PEPULSEPRO; PEAIRPLG; PEPULSE; 
PETRYPRO; PENAILSET; PESADLIT; PEHUMLRG; PESLEEP-W/K/B; PEPURSPA; and PESPALUX. 
 56 PEHUMINI. 
 57 47 U.S.C. § 302a(b); 47 CFR §§ 2.803(b)(2), 15.101(a), 15.105(b), 15.19(a)(3), 18.203(a), 18.213, 18.209(b).   
 58 Section 312(f)(1) and (2) of the Act defines  willful  as  the conscious and deliberate commission or omission of 
[any] act, irrespective of any intent to violate  the law, and defines  repeated  as  the commission or omission of 
such act more than once or, if continuous, for more than one day.   47 U.S.C. § 312(f)(1) and (2).  The legislative 
history of Section 312(f)(1) and (2) clarifies that the definitions of willful and repeated applies to both Sections 312 
and 503(b) of the Act.  See H.R. Rep. No. 97-765, 97th Cong. 2d Sess. 51 (1982).  Consistent with the legislative 
history, the Commission has so interpreted the terms in the Section 503(b) context.  See, e.g., S. Cal. Broad. Co., 
Memorandum Opinion and Order, 6 FCC Rcd 4387, 4388, para. 5 (1991); recons. denied, 7 FCC Rcd 3454 (1992).  
 The marketing of the equipment at issue here was conscious and deliberate and occurred for more than one day and, 
 thus, satisfies the definitions of willful and repeated. 
 59 47 U.S.C. § 503(b)(1)(B); 47 C.F.R. § 1.80(a)(1).  In the April 4 Supplemental LOI Response, the Company 
briefly argues, albeit prematurely, that (i) an NAL with a forfeiture amount around $350,000 would be unjust, 
 unfair, and inconsistent with Commission precedent, and (ii) because the devices at issue are unintentional radiators, 
 as opposed to intentional radiators, and do not require equipment certification, any proposed fine should be reduced.  
 April 4 Supplemental LOI Response at 2.  We find these arguments unpersuasive.  First, as discussed below, the 
Commission has the discretion to issue forfeitures on a case-by-case basis, under our general forfeiture authority 
contained in Section 503 of the Act.  In doing so, we are required to consider a number of factors in determining 
whether upward or downward adjustments to the proposed forfeiture are merited, as we have done here.  See 47 
CFR § 1.80(b); infra. paras. 22, 24-27.  For instance, in Behringer, the Commission reviewed the specific facts of 
that case and concluded that a larger forfeiture was warranted as compared to other equipment marketing cases, 
based on the significant number of models and units involved, the duration of noncompliance, the gross revenues of 
the company, and the company s failure to resolve the noncompliance as quickly as it claimed it would.  Behringer 
USA, Inc., Notice of Apparent Liability, 21 FCC Rcd 1820, 1828, para. 23 (2006) (Behringer).  Second, the models 
at issue in this NAL required equipment authorizations either Declaration of Conformity or verification 
(depending on the particular model).  Moreover, we do not distinguish between the type of equipment authorization 
in determining the appropriate forfeiture in our enforcement actions. 
 60 See 47 U.S.C. § 503(b)(2)(D); 47 CFR §§ 1.80(b)(7), (b)(9).  This proposed forfeiture amount reflects inflation 
 adjustments effective as of the date of this Notice of Apparent Liability to the amounts specified in Section 
 503(b)(2)(D) of $10,000 for each violation or each day of a continuing violation and $75,000 for any single act or 
 failure to act.  See 47 CFR § 1.80(b)(9); Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission s Rules, Adjustment of 
 Civil Monetary Penalties to Reflect Inflation, Order, 33 FCC Rcd 46 (EB 2018); see also Adjustment of Civil 
                                                                                      (continued& ) 
                                                 8 
                               Federal Communications Commission                        FCC 18-67 
   
