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-07-SE-206       
     In the Matter of                                                
                                    )   NAL/Acct. No.: 200932100072  
     LawMate Technology Co., Ltd.                                    
                                    )   FRN: 0017134156              
                                                                     
                                    )                                


                                forfeiture ORDER

   Adopted: December 6, 2012 Released: December 6, 2012

   By the Chief, Spectrum Enforcement Division, Enforcement Bureau:

   I. introduction

    1. In this Forfeiture Order, we issue a monetary forfeiture in the amount
       of fourteen thousand dollars ($14,000) to LawMate Technology Co., Ltd.
       (LawMate) for its willful and repeated violations 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 noted violations involve the
       marketing of unauthorized radio frequency devices for more than two
       years.

   II. BACKGROUND

   2.  On July 15, 2009, the Enforcement Bureau's Spectrum Enforcement
   Division (Division) released a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture
   to LawMate in the amount of $14,000 for its apparent willful and repeated
   violations of Section 302(b) of the Act and Section 2.803(a) of the Rules
   by marketing uncertified radio frequency devices in the United States. In
   the NAL, the Division  found that LawMate manufactured and marketed two
   models of wireless video transmitters (model numbers TD-2418CK and
   TD-1218CK) in the United States before obtaining FCC certifications for
   the models. The finding was based on LawMate's admission in response to a
   Division letter of inquiry  that it sold the uncertified wireless video
   transmitters to customers in the United States within the one-year period
   prior to the issuance of the NAL.

    1. LawMate responded to the NAL on November 14, 2009. In its NAL
       Response, LawMate declares that it "is willing to pay [a] penalty
       charge" for its violations of Section 302(b) of the Act and Section
       2.803(a) of the Rules, but requests cancellation or reduction of the
       proposed forfeiture amount based on certain remedial efforts that
       LawMate states it intends to implement, its claimed financial
       hardship, and its assertion of a history of compliance with the Rules.

   III. Discussion

    2. The proposed forfeiture amount in this case was assessed in accordance
       with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and the
       Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement. In assessing forfeitures,
       Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act requires that we 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." As discussed below, we have considered LawMate's NAL
       Response in light of these statutory factors and find no basis for
       reduction or cancellation of the proposed forfeiture.

    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) of the Rules prohibits the sale or lease, offer for sale or
       lease (including advertising for sale or lease), distribution for the
       purpose of selling or leasing (or offering for sale or lease),
       importation, or shipment of radio frequency devices, such as wireless
       video transmitters, unless, in the case of a device subject to
       certification, the device has first been properly authorized,
       identified, and labeled in accordance with the Rules.

    4. In its NAL Response, LawMate seeks cancellation or reduction of the
       proposed forfeiture amount based on its stated intention to undertake
       certain remedial measures to ensure future compliance with the Rules.
       Although we have adjusted forfeitures downward when a licensee makes
       voluntary disclosures to Commission staff and takes corrective
       measures after discovering its violations but prior to any Commission
       inquiry or initiation of enforcement action, we have not reduced
       forfeitures based on a licensee's remedial conduct after the
       initiation of an investigation. The Commission has long held that
       corrective action taken to come into compliance with the Rules is
       expected, and such corrective action does not nullify or mitigate
       prior violations or associated forfeiture liability. LawMate's
       intention to take steps to ensure future compliance, while laudable,
       does not negate its willful and repeated violations of the Rules.
       Accordingly, we decline to reduce the forfeiture on this basis.

    5. LawMate also seeks reduction of the forfeiture based on its claim that
       payment of the forfeiture would place "undue stress on [its] financial
       situation." Any claim of inability to pay must specifically identify
       the basis for the claim by reference to the financial documentation
       submitted. Further, in general, an individual's or entity's "gross
       revenues are the best indicator of its ability to pay a forfeiture."
       LawMate, however, has not provided any financial or other
       documentation to support or corroborate its asserted financial status.
       Accordingly, we decline to reduce the forfeiture based on LawMate's
       unsupported claim of financial hardship.

