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