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


                           )                               
                               File No. EB-10-SE-001       
     In the Matter of      )                               
                               NAL/Acct. No. 201032100032  
     Cellphone-Mate Inc.   )                               
                               FRN 0010188936              
                           )                               


                  Notice of apparent Liability for forfeiture

   Adopted: July 2, 2010 Released: July 6, 2010

   By the Chief, Spectrum Enforcement Division, Enforcement Bureau:

   I. introduction

    1. In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL"), we find
       Cellphone-Mate Inc. ("Cellphone-Mate") apparently liable for a
       forfeiture in the amount of four thousand dollars ($4,000) for willful
       and repeated violation of Section 302(b) of the Communications Act of
       1934, as amended ("Act"), and Section 2.803(a)(1) of the Commission's
       Rules ("Rules"). The noted apparent violation involves
       Cellphone-Mate's marketing of radio frequency devices that are not
       labeled in accordance with Section 2.925(a)(1) of the Rules.

   II. BACKGROUND

    2. The Enforcement Bureau received a complaint alleging that
       Cellphone-Mate's SureCall(TM) Model CM2000-WL dual band cellular/PCS
       signal amplifier ("amplifier) was labeled with FCC Identification
       number RSNDUAL-62UNDER, an FCC ID number which is not found in the
       FCC's Equipment Authorization Database. Subsequently, the Enforcement
       Bureau's Spectrum Enforcement Division ("Division") began an
       investigation. The Division issued a letter of inquiry ("LOI") to
       Cellphone-Mate on January 29, 2010. Cellphone-Mate responded to the
       LOI on March 1, 2010. In its LOI Response, Cellphone-Mate admitted
       that it marketed the amplifier with a label specifying the FCC ID
       number as RSNDUAL-62UNDER. Cellphone-Mate explained that it made a
       typo on the label and that the actual FCC ID number for the amplifier
       is FCC ID number RSNDUAL-60UNDER, which was granted on August 28,
       2009. Cellphone-Mate stated that it began marketing the amplifier in
       September 2009.

   III. Discussion

     A. Cellphone-Mate Apparently Marketed Improperly Labeled Devices

    3. 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 Rules provides in pertinent part 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 radiofrequency 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....

   Additionally, Section 2.925(a)(1) of the Rules provides:

   Each equipment covered in an application for equipment authorization shall
   bear a nameplate or label listing the following: (1) FCC Identifier
   consisting of the two elements in the exact order specified in S:2.926.
   The FCC Identifier shall be preceded by the term FCC ID in capital letters
   on a single line, and shall be of a type size large enough to be legible
   without the aid of magnification.

   The FCC Identification label enables the FCC and potential users to
   readily determine whether a particular device has been properly authorized
   and to obtain additional information about the device from the FCC's
   publicly-accessible Equipment Authorization Database. Cellphone-Mate
   admitted in its LOI response that it marketed units of the amplifier that
   do not include the correct FCC ID number. Therefore, these devices are not
   labeled as specified by Section 2.925(a)(1) of the Rules. We accordingly
   find that Cellphone-Mate's marketing of these improperly labeled devices
   apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 302(b) of the Act and
   Section 2.803(a)(1) of the Rules.

     A. Proposed Forfeiture

    4. 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."

    5. Under  the Forfeiture Policy Statement and Section 1.80 of the Rules,
       the base forfeiture amount for the marketing of unauthorized equipment
       is $7,000 per model. We note that the $7,000 base forfeiture amount is
       typically imposed for marketing devices that are not in compliance
       with applicable technical requirements or are not authorized by an
       equipment authorization. Because adherence to the Commission's
       authorization procedures ensures that devices meet required technical
       standards, we have previously found that a downward adjustment of the
       base forfeiture amount from $7,000 to $4,000 is warranted for the
       marketing of devices that are authorized but improperly labeled.
       Consistent with this precedent, we propose a forfeiture of $4,000
       against Cellphone-Mate for its marketing of improperly labeled
       amplifiers in apparent willful and repeated violation of Section
       302(b) of the Act and Section 2.803(a)(1) of the Rules.

   iV. ordering clauses

    6. 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, Cellphone-Mate
       IS NOTIFIED of its APPARENT LIABILITY FOR A FORFEITURE in the amount
       of four thousand dollars ($4,000) for marketing radio frequency
       devices that are not labeled in accordance with Section 2.925(a)(1) of
       the Rules, in willful and repeated violation of Section 302(b) of the
       Act and Section 2.803(a)(1) of the Rules.

    7. 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, Cellphone-Mate SHALL PAY the full amount of
       the proposed forfeiture or SHALL FILE a written statement seeking
       reduction or cancellation of the proposed forfeiture.

    8. 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. Cellphone-Mate will also send electronic
       notification on the date said payment is made to Neal McNeil at
       Neal.McNeil@fcc.gov and Kathy Berthot at Kathy.Berthot@fcc.gov.

