Shenzhen Tangreat Technology Co., Ltd., Grantee of Equipment Authorization FCC ID No. XRLTG-VIPJAMM, 12733-12738 [2011-5221]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 45 / Tuesday, March 8, 2011 / Notices
A public teleconference will be
held on Tuesday, March 29, 2011 from
1 p.m. to 3 p.m. (Eastern Time).
ADDRESSES: The public teleconference
will be conducted by telephone only.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Any
member of the public wishing further
information regarding this Notice and
public teleconference may contact
Mr. Edward Hanlon, Designated
Federal Officer (DFO), SAB Staff Office,
by telephone/voice mail at (202) 564–
2134; by fax at (202) 565–2098 or via email at hanlon.edward@epa.gov.
General information concerning the EPA
CASAC can be found at the EPA CASAC
Web site at https://www.epa.gov/casac.
Any inquiry regarding EPA’s draft
monitoring documents for NOX and SOX
should be directed to Dr. Richard
Scheffe, EPA Office of Air Quality
Planning and Standards (OAQPS), at
scheffe.rich@epa.gov or 919–541–4650.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background: The CASAC was
established pursuant to the under the
Clean Air Act (CAA) Amendments of
1977, codified at 42 U.S.C. 7409D(d)(2),
to provide advice, information, and
recommendations to the Administrator
on the scientific and technical aspects of
issues related to the criteria for air
quality standards, research related to air
quality, sources of air pollution, and the
strategies to attain and maintain air
quality standards and to prevent
significant deterioration of air quality.
The CASAC is a Federal Advisory
Committee chartered under the Federal
Advisory Committee Act (FACA), 5
U.S.C., App. 2. Pursuant to FACA and
EPA policy, notice is hereby given that
the CASAC AMMS CASAC AMMS will
hold a public teleconference to discuss
the Subcommittee’s draft peer review
report of the EPA’s draft monitoring
documents for NOX and SOX.
The AMMS met on February 16, 2011
to review EPA’s draft monitoring
documents for NOX and SOX and
proposed methods for assessing levels of
nitrogen and sulfur deposition. [Federal
Register Notice dated January 25, 2011
(76 FR 4346)]. Materials from the
February 2011 meeting are posted on
the SAB Web site at https://
yosemite.epa.gov/sab/sabproduct.nsf/
bf498bd32a1c7fdf85257242006dd6cb/
eea38cc34cc1f86f8525781d005
866e6!OpenDocument&Date=2011-0216. The purpose of the March 29, 2011
teleconference call is for the AMMS to
discuss its draft peer review report.
Availability of Meeting Materials: The
agenda and materials in support of this
teleconference call will be placed on the
EPA CASAC Web site at https://
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICES
DATES:
VerDate Mar<15>2010
19:12 Mar 07, 2011
Jkt 223001
www.epa.gov/casac in advance of the
teleconference call.
Procedures for Providing Public Input:
Interested members of the public may
submit relevant written or oral
information on the topic of this advisory
activity for the CASAC to consider
during the advisory process. Oral
Statements: In general, individuals or
groups requesting an oral presentation
at this public teleconference will be
limited to three minutes per speaker.
Interested parties should contact Mr.
Edward Hanlon, DFO, in writing
(preferably via e-mail), at the contact
information noted above, by March 22,
2011 to be placed on the list of public
speakers for the teleconference. Written
Statements: Written statements should
be received in the SAB Staff Office by
March 22, 2011 so that the information
may be made available to the CASAC
AMMS for their consideration. Written
statements should be supplied to the
DFO in the following formats: one hard
copy with original signature, and one
electronic copy via e-mail (acceptable
file format: Adobe Acrobat PDF,
WordPerfect, MS Word, MS PowerPoint,
or Rich Text files in IBM–PC/Windows
98/2000/XP format). Submitters are
requested to provide two versions of
each document submitted with and
without signatures, because the SAB
Staff Office does not publish documents
with signatures on its Web sites.
Accessibility: For information on
access or services for individuals with
disabilities, please contact Mr. Edward
Hanlon at the phone number or e-mail
address noted above, preferably at least
ten days prior to the meeting, to give
EPA as much time as possible to process
your request.
