Federal Communications Commission FCC 08-187
Before the
Federal Communications Commission
Washington, D.C. 20554
In the Matter of
Invision Industries, Inc. 
)
)
)
)
)
)
File No. EB-08-SE-100
NAL/Acct. No. 200832100068
FRN #  0018034611
NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE AND ORDER
Adopted:  August 14, 2008 Released:  August 18, 2008
By the Commission:  
I. INTRODUCTION
1. In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture and Order (“NAL”), we find Invision 
Industries, Inc. (“Invision”) apparently liable for a forfeiture in the amount of $324,000 for its willful and 
repeated violation of Section 15.117(i)(1)(iii) of the Commission’s Rules (“Rules”).1 These apparent 
violations involve Invision’s importation and interstate shipment, after January 30, 2008, of television 
receivers2 that do not comply with the Commission’s rules regarding digital television (“DTV”) reception 
capability.  Additionally, we find Invision apparently liable for a forfeiture in the amount of $4,000 for 
providing to the Commission, during the course of its investigation, material factual information that is 
incorrect without a reasonable basis for believing the material factual information was correct, in willful 
violation of Section 1.17(a)(2) of the Rules.3 In light of evidence that the company has continued to 
import and ship interstate television receivers in violation of our rules, we further order Invision to submit 
a report within 10 days of release of this NAL certifying that it has ceased all such unlawful conduct.
II. BACKGROUND
2. The Commission adopted the DTV reception capability requirement in 2002.4 The DTV 
reception requirement, which also is often termed the “DTV tuner requirement,”5 requires that all new 
television broadcast receivers that are imported into the United States or shipped in interstate commerce 
  
1 47 C.F.R. § 15.117(i)(1)(iii).
2 See 47 C.F.R. § 15.3(w) (defining a television broadcast receiver as “a device designed to receive television 
pictures that are broadcast simultaneously with sound on the television channels authorized under part 73 of this  
chapter”). 
3 47 C.F.R. § 1.17(a)(2).
4 Review of the Commission’s Rules and Policies Affecting the Conversion to Digital Television, Second Report and 
Order and Second Memorandum Opinion and Order, 17 FCC Rcd 15978 (2002) (“DTV Review Second Report and 
Order”).
5 DTV reception capability involves more circuitry than just a tuner.  To provide this capability requires a tuner to 
receive the digital signal, an MPEG decoder/formatter, and associated processing capability and memory.  See 
Requirements for Digital Television Receiving Capability, Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed 
Rulemaking, 20 FCC Rcd 11196 n.2 (2005) (“DTV Tuner Report and Order”).
Federal Communications Commission FCC 08-187
2
be capable of receiving over-the-air the signals of DTV broadcast stations.6 The DTV tuner requirement 
was intended to facilitate the transition to digital television by promoting the availability of DTV 
reception equipment and to protect consumers by ensuring that their television receivers will provide 
over-the-air television reception of digital signals just as they have provided over-the-air television 
reception of analog signals.7  
3. In order to minimize the impact of the DTV tuner requirement on both manufacturers and 
consumers, the Commission adopted a phase-in schedule that applied the requirement first to receivers 
with the largest screens and then to progressively smaller screen receivers and other television receiving 
devices that do not include a viewing screen, such as VCRs and DVD players.8 This phase-in plan was 
intended to allow increasing economies of scale with production volume to be realized so that DTV tuner 
costs would be lower when they are required to be included in smaller sets and other television receiving 
devices.9 As modified by the Commission in 2005,10 this phase-in schedule is as follows:  
Receivers with screen sizes 36” and above -- 50% of units imported or shipped 
interstate by responsible parties11 were required to include DTV tuners effective July 
1, 2004; 100% of such units were required to include DTV tuners effective July 1, 
2005;
Receivers with screen sizes 25” to 35” -- 50% of units imported or shipped interstate 
by responsible parties were required to include DTV tuners effective July 1, 2005; 
100% of such units were required to include DTV tuners effective March 1, 2006; 
Receivers with screen sizes less than 25” - 100% of units imported or shipped 
interstate by responsible parties were required to include DTV tuners effective March 
1, 2007; and 
  
6 DTV Review Second Report and Order, 17 FCC Rcd at 15996.  The DTV tuner requirement also applies to other 
devices such as television interface devices that do not include a viewing screen, e.g., devices such as VCRs and 
DVD players that are intended to provide audio-video signals to a video monitor with an antenna or antenna 
terminals that can be used for over-the-air television reception.  See 47 C.F.R. § 15.117(i)(1)(iv).