    6. Finally, LawMate asserts that the Division should cancel or reduce the
       proposed forfeiture based on LawMate's claim that it has not
       previously violated our Rules. We disagree. When evaluating a
       petitioner's compliance history, we take into account both concurrent
       and prior violations, including violations occurring outside the
       statute of limitations, as well as the duration of each such
       violation. During the course of the Division's investigation into this
       matter, LawMate admitted to marketing in the United States a total of
       four uncertified wireless video transmitter models; the marketing of
       each uncertified model in the United States is a separate, continuing
       violation. Moreover, LawMate reported that it had imported into the
       United States units of one of these models-TD-2405CK-from 2005 to
       2006, and units of two of these models-TD-2418CK and TD-1218CK-from
       2006 to 2008. Based on the number and duration of these violations, we
       find that LawMate does not have a history of compliance with the
       Rules, and decline to reduce the proposed forfeiture.

    7. Having considered LawMate's response to the NAL in light of the
       applicable statutory factors, our Rules and the Forfeiture Policy
       Statement, we find that LawMate willfully and repeatedly violated
       Section 302(b) of the Act and Section 2.803(a) of the Rules in
       connection with its marketing of the uncertified TD-2418CK and
       TD-1218CK wireless video transmitters, and is therefore liable for a
       forfeiture in the amount of $14,000.

   iV. ordering clauses

    8. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the
       Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and Sections 0.111, 0.311, and
       1.80 of the Commission's rules, LawMate Technology Co., Ltd. IS LIABLE
       FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of fourteen thousand dollars
       ($14,000) for willful and repeated violations of Section 302(b) of the
       Communications Act of 1934, as amended and Section 2.803(a) of the
       Commission's rules.

    9. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in
       Section 1.80 of the Commission's rules within thirty (30) calendar
       days after the release date of this Forfeiture Order.  If the
       forfeiture is not paid within the period specified, the case may be
       referred to the U.S. Department of Justice for enforcement of the
       forfeiture pursuant to Section 504(a) of the Communications Act of
       1934, as amended. LawMate Technology Co., Ltd. shall send electronic
       notification of payment to Nissa Laughner at Nissa.Laughner@fcc.gov,
       Daudeline Meme at Daudeline.Meme@fcc.gov, and to Samantha Peoples at
       Sam.Peoples@fcc.gov on the date said payment is made.

   12. The payment must be made by check or similar instrument, wire
   transfer, or credit card, and must include the NAL/Account number and FRN
   referenced above. Regardless of the form of payment, a completed FCC Form
   159 (Remittance Advice) must be submitted. When completing the FCC Form
   159, enter the Account Number in block number 23A (call sign/other ID) and
   enter the letters "FORF" in block number 24A (payment type code).  Below
   are additional instructions you should follow based on the form of payment
   you select:

     * Payment by check or money order must be made payable to the order of
       the Federal Communications Commission.  Such payments (along with the
       completed Form 159) must be mailed to Federal Communications
       Commission, P.O. Box 979088, St. Louis, MO 63197-9000, or sent
       via overnight mail to U.S. Bank - Government Lockbox #979088,
       SL-MO-C2-GL, 1005 Convention Plaza, St. Louis, MO 63101. 

     * Payment by wire transfer must be made to ABA Number 021030004,
       receiving bank TREAS/NYC, and Account Number 27000001.  To complete
       the wire transfer and ensure appropriate crediting of the wired funds,
       a completed Form 159 must be faxed to U.S. Bank at (314) 418-4232 on
       the same business day the wire transfer is initiated. 

     * Payment by credit card must be made by providing the required credit
       card information on FCC Form 159 and signing and dating the Form 159
       to authorize the credit card payment. The completed Form 159 must then
       be mailed to Federal Communications Commission, P.O. Box 979088, St.
       Louis, MO 63197-9000, or sent via overnight mail to U.S. Bank -
       Government Lockbox #979088, SL-MO-C2-GL, 1005 Convention Plaza, St.
       Louis, MO 63101. 

   13. Any request for full payment under an installment plan should be sent
   to:  Chief Financial Officer - Financial Operations, Federal
   Communications Commission, 445 12th Street, S.W., Room 1-A625, Washington,
   D.C.  20554.  If you have questions regarding payment procedures, please
   contact the Financial Operations Group Help Desk by phone, 1-877-480-3201,
   or by e-mail, ARINQUIRIES@fcc.gov. 

   14. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this Forfeiture  Order shall be
   sent by first class mail and FedEx Express to Sabar Yang, General Manager,
   LawMate Technology Co., Ltd., 3F1, No. 34, Lane 60, Wen-Hu St., Nei-Hu
   District, Taipei 114, Taiwan, R.O.C.

   FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

   John D. Poutasse

   Chief, Spectrum Enforcement Division

   Enforcement Bureau

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

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

   Section 2.803(e)(4) of the Rules defines "marketing" as the "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." Id. S: 2.803(e)(4).

   See LawMate Tech. Co., Ltd., Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture,
   24 FCC Rcd 9120 (Enf. Bur. 2009) (NAL).

   See id. at 9121, para 5.

   See Letter from Sabar Yang, General Manager, LawMate Technology Co., Ltd.,
   to Kathryn S. Berthot, Chief, Spectrum Enforcement Division, FCC
   Enforcement Bureau at Attachment (Oct. 1, 2008) (on file in EB-07-SE-206)
   (LOI Response). In its LOI Response, LawMate admitted to marketing in the
   United States a total of four uncertified wireless video transmitter
   models, two of which were marketed more than one year prior to the
   issuance of the NAL. See id. Because Section 503(b)(6)(B) of the Act, 47
   U.S.C. S: 503(b)(6)(B), precluded the Division from imposing forfeiture
   liability against LawMate for violations occurring more than one year
   prior to the date the NAL was issued, the Division only proposed
   forfeitures for the two models marketed in the prior year. See NAL, 24 FCC
   Rcd at 2121, 2123, paras. 5, 9.

   See Letter from Sabar Yang, General Manager, LawMate Technology Co., Ltd.,
   to Kathryn S. Berthot, Chief, Spectrum Enforcement Division, FCC
   Enforcement Bureau (Nov. 14, 2009) (on file in EB-07-SE-206) (NAL
   Response). The Division sent the NAL to LawMate by first class mail and
   certified mail. Because the copy of the NAL sent by certified mail was
   returned unclaimed, the Division resent the NAL to LawMate on October 20,
   2009, via overnight mail and facsimile, and the Division afforded LawMate
   additional time to respond to the NAL. See Letter from Kathryn S. Berthot,
   Chief, Spectrum Enforcement Division, FCC Enforcement Bureau, to Sabar
   Yang, General Manager, LawMate Technology Co., Ltd. (Oct. 20, 2009) (on
   file in EB-07-SE-206).

   NAL Response  at 1.

   See id. at 1-2. LawMate also argues that the forfeiture amount should be
   reduced to reflect only one violation because Section 302(b) of the Act
   and Section 2.803(a) of the Rules prohibit similar conduct. See id. at 2.
   Consistent with the findings of the NAL, however, the Bureau calculated
   the number of violations at issue based on the number of noncompliant
   models marketed, imposing a separate base forfeiture for each of two
   models. See, e.g., San Jose Navigation, Inc., Notice of Apparent Liability
   for Forfeiture, 21 FCC Rcd 2873, 2877, para. 14 (2006) (finding that the
   marketing of each model is a separate and continuing violation warranting
   assessment of a separate base forfeiture), forfeiture ordered, Forfeiture
   Order, 22 FCC Rcd 1040 (2007), consent decree ordered, Order and Consent
   Decree, 25 FCC Rcd 1494 (2010).

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

   47 C.F.R. S: 1.80.

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

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

   Id. S: 302a(b).

   A radio frequency device is "any device which in its operation is capable
   of emitting radiofrequency energy by radiation, conduction or other
   means." 47 C.F.R. S: 2.801.

   See id. S: 2.803(a). Wireless video transmitters are intentional radiators
   that must be certified by the Commission prior to marketing. See id. S:
   15.201. An intentional radiator is "[a] device that intentionally
   generates and emits radio frequency energy by radiation or induction." Id.
   S: 15.3(o).

   See NAL Response at 1. Specifically, LawMate describes several remedial
   measures it plans to implement, including discontinuing production of the
   uncertified models, posting a notice on its commercial website indicating
   that the models may not be marketed in the United States, and advising
   distributors to cease marketing the models in the United States. See id.
   In addition, LawMate avers that it is "currently executing" a compliance
   audit on all products exported to the United States. See id. at 2.

   See, e.g., Sutro Corp., Memorandum Opinion and Order, 19 FCC Rcd 15274,
   15277, para. 10 (2004) (stating that the Commission will generally reduce
   the assessed forfeiture "based on the good faith corrective efforts of a
   violator when those corrective efforts were taken prior to Commission
   notification of the violation").

   See, e.g., Behringer USA, Inc., Forfeiture Order, 22 FCC Rcd 10451, 10459,
   para. 19 (2007) (forfeiture paid).