Dated: March 2, 2011.
Anthony F. Maciorowski,
Deputy Director, EPA Science Advisory Board
Staff Office.
[FR Doc. 2011–5202 Filed 3–7–11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
12733
Open Session
1. Announcement of Notation Votes,
and
2. Employment of People with Mental
Disabilities.
Note: In accordance with the Sunshine Act,
the meeting will be open to public
observation of the Commission’s
deliberations and voting. Seating is limited
and it is suggested that visitors arrive 30
minutes before the meeting in order to be
processed through security and escorted to
the meeting room. (In addition to publishing
notices on EEOC Commission meetings in the
Federal Register, the Commission also
provides information about Commission
meetings on its Web site, https://
www.eeoc.gov., and provides a recorded
announcement a week in advance on future
Commission sessions.)
Please telephone (202) 663–7100
(voice) and (202) 663–4074 (TTY) at any
time for information on these meetings.
The EEOC provides sign language
interpretation and Communication
Access Realtime Translation (CART)
services at Commission meetings for
individuals who are deaf or hard of
hearing. Requests for other reasonable
accommodations may be made by using
the voice and TTY numbers listed
above.
CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION:
Stephen Llewellyn, Executive Officer on
(202) 663–4070.
Dated: March 4, 2011.
Stephen Llewellyn,
Executive Officer, Executive Secretariat.
[FR Doc. 2011–5361 Filed 3–4–11; 4:15 pm]
BILLING CODE 6570–01–P
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS
COMMISSION
[EB Docket No. 10–247; DA 11–246]
Shenzhen Tangreat Technology Co.,
Ltd., Grantee of Equipment
Authorization FCC ID No. XRLTG–
VIPJAMM
EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY
COMMISSION
Federal Communications
Commission.
ACTION: Notice.
Sunshine Act Notice
SUMMARY:
AGENCY:
Equal
Employment Opportunity Commission.
DATE AND TIME: Tuesday, March 15,
2011, 1 p.m. Eastern Time.
PLACE: Commission Meeting Room on
the First Floor of the EEOC Office
Building, 131 ‘‘M’’ Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20507.
STATUS: The meeting will be open to the
public.
MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED:
AGENCY HOLDING THE MEETING:
PO 00000
Frm 00043
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
This document commences a
hearing proceeding by directing
Shenzhen Tangreat Technology Co., Ltd.
(‘‘Shenzhen’’), Grantee of Equipment
Authorization FCC ID No. XRLTG–
VIPJAMM, to show cause why the
equipment authorization FCC ID No.
XRLTG–VIPJAMM should not be
revoked and why a Forfeiture Order in
an amount not to exceed one hundred
and twelve thousand five hundred
dollars ($112,500) should not be issued
against Shenzhen for apparent false
E:\FR\FM\08MRN1.SGM
08MRN1
12734
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 45 / Tuesday, March 8, 2011 / Notices
statements or representations made in
either its application for this equipment
authorization or in materials or
responses submitted therewith; the
manufacture and marketing of
equipment that does not conform to the
pertinent technical requirements or
representations made in its application
for authorization; and/or changes made
in such equipment that are not
authorized by the Commission.
DATES: Petitions by parties desiring to
participate as a party in the hearing,
pursuant to 47 CFR 1.223, may be filed
on or before April 7, 2011. See
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section for
dates when named parties should file
appearances.
Please file documents with
the Office of the Secretary, Federal
Communications Commission, 445 12th
Street, SW., Washington, DC 20554.
Each document that is filed in this
proceeding must display the document
number of this hearing, EB Docket No.