7 DTV Review Second Report and Order, 17 FCC Rcd at 15979.  In this latter regard, the DTV tuner requirement 
ensures that the intent of the All Channel Receiver Act of 1962 (“ACRA”), P.L. No. 87-529, 76 Stat. 150, is 
fulfilled.  The ACRA, which is codified at 47 U.S.C. § 303(s), states that the Commission shall “[h]ave authority to 
require that apparatus designed to receive television pictures broadcast simultaneously with sound be capable of 
adequately receiving all frequencies allocated by the Commission to television broadcasting ....”  See DTV Review 
Second Report and Order, 17 FCC Rcd at 15589-91.
8 Id. at 15998-99.
9 Id.
10 In June 2005, the Commission modified the rules to advance the date on which 100% of new television receivers 
with screen sizes 25-36” that are imported or shipped interstate must include DTV tuners from July 1, 2006 to 
March 1, 2006.  DTV Tuner Report and Order, 20 FCC Rcd at 11203.  Subsequently, in November 2005, the 
Commission modified the rules to advance the date on which 100% of new television receivers with screen sizes 13-
24” and certain other television receiving devices such as VCRs and digital video recorders that are imported or 
shipped interstate must include DTV tuners from July 1, 2007 to March 1, 2007.  See Requirements for Digital 
Television Receiving Capability, Second Report and Order, 20 FCC Rcd 18607, 18614-16 (2005) (“DTV Tuner 
Second Report and Order”).
11 The DTV tuner requirement applies to “responsible parties,” as defined in Section 2.909 of the Rules, 47 C.F.R. § 
2.909.  Under Section 2.909(b), the party responsible for equipment such as television receivers that are subject to 
our “verification” equipment authorization procedure is the manufacturer or, in the case of imported equipment, the 
importer.  If subsequent to manufacture and importation, the equipment is modified by any party not working under
the authority of the responsible party, the party performing the modification becomes the new responsible party.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 08-187
3
Other video devices (videocassette recorders (VCRs), digital video recorders such as 
hard drive and DVD recorders, etc.) that receive television signals - 100% of units 
imported or shipped interstate by responsible parties were required to include DTV 
tuners effective March 1, 2007.
4. The Commission’s 2005 DTV Tuner Second Report and Order also amended the rules to 
apply the DTV tuner requirement to new receivers with screen sizes smaller than 13” on this same 
schedule (i.e., March 1, 2007).12  Although the Commission adopted this requirement for receivers with 
screen sizes smaller than 13” through the appropriate notice and comment procedures, and modified the 
rules to show March 1, 2007, as the accelerated deadline, the Commission inadvertently failed to delete 
the exception in Section 15.117(i)(2) for “units with integrated tuners/displays that have screen sizes 
measuring less than 7.8 inches vertically, i.e., the vertical measurement of a screen in the 4:3 aspect ratio 
that measures 13’ [sic] diagonally across the picture viewing area.”  The Commission subsequently 
corrected Section 15.117(i)(2) by striking the inappropriate language,13 and the DTV tuner requirements 
for receivers with screen sizes smaller than 13” became effective on January 30, 2008.14
5. Invision is a retailer headquartered in Kissimmee, Florida that sells rear seat 
entertainment accessories to the automotive industry.  Among the devices marketed by the company are 
monitors and television broadcast receivers with screen sizes less than 13” measured diagonally.  A 
consumer wishing to purchase equipment marketed by Invision can do so only by placing an order 
through an automotive dealership.  Invision imports the devices from a foreign manufacturer and ships 
them to automotive dealers.  The equipment is then integrated into the vehicle by the dealer.