    9. The written statement seeking reduction or cancellation of the
       proposed forfeiture, if any, must include a detailed factual statement
       supported by appropriate documentation and affidavits pursuant to
       Sections 1.80(f)(3) and 1.16 of the Rules. The written statement 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. The statement should also
       be emailed to Neal McNeil at Neal.McNeil@fcc.gov and Kathy Berthot at
       Kathy.Berthot@fcc.gov.

   10. 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.

   11. 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 Hongtao Zhan, CEO, Cellphone-Mate Inc.,
       48820 Kato Rd., Suite 300B, Fremont, CA 94539.

   FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

   Kathryn S. Berthot

   Chief, Spectrum Enforcement Division

   Enforcement Bureau

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

   47 C.F.R. S: 2.803(a)(1).

   Marketing, as defined in 47 C.F.R. S: 2.803(e)(4), "includes sale or
   lease, or offering for sale or lease, including advertising for sale or
   lease, or importation, shipment, or distribution for the purpose of
   selling or leasing or offering for sale or lease."

   47 C.F.R. S: 2.925(a)(1).

   We note that the Wireless Telecommunications Bureau has a pending
   proceeding in WT Docket No. 10-4 regarding the proper use of signal
   boosters on frequencies licensed under Parts 22, 24, 27, and 90 of the
   Rules. See Wireless Telecommunications Bureau Seeks Comment on Petitions
   Regarding Use of Signal Boosters and Other Signal Amplification Techniques
   Used With Wireless Services, Public Notice, 26 FCC Rcd 68 (WTB, 2010).
   This NAL does not purport to address any issues raised in that pending
   proceeding.

   See Letter from Kathryn S. Berthot, Chief, Spectrum Enforcement Division,
   Enforcement Bureau, Federal Communications Commission, to Hongtao Zhan,
   CEO, Cellphone-Mate Inc. (January 29, 2010).

   See Letter from Hongtao Zhan, CEO, Cellphone-Mate Inc. to Kathryn S.
   Berthot, Chief, Spectrum Enforcement Division, Enforcement Bureau, Federal
   Communications Commission (March 1, 2010) ("LOI Response").

   Id. at 1.

   Id.

   Id. Cellphone-Mate requested confidential treatment of the number of units
   of the amplifier imported and marketed in the United States pursuant to
   Section 0.459 of the Rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 0.459. Id. at 6. We need not
   disclose this information in the context of this particular NAL, and
   consequently, we will defer action on the confidentiality request. See 47
   C.F.R. S: 0.459(d)(3).

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

   47 C.F.R. S: 2.803(a)(1).

   47 C.F.R. S: 2.925(a)(1).

   LOI Response at 1.

   On June 24, 2010, Cellphone-Mate obtained a grant of certification
   pursuant to Section 2.933 of the Rules authorizing a change in the
   identification for the amplifier to FCC ID RSNDUAL-62UNDER. See 47 C.F.R.
   S: 2.933 (stating that a new application for equipment authorization will
   be filed whenever there is a change in the FCC Identifier for the
   equipment). We note that this grant applies to amplifiers manufactured and
   marketed by Cellphone-Mate beginning June 24, 2010 and does not negate any
   labeling violations by Cellphone-Mate prior to that date.

   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., Memorandum Opinion and Order, 6 FCC Rcd 4387 (1991); see
   also Telrite Corporation, Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture, 23
   FCC Rcd 7231, 7237 (2008); Regent USA, Notice of Apparent Liability for
   Forfeiture, 22 FCC Rcd 10520, 10523 (2007); San Jose Navigation, Inc.,
   Forfeiture Order 22 FCC Rcd 1040, 1042 (2007).

   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). See, e.g., Callais Cablevision, Inc., Grand Isle, Louisiana,
   Notice of Apparent Liability for Monetary Forfeiture, 16 FCC Rcd 1359,
   1362 (2001) ("Callais Cablevision") (issuing a Notice of Apparent
   Liability for, inter alia, a cable television operator's repeated signal
   leakage).

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

   47 U.S.C. S: 503(b)(2)(E).

   The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80
   of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 17087,
   17113 (1997) ("Forfeiture Policy Statement"), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd
   303 (1999).

   47 C.F.R. S: 1.80.

   See Proxim Wireless Corporation, Notice of Apparent Liability for
   Forfeiture, 24 FCC Rcd 1145, 1149 (Enf. Bur., Spectrum Enf. Div. 2009)
   (forfeiture paid); Ryzex Inc., Notice of Apparent Liability for
   Forfeiture,  23 FCC Rcd 878, 884 (Enf. Bur., Spectrum Enf. Div. 2008),
   response pending; DBK Concepts, Inc., Notice of Apparent Liability for
   Forfeiture, 23 FCC Rcd 2870, 2875 (Enf. Bur., Spectrum Enf. Div. 2008),
   response pending.

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

   (Continued from previous page)

   (continued....)

   Federal Communications Commission DA 10-1257

   2

   Federal Communications Commission DA 10-1257