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. 61  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.62  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.63 
        22.    Under the Forfeiture Policy Statement64 and Section 1.80 of the Commission s rules, the 
base forfeiture amount for the marketing of unauthorized equipment is $7,000 per model.65  The record 
establishes that Pure Enrichment marketed (i) five models that lacked proper authorization, (ii) seven 
models that had proper authorization but lacked the required user manual disclosures and FCC labeling, 
 and (iii) two models that had proper authorization but lacked the required user manual disclosures.66  It is 
 well-established that the base forfeiture is $7,000 for marketing a device without first obtaining proper 
 authorization for that device.67  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. 68    Accordingly, we propose to apply the $7,000 base forfeiture to each of 
the 14 models that failed to comply with the Commission s equipment marketing requirements within the 
last twelve months, resulting in an aggregate base forfeiture of $98,000.   
        23.     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 
 (Continued from previous page& )                                                      
 Monetary Penalties to Reflect Inflation, 83 Fed. Reg. 4600 (Feb. 1, 2018).   
 61 47 U.S.C. § 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). 
 62 47 CFR § 1.80(b)(8); Forfeiture Policy Statement, 12 FCC Rcd at 17098-99, para. 22.  
 63 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 ). 
 64 Forfeiture Policy Statement, 12 FCC Rcd at 17113. 
 65 47 CFR § 1.80(b).  See e.g., Behringer USA, Inc., Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture and Order, 21 FCC 
 Rcd 1820 (2006), forfeiture ordered, 22 FCC Rcd 10451(2007) (forfeiture paid) (Behringer).   
 66 The violations at issue in this NAL occurred within the year preceding release of the NAL.  The violations, 
 however, span from July 28, 2014, when Pure Enrichment imported the first unauthorized model to February 15, 
 2018, when Pure Enrichment corrected packaging for 13 models, and continuing for the last model which Pure 
 Enrichment markets did not correct the labeling and user manual disclosure to comply with the Commission s rules.  
 Pure Enrichment provided the dates between May 2017 and August 2017 that it either obtained an equipment 
 authorization or requested the contract manufacturers to correct the labeling and user manual disclosures for 13 of 
 the 14 models.  See September 11 Supplemental LOI Response at Attachment; see also Appendix B.  Because Pure 
Enrichment had no visibility into the sales of its                    and therefore could not 
 accurately report when it came into compliance with the Commission s rules for the 13 models, we have used those 
 dates in determining the approximate length of time each of the 13 models was noncompliant.  See Appendix B.  
 Pure Enrichment also indicates that the labeling and user manual disclosures have not been corrected for one model, 
 PPESADLIT, but sales and revenue data for the model provided by Pure Enrichment indicate that it marketed the 
 model during this period.  See September 11 Supplemental LOI Response at   ; see also Appendix B.  
 67 See, e.g., Behringer, 21 FCC Rcd at 1827, para. 21 (assessing a $7,000 base forfeiture for each model the target 
marketed without an authorization). 
 68 47 CFR § 2.803(b)(2) (emphasis added).   

                                                 9 
                               Federal Communications Commission                        FCC 18-67 
   
intentional nature of the violations and resulting economic gain as well as the duration and scope of the 
violations.   
        24.    First, we find that an upward adjustment is merited for Pure Enrichment s intentional 
conduct, which resulted in substantial economic gain.  The Company continued to market its 
noncompliant devices even after becoming aware of the investigation into its apparent violations of the 
Act and the Commission s equipment marketing rules and acknowledging in its responses that the models 
needed authorization, labels, and user manual disclosures.69  Following receipt of the May 26, 2017 LOI, 
 Pure Enrichment continued to market at least      units of noncompliant models resulting in 
 substantial economic gain of gross revenues of at least          .70  These units were marketed 
 from a period spanning from June 2017 until August 2017,71  when Pure Enrichment contacted contract 
manufacturers to correct the user manual disclosures and labeling violations in open or subsequent 
orders.72  Although the Company corrected 13 of the 14 models as of February 15, 2018 about nine 
months after becoming aware of its apparent violations Pure Enrichment continues to market one 
noncompliant model.   
        25.    Second, we find that an upward adjustment is warranted based on the duration and scope 
of Pure Enrichment s violations.73  Pure Enrichment marketed more than half (i.e., nine models) of the 14 
noncompliant models subject to this investigation for more than a year, including some for up to three 
years).74  Further, the scope of the violations was pervasive.  More than half of the models apparently 
                                                      