   See id. ("[T]he Commission has repeatedly found that corrective measures
   implemented after [the] Commission has initiated an investigation or taken
   enforcement action do not nullify or mitigate past violations.").

   NAL Response at 2. LawMate requests that the Division reduce the
   forfeiture from $14,000 to $7,000, alleging that the costs associated with
   its intended remedial efforts, the loss of future revenue from the sale of
   the uncertified models in the United States, and the payment of the
   forfeiture would place "undue stress on [its] financial situation." Id.

   As stated previously in the NAL, the Commission will not consider 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 (`GAAP'); or (3) some
   other reliable and objective documentation that accurately reflects the
   petitioner's current financial status." See NAL, 24 FCC Rcd at 9124, para.
   14.

   PJB Commc'ns of Va., Inc., Memorandum Opinion and Order, 7 FCC Rcd 2088,
   2089, para. 8 (1992).

   See, e.g., Bureau D'Electronique Appliquee, Inc., Forfeiture Order, 20 FCC
   Rcd 17893, 17899-900, para. 19 (Enf. Bur. 2005) (denying inability to pay
   claim because company failed to provide supporting financial
   documentation).

   See NAL Response at 2.

   See, e.g., Paulino Bernal Evangelism, Memorandum Opinion and Order, 21 FCC
   Rcd 9532, 9536, para. 12 (Enf. Bur. 2006) (in determining whether a
   licensee has a history of overall compliance, offenses need not be "prior"
   to be considered), review granted in part, denied in part, Order on
   Review, 23 FCC Rcd 15959 (2008).

   Although Section 503(b)(6)(B) of the Act prohibits the Commission from
   proposing forfeitures for violations occurring more than one year prior to
   issuance of the NAL, it does not preclude the Commission from taking into
   account the underlying facts of these violations when determining relative
   culpability for violations occurring within the statute of limitations.
   See, e.g., Globcom, Inc., Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture and
   Order, 18 FCC Rcd 19893, 19903, para. 23 (2003) (taking into account
   violations occurring outside the statute of limitations when determining
   the appropriate forfeiture amount for violations occurring within the
   statutory period), forfeiture ordered, Order of Forfeiture, 21 FCC Rcd
   4710 (2006).

   We note that in several cases, not only have we declined to reduce for
   history of compliance but have upwardly adjusted the base forfeiture
   amount based, in part, on the duration of the violations. See, e.g., Power
   7 Tech. Corp., Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture, 24 FCC Rcd
   1660, 1663-64, para. 12 (Enf. Bur. 2009) (upwardly adjusting the base
   forfeiture amount for marketing unauthorized equipment from $7,000 to
   $25,000 based on a one-year duration and the "substantial number" of units
   sold in the United States) (forfeiture paid).

   See LOI Response at 1.

   See id. at Attachment. In this regard, we note that the definition of
   marketing in Section 2.803(e)(4) of the Rules includes "importation . . .
   for the purpose of selling or leasing or offering for sale or lease." See
   supra note 3.

   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. S: 312(f)(1). The legislative history of
   Section 312 clarifies that this definition of willful applies to Sections
   312 and 503 of the Act, H.R. Rep. No. 97-765 (1982) (Conf. Rep.), and the
   Commission has so interpreted the term in the Section 503(b) context, see
   So. Cal. Broad. Co., Memorandum Opinion and Order, 6 FCC Rcd 4387,
   4387-88, para. 5 (1991), recon. denied, 7 FCC Rcd 3454 (1992) (Southern
   California).

   Section 312(f)(2) of the Act, which also applies to forfeitures assessed
   pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Act, defines "repeated" as "the
   commission or omission of [any] 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 also Southern California, 6 FCC Rcd at 4388, para. 5.

   47 U.S.C. S: 503(b); 47 C.F.R. S:S: 0.111, 0.311, 1.80.

   47 U.S.C. S: 302a(b); 47 C.F.R. S: 2.803(a).

   See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80.

   47 U.S.C. S: 504(a).

   An FCC Form 159 and detailed instructions for completing the form may be
   obtained at http://www.fcc.gov/Forms/Form159/159.pdf.

   See 47 C.F.R. S: 1.1914.

   (Continued from previous page . . . )

   (continued . . . )

   Federal Communications Commission DA 12-1960

   2

   Federal Communications Commission DA 12-1960