Federal Communications Commission DA 09-1428
Before the
Federal Communications Commission
Washington, D.C. 20554
In the Matter of )
)
Iftron Technologies, Inc. ) File No. EB-08-SE-693
) NAL/Acct. No. 200932100067
) FRN 0018899377
)
NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE
Adopted:     June  26, 2009 Released:   June 29, 2009
By the Chief, Spectrum Enforcement Division, Enforcement Bureau:
I. INTRODUCTION
1. In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture and Order (“NAL”), we find Iftron 
Technologies, Inc. (“Iftron”) apparently liable for a forfeiture in the amount of five thousand six hundred 
dollars ($5,600) for willful and repeated violation of Section 302(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, 
as amended (“Act”),1 and Sections 2.803 and 15.205(a) of the Commission’s Rules (“Rules”).2 The 
apparent violation involves Iftron’s marketing of an audio/video transmitter that operates on a restricted 
frequency and therefore is not eligible for a grant of equipment certification.
II.  BACKGROUND
2. The Enforcement Bureau’s Spectrum Enforcement Division (“Division”) received
information that Iftron was marketing audio/video transmitters that are capable of operating on a 
restricted frequency, 2.468 GHz.  On October 10, 2008, Division staff conducted internet research on 
Iftron’s website, www.iftrontech.com.  During the internet research, Division staff observed that Iftron 
was offering for sale the Stinger Pro 2.4 GHz 500 mW audio/video transmitter (“Stinger Pro”).  By letter 
of inquiry (“LOI”) dated February 18, 2009, the Division initiated an investigation of Iftron’s marketing 
of the Stinger Pro, and instructed Iftron to provide specific information regarding the manufacture, 
marketing, and certification status of the Stinger Pro, as well as any other audio/video transmitter device 
that it marketed in the United States.3 In its March 30, 2009, response to the LOI, Iftron states that it is 
the manufacturer of the Stinger Pro, that it began manufacturing the device in June 2006, and that it sold 
eight units of the device in the United States between June 2006 and July 2008.4 Iftron further states that 
in early July 2008, it reviewed the frequencies on which the Stinger Pro transmitted and discovered that 
  
1 47 U.S.C. § 302a(b).
2 47 C.F.R. §§ 2.803 and 15.205(a). 
3 Letter from Kathryn S. Berthot, Chief, Spectrum Enforcement Division, Enforcement Bureau, Federal 
Communications Commission to Ira Faberman, President, Iftron Technologies, Inc.  (February 18, 2009).
4 Letter from Ira S. Faberman, President, Iftron Technologies, Inc. to Kathryn S. Berthot, Chief, Spectrum 
Enforcement Division, Enforcement Bureau, Federal Communications Commission (March 30, 2009) (“LOI 
Response”) at 1-2.
Federal Communications Commission DA 09-1428
2
the highest of the four transmitter frequencies used by that device, specifically 2.468 GHz, was outside of 
the authorized amateur radio frequencies set forth in Section 97.301 of the Rules.5
3. Iftron states that upon discovering that the Stinger Pro mistakenly transmitted on a 
frequency that was outside those frequencies that are permitted for amateur radio use under Section 
97.301 of the Rules, it began modifying all transmitters shipped to U.S. addresses to ensure that they were 
no longer capable of transmitting on 2.468 GHz.6 Iftron also states that it modified the transmitter 
specifications of the Stinger Pro on its website in July of 2008 to reflect the change.7  Iftron claims that it 
does not manufacture or market in the United States any other 2.4 GHz audio/video transmitter device.8  
III.  DISCUSSION
A.  Marketing of Unauthorized Equipment
4. Section 302(b) of the Act provides that “[n]o person shall manufacture, import, sell, offer 
for sale, or ship devices or home electronic equipment and systems, or use devices, which fail to comply 
with regulations promulgated pursuant to this section.”  Section 2.803(a)(1) of the Rules provides that: 
Except as provided elsewhere in this section, no person shall sell or lease, or offer for sale 
or lease (including advertising for sale or lease), or import, ship, or distribute for the 
purpose of selling or leasing or offering for sale or lease, any radio frequency device9
unless … [i]n the case of a device subject to certification, such device has been 
authorized by the Commission in accordance with the rules in this chapter and is properly 
identified and labeled as required by §2.925 and other relevant sections in this chapter.