 69 See Behringer, 21 FCC Rcd at 1827-28, para. 22 & n.47 (concluding that a substantial upward adjustment was 
warranted for, among other things, Behringer s continued marketing of unauthorized devices despite knowing that it 
was in violation).  We observe that, even after acknowledging that several models lacked labels and manuals, Pure 
Enrichment continued to market inventory that failed to comply with the user manual and label obligations.  See, 
e.g., March 27 Supplemental LOI Response.   
 70 See Appendix A.   
 71 See Purple Communications, Inc., Notice of Apparent Liability, 29 FCC Rcd. 5491, 5506, para.34 (2014), 
forfeiture ordered, 30 FCC Rcd 14892 (2015); Behringer, 21 FCC Rcd 1820, 1827, para. 22 (2006); ASC Telcom, 
Inc., d/b/a Alternatel, Notice of Apparent Liability and Forfeiture, 17 FCC Rcd 18654, 18656, para.9 (2002), Order 
and Consent Decree, 19 FCC Rcd 5160 (2004). 
 72 See Appendix A.  See also September 11 Supplemental LOI Response.  We believe that this is the minimum 
 number of noncompliant units sold within the year preceding issuance of the NAL based on several factors.  First, 
none of Pure Enrichment s models at issue in this case were fully compliant with Section 2.803 requirements when 
Pure Enrichment began importing the models in 2014.  Additionally, although the September 11 Supplemental LOI 
response provides dates from June through August 2017, when Pure Enrichment made requests to the contract 
manufacturers to correct the labeling and user manuals, the requested date does not necessarily denote the date the 
changes were made.  Pure Enrichment, moreover, continued to sell inventory procured prior to the requested date 
and admits that it has no visibility into sales, compliant or otherwise, into sales of its     
                                        .  Id.  Because corrections were requested only for open or future 
 orders, it is also unknown how many noncompliant units were sold.  Pure Enrichment did not reorder the 
 PEHUMINI, yet Pure Enrichment continued to market the noncompliant PEHUMINI until Pure Enrichment 
 corrected the violations in February 2018.  See March 27 Supplemental LOI Response.  Regarding the discontinued 
 the PESADLIT however, Pure Enrichment apparently continues to market the noncompliant PESADLIT on its 
 website.  See supra note 21. 
 73 See Union Oil Co. of Cal., Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture 27 FCC Rcd 13806, 13810-11, paras. 10-11 
 (2012) (forfeiture paid) (upward adjustment of over three times the base forfeiture warranted 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) (upward adjustment for the base forfeiture because of extended 
 duration of the violation).  Although several violations are 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).   
 74 The nine models are: PEHUMIDIF/PEHUMSML, PEHUMINI, PESPAWD-B/N/W, 
                                                                                      (continued& ) 
                                                10 
                               Federal Communications Commission                        FCC 18-67 
   
violated more than one aspect of the equipment marketing rules, with seven models apparently having 
both user manual and labelling violations, and four models first apparently failing to obtain an equipment 
authorization and, once obtained, then apparently failing to satisfy the user manual and labelling 
requirements.    
        26.    We therefore apply an upward adjustment of the base forfeiture amount for these factors.  
Taken together, we propose a total upward adjustment of $492,380, which will protect the interests of 
consumers and serve as a deterrent against future violations of the Commission s rules.   
        27.    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.  For example, Pure 
Enrichment has not argued an inability to pay, and such an argument would likely be unavailing given the 
company s approximately $34 million gross revenues in 2016.75 
        28.    Pure Enrichment s decision to continue to market noncompliant models after becoming 
aware of the need to bring the models into compliance highlights the importance of establishing a 
proposed forfeiture that serves as a sufficient incentive to comply with the rules.76  Pure Enrichment s 
 claim of initial misunderstanding and confusion whether all of the models required authorizations, 
moreover, does not mitigate the violations.77  Thus, we find no basis to make any downward adjustment 
of the proposed forfeiture.  As stated above, our rules require that equipment must meet all applicable 
technical, labeling, identification and administrative requirements not just technical requirements prior 
to marketing.78  Finally, given the apparent continuing nature of Pure Enrichment s violations, and 

