Click here for Adobe Acrobat version
Click here for Microsoft Word 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.

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



                         Before the
              Federal Communications Commission
                   Washington, D.C. 20554


In the Matter of                  )
                                 )   File No. EB-04-SE-349
Shenzhen  Ruidian  Communication  )   NAL/Acct. No. 200632100003
Co. Ltd.                          )   FRN # 0011287802
Shenzhen, China                   )



         NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE


Adopted:  November 25, 2005             Released:   November 
29, 2005

By  the Chief,  Spectrum  Enforcement Division,  Enforcement 
Bureau:

 I.         INTRODUCTION

     1.   In this Notice of Apparent Liability for 
Forfeiture, we find Shenzhen Ruidian Communication Co. Ltd. 
(``Shenzhen Ruidian Communication'') apparently violated a 
Commission order by willfully and repeatedly failing to 
respond to a directive of the Enforcement Bureau 
(``Bureau'') to provide certain information and documents.  
Based on our review of the facts and circumstances of this 
case, and for the reasons discussed below, we find that 
Shenzhen Ruidian Communication is apparently liable for a 
monetary forfeiture in the amount of four thousand dollars 
($4,000). 

 II.         BACKGROUND

     2.   In November 2004, the Bureau received a complaint 
from Global Link Corporation Limited (``Global Link'') 
alleging that an unidentified manufacturer based in China 
was marketing the Freetalker two-way radio wrist watch in 
the United States using an FCC Identifier1 granted to Global 
Link for a similar two-way radio device.  Subsequent 
investigation by the Bureau revealed that the Freetalker, a 
Family Radio Service/General Mobile Radio Service 22-channel 
two-way radio, had been marketed on at least one U.S.-based 
website since September 2003.2  

     3.   In February 2005, the Bureau received additional 
information and documentation concerning this matter from a 
company that holds the patent rights to the two-way radio 
device manufactured by Global Link.  Specifically, this 
company indicated that Shenzhen Ruidian Communication was 
the manufacturer of the Freetalker two-way radio and 
provided photographs of the Freetalker device labeled with 
the FCC Identifier granted to Global Link.

     4.   A search of the Commission's equipment 
authorization database revealed that Shenzhen Ruidian 
Communication was granted an equipment certification for a 
Family Radio Service/General Mobile Radio Service two-way 
radio wrist watch on September 3, 2004, at least a year 
after the Freetalker was first marketed in the United 
States.3  The Bureau subsequently began an investigation to 
determine whether Shenzhen Ruidian Communication had 
marketed the Freetalker two-way radio in the United States 
prior to obtaining an equipment certification in violation 
of Section 302(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as 
amended (``Act''), and Section 2.803(a) of the Rules, and 
whether Shenzhen Ruidian Communication marketed the 
Freetalker labeled with Global Link's FCC Identifier.  On 
March 10, 2005, the Bureau sent a letter of inquiry to 
Shenzhen Ruidian Communication via international certified 
mail, return receipt requested, facsimile and email.4  The 
letter directed Shenzhen Ruidian Communication to submit a 
response to the letter within 20 days.  Shenzhen Ruidian 
Communication did not respond to this letter of inquiry.

     5.   On June 9, 2005, the Bureau sent a follow-up 
letter to Shenzhen Ruidian Communication via Federal Express 
and via facsimile.  This follow-up letter directed Shenzhen 
Ruidian Communication to respond to the March 10, 2005 
letter of inquiry within 15 days and warned that failure to 
respond would constitute a violation of a Commission order, 
subjecting it to possible enforcement action, including 
monetary forfeitures.  The Federal Express delivery tracking 
system indicates that the follow-up letter was received by 
Shenzhen Ruidian Communication on June 13, 2005.  To date, 
the Bureau has not received any response from Shenzhen 
Ruidian Communication.