10–247, on the front page.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Kevin Pittman, Spectrum Enforcement
Division, Enforcement Bureau, Federal
Communications Commission at (202)
418–1160.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is the
full text of the Order to Show Cause and
Notice of Opportunity for Hearing
(‘‘Order to Show Cause’’), DA 11–246,
released February 9, 2011. The full text
of the Order to Show Cause is also
available for inspection and copying
from 8 a.m. until 4:30 p.m., Monday
through Thursday or from 8 a.m. until
11:30 a.m. on Friday at the FCC
Reference Information Center, Portals II,
Room CY–A257, 445 12th Street, SW.,
Washington, DC 20554. The complete
text may be purchased from the
Commission’s copy contractor, Best
Copy and Printing, Inc. (BCPI), Portals
II, 445 12th Street, SW., Room CY–B402,
Washington, DC 20554, telephone (800)
378–3160, facsimile (202) 488–5563, email FCC@BCPIWEB.com, or you may
contact BCPI via its Web site, https://
www.bcpiweb.com. When ordering
documents from BCPI, please provide
the appropriate FCC document number,
DA 11–246. The Order to Show Cause
is also available on the Internet at the
Commission’s Web site through its
Electronic Document Management
System (EDOCS): https://
hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/.
Alternative formats are available to
persons with disabilities (Braille, large
print, electronic files, audio format); to
obtain, please send an e-mail to
fcc504@fcc.gov or call the Consumer
and Governmental Affairs Bureau at
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICES
ADDRESSES:
VerDate Mar<15>2010
19:12 Mar 07, 2011
Jkt 223001
(202) 418–0530 (voice), (202) 418–0432
(TTY).
Order To Show Cause
I. Introduction
1. In this Order to Show Cause, we
commence a hearing proceeding
pursuant to sections 1.91 and 2.939 of
the Commission’s rules (‘‘Rules’’) 1
regarding the device manufactured and
marketed under FCC ID No. XRLTG–
VIPJAMM with the brand name
‘‘TxTStopper TM’’.2 The TxTStopper TM
device was marketed in the United
States and apparently has the capability
to block, jam, or otherwise interfere
with the operation of authorized
wireless communications, in violation
of sections 302(b) and 333 of the
Communications Act of 1934, as
amended (‘‘Act’’).3 Moreover, based on
the evidence, the TxTStopper TM device
marketed under FCC ID No. XRLTG–
VIPJAMM is not identical to the device
authorized under that FCC ID, in
violation of section 2.931 of the Rules.4
We further note that jamming devices
pose an unacceptable risk to public
safety and emergency communications,
including interfering with the ability to
make 9–1–1 and other emergency calls
and hindering law enforcement
communications. We therefore direct
Shenzhen Tangreat Technology Co., Ltd.
(‘‘Shenzhen’’) to show cause why the
equipment authorization it holds under
FCC ID No. XRLTG–VIPJAMM should
not be revoked and why a Forfeiture
Order in an amount not to exceed one
hundred and twelve thousand five
hundred dollars ($112,500) should not
be issued against Shenzhen for willfully
and/or repeatedly violating sections
302(b) and 333 of the Act and sections
2.803, 2.907(b), 2.931, 2.932, 2.936 and
2.946 of the Rules.5
II. Background
2. In response to complaints regarding
the marketing of a radio frequency
device called the TxTStopper TM that is
advertised as preventing cell phone use
in moving motor vehicles, the Spectrum
Enforcement Division (‘‘Division’’) of the
FCC’s Enforcement Bureau (‘‘Bureau’’)
1 47
CFR 1.91, 2.939.
with the Commission’s rules and
procedures, the portion of the FCC ID describing the
relevant product or device (in this case, ‘‘TG–
VIPJAMM’’) is assigned by the grantee or applicant.
3 47 U.S.C. 302a(b), 333.
4 47 CFR 2.931.
5 47 U.S.C. 302a(b), 333; 47 CFR 2.803, 2.907(b),
2.931, 2.932, 2.936, 2.946. We are simultaneously
issuing a citation to Share Enterprises, the company
that marketed the TxTStopper TM device in the
United States, for violations of sections 302(b) of
the Act and sections 1.17 and 2.803 of the Rules.
See Share Enterprises Unlimited, Inc., Citation, DA
11–247, February 9, 2011.