 (Continued from previous page& )                                                      
 PEPULSEDUO/PEPULSEPRO, PEPULSE, PENAILSET, PESADLIT, PEPURSPA; and PESPALUX.  See 
 Appendix B.   
 75 See supra note 7. 
 76 Other cases have 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 rationales.  See Behringer, 21 FCC Rcd 1820, para. 22-23 (2006) (upwardly adjusted for duration, 
egregiousness, economic gain and ability to pay and found no downward adjustments warranted); see also South 
 Bay Aviation, Inc., Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture, 26 FCC Rcd 972, 974, para. 7 (EB 2011) (declining 
 to follow precedent to lower the forfeiture amount, and instead applying an upward adjustment, noting that the 
 unlicensed operation violation had been ongoing for approximately three 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, and instead applying an upward adjustment, because 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).   
 77 See Unipoint Technologies, Inc. d/b/a Comfi.com d/b/a Masterbell.com d/b/a Pushline.com a/k/a Communications 
Fidelity, Forfeiture Order, 29 FCC Rcd 1633, 1640, para. 21 (2014) ( It is immaterial whether [the licensee s] 
violations were inadvertent, the result of ignorance of the law, or the product of administrative oversight.  Such 
excuses do not warrant a downward adjustment of the forfeiture. ), default judgment entered, United States v. 
Unipoint Technologies, Inc., No. 14-12020-LTS, 2016 WL 8902575, at *1-2 (D. Mass. Apr. 27, 2016); Texas 
Soaring Association, Inc. Midlothian, Texas, Forfeiture Order, 28 FCC Rcd 10740, 10743-44, para. 7 (EB 2013) 
(forfeiture paid) ( Even if administrative oversight, inadvertence, or a lack of familiarity with the Rules may have 
contributed to the violation, they do not . . . mitigate liability arising therefrom ) (footnotes omitted); Cascade 
Access, L.L.C., Forfeiture Order, 28 FCC Rcd 141, 145, para. 9 (EB 2013) (forfeiture paid) (rejecting argument that 
the unintentional nature of the violation justifies mitigation of the forfeiture amount), recon. denied, Memorandum 
Opinion and Order, 30 FCC Rcd 14018 (EB 2015); Am. Móvil, 26 FCC Rcd at 8676, para. 11 ( While América 
Móvil claimed that the violation was a result of an inadvertent oversight, it is well established that administrative 
oversight or inadvertence is not a mitigating factor warranting a downward adjustment of a forfeiture. ) (footnote 
omitted). 
 78 47 CFR § 2.803. 

                                                11 
                         Federal Communications Commission            FCC 18-67 
   
pursuant to Section 403 of the Act,79 we require Pure Enrichment to submit an affidavit, signed by an 
officer or director of the company, to the Enforcement Bureau within 30 days of the release of this NAL, 
stating whether it has complied with Sections 302(b) of the Act and Section 2.803(a) of the Commission s 
rules with respect to this model, and if not, providing its plans for full compliance.80  Pure Enrichment s 
 failure to submit the affidavit, or failure to comply with the applicable equipment requirements, may 
 subject the company to further enforcement action, including potentially, an Order to Show Cause. 
       29.   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 
 $590,380, which is the aggregate of the $98,000 base forfeiture and the $492,380 upward adjustment, for 
 which Pure Enrichment is apparently liable.81   
IV.   ORDERING CLAUSES 
      30.   Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Act82 and Section 
1.80 of the Commission s rules,83 Bear Down Brands, LLC doing business as Pure Enrichment is hereby 
NOTIFIED of this APPARENT LIABILITY FOR A FORFEITURE in the amount of five hundred 
 ninety thousand three hundred eighty dollars ($590,380) for willful and repeated violations of Section 
302(b) of the Act84 and Sections 2.803(b)(2), 15.101(a), 15.105(b), Section 15.19(a)(3), Section 
18.203(a), Section 18.213, and Section 18.209(b) of the Commission s rules.85 
      31.   IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 1.80 of the Commission s 
rules,86 within thirty (30) calendar days of the release date of this Notice of Apparent Liability for 
 Forfeiture, Bear Down Brands, LLC doing business as Pure Enrichment 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 35 below. 
       32.   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.  Bear Down Brands, 
 LLC doing business as Pure Enrichment shall send electronic notification of payment to EB-SED-
 Response@fcc.gov and Pamera Hairston at Pamera.Hairston@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.87  When completing the FCC Form 159, enter the Account Number in block number 23A (call 
 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-

                                                      
 79 47 U.S.C. § 403. 
 80 See 47 U.S.C. § 302a(b); 47 CFR § 2.803(a).  
 81 We note that the proposed forfeiture of $590,380 is considerably less than a potential forfeiture of $2,062,060 
 which is the statutory maximum allowed under Section 503(b)(2)(D) for 14 separate continuing violations. 
 82 47 U.S.C. § 503(b). 
 83 47 CFR § 1.80. 
 84 47 U.S.C. § 302a(b). 
 85 47 CFR §§ 2.803(b)(2), 15.101(a), 15.105(b), 15.19(a)(3), 18.203(a), 18.213, and 18.209(b) (2017). 
 86 Id. § 1.80. 
 87 An FCC Form 159 and detailed instructions for completing the form may be obtained at 
http://www.fcc.gov/Forms/Form159/159.pdf. 