Additionally, Section 2.803(g) of the Rules, provides in pertinent part that:
[R]adio frequency devices that could not be authorized or legally operated under the 
current rules … shall not be operated, advertised, displayed, offered for sale or lease, sold 
or leased, or otherwise marketed absent a license issued under part 5 of this chapter or a 
special temporary authorization issued by the Commission.10  
Intentional radiators,11 such as audio/video transmitters, are generally required by Section 15.201 of the 
Rules12 to be approved prior to marketing through the equipment certification13 procedures described in 
Sections 2.1031 – 2.1060 of the Rules.14  
  
5Id.  See 47 C.F.R. § 97.301.
6LOI Response at 1. 
7 Iftron’s website currently notes that units of the Stinger Pro available in the United States transmit on 2.414, 2.432, 
and 2.450 GHz, and that units that additionally transmit on 2.468 GHz are “available elsewhere.”  See
http://www.iftrontech.com/2.4GHz-Transmitters/c44/p100/Stinger-Pro-2.4GHz-500MW-AVD-
Transmitter/product_info.html (last accessed June 23, 2009).  
8 LOI Response at 3. 
9 47 C.F.R. § 2.801 defines a radiofrequency device as “any device which in it its operation is capable of emitting 
radiofrequency energy by radiation, conduction, or other means.”
10 47 C.F.R. § 2.803(g).
11 An intentional radiator is “[a] device that intentionally generates and emits radio frequency energy by radiation or 
induction.”  47 C.F.R. § 15.3(o).
Federal Communications Commission DA 09-1428
3
5. Iftron admits that from June 2006,15 when it first manufactured the device, to July of 2008, 
it manufactured and marketed units of the Stinger Pro that were capable of transmitting on 2.468 GHz.16  
Although amateur radio equipment is not required to be certified,17 the Stinger Pro, as sold in the United 
States prior to July 2008, was capable of operating on a frequency outside of the authorized amateur radio 
frequencies and, therefore, could not legally be marketed in the United States as amateur radio equipment.  
Moreover, because this device was capable of operation on a restricted frequency listed in Section 
15.205(a) of the Rules,18 the device could not comply with the FCC’s technical standards and therefore 
could not be certified or marketed within the United States.  
6. Accordingly, we find that Iftron apparently marketed19 a radio frequency device that 
operates on a restricted frequency and therefore is not eligible for a grant of equipment certification in 
willful20 and repeated21 violation of Section 302(b) of the Act and Sections 2.803 and 15.205(a) of the 
Rules.
     
12 47 C.F.R. § 15.201.
13 A certification is an equipment authorization issued by the Commission, based on representations and test data 
submitted by the applicant.  See 47 C.F.R. § 2.907(a).
14 47 C.F.R. §§ 2.1031 – 2.1060.
15 LOI Response at 2.
16 LOI Response at 1.  Elsewhere in its response, Iftron admits that it sold a total of 10 units of the Stinger Pro in the 
United States between August 31, 2006 and March 30, 2009, but states that all units of the Stinger Pro that were 
shipped to addresses in the United States after July of 2008 were modified so that those units were incapable of 
transmitting on 2.468 GHz.  Id.  
17 See, Facilitating Opportunities for Flexible, Efficient, and Reliable Spectrum Use Employing Cognitive Radio 
Technologies, Memorandum Opinion and Order, 22 FCC Rcd 8053, 8058 (2007); see also, Pilot Travel Centers, 
LLC, Notice of Apparent Liability, 19 FCC Rcd 23113, 23114 (2004) (“[R]adio transmitting equipment that 
transmits solely on Amateur Radio Service (“ARS”) frequencies is not subject to equipment authorization 
requirements prior to manufacture or marketing.”).  