 III.     DISCUSSION

     6.       Under Section 503(b)(1) of the Act and Section 
1.80(a) of the Rules, 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 
order issued by the Commission shall be liable to the United 
States for a forfeiture penalty.5  In exercising our 
forfeiture 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.''6

     7.   Sections 4(i), 4(j), and 403 of the Act afford the 
Commission broad authority to investigate the entities it 
regulates.  Section 4(i) authorizes the Commission to 
``issue such orders, not inconsistent with this Act, as may 
be necessary in the execution of its functions,'' and 
section 4(j) states that ``the Commission may conduct its 
proceedings in such manner as will best conduce to the 
proper dispatch business and to the ends of justice.''  
Section 403 likewise grants the Commission ``full authority 
and power to institute and inquiry, on its own 
motion...relating to the enforcement of any of the 
provisions of this Act.''7  Pursuant to that authority, the 
Bureau twice ordered Shenzhen Ruidian Communication to 
submit a timely written response to its inquiry letter and 
to provide the information and documents requested.  To 
date, however, Shenzhen Ruidian Communication has not filed 
the required response.  A party cannot ignore the directives 
in a Bureau inquiry letter.8  We therefore conclude that 
Shenzhen Ruidian Communication apparently willfully and 
repeatedly failed to respond to a Bureau order.  

     8.       Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy 
Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to 
Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines (``Forfeiture Policy 
Statement'')9 and Section 1.80 of the Rules,10 the base 
forfeiture amount for failure to respond to a Commission 
communication is $4,000.  We find that Shenzhen Ruidian 
Communication's willful and repeated failure to respond to a 
Bureau order warrants a proposed forfeiture.  Misconduct of 
this type exhibits a disregard for the Commission's 
authority that cannot be tolerated, and, more importantly, 
threatens to compromise the Commission's ability to 
adequately investigate violations of its rules.  
Accordingly, applying the Forfeiture Policy Statement and 
statutory factors to the instant case, we conclude that 
Shenzhen Ruidian Communication is apparently liable for a 
$4,000 forfeiture.  

     9.       We also direct Shenzhen Ruidian Communication 
to respond fully to the March 10, 2005, LOI within thirty 
days of the release of this order.  Failure to do so may 
constitute an additional violation potentially subjecting 
Shenzhen Ruidian Communication to further penalties, 
including potentially higher monetary forfeitures.

 IV.  ORDERING CLAUSES

     10.       Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to 
Section 503(b) of the Act and Section 1.80 of the Rules, 
Shenzhen Ruidian Communication IS hereby NOTIFIED of its 
APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE in the amount of  Four 
Thousand Dollars ($4,000) for willfully and repeatedly 
failing to fully respond in writing to a Bureau order.

     11.      IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT, pursuant to 
Section 1.80 of the Rules, within thirty (30) days of the 
release of this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture, 
Shenzhen Ruidian Communication SHALL PAY the full amount of 
the proposed forfeiture or SHALL FILE a written statement 
seeking reduction or cancellation of the proposed 
forfeiture.

     12.     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/Acct. No. and FRN No. referenced above. Payment 
bycheck or money order may be mailed to Federal 
Communications Commission, P.O. Box358340,Pittsburgh, PA 
15251-8340. Payment by overnight mail may be sent toMellon 
Bank/LB358340,500 Ross Street, Room 1540670, Pittsburgh, 
PA 15251. Payment by wire transfer may be made to ABA 
Number043000261, receiving bankMellon Bank, and account 
number911-6106.

     13.     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.

     14.     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; 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.

     15.      Requests for payment of the full amount of the 
NAL under an installment plan should be sent to:  Associate 
Managing Director - Financial Operations, 445 12th Street, 
S.W., Room 1A625, Washington, D.C. 20554.11

     16.       IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, that pursuant to 
Section 403 of the Act, Shenzhen Ruidian Communication shall 
fully respond to the March 10, 2005, Letter of Inquiry sent 
by the Enforcement Bureau within 30 days of the release of 
this Order.


     17.       IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this 
Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture shall be sent by 
FedEx International Airbill to Shenzhen Ruidian 
Communication Co. Ltd., Linda Zhou, President, 3/F No. 1, 
Linyuan east Rd., Shangmeilin, Shenzhen, China  518049.