                                       12 
                         Federal Communications Commission            FCC 18-67 
   
          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. 
      33.   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 20554.88  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. 
      34.   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.89  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 EB-SED-
Response@fcc.gov and Pamera.Hairston@fcc.gov.   
      35.   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. 
      36.   IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 403 of the Act,90 Bear Down 
 Brands, LLC dba Pure Enrichment must submit the affidavit described in paragraph 28 above, within 30 
 days from the release of this NAL, to: Office of the Secretary, Federal Communications Commission, 445 
 12th Street, SW, Washington, DC 20554, ATTN:  Pamera D. Hairston, Enforcement Bureau, Spectrum 
 Enforcement Division. 


                                                      
 88 See 47 CFR § 1.1914. 
 89 47 CFR §§ 1.16, 1.80(f)(3). 
 90 47 U.S.C. § 403. 

                                       13 
                         Federal Communications Commission            FCC 18-67 
   
      37.   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 Josh Goldberg, 
President, Bear Down Brands, LLC dba Pure Enrichment, 1100 S Linwood Ave, #B Santa Ana, CA 
92705, 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 
  
  
  
  
                                     Marlene H. Dortch 
                                     Secretary 


                                       14 


                         Federal Communications Commission            FCC 18-67 

                                STATEMENT OF 
                       COMMISSIONER MICHAEL O RIELLY 
                                         
Re:   In the Matter of Bear Down Brands, LLC dba Pure Enrichment, File No. EB-SED-17-00024115 
       
      Given that a primary function of the Commission is to protect the integrity of the nation s 
airwaves, we must vigorously enforce our radio frequency (RF) rules.  Generally, I believe enforcement 
serves three main functions: generates corrective behavior for those individuals out of compliance with 
our rules; appropriately deters other entities from cutting corners or worse, such as ignoring our 
requirements altogether and placing communications services at risk; and compensates the American 
public for the potential harm caused.  Unfortunately, however, the enforcement of our equipment 
marketing rules, which is the principal way of ensuring that RF devices operate effectively without 
causing harmful interference, falls far short.  The base forfeiture is $7,000 for any model that does not 
comply with these requirements.  And, that is $7,000 regardless of whether one device of a certain model 
was sold or a million; whether it resulted in net profits of $1 or $1 billion; or if these devices were out of 
compliance for one day or one year.  This is by no means the fault of the Chairman, but a larger issue far 
preceding his tenure.  
       
      In the specific case before us, some of the models by Pure Enrichment failed to comply with 
multiple requirements, including having the requisite equipment authorization, the proper manual 
disclosures, and/or FCC labels.  To make matters worse, even after the company was informed of the 
apparent rule violations, it continued to market 14 noncompliant devices for some time and, in fact, one of 
these noncompliant models is allegedly still being marketed today.  While forfeitures can be upwardly 
adjusted to account for the severity of the violation, as is done here, it still does not excuse the totally 
inadequate base forfeiture of $98,000 for the serious violations revealed in this item.  Compare this 
proposed forfeiture to robocall violations where the Commission assesses penalties per phone call, 
resulting in multi-million-dollar fines. 
       
      I thank the Chairman for agreeing to increase the proposed fine, so that the punishment better fits 
the violation, and committing to review the Commission s forfeiture policies in the future.  I do not 
believe that it is ideal to formulate upward adjustments, in large part, on a percentage of gross revenues 
earned from selling noncompliant devices; but, in this instance, it appears to be the best metric that we 
have to derive an appropriate penalty and is consistent with our mission.  Hopefully, we will be able to 
update the Commission s forfeiture policy soon so that the baseline penalties are more reflective of the 
severity of these violations.  Not only would this diminish our reliance on upward adjustments, but it 
would also improve the transparency, consistency, and credibility of our enforcement process.  I look 
forward to working with the Chairman to improve our enforcement policies at the appropriate time and 
ensure that they meet the needs of the public and the communications marketplace. 


                                       17