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 )

   )

   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:

   I. INTRODUCTION

    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
       Rules ("Rules").

   II. BACKGROUND

    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.

   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) 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
       Commission.

    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
       documentation submitted.

   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

   Enforcement Bureau

   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.
   S 312(f)(2).

   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
   Policy Statement").

   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

   4

   Federal Communications Commission DA 06-591