Click here for Adobe Acrobat version
Click here for Microsoft Word version
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
Washington, D.C. 20554
In the Matter of )
OleumTech Corporation ) File No. EB-05-SE-333
) NAL/Acct. No. 200632100007
) FRN # 0014483978
NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE
Adopted: March 15, 2006 Released: March 17, 2006
By the Chief, Spectrum Enforcement Division, Enforcement Bureau:
1. In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL"), we find
OleumTech Corporation ("OleumTech") apparently liable for a forfeiture
in the amount of five thousand six hundred dollars ($5,600) for
marketing in the United States unauthorized intentional radiating
devices, specifically, wireless monitoring devices used primarily by
oil and gas companies for the collection of data and monitoring of
remote well sites, process facilities and pipelines, in willful and
repeated violation of Section 302(b) of the Communications Act of
1934, as amended ("Act"), and Section 2.803(a) of the Commission's
2. On October 26, 2005, the Spectrum Enforcement Division of the
Enforcement Bureau received an informal complaint alleging that
OleumTech was manufacturing and marketing unauthorized radiofrequency
devices. The complaint listed the model numbers of several
transmitters which were allegedly unauthorized. In support of the
allegation, the complainant explained that it ordered one of
OleumTech's devices which subsequently arrived without the required
FCC label attached.
3. On December 7, 2005, the Spectrum Enforcement Division issued a Letter
of Inquiry ("LOI") to OleumTech seeking further information about its
devices. OleumTech submitted a response to the LOI on February 2,
2006. In the response, OleumTech states that it has designed and
manufactured only one class of low power transmitter which it uses in
all of its products. It states that the various model numbers cited in
the Enforcement Bureau's LOI all use the same transmitter inside. The
transmitter is identified as the "2027 PCB assembly" radio. Different
model numbers and casings are used with this same transmitter to
identify the specific task each product performs.
4. OleumTech asserts that, between August and September 2003, prior to
shipping any of its products, it conducted testing which showed that
its radio was in compliance with the FCC's technical standards.
However, OleumTech states that it did not request an FCC certification
because its chief design consultant and the manager of its testing
laboratory concluded that certification and labeling were not required
for radio devices that operated at such low power levels.
5. OleumTech states that on or about October 2005 it was informed by an
outside consultant that its prior determination that certification was
not needed was erroneous. OleumTech avers that it then submitted its
device for certification. The Commission granted an equipment
authorization to OleumTech on January 18, 2006.
6. 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) 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 device ...
unless such device has been authorized by the Commission.
It is undisputed that OleumTech's devices are intentional radiators, and
as discussed below, are subject to the Commission's certification
procedures and related marketing restrictions.
7. Pursuant to Section 15.201(b) of the Rules, intentional radiators
operating under the provisions of Part 15 of the Rules must be
certificated by the Commission prior to marketing. OleumTech concedes
that it has sold less than 1,500 units of its wireless monitoring
device in the U.S. prior to receiving certification. OleumTech also
concedes that it was not until late 2005 that it determined that its
product needed FCC certification. As previously noted, on January 18,
2006, OleumTech obtained an equipment authorization from the
8. In the instant case, we find that OleumTech apparently willfully and
repeatedly violated Section 302(b) of the Act and Section 2.803(a) of
the Rules by marketing an intentional radiator device prior to
obtaining Commission equipment authorization.
9. Section 503(b) of the Act and Section 1.80(a) of the Rules authorize
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. In exercising such authority, we are 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."
10. Pursuant to The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment
of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines
and Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for
importation or marketing of unauthorized or non-compliant equipment is
$7,000. In this case, we note that OleumTech marketed one unauthorized
intentional radiator. We further note that OleumTech made a good faith
effort to bring the transmitter into compliance with the Rules by
submitting its device for certification testing prior to receiving the
Spectrum Enforcement Division's LOI. Accordingly, we reduce the
proposed forfeiture amount from $7,000 to $5,600.
