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-05-SE-334       
                            )                               
     AboCom Systems, Inc.       NAL/Acct. No. 200632100017  
                            )                               
     Hsinchu City, Taiwan       FRN # 0007031842            
                            )                               


                  NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE

   Adopted: July  13, 2006 Released:  July 17, 2006

   By the Chief, Spectrum Enforcement Division, Enforcement Bureau:

   I. introduction

    1. In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL"), we find
       AboCom Systems, Inc. ("AboCom") apparently liable for a forfeiture in
       the amount of twenty-five thousand dollars ($25,000) for 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
       Rules ("Rules"). The apparent violations involve marketing wireless
       access points that do not comply with the terms of its equipment
       authorization and the requirements of Section 15.247(d) of the Rules.

   II. background

    2. The equipment involved in this proceeding is the Hawking Technology,
       Inc. ("Hawking") Model HWRG54 wireless access point ("HWRG54") and the
       identical Phoebe Micro, Inc. ("Phoebe") AR315W wireless access point
       ("AR315W"). Both Hawking and Phoebe are United States corporations
       whose operations are located in the United States. AboCom, a Taiwan
       corporation, manufactured this device and holds an equipment
       authorization, FCC ID MQ4ARM94, for it.

    3. The Enforcement Bureau ("Bureau") received a report from Industry
       Canada indicating that the HWRG54 does not comply with Canada's
       equipment certification standards. Specifically, the report from
       Industry Canada indicated that the device produced a spurious emission
       at 2.6 GHz. The Bureau purchased an HWRG54 wireless access point and
       sent it to the Commission's Office of Engineering and Technology
       ("OET") Laboratory for testing. The OET Laboratory tested the HWRG54
       and determined that it produced a spurious emission on the frequency
       2.6 GHz that substantially exceeded the limit specified by Section
       15.247(d) of the Rules.

    4. On March 2, 2006, the Bureau issued a letter of inquiry ("LOI") to
       AboCom. On April 17, 2006, AboCom responded to the LOI. In its
       response, AboCom states that, beginning May 31, 2004, it manufactured
       the HWRG54 for Hawking at its factory in Taiwan in accordance with
       specifications provided by Hawking. Additionally, AboCom states that,
       beginning May 12, 2004, it manufactured the same wireless access point
       (designated by the model number AR315W) for Phoebe. AboCom's response
       indicates that it shipped a large quantity of HWRG54 devices to
       Hawking between May 31, 2004, and October 5, 2005, and a large
       quantity of AR315W devices to Phoebe between May 12, 2004, and June
       14, 2005. AboCom also provides a copy of a test report dated November
       4, 2005, which purportedly shows that the HWRG54 did not produce a
       spurious emission exceeding the limit specified by Section 15.247(d)
       of the Rules. Notably, however, the report is incomplete because it
       does not identify or describe the measurement procedures used.

    5. The OET Laboratory subsequently tested a second sample of the HWRG54
       and again found that it produced a spurious emission at 2.6 GHz that
       substantially exceeded the limit specified by Section 15.247(d) of the
       Rules. OET also determined that the HWRG54 is capable of operating on
       frequencies beyond the 2.412 - 2.482 GHz range authorized by its
       equipment authorization.

   III. discussion

    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)(1) of the Commission's implementing regulations 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
   ... [i]n the case of a device that is 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 S
   2.925 and other relevant sections in this chapter.

   Section 15.247(d) of the Commission's implementing regulations provides
   that:

   In any 100 kHz bandwidth outside the frequency band in which the spread
   spectrum or digitally modulated intentional radiator is operating, the
   radio frequency power that is produced by the intentional radiator shall
   be at least 20 dB below that in the 100 kHz bandwidth within the band that
   contains the highest level of the desired power, based on either an RF
   conducted or a radiated measurement, provided the transmitter demonstrates
   compliance with the peak conducted power limits. If the transmitter
   complies with the conducted power limits based on the use of RMS averaging
   over a time interval, as permitted under paragraph (b)(3) of this section,
   the attenuation required under this paragraph shall be 30 dB instead of 20
   dB. Attenuation below the general limits specified in Sec. 15.209(a) is
   not required. In addition, radiated emissions which fall in the restricted
   bands, as defined in Sec. 15.205(a), must also comply with the radiated
   emission limits specified in Sec. 15.209(a) (see Sec. 15.205(c)).