2 Consistent
PO 00000
Frm 00044
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
launched an investigation. The Division
staff observed that the txtstopper.com
Web site describes the TxTStopper TM as
a ‘‘state of the art, hard wired mobile
electronic device that totally prevents
cell phone use while the vehicle is in
drive mode.’’ 6 The Web site indicates
that the TxTStopper TM works with any
U.S.-based cell phone; that the
TxTStopper TM prevents anyone in the
vehicle from making or receiving cell
phone calls and sending or receiving
text messages or e-mails on their cell
phones within the ‘‘TXTSafe Zone TM’’;
and that once installed, the
TxTStopper TM cannot be intentionally
or accidentally disabled by the driver.7
The Web site also includes testimonials
from four individuals located in the
United States who apparently
purchased the TxTStopper TM and had
the device installed in their motor
vehicles.8
3. On July 20, 2010, the Division
issued a letter of inquiry (‘‘LOI’’) to
Share Enterprises Unlimited, Inc.
(‘‘Share’’), the company that operates the
txtstopper.com Web site.9 The LOI
directed Share to respond to certain
inquiries within 30 days and to ship a
sample of the TxTStopper TM device to
the FCC’s Office of Engineering and
Technology (‘‘OET’’) Laboratory for
testing within 14 days.10 Share
responded to the LOI on September 6,
2010.11 In its LOI Response, Share
stated that it began ‘‘market research’’ of
the TxTStopper TM on July 1, 2010, in
6 TxTStopper TM Web site, at https://
www.txtstopper.com/cms (visited June 29, 2010 and
October 18, 2010); see also TxTStopper on CNN at
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=io8AtlGRjpQ.
7 See id. at https://www.txtstopper.com/cms/
content/faqs (visited June 29, 2010 and October 18,
2010).
8 See id. at https://www.txtstopper.com/cms/
(Testimonials from Tina S., Atlanta, GA (‘‘With
TxTStopper TM I can rest easy knowing that [my
daughter] won’t be distracted by her cell phone
while she’s behind the wheel.’’); Tony W., Canton,
GA (‘‘TxTStopper TM is the only product in the
market that totally restricts cell phone use in my
son’s car * * * and it works like a charm!’’); Earnest
M., Chicago, IL (‘‘[W]ith the TxTStopper TM in place,
I know [my daughter] is a safer driver.’’); Bebe C.,
Cincinnati, OH (‘‘Thank you TxTStopper TM. I just
purchased a unit for my granddaughter’s vehicle
and it works great!’’)) (visited June 30, 2010 and
September 8, 2010).
9 See Letter from Kathryn S. Berthot, Chief,
Spectrum Enforcement Division, Enforcement
Bureau, Federal Communications Commission, to
Terrence Williams, CFO, Share Enterprises
Unlimited, Inc. (July 20, 2010).
10 See id.
11 See Letter from Terrence Williams, Principal,
Share Enterprises Unlimited, Inc., to Samantha
Peoples, Spectrum Enforcement Division,
Enforcement Bureau, Federal Communications
Commission (September 6, 2010) (‘‘LOI Response’’).
On August 18, 2010, the Enforcement Bureau
granted Share’s request for an extension of time to
respond to the LOI, setting a new response date of
September 7, 2010.
E:\FR\FM\08MRN1.SGM
08MRN1
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 45 / Tuesday, March 8, 2011 / Notices
response to a new Georgia law that bans
texting while driving as well as to other
global initiatives intended to eliminate
cell phone use while operating a motor
vehicle.12 Share stated that the
TxTStopper TM ‘‘by design and function
(unidirectional signal) is to be a custom
designed in-vehicle accident avoidance/
occupant safety system designed to
operate in a strictly limited area—ONLY
inside an owner’s personal vehicle and
only when the vehicle is in drive
mode.’’ 13 According to Share, only
phones inside the vehicle in which the
TxTStopper TM is installed are affected
and the TxTStopper TM creates no
outside interference.14 Share further
asserted that the TxTStopper TM does
not interfere with the user’s ability to
make 9–1–1 calls at any time.15
4. However, Share did not provide
any technical explanation or other
evidence to substantiate its claims that
the TxTStopper TM device only affects
phones inside the vehicle where the
device is installed, that the device does
not create interference beyond the
vehicle, and that while blocking all cell
phone communications, the device
nevertheless allows users to make 9–1–
1 calls. Instead, Share simply stated that
it was not the manufacturer of the
device and that it obtained the
TxTStopper TM ‘‘beta test units’’ from a
supplier located in China.16 Share
indicated that it had offered only three
units of the TxTStopper TM during its
market research efforts and that those
three units were shipped directly from
the overseas supplier to the end user.17
Share also claimed that the
TxTStopper TM was certified by the FCC
under FCC ID No. XRLTG–VIPJAMM.18
Finally, Share maintained that it was
unable to provide the requested sample
of the TxTStopper TM because research
and development and beta testing of the
device were ongoing by various
manufacturer engineers and a prototype
was pending.19
5. At the Bureau’s request, OET
subsequently reviewed the equipment
certification granted under FCC ID No.