18 47 C.F.R. §15.205(a).  This section allows intentional radiators to transmit only spurious emissions in the 
restricted frequency bands.  Section  2.1 of the Rules, 47 C.F.R. § 2.1, defines spurious emissions as “[e]missions on 
a frequency or frequencies which are outside the necessary bandwidth and the level of which may be reduced 
without affecting the corresponding transmission of information.  Spurious emissions include harmonic emissions, 
parasitic emissions, intermodulation products and frequency conversion products, but exclude out-of-band 
emissions.” 
19 Marketing, as defined in 47 C.F.R. § 2.803(e)(4), “includes sale or lease, or offering for sale or lease, including 
advertising for sale or lease, or importation, shipment, or distribution for the purpose of selling or leasing or offering 
for sale or lease.”
20 Section 312(f)(1) of the Act, 47 U.S.C. § 312(f)(1), which applies to violations for which forfeitures are assessed 
under Section 503(b) of the Act, provides that “[t]he term ‘willful’, … means the conscious and deliberate 
commission or omission of such act, irrespective of any intent to violate any provision of this Act or any rule or 
regulation of the Commission authorized by this Act ….”  See Southern California Broadcasting Co., Memorandum 
Opinion and Order, 6 FCC Rcd 4387, 4388 (1991) (“Southern California”).    
21 Section 312(f)(2) of the Act provides that “[t]he term ‘repeated’, … means the commission or omission of such 
act more than once or, if such commission or omission is continuous, for more than one day.”  47 U.S.C. § 
312(f)(2).  See, e.g., Callais Cablevision, Inc., Grand Isle, Louisiana, Notice of Apparent Liability for Monetary 
Forfeiture, 16 FCC Rcd 1359, 1362 (2001) (“Callais Cablevision”) (issuing a Notice of Apparent Liability for, inter 
Federal Communications Commission DA 09-1428
4
B.  Proposed Forfeiture
7. Section 503(b) of the Act authorizes the Commission to assess a forfeiture for each willful 
or repeated violation of the Act or of any rule, regulation, or order issued by the Commission under the 
Act.22 In exercising such authority, we are required to take into account “the nature, circumstances, extent, 
and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior 
offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require.”23
8. Section 503(b)(6) of the Act bars the Commission from proposing forfeiture for 
violations that occurred more than a year prior to the issuance of a Notice of Apparent Liability.24 Section 
503(b)(6) does not, however, bar the Commission from assessing whether Iftron’s conduct prior to that 
time period apparently violated the provisions of the Act and Rules and from considering such conduct in 
determining the appropriate forfeiture amount for violations that occurred within the one-year statutory 
period.25 Thus, while we may consider the fact that Iftron’s conduct commenced more than one year ago, 
the forfeiture amount we propose herein relates only to Iftron’s apparent violations that have occurred 
within the past year.
9. Pursuant to the Commission’s Forfeiture Policy Statement26 and Section 1.80 of the 
Rules,27 the base forfeiture amount for the marketing of unauthorized equipment is $7,000.  At the time of 
Iftron’s apparent violation, Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act authorized the Commission to assess entities 
such as Iftron a maximum forfeiture of $11,000 for each violation, or each day of a continuing violation, 
up to a statutory maximum forfeiture of $97,500 for any single continuing violation.28  
     
alia, a cable television operator’s repeated signal leakage).
22 47 U.S.C. § 503(b).
23 47 U.S.C. § 503(b)(2)(E).  See also 47 C.F.R. § 1.80(b)(4), Note to paragraph (b)(4): Section II. Adjustment 
Criteria for Section 503 Forfeitures.
24 47 U.S.C. § 503(b)(6).  