    7. Furthermore, in accepting the grant of an equipment authorization,
       AboCom warranted that:

   each unit of equipment marketed under such grant and bearing the
   identification specified in the grant will conform to the unit that was
   measured and that the data (design and rated operational characteristics)
   filed with the application for certification continues to be
   representative of the equipment being produced under such grant within the
   variation that can be expected due to quantity production and testing on a
   statistical basis.

    8. AboCom admits that it sold and distributed large quantities of the
       HWRG54 and AR315W wireless access points to Hawking and Phoebe, but
       claims, on the basis of its incomplete November 4, 2005 test report,
       that the devices are compliant. The OET Laboratory's tests, however,
       demonstrate that these devices produce spurious emissions exceeding
       the limit prescribed by Section 15.247(d) of the Rules and, therefore,
       are not compliant. The OET Laboratory's tests also show that the
       device is capable of operating on frequencies beyond the 2.412 - 2.482
       GHz range authorized by AboCom's equipment authorization. We find,
       based on a preponderance of the evidence, that AboCom apparently
       willfully and repeatedly  violated Section 302(b) of the Act and
       Section 2.803(a) Rules by marketing equipment that does not comply
       with Section 15.247(d) of the Rules and the terms of its equipment
       authorization.

    9. 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. 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."

   10. Section 503(b)(6) of the Act bars the Commission from proposing a
       forfeiture for violations that occurred more than a year prior to the
       issuance of an NAL. Section 503(b)(6) does not, however, bar the
       Commission from assessing whether AboCom'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. Thus, while we may consider the fact that AboCom's
       conduct has continued over a period that began on May 12, 2004, the
       forfeiture amount we propose herein relates only to AboCom's apparent
       violations that have occurred within the past year.

   11. 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") and Section 1.80(b)(4) of the Rules,
       the base forfeiture amount for the marketing of unauthorized equipment
       is $7,000. Section 503(b)(2)(C) of the Act authorizes the Commission
       to assess 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. Based on the record
       before us, and having considered the statutory factors enumerated
       above, we believe that an upward adjustment of the $7,000 base
       forfeiture amount is warranted here. First, we believe that an upward
       adjustment is warranted in view of the substantial number of
       non-compliant devices AboCom sold and distributed to Hawking and
       Phoebe and the fact that the violations continued over a 17-month
       period. Further, we take into account AboCom's ability to pay a
       forfeiture in determining the appropriate forfeiture amount. As the
       Commission made clear in the Forfeiture Policy Statement, large or
       highly profitable entities, such as AboCom, could expect forfeitures
       higher than those reflected in the base amounts. Accordingly, applying
       the Forfeiture Policy Statement and statutory factors to the instant
       case, we conclude that AboCom is apparently liable for a $25,000
       forfeiture.

   IV. ORDERING CLAUSES

   12. 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, AboCom Systems, Inc.,
       IS hereby NOTIFIED of its APPARENT LIABILITY FOR A FORFEITURE in the
       amount of twenty-five thousand dollars ($25,000) for willfully and
       repeatedly violating Section 302(b) of the Act and Section 2.803(a) of
       the Rules.

   13. 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 and Order, AboCom Systems, Inc., SHALL PAY
       the full amount of the proposed forfeiture or SHALL FILE a written
       statement seeking reduction or cancellation of the proposed
       forfeiture.

   14. 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.

   15. 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.

   16. 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.

   17. Requests for payment of the full amount of the NAL under an
       installment plan should be sent to: Associate Managing Director -
       Financial Operations, 445 12^th Street, S.W., Room 1A625, Washington,
       D.C. 20554.

   18.  IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this Notice of Apparent
       Liability for Forfeiture shall be sent by facsimile and international
       registered mail to AboCom Systems, Inc., 1F No. 21 Yanfa, 2^nd Road,
       SBIP, Hsinchu City, Taiwan.

   FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

   Joseph P. Casey

   Chief, Spectrum Enforcement Division

   Enforcement Bureau

   47 U.S.C. S 302a(b).

   47 C.F.R. S 2.803(a).

   47 C.F.R. S 15.247(d).

   A wireless access point is a transmitter/receiver used to provide wireless
   internet access.

   Industry Canada is a regulatory agency of the Canadian Government.