6. In February 2008, Enforcement Bureau (“Bureau”) staff visited the Invision web site and 
observed that Invision was marketing television broadcast receivers that apparently did not comply with 
the DTV tuner requirements.  Specifically, the Bureau observed the following models displayed on 
Invision’s web site:  (1) Revolution III (7” screen); (2) Revolution II (7” screen); (3) Revolution IIG (7” 
screen); (4) SL (7” or 8” screen); (5) G10 (10.2” screen); (6) G9 (9” screen); and (7) Camry Center 
Console (7” screen).  The Bureau issued a letter of inquiry (“LOI”) to Invision on March 4, 2008 
regarding the importation and interstate shipment of these devices.15 Invision filed a response to the LOI 
on April 18, 2008,16 and in response to staff’s request for clarification, an Amended Response on May 12, 
2008.17
7. In its LOI Response, Invision stated that two of its models -- G10 and G9 -- contained a 
“built-in TV tuner” but did not state whether these models were equipped with DTV tuners.18 The LOI 
  
12 DTV Tuner Second Report and Order, 20 FCC Rcd at 18614-16.
13 See Third Periodic Review of the Commission’s Rules and Policies Affecting the Conversion to Digital Television, 
Report and Order, 23 FCC Rcd 2994, 3081 (2007).
14 See Third Periodic Review of the Commission’s Rules and Policies Affecting the Conversion to Digital Television, 
Final Rule, 73 Fed. Reg. 5634 (Jan. 30, 2008).
15 See Letter from Kathryn S. Berthot, Chief, Spectrum Enforcement Division, Enforcement Bureau, Federal 
Communications Commission, to Chris Vitito, Director, Invision, Inc. (March 4, 2008) (“LOI”). 
16 See Letter from Heather McLeod, Vice President of Marketing, Invision Industries, to Kevin M. Pittman, 
Spectrum Enforcement Division, Enforcement Bureau, Federal Communications Commission (April 18, 2008) 
(“LOI Response”).
17 See Heather McLeod, Vice President of Marketing, Invision Industries, to Kevin M. Pittman, Spectrum 
Enforcement Division, Enforcement Bureau, Federal Communications Commission (May 12, 2008) (“Amended 
Response”).
18 LOI Response at 1.  Invision stated that the other five models did not include television tuners.  Id.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 08-187
4
Response further stated that for these models, since January 30, 2008, twelve units had been shipped 
interstate and zero units had been imported.19
8. After the Bureau contacted Invision for clarification on another issue in its LOI response, 
Invision clarified, in its Amended Response, that the G10 and G9 models were not equipped with DTV 
tuners and provided further information concerning two additional models -- the G8 (10.2” screen) and 
the G7 (10.4” screen) -- that contained television receivers that were not equipped with DTV tuners.20  
Invision stated that 4,115 units of the G10 and G9 units and 0 units of the G8 and G7 models were 
manufactured by its foreign manufacturer between January 2008 and April 30, 2008.21 Invision further 
stated that it imported a total of 4,115 units and that it shipped interstate 2,968 units of the four subject 
models between January 30, 2008 and April 30, 2008.22
9. Invision asserted its belief that the non-DTV-compliant television receivers may lawfully 
be imported and shipped because the devices are “parts” specifically designed for use in the automotive 
industry.23 Invision further submitted that the television reception capability of the devices is an option 
“that is, rarely, if ever utilized for its intended purpose.”24 Thus, it is Invision’s belief that the devices are 
not subject to the DTV tuner requirements.25
III. DISCUSSION
A. Failure to Comply with DTV Tuner Requirement
10. We conclude that Invision apparently willfully26 and repeatedly27 imported and shipped 
in interstate commerce television receivers that do not comply with the DTV tuner requirement in 
violation of Section 15.117(i)(1)(iii).  Invision admits that, after January 30, 2008, it imported 4,115 and 
shipped interstate 2,968 television broadcast receivers that were not equipped with DTV tuners.
11. We reject Invision’s argument that the DTV tuner requirement does not apply to the sale 
of television receivers designed specifically for the automotive industry.  The DTV tuner requirement is 
clearly not limited to receivers produced for any particular segment of American commerce and provides 
  
19 Id.
20 See Amended Response at 1.
21 Id.
22 Id. Invision stated that it shipped interstate 3,294 units but that 326 of these units were returned to its facility.  Id.  
23 Id.
24 Id. at 2.
25 Id.
26 Section 312(f)(1) of the Act defines “willful” as “the conscious and deliberate commission or omission of [any] 
act, irrespective of any intent to violate” the law.  47 U.S.C. § 312(f)(1).  The legislative history of Section 312(f)(1) 
of the Act clarifies that this definition of willful applies to both Sections 312 and 503(b) of the Act, H.R. Rep. No.