XRLTG–VIPJAMM and the underlying
application and supporting
documents.20 OET observed certain
12 Id.
at 1.
at 2.
14 See id.
15 See id.
16 Id. at 1. Share identified its supplier as
Chinazrh International Co., Ltd. (‘‘Chinazrh’’). See
id. It is unclear what relationship exists between
Chinazrh and Shenzhen.
17 See id. at 2.
18 See id.
19 See id.
20 The equipment certification under FCC ID No.
XRLTG–VIPJAMM was granted to Shenzhen on
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICES
13 Id.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
19:12 Mar 07, 2011
Jkt 223001
apparent discrepancies between the
application, test report, and equipment
certification as to the nature and
purpose of the device. Specifically, the
device approved under the certification,
which was issued to Shenzhen 21 by a
Telecommunications Certification Body
(‘‘TCB’’) 22 on October 20, 2009, was
purportedly a Part 15, Class B computer
peripheral.23 The application for the
device also listed the equipment class as
‘‘JBP—Part 15 Class B computing
peripheral’’ 24 and included the
following description of the product:
‘‘computer peripheral for preprocessing
data.’’ 25 Similarly, the test report 26 and
other data submitted with the
application for this device show that the
device was tested when connected to a
personal computer and the AC power
line, and that there were no emissions
other than those associated with a
digital device.27 Contrary to this
evidence, however, the test report
October 20, 2009. See https://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/oetcf/
eas/reports/GenericSearch.cfm.
21 As the grantee of the certification issued under
FCC ID No. XRLTG–VIPJAMM, Shenzhen is the
party responsible for ensuring that the device
complies with all applicable regulations. See 47
CFR 2.909(a).
22 A Telecommunications Certification Body
(‘‘TCB’’) is a private entity designated by the
Commission to approve equipment subject to
certification. TCBs, which are accredited by the
National Institute of Standards and Technology,
process equipment certification applications to
determine whether the product meets the
Commission’s requirements and, if so, issue a
written grant of equipment authorization. See 47
CFR 2.960, 2.962.
23 A peripheral device is [a]n input/output unit of
a system that feeds data into and/or receives data
from the central processing unit of a digital device.
Peripherals to a digital device include any device
that is connected external to the digital device, any
device internal to the digital device that connects
the digital device to an external device by wire or
cable, and any circuit board designed for
interchangeable mounting, internally or externally,
that increases the operating or processing speed of
a digital device, e.g., ‘turbo’ cards and
‘enhancement’ boards. Examples of peripheral
devices include terminals, printers, external floppy
disk drives and other data storage devices, video
monitors, keyboards, interface boards, external
memory expansion cards, and other input/output
devices that may or may not contain digital
circuitry.
47 CFR 15.3(r).
24 ‘‘JBP’’ is the equipment class code assigned by
the Commission to designate Part 15 Class B
Computing Device Peripherals on FCC Form 731,
Application for Equipment Authorization. See
https://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/oetcf/eas/index.cfm.
25 Shenzhen Tangreat Technology Co., Ltd.,
Application for Equipment Authorization FCC
Form 731 TCB Version.
26 Shenzhen BST Technology Co., Ltd., a test
laboratory authorized to perform certification
testing pursuant to section 2.948 of the Rules, 47
CFR 2.948, conducted the test and prepared the test
report. See https://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/oetcf/eas/
reports/ViewExhibitReport.cfm?mode=Exhibits&
RequestTimeout=500&calledFromFrame=N&
application_id=754164&fcc_id=’XRLTG-VIPJAMM’.