   Section 2.1(c) of the Rules, 47 C.F.R. S 2.1(c), defines a spurious
   emission as "Emission 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."

   See Letter from Kathryn S. Berthot, Deputy Chief, Spectrum Enforcement
   Division, Enforcement Bureau, Federal Communications Commission to AboCom
   Systems, Inc. (March 2, 2006).

   See Letter from Eric Oh-Yang, Chairman & Chief Executive Officer, AboCom
   Systems, Inc., to Brett Greenwalt, Engineer, Spectrum Enforcement
   Division, Enforcement Bureau, Federal Communications Commission (April 10,
   2006) ("LOI Response").

   Id., Exhibit B.

   47 C.F.R. S 2.947(b) and (c).

   47 C.F.R. S 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."

   See 47 C.F.R. S 2.931.

   Section 312(f)(1) of the Act, 47 U.S.C. S 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., 6 FCC Rcd 4387 (1991).

   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. S
   312(f)(2).

   47 U.S.C. S 503(b).

   47 U.S.C. S 503(b)(2)(D).

   47 U.S.C. S 503(b)(6).

   See 47 U.S.C. S 503(b)(2)(D), 47 C.F.R. S 1.80(b)(4); see also Behringer
   USA, Inc. 21 FCC Rcd 1820, 1825, P 20 (2006); Globcom, Inc. d/b/a Globcom
   Global Communications, 18 FCC Rcd 19893, 19903 P 23 (2003), forfeiture
   ordered, 21 FCC Rcd 4710 (2006); Roadrunner Transportation, Inc., 15 FCC
   Rcd 9669, 9671-71 P 8 (2000); Cate Communications Corp., 60 RR 2d 1386,
   1388 P 7 (1986); Eastern Broadcasting Corp., 10 FCC 2d 37, 37-38 P 3
   (1967), recon. den.,11 FCC 2d 193 (1967); Bureau D'Electronique Appliquee,
   Inc., 20 FCC Rcd 3445, 3447-48 PP 8-9 (Enf. Bur., Spectrum Enf. Div.
   2005), forfeiture ordered, 20 FCC Rcd 17893 (Enf. Bur., Spectrum Enf. Div.
   2005) ("Bureau D'Electronique Appliquee").

   12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999).

   47 C.F.R. S 1.80(b)(4).

   47 U.S.C. S 503(b)(2)(C). The Commission twice amended Section 1.80(b)(3)
   of the Rules, 47 C.F.R. S 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. S
   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); see also 47 C.F.R. S 1.80(c).

   See, e.g., San Jose Navigation, Inc., 21 FCC Rcd 2873, 2876 P 15 (2006)
   (upwardly adjusting a proposed forfeiture based on the volume of
   non-compliant devices distributed, and the three-year span in which such
   devices were marketed); Bureau D'Electronique Appliquee, 20 FCC Rcd at
   3448 P 9 (upwardly adjusting a proposed forfeiture based on the volume of
   unauthorized devices distributed, and the five-year span in which such
   devices were marketed).

   AboCom had revenues of approximately 4 billion Taiwan dollars in 2005
   (approximately $133 million in US dollars). Worldscope-International
   Company Profiles, April 21, 2006.

   Specifically, the Commission stated:

   [O]n the other end of the spectrum of potential violations, we recognize
   that for large or highly profitable communication entities, the base
   forfeiture amounts ... are generally low. In this regard, we are mindful
   that, as Congress has stated, for a forfeiture to be an effective
   deterrent against these entities, the forfeiture must be issued at a high
   level .... For this reason, we caution all entities and individuals that,
   independent from the uniform base forfeiture amounts ..., we intend to
   take into account the subsequent violator's ability to pay in determining
   the amount of a forfeiture to guarantee that forfeitures issued against
   large or highly profitable entities are not considered merely an
   affordable cost of doing business. Such large or highly profitable
   entities should expect in this regard that the forfeiture amount set out
   in a Notice of Apparent Liability against them may in many cases be above,
   or even well above, the relevant base amount.

   Forfeiture Policy Statement, 12 FCC Rcd at 17099-100.

   47 U.S.C. S 503(b).

   47 C.F.R. S 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80.

   See 47 C.F.R. S 1.1914.

   (Continued from previous page)

   (continued....)

   Federal Communications Commission DA 06-1442

   6

   Federal Communications Commission DA 06-1442