97-765, 97th Cong. 2d Sess. 51 (1982), and the Commission has so interpreted the term in the Section 503(b) 
context.  See Southern California Broadcasting Co., Memorandum Opinion and Order, 6 FCC Rcd 4387, 4388 
(1991), recon. denied, 7 FCC Rcd 3454 (1992) (“Southern California”).  
27 Section 312(f)(2) of the Act, which also applies to forfeitures assessed pursuant to Section 503(b) 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 Callais Cablevision, 
Inc., Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture, 16 FCC Rcd 1359, 1362 (2001); Southern California, 6 FCC Rcd 
at 4388.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 08-187
5
no exception for the possibility of incidental use of the television tuning function.28 In analogous 
situations, the Commission has rejected arguments that the DTV tuner requirement does not apply to 
television receivers that are part of a specialized video system distributed for use in the health care 
industry29 and to television receivers that are used primarily as monitors.30 In rejecting these arguments, 
the Commission noted that the DTV tuner requirement does not exclude television receivers used as 
monitors, that it was likely these devices would be used as television receivers at some point, and 
therefore, we would not assume that owners of these devices would never attempt to use them to receive 
over-the-air broadcasts.31 Similarly, no exception to the DTV tuner requirements exists for units like 
those at issue here simply because they are sold for use in cars and might not be used to receive over-the-
air broadcasts by the consumer.  The rule applies to all receivers imported into the United States or 
shipped interstate that are capable of receiving over-the-air television broadcast signals.  Accordingly, the 
rule covers the Invision devices and the company is subject to enforcement for violating the rule.
B. Provision of Incorrect Material Information to the Commission
12. Section 1.17(a)(2) of the Rules provides that no person may provide, in any written 
statement of fact, “material factual information that is incorrect or omit material information that is 
necessary to prevent any material factual statement that is made from being incorrect or misleading 
without a reasonable basis for believing that any such material factual statement is correct and not 
misleading.”32 Any person who has received a letter of inquiry from the Commission or its staff or is 
otherwise the subject of a Commission investigation is subject to this rule.33 In expanding the scope of 
Section 1.17 in 2003 to include written statements that are made without a reasonable basis for believing 
the statement is correct and not misleading, the Commission explained that this requirement was intended 
to more clearly articulate the obligations of persons dealing with the Commission, ensure that they 
exercise due diligence in preparing written submissions, and enhance the effectiveness of the 
Commission’s enforcement efforts.34 Thus, even absent an intent to deceive, a false statement may 
constitute an actionable violation of Section 1.17 of the Rules if it is provided without a reasonable basis 
for believing that the statement is correct and not misleading.35
  
28 Under our rules, “[a]ll TV broadcast receivers shipped in interstate commerce or imported into the United States, 
for sale or resale to the public, shall comply” with the regulations set forth by the Commission.  See 47 C.F.R. § 
15.117(a).  
29 See Requirements for Digital Television Receiving Capability, Order, 21 FCC Rcd 9478, 9479-80 (2006) (“PDI 
Order”).
30 See Precor, Inc., Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture, 23 FCC Rcd 6361, 6369 (2008) (forfeiture paid) 
(proposing a forfeiture for violation of DTV tuner requirement where “personal viewing screens” sold to fitness 
facilities were designed to be used in a closed circuit video system) (“Precor NAL”); Regent U.S.A., Inc., Notice of 
Apparent Liability for Forfeiture, 22 FCC Rcd 10520, 10526 (2007) (forfeiture paid) (proposing a forfeiture for 
violation of DTV tuner requirement where devices were used primarily as monitors by commercial customers) 
(“Regent NAL”); see also 47 C.F.R. § 15.3(w).
31 See Precor NAL, 23 FCC Rcd at 6369; Regent NAL, 22 FCC Rcd at 10526; see also PDI Order, 21 FCC Rcd at 
9480.
32 47 C.F.R. § 1.17(a)(2).
33 47 C.F.R. § 1.17(b)(4).
34 In the Matter of Amendment of Section 1.17 of the Commission’s Rules Concerning Truthful Statements to the 
Commission, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 4016, 4016-4017, 4021 (2003), recon. denied, Memorandum Opinion 
and Order, 19 FCC Rcd 5790, further recon. denied, Memorandum Opinion and Order, 20 FCC Rcd 1250 (2004).