IV. ORDERING CLAUSES
11. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Act
and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80 of the Rules, OleumTech
Corporation, Inc. IS hereby NOTIFIED of its APPARENT LIABILITY FOR A
FORFEITURE in the amount of five thousand six hundred dollars ($5,600)
for willfully and repeatedly violating Section 302(b) of the Act and
Section 2.803(a) of the Rules.
12. 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, OleumTech Corporation SHALL PAY the full
amount of the proposed forfeiture or SHALL FILE a written statement
seeking reduction or cancellation of the proposed forfeiture.
13. 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 by check or money order may be mailed to Federal
Communications Commission, P.O. Box 358340, Pittsburgh, PA
15251-8340. Payment by overnight mail may be sent to Mellon
Bank /LB 358340, 500 Ross Street, Room 1540670, Pittsburgh, PA
15251. Payment by wire transfer may be made to ABA Number 043000261,
receiving bank Mellon Bank, and account number 911-6106.
14. 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.
15. 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
16. Requests for payment of the full amount of this NAL under an
installment plan should be sent to: Chief, Revenue and Receivable
Operations Group, 445 12th Street, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20554.
17. 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 Michael Armani, President and CEO,
OleumTech Corporation, 29 Parker, Irvine, California 92618.
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
Joseph P. Casey
Chief, Spectrum Enforcement Division
Section 15.3(o) of the Rules, 47 C.F.R. S 15.3(o), defines an intentional
radiator as a "device that intentionally generates and emits radio
frequency energy by radiation or induction."
47 U.S.C. S 302a(b).
47 C.F.R. S 2.803(a).
Letter to Ms. Kristin Cano, Legal Counsel, OleumTech Corporation, from
Kathryn S. Berthot, Deputy Chief, Spectrum Enforcement Division,
Enforcement Bureau, Federal Communications Commission (December 7, 2005).
Letter from Michael Armani, President & CEO, OleumTech Corporation, to
Neal McNeil, Spectrum Enforcement Division, Enforcement Bureau, Federal
Communications Commission (February 2, 2006) ("LOI Response").
FCC Identifier TWE-SM1X00-XXX.
47 C.F.R. S 15.201(b).
LOI Response at 7.
The term "willful," as used in Section 503(b) of the Act, means the
conscious and deliberate commission or omission of such act, irrespective
of any intent to violate the Commission's Rules. 47 U.S.C. S 312(f)(1).
A violation is "repeated" within the meaning of Section 503(b) of the Act
if it occurs more than once or continues for more than one day. 47 U.S.C.
47 C.F.R. S 1.80(a).
47 U.S.C. S 503(b).
47 U.S.C. S 503(b)(2)(D).
12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) ("Forfeiture
47 C.F.R. S 1.80.
Although several model numbers were cited in the Enforcement Bureau's
letter of inquiry, each of those models used the same radio internally.
Pursuant to 47 C.F.R. S 2.907(b), certification attaches to all units of a
device which are identical to the sample tested or have undergone changes
identified in 47 C.F.R. S 2.1043.
See Forfeiture Policy Statement, 12 FCC Rcd at 17099-101; 47 U.S.C. S
503(b)(2)(D); 47 C.F.R. S 1.80(b)(4), Note to paragraph (b)(4): Section
II. Adjustment Criteria for Section 503 Forfeitures (discussion of
downward adjustment factors); see, e.g., Radio One Licenses, Inc., 18 FCC
Rcd 15964, 15965 P 4 (2003), recon. denied, 18 FCC Rcd 25481 (2003)
(reducing a forfeiture from $9,200 to $8,000 for EAS violations because
the licensee had identified the problems and had ordered replacement
equipment prior to the Field Office's on-site inspection).
47 U.S.C. S 503(b).
47 C.F.R. SS 0.111, 0.311, 1.80.
47 C.F.R. S 1.1914.
Federal Communications Commission DA 06-591
Federal Communications Commission DA 06-591