25 See 47 U.S.C. § 503(b)(2)(D), 47 C.F.R. § 1.80(b)(4); see also Behringer USA, Inc., Notice of Apparent Liability 
for Forfeiture, 21 FCC Rcd 1820, 1825 (2006), forfeiture ordered, 22 FCC Rcd. 1051 (2007) (forfeiture paid); 
Globcom, Inc. d/b/a Globcom Global Communications, Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture, 18 FCC Rcd 
19893, 19903 (2003), forfeiture ordered, 21 FCC Rcd 4710 (2006); Roadrunner Transportation, Inc., Forfeiture 
Order, 15 FCC Rcd 9669, 9671-71 (2000); Cate Communications Corp., Memorandum Opinion and Order, 60 RR 
2d 1386, 1388 (1986); Eastern Broadcasting Corp., Memorandum Opinion and Order, 10 FCC 2d 37 (1967), recon. 
den.,11 FCC 2d 193 (1967); Bureau D’Electronique Appliquee, Inc., Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture, 20 
FCC Rcd 3445, 3447-48 (Enf. Bur., Spectrum Enf. Div. 2005), forfeiture ordered, 20 FCC Rcd 17893 (Enf. Bur., 
Spectrum Enf. Div. 2005) (forfeiture paid).
26 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 (1997), recon. denied 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999).
27 47 C.F.R. § 1.80.
28 47 U.S.C. § 503(b)(2)(D).  The Commission has amended Section 1.80(b)(3) of the Rules, 47 C.F.R. § 1.80(b)(3), 
three times to increase the maximum forfeiture amounts, in accordance with the inflation adjustment requirements 
contained in the Debt Collection Improvement Act of 1996, 28 U.S.C. § 2461.  See Amendment of Section 1.80 of 
the Commission’s Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, 15 FCC Rcd 18221 (2000) 
(adjusting the maximum statutory amounts from $10,000/$75,000 to $11,000/$87,500); Amendment of Section 1.80 
of the Commission’s Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, 19 FCC Rcd 10945 (2004) 
(adjusting the maximum statutory amounts from $11,000/$87,500 to $11,000/$97,500); Amendment of Section 1.80 
of the Commission’s Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, 23 FCC Rcd 9845 (2008) 
Federal Communications Commission DA 09-1428
5
10. The record establishes that between June 2006 until July 2008, Iftron marketed a radio 
frequency device that is capable of transmitting on 2.468 GHz, a restricted frequency.  Accordingly, 
Iftron is apparently liable for a base forfeiture amount of $7,000.  
11. We find that a downward adjustment from the $7,000 base forfeiture amount is 
warranted, based on Iftron’s demonstrated good faith efforts to come into compliance prior to the 
initiation of an investigation by the Commission.29 In July 2008, Iftron discovered that the Stinger Pro 
was transmitting on a frequency that was outside of the permitted amateur radio frequencies, and in the 
same month Iftron disabled the ability of all of the Stinger Pro devices that were being sold or marketed 
in the United States to transmit on the 2.468 GHz frequency.  We do not find, however, that a further 
downward adjustment is warranted, based on Iftron’s claim that it mistakenly believed that the Stinger 
Pro conformed to Section 97.301 of the Rules.  The Commission has long held that a downward 
adjustment of forfeiture is not justified where violators claim their actions or omissions were due to 
inadvertent errors.30  
12. Based on all of the foregoing, we therefore propose a $5,600 forfeiture against Iftron for 
marketing radio frequency device that  in willful and repeated violation of Section 302(b) of the Act and 
Sections 2.803 and 15.205(a) of the Rules. 
IV.  ORDERING CLAUSES
13. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications 
Act of 1934, as amended, and Section 1.80 of the Commission’s Rules, 31 Iftron Technologies, Inc., is 
hereby NOTIFIED of this APPARENT LIABILITY FOR A FORFEITURE in the amount of five 
thousand six hundred dollars ($5,600) for marketing a radio frequency device that operates on a restricted 
frequency and therefore is not eligible to receive a grant of equipment certification in willful and repeated 
violation of Section 302(b) of the Act and Sections 2.803 and 15.205(a) of the Rules.
14. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 1.80 of the Commission’s Rules, 
within thirty days of the release date of this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture, Iftron Technologies 
Inc., SHALL PAY the full amount of the proposed forfeiture or SHALL FILE a written statement seeking 
reduction or cancellation of the proposed forfeiture.
15. Payment of the forfeiture must be made by check or similar instrument, payable to the 
order of the Federal Communications Commission.  The payment must include the NAL/Account 
Number and FRN Number referenced above.  Payment by check or money order may be mailed to 
Federal Communications Commission, P.O. Box 979088, St. Louis, MO 63197-9000.  Payment by 
overnight mail may be sent to U.S. Bank – Government Lockbox #979088, SL-MO-C2-GL, 1005 
     
(adjusting the maximum statutory amounts from $11,000/$97,500 to $16,000/$112,500).  The most recent inflation 
adjustment took effect September 2, 2008.  See 73 Fed. Reg. 44663-5.  Iftron’s apparent violations occurred prior to 
this date and therefore are subject to the old statutory forfeiture limits.
29 See e.g., Petracom of Texarkana, LLC, Forfeiture Order, 19 FCC Rcd 8096, 8097-8098 (Enf. Bur., 2004) (finding 
that a broadcast station licensee’s initiation of remedial measures to correct a violation prior to Commission 
inspection of the station was a mitigating factor warranting reduction of the forfeiture).  
30 See e.g., PJB Communications of Virginia, Inc., Memorandum Opinion and Order, 7 FCC Rcd 2088 (1992); 
Southern California, 6 FCC Rcd at 4387 (stating that “inadvertence … is at best, ignorance of the law, which the 
Commission does not consider a mitigating circumstance”).
31 47 U.S.C. § 503(b), 47 C.F.R. § 1.80.
Federal Communications Commission DA 09-1428
6
Convention Plaza, St. Louis, MO 63101.  Payment by wire transfer may be made to ABA Number 
021030004, receiving bank TREAS/NYC, and account number 27000001.  For payment by credit card, 
an FCC Form 159 (Remittance Advice) must be submitted.  When completing the FCC Form 159, enter 
the NAL/Account number in block number 23A (call sign/other ID), and enter the letters “FORF” in 
block number 24A (payment type code).  Requests for full payment under an installment plan should be 
sent to:  Chief Financial Officer -- Financial Operations, 445 12th Street, S.W., Room 1-A625, 
Washington, D.C. 20554.  Please contact the Financial Operations Group Help Desk at 1-877-480-3201 
or Email: ARINQUIRIES@fcc.gov with any questions regarding payment procedures.  Iftron will also 
send electronic notification on the date said payment is made to Sam.Peoples@fcc.gov and 
Ricardo.Durham@fcc.gov.
16. The response, if any, must be mailed to the Office of the Secretary, Federal 
Communications Commission, 445 12th Street, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20554, ATTN: Enforcement 
Bureau – Spectrum Enforcement Division, and must include the NAL/Acct. No. referenced in the caption.
17. The Commission will not consider reducing or canceling a forfeiture in response to a claim 
of inability to pay unless the petitioner submits: (1) federal tax returns for the most recent three-year period; 
(2) financial statements prepared according to generally accepted accounting practices; or (3) some other 
reliable and objective documentation that accurately reflects the petitioner’s current financial status.  Any 
claim of inability to pay must specifically identify the basis for the claim by reference to the financial 
documentation submitted.
18. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this Notice of Apparent Liability for 
Forfeiture shall be sent by Certified Mail, Return Receipt Requested, and by first class mail, to Ira 
Faberman, President, Iftron Technologies, Inc., 1895 3rd Avenue, Longmont, Colorado  80501-4763.
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
Kathryn S. Berthot
Chief, Spectrum Enforcement Division
Enforcement Bureau