35 See In the Matter of Amendment of Section 1.17 of the Commission’s Rules Concerning Truthful Statements to the 
Commission, 18 FCC Rcd at 4017 (stating that the revision to Section 1.17 is intended to “prohibit incorrect 
statements of omissions that are the results of negligence, as well as an intent to deceive”).
Federal Communications Commission FCC 08-187
6
13. As noted above, Invision stated in its LOI response that it had imported zero units and 
shipped interstate twelve units of the G10 and G9 models between January 30, 2008 and April 15, 2008.36  
In its Amended Response, however, which was submitted only after Bureau staff contacted Invision to 
clarify another statement provided in its LOI Response, Invision stated that it had imported 4,115 units 
and shipped interstate 2,928 units between January 30, 2008 and April 30, 2008.37 Invision did not 
proffer any explanation in its Amended Response for its submission of incorrect information in its earlier 
LOI Response.  
14. As we have stated, parties must “use due diligence in providing information that is correct 
and not misleading to the Commission, including taking appropriate affirmative steps to determine the 
truthfulness of what is being submitted.  A failure to exercise such reasonable diligence would mean that 
the party did not have a reasonable basis for believing in the truthfulness of the information.”38 Though 
provided ample time to compile a very limited amount of data from its business records, Invision 
inexplicably provided the Commission with grossly inaccurate information.39 We think that, had it 
exercised even minimal diligence prior to the submission of its initial LOI Response, Invision would not 
have submitted the incorrect and misleading material factual information that it submitted in its LOI 
response.40 We conclude, therefore, that Invision apparently lacked a reasonable basis for its belief that 
its LOI Response was correct and not misleading in violation of Section 1.17(a)(2) of the Rules.
C. Proposed Forfeiture
15. Under Section 503(b)(1)(B) of the Act, any person who is determined by the Commission 
to have willfully or repeatedly failed to comply with any provision of the Act or any rule, regulation, or 
  
36 LOI Response at 1; see also paragraph 7, supra.  Invision provided this information in response to question 1(b) 
of the LOI, which stated “State the total number of receivers imported into the United States (“these receivers”) and 
the dates of importation,” and question 1(d) of the LOI, which stated “State the total number of these receivers that 
were shipped interstate.”  LOI at 2.
37 Amended Response at 1.  Invision did not provide a specific breakdown, for each model, of the number of units 
imported, as directed in the LOI.  Nevertheless, based on Invision’s statement that 4,115 units of the G10 and G9 
models and zero units of the G8 and G7 models were manufactured between January 30, 2008 and April 30, 2008, it 
appears that most, if not all, of the 4,115 units imported during this period were units of the G10 and G9 models.  
Invision also failed to provide a specific breakdown, for each model, of the number of units shipped interstate, as 
directed in the LOI.  Based on the attachment submitted with Invision’s Amended Response, however, it appears 
that, although some units of the G8 and G7 models may have been shipped interstate between January 30, 2008 and 
April 30, 2008, the bulk of the 2,968 units shipped interstate during this period were units of the G10 and G9 
models.  Id. at Attachment.  Invision’s disregard for our LOI instructions by itself is a violation of a Commission 
order and therefore subject to enforcement action, see SBC Communications, Inc., Forfeiture Order, 17 FCC Rcd 
7589 (2002) (“SBC Communications”).  Based on the totality of the circumstances, including the fact that we are 
already proposing a forfeiture related to Invision’s LOI response, however, we will exercise our prosecutorial 
discretion here and not propose an additional penalty.
38 Amendment of Section 1.17, 18 FCC Rcd at 4021.
39 The Bureau afforded Invision a total of six weeks’ time in which to compile information for its LOI Response 
regarding its interstate shipping and importation of seven models of television receivers.  We note that an importer is 
expected to have ready access to such information in its records.