 

                         FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

                         


                         Joseph P. Casey
                                                                 
Chief, Spectrum Enforcement Division
                                                                 
Enforcement Bureau












_________________________

1FCC Identifier # QL2FRSFW13.  Pursuant to Section 2.925 of 
the Commission's Rules (``Rules''), 47 C.F.R.  2.925, each 
radio frequency  device that receives a  grant of equipment 
certification from  the Commission  must be labeled  with a 
unique FCC Identifier.  

2Specifically,  the Bureau  found that  the Freetalker  was 
marketed  on  the   www.alibaba.com  website  beginning  in 
September 2003.   

3FCC Identifier # SDOFRSD018.   See supra n. 2. 

4Letter  from  Kathryn   Berthot,  Deputy  Chief,  Spectrum 
Enforcement  Division, Enforcement  Bureau, to  Linda Zhou, 
President, Shenzhen Ruidian  Communications Co. Ltd. (March 
10, 2005).

547  U.S.C.   503(b)(1)(B); 47  C.F.R.   1.80(a)(1).  See 
also  47  U.S.C.   312(f)(1).  Section  312(f)(1)  defines 
willful  as ``the  conscious and  deliberate commission  or 
omission  of  [any]  act,  irrespective of  any  intent  to 
violate'' the  law.  Consistent with  congressional intent, 
the  Commission  has   interpreted  willful  in  forfeiture 
proceedings to mean actions or omissions that are committed 
knowingly (i.e, that a violator  intended to commit the act 
or omission  that was  found to  have violated  a statutory 
and/or  regulatory   provision)   See  also  47   U.S.C.   
503(b)(1)(D)  (forfeitures for  violation  of  14 U.S.C.   
1464).   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 to 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,  e.g., Application  for  Review  of 
Southern California Broadcasting Co.,  6 FCC Rcd 4387, 4388 
(1991)  (``Southern  California Broadcasting  Co.'').   The 
Commission may also assess a forfeiture for violations that 
are merely  repeated, and not willful.   See, e.g., Callais 
Cablevision, Inc., 16 FCC Rcd 1359 (2001) (issuing a Notice 
of Apparent  Liability for, inter alia,  a cable television 
operator's  repeated signal  leakage).   ``Repeated'' means 
that the  act was committed  or omitted more than  once, or 
lasts more than one  day.  Southern California Broadcasting 
Co., 6 FCC Rcd at 4388,   5; Callais Cablevision, Inc., 16 
FCC Rcd at 1362  9.

647 U.S.C.  503(b)(2)(D).
747 U.S.C.   403.  Section  403 provides, in  part:  ``The 
Commission shall have full authority  and power at any time 
to institute an inquiry, on its own motion, in any case and 
as to  any matter  or thing  concerning which  complaint is 
authorized to be  made, to or before the  Commission by any 
provision of this Act, or concerning which any question may 
arise under any of the  provisions of this Act.''  See also 
47 U.S.C.  154(i), (j).

8See, e.g., SBC Communications, Inc.,  17 FCC Rcd 7589,7591 
4 (2002) (``SBC Communications'').  In SBC Communications, 
the  Commission assessed  a $100,000  forfeiture against  a 
carrier  for   its  willful  refusal  to   supply  a  sworn 
declaration in response to  an Enforcement Bureau letter of 
inquiry.  The  Commission stated:   ``[T]he order  here was 
squarely  within the  Commission's  authority  and, in  any 
event,  parties  are  required to  comply  with  Commission 
orders  even  if  they  believe  them  to  be  outside  the 
Commission's  authority.''  Id.  at   5.   See also  World 
Communications  Satellite Systems,  Inc., 19  FCC Rcd  2718 
(Enf.  Bur.   2004)  (``WSSC'')  ($10,000   forfeiture  for 
submitting a jurisdictional objection in lieu of a response 
to a Bureau inquiry letter);  American Family Ass'n, DA 04-
2330  (Enf. Bur.  rel  July  28, 2004);  In  re Richard  E. 
LaPierre,  15  FCC  Rcd  23525  (Enf.  Bur.  2000)  ($4,000 
forfeiture  for  repeated  failure to  respond  to  written 
Commission inquiries).

912  FCC Rcd  17087 (1997),  recon.  denied 15  FCC Rcd  303 
(1999).
1047 C.F.R.  1.80.
     11See 47 C.F.R.  1.1914.