Overview and Final Ruling
On October 31, 2006, the Federal Communications Commission's Spectrum Enforcement Division within the Enforcement Bureau adopted a Forfeiture Order (DA 06-2229) against Vitec Group Communications Limited. Released on November 2, 2006, the order imposes a monetary forfeiture of $11,200 for willful and repeated violations of Section 302(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and Section 2.803(a)(1) of the Commission's Rules.
The enforcement action concludes an investigation into Vitec's unauthorized marketing of intentional radiator equipment in the United States prior to obtaining the required FCC equipment certifications.
Investigation Background
In May 2005, the Enforcement Bureau received a complaint alleging that Clear-Com Communication Systems, a trade name used in the United States by British company Vitec Group Communications Limited, was marketing unapproved radio frequency devices.
The complaint specified that Vitec advertised its CellCom Digital Wireless Intercom system in the April 2005 issue of Broadcast Engineering and exhibited the system at the 2005 National Association of Broadcasters (NAB) trade show in Las Vegas, Nevada. As intentional radiators under Section 15.201 of the Commission's Rules, digital wireless intercom systems require FCC equipment certification prior to being marketed.
- Investigation File Number: EB-05-SE-172
- NAL/Acct. No.: 200632100009
- FCC Registration Number (FRN): 0012947594
- Device Identified: CellCom / CellCom 10 Digital Wireless Intercom
Violations and Legal Analysis
Under Section 2.803(c) of the FCC Rules, radio frequency devices may be advertised or displayed before obtaining equipment authorization only if a specific disclaimer notice is clearly displayed indicating that the device has not been authorized and cannot be offered for sale or lease until authorization is obtained.
The Spectrum Enforcement Division verified that the advertisement published in the April 2005 issue of Broadcast Engineering lacked the mandatory disclaimer notice. Although Vitec argued that the advertisement did not directly offer the product for sale and that the one-year statute of limitations barred enforcement, the FCC rejected both arguments, noting that the advertisement was intended to market the product prior to launch and that the April 2005 issue remained current through the end of that month.
Regarding the display at the NAB convention held April 16–21, 2005, Vitec submitted a statement under penalty of perjury affirming that the disclaimer notice was provided at the booth. Based on that submission, the FCC concluded the trade show display itself did not violate FCC rules.
Forfeiture Calculation and Reduction
The Enforcement Bureau had previously issued a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (NAL) on April 14, 2006, proposing a penalty of $14,000. This base amount reflected $7,000 for each of the two distinct uncertified transmitters making up the CellCom 10 system—the base station transmitter and the mobile/portable two-way radio units—consistent with precedent in Samson Technologies, Inc.
Vitec sought cancellation or reduction of the forfeiture, arguing among other points that the violation was minor, that it acted in good faith, and that it had an overall history of compliance. The Commission rejected claims that statutory violations could be classified as minor and found no evidence of good faith. However, the FCC granted a downward adjustment from $14,000 to $11,200 based on Vitec's history of overall compliance.
- Initial Proposed Base Forfeiture: $14,000 (covering two separate transmitter authorizations)
- Downwards Adjustment Basis: History of overall compliance
- Final Assessed Forfeiture: $11,200
- Subsequent Equipment Authorization Date: November 2, 2005