40 See, e.g., In re Applications of Citicasters License, L.P., et al., Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of 
Apparent Liability, 22 FCC Rcd 19324, 19338 (2007) (forfeiture paid) (finding that a licensee’s false certification 
that it had not violated the Act or any Commission rules during the preceding license term had no reasonable basis 
but was not made with the intent to deceive Commission and, therefore, violated Section 1.17(a)(2) of the rules) 
(“Citicasters”).  As stated above, in its Amended Response, Invision proffered no explanation for the incorrect 
information it provided.  Thus, Invision has not articulated a reasonable basis for its belief that the import and 
interstate shipment data in its LOI Response were correct, nor has it provided any reason for its provision of 
incorrect or misleading information.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 08-187
7
order issued by the Commission shall be liable to the United States for a forfeiture penalty.41 To impose 
such a forfeiture penalty, the Commission must issue a notice of apparent liability and the person against 
whom such notice has been issued must have an opportunity to show, in writing, why no such forfeiture 
penalty should be imposed.42 The Commission will then issue a forfeiture if it finds by a preponderance 
of the evidence that the person has violated the Act or a Commission rule.43 Based on the analysis set 
forth below, we conclude that Invision is apparently liable for a forfeiture in the amount of $324,000 for 
its willful and repeated violation of Section 15.117(i)(1)(iii) of the Rules and a forfeiture in the amount of 
$4,000 for its willful violation of Section 1.17(a)(2), for a total proposed forfeiture of $328,000.
16. Under Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act,44 we may assess an entity that is neither a 
common carrier, broadcast licensee or cable operator a forfeiture of up to $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.  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.”45
17. The Commission’s Forfeiture Policy Statement46 and Section 1.80 of the Rules do not 
establish a specific base forfeiture for violation of the DTV tuner requirement.  The Commission has 
substantial discretion, however, in proposing forfeitures.47 We may apply the base forfeiture amounts 
described in the Forfeiture Policy Statement and our rules, or we may depart from them altogether as the 
circumstances demand.48  
18. The DTV tuner requirement promotes the important public policy goal of helping to 
speed the transition to digital television, and we therefore have found violations of this requirement to be 
more egregious, in general, than many other types of equipment marketing cases that come before us.49  
DTV receivers are a necessary element of digital broadcast television service.  Consumers must have the 
  
41 47 U.S.C. § 503(b)(1)(B); 47 C.F.R. § 1.80(a)(1).  
42 47 U.S.C. § 503(b); 47 C.F.R. § 1.80(f). 
43 See, e.g., SBC Communications, 17 FCC Rcd at 7591. 
44 47 U.S.C. § 503(b)(2)(D).  The Commission twice amended Section 1.80(b)(3) of the Rules, 47 C.F.R. § 
1.80(b)(3), 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, Order, 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, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 10945 
(2004) (adjusting the maximum statutory amounts from $11,000/$87,500 to $11,000/$97,500).
45 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.
46 See 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, 17115 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 
(1999) (“Forfeiture Policy Statement”).
47 See, e.g., InPhonic, Inc., Order of Forfeiture and Further Notice of Apparent Liability, 22 FCC Rcd 8689, 8699 
(2007); Globcom, Inc. d/b/a Globcom Global Commun., Order of Forfeiture, 21 FCC Rcd 4710, 4723-24 (2006).  
48 See 47 C.F.R. §1.80(b)(4) (“The Commission and its staff may use these guidelines in particular cases [, and] 
retain the discretion to issue a higher or lower forfeiture than provided in the guidelines, to issue no forfeiture at all, 
or to apply alternative or additional sanctions as permitted by the statute.”) (emphasis added).  
49 Syntax-Brillian Corporation, Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture, 22 FCC Rcd 10530, 10535 (2007), 
forfeiture ordered, 23 FCC Rcd 6323 (2008) (“Syntax-Brillian NAL”); Regent NAL, 22 FCC Rcd 10520 (2007). 
Federal Communications Commission FCC 08-187
8
capability to receive DTV signals for the DTV transition to move forward to successful completion.50  
The DTV tuner requirement is intended to protect consumers by ensuring that their TV receivers will 
provide over-the-air TV reception of digital signals when analog TV operation ceases.51 Thus, we have 
concluded that applying a proposed forfeiture on a per model basis, as we have in other more routine 
equipment marketing cases, would result in forfeiture amounts that are not commensurate with the 
seriousness of the violation.52  
19. In the Syntax-Brillian NAL and the Regent NAL, we determined that, in cases involving 
the interstate shipping or importation of television receivers that did not comply with the DTV tuner 
requirements, we will propose a forfeiture based on each unit shipped or imported within the statute of 
limitations, regardless of the number of models shipped or imported.53 This approach, we noted, “gets to 
the root of the apparent violation – non-compliant televisions in the hands of American consumers.”54  
Furthermore, to reflect the increasing seriousness of the violation as the number of non-compliant units 
shipped or imported rises, we concluded that we would propose forfeitures on a tier-by-tier basis, 
applying an escalating per-unit forfeiture amount separately to each successive tier.55  
20. In Syntax-Brillian and Regent, we applied the following tiers and per-unit penalties for 
violation of our DTV tuner requirements: 
0-1000 units:  $50 per unit
1001-2500 units:  $75 per unit
2501-5000 units:  $100 per unit
5001-10,000 units:  $125 per unit
10,001-20,000 units:  $150 per unit
20,001-30,000 units:  $175 per unit
30,001-40,000 units:  $200 per unit
40,001-50,000 units:  $225 per unit
50,001+ units:  $250 per unit.56
Consistent with Syntax-Brillian and Regent, we will use the tier-by-tier, per-unit methodology articulated 
in those NALs to assess the forfeiture here.
21. In the Precor NAL, we noted that the DTV tuner requirement imposes two distinct 
prohibitions on responsible parties:  it prohibits both the importation and the interstate shipment of 
television receivers that do not contain digital tuners.57 We found, however, that treating the importation 
and subsequent interstate shipment of the same television receiver as two separate violations is not 
  
50 See DTV Tuner Report and Order, 20 FCC Rcd at 11199; DTV Tuner Second Report and Order, 20 FCC Rcd at 
18608.
51 See id.
52 Syntax-Brillian NAL, 22 FCC Rcd at 10535-36 (concluding that applying a proposed forfeiture on a per-model basis 
for shipment of television receivers that were not compliant with the DTV tuner mandate would result in forfeiture 
amounts incommensurate with the seriousness of the violations); Regent NAL, 22 FCC Rcd at 10525-26 (same).
53 Id.
54 Syntax-Brillian NAL, 22 FCC Rcd at 10535; Regent NAL, 22 FCC Rcd at 10525.
55 Syntax-Brillian NAL, 22 FCC Rcd at 10535-36; Regent NAL, 22 FCC Rcd at 10525-26.  
56 Syntax-Brillian NAL, 22 FCC Rcd at 10535; Regent NAL, 22 FCC Rcd at 10525.
57 Precor NAL, 23 FCC Rcd at 6367.  
Federal Communications Commission FCC 08-187
9
warranted.58 Given that the DTV tuner rule is meant to ensure that all television receiving devices are 
equipped with a digital tuner, we concluded that the purpose of the rule will best be served by treating the 
importation and subsequent interstate shipment of the same receiver as a single violation.59 We 
determined, therefore, that in future forfeiture actions taken for violations of the DTV tuner requirement, 
we would assess the facts of each case in determining how best to enforce the requirements of Section 
15.117.60 In this case, we propose a forfeiture only for those non-compliant television receivers that 
Invision imported after the January 30, 2008 deadline for television receivers with screen sizes less than 
13 inches.
22. Based on the record in this case, Invision’s violations merit a significant proposed 
forfeiture.  The unlawful importation was substantial in terms of the number of non-DTV compliant units 
-- more than 4,000 -- between the January 30, 2008 deadline and Invision’s May 12, 2008 Amended 
Response.  Moreover, many of these units were imported after receipt of our LOI, which provided the 
company with explicit and individualized notice of the regulation over and above its publication in the 
Federal Register.  
23. Invision imported 4,115 non-DTV-compliant television receivers between January 30, 
2008 and April 30, 2008.  Applying the forfeiture calculation methodology outlined above results in a 
proposed forfeiture of $324,000 for Invision’s willful and repeated importation and interstate shipment of 
television receivers that do not comply with the DTV tuner requirement in violation of Section 
15.117(i)(1)(iii) of the Rules.61
24. Pursuant to the Commission’s Forfeiture Policy Statement and Section 1.80(b)(4) of the 
Rules, the base forfeiture amount for misrepresentation or lack of candor is the statutory maximum,62 or, 
in this case, $11,000.63 In determining the appropriate forfeiture amount, we may adjust the base amount 
upward or downward by considering the factors enumerated in Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act, including 
“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.”64  
25. Considering all of the enumerated factors and the particular circumstances of this case, 
we find that forfeiture of $4,000 is warranted here for Invision’s apparent willful violation of Section 
1.17(a)(2).  The Commission has stated that “[we rely] heavily on the truthfulness and accuracy of the 
information provided to us.  If information submitted to us is incorrect, we cannot properly carry out our 
  
58 Id.
59 Id.
60 Id.
61 We derived this amount as follows:  (1000 units * $50/unit) + (1500 units * $75/unit) + (1615 units * $100/unit) = 
$324,000.
62 See Forfeiture Policy Statement, 12 FCC Rcd at 17113; 47 C.F.R. § 1.80(b)(4), Note to Paragraph (b)(4): Section 
I. Base Amounts for Section 503 Forfeitures.
63 See 47 U.S.C. § 503(b)(2)(D) (setting forth the statutory maximum forfeiture for entities other than broadcasters 
and common carriers). See also Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules and Adjustment of Forfeiture 
Maxima to Reflect Inflation, Order, 19 FCC Rcd 10945 (2004) (adjusting the maximum forfeiture amounts for 
entities other than broadcasters and common carriers to $11,000/$97,500).  See also Syntax-Brillian Forfeiture 
Order, 23 FCC Rcd at 6343; Citicasters, 22 FCC Rcd at 19339 (both using the base forfeiture amount for 
misrepresentation/lack of candor as the base forfeiture for violation of Section 1.17 of the rules).  
64 See Forfeiture Policy Statement, 12 FCC Rcd at 17100; 47 C.F.R. § 1.80(b)(4).  
Federal Communications Commission FCC 08-187
10
statutory responsibilities.”65 Invision’s failure to exercise due diligence to ensure that the information 
provided in its LOI Response was correct and not misleading hampered our ability to properly carry out 
our statutory responsibilities. Although Invision provided the correct information, against its interest, in a 
relatively timely manner and prior to any formal Commission action, it did so only after the Bureau 
contacted the company for clarification of another issue in its LOI Response and ultimately requested that 
Invision submit an amended response.  Nevertheless, given that Invision disclosed the full scope of its 
apparent violations in a timely manner without a specific request from the Bureau , we find that a 
significant downward adjustment to the base forfeiture amount is warranted.  Based on all of the above 
circumstances, we find that a $4,000 forfeiture is appropriate for Invision’s apparent willful violation of 
Section 1.17(a)(2).
26. Finally, we note that Invision is apparently continuing to market non-DTV-compliant 
television broadcast receivers.  On July 15, 2008, Bureau staff again observed that the company was 
marketing on its website the same non-DTV-compliant television receivers that were earlier observed.  
We strongly caution Invision that any continued importation and interstate shipment of these receivers 
will subject it to additional and potentially much higher forfeiture penalties.  We direct Invision to submit 
a report within 10 days of the release of this NAL certifying that it has ceased all unlawful importation and 
interstate shipment of non-DTV-compliant television receivers.
IV. ORDERING CLAUSES
27. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Act, and Section 
1.80 of the Rules, Invision Industries, Incorporated is NOTIFIED of its APPARENT LIABILITY FOR 
A FORFEITURE in the amount of three hundred twenty-four thousand dollars ($324,000) for willful 
and repeated violation of Section 15.117(i)(1)(iii) and four thousand dollars ($4,000) for willful violation 
of Section 1.17(a)(2), for a total proposed forfeiture of three hundred and twenty-eight thousand dollars 
($328,000).
28. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 1.80 of the Rules, within thirty 
days of the release date of this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture, Invision Incorporated SHALL 
PAY the full amount of the proposed forfeiture or SHALL FILE a written statement seeking reduction or 
cancellation of the proposed forfeiture.
29. 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 
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.  Invision will also 
send electronic notification on the date said payment is made to JoAnn Lucanik at 
JoAnnLucanik@fcc.gov and to Kevin M. Pittman at Kevin.Pittman@fcc.gov. 
  
65 In the Matter of Amendment of Section 1.17 of the Commission’s Rules Concerning Truthful Statements to the 
Commission, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 17 FCC Rcd 3296, 3297 (2002).
Federal Communications Commission FCC 08-187
11
30. 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.
31. 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.
32. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Invision IS hereby DIRECTED to submit the report 
described in paragraph 26 within 10 days of the release of this NAL.
33. 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 Heather McLeod, 
Invision Industries, Incorporated, 1170 Celebration Boulevard, Suite 100, Kissimmee, FL 34747.
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
Marlene H. Dortch
Secretary