27 See id.
PO 00000
Frm 00045
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
12735
described the equipment being tested as
an ‘‘RF Jammer’’, and apparently this
description was erroneously reproduced
in the ‘‘Notes’’ section of the equipment
certification.28
6. On September 7, 2010, OET sent a
letter to the TCB that issued the grant of
certification under FCC ID No. XRLTG–
VIPJAMM, seeking information as to
whether the device was in fact an
intentional radiator 29 and an illegal
jammer and requesting an explanation
for the conflicting information on the
face of the certification.30 In its
response, the TCB indicated that the
application for the device was marked
as a JBP application, which indicates
that the device is intended to be used as
a Part 15 Class B computing device
peripheral.31 The TCB noted that after
examining the block diagram and
schematics originally submitted with
the application, it determined that the
device appeared to have an
accompanying receiver. The TCB further
stated that prior to certifying the device,
it had sought clarification about this
inconsistency and placed a hold on the
application.32 The applicant responded
by resubmitting the application with
revised exhibits that removed the
receiver circuitry from the application.
The TCB then continued its review of
the application in reliance on the
applicant’s representations, concluding
in good faith that the device was strictly
a computer peripheral without any
receiving or transmitting circuitry.33
The TCB also stated that it considered
the description of the device ‘‘RF
Jammer’’ to be a misnomer and therefore
proceeded with grant of the
application.34
28 See FCC ID No. XRL–TGVIPJAMM, at https://
fjallfoss.fcc.gov/oetcf/eas/reports/Generic
Search.cfm. On September 30, 2010, OET
conformed the certification issued under FCC ID
No. XRLTG–VIPJAMM to reflect the actual device
that was submitted for testing, substituting
‘‘Computer peripheral for preprocessing data’’ for
‘‘RF Jammer’’ under the ‘‘Notes’’ section of the
certification.
29 An intentional radiator is a ‘‘device that
intentionally generates and emits radio frequency
energy by radiation or induction.’’ 47 CFR 15.3(o).
30 See Letter from Raymond LaForge, Chief,
Auditing and Compliance Branch, Office of
Engineering and Technology Laboratory, Federal
Communications Commission, to Timco
Engineering, Inc. (September 7, 2010).
31 See E-mail from Gretchen Greene, Timco
Engineering, Inc., to Raymond LaForge, Chief,
Auditing and Compliance Branch, Office of
Engineering and Technology Laboratory, Federal
Communications Commission (September 17,
2010).
32 See id.
33 See id.
34 See id. In addition, the TCB noted that it
requested a surveillance sample of the device from
the test lab on July 6, 2010, but did not receive a
sample in response to its request. Further, the TCB
E:\FR\FM\08MRN1.SGM
Continued
08MRN1
12736
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 45 / Tuesday, March 8, 2011 / Notices
7. On September 9, 2010, OET sent a
letter to Shenzhen, the grantee of the
certification at issue in this Order,
requesting that it provide an
explanation within 30 days as to why
the application was submitted to the
TCB as a JBP application for a Part 15
Class B computing peripheral device,
when it appeared to be an intentional
radiator that could transmit radio
signals.35 On September 16, 2010, OET
sent another letter to Shenzhen
directing it to submit a sample of the
device certified under FCC ID No.
XRLTG–VIPJAMM to the OET
Laboratory for testing within 30 days.36
To date, Shenzhen has not responded to
the letters from OET or submitted the
requested sample.
8. On November 2, 2010, agents from
the Bureau’s Atlanta, Georgia Field
Office observed a unit of the
TxTStopper TM that had been installed
in a vehicle owned by Just Driver
Training, a driver’s education training
school located in Canton, Georgia. Tests
conducted by the agents indicated that
the TxTStopper TM is in fact a cellular/
PCS jammer and that when installed in
a vehicle the TxTStopper TM is capable
of blocking cellular communications
initiated from both inside and outside of
the vehicle,37 apparently including 9–1–
1 and other emergency calls.
III. Discussion
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICES
A. Applicable Legal Standard
9. The Commission follows the same
procedures in revoking an equipment
authorization as it does when revoking
a radio station license.38 Pursuant to
section 312(c) of the Act, before
revoking a radio station license, the
Commission must serve the licensee
stated that upon receiving the letter from OET, it
advised the test lab of OET’s request for further
information regarding the device and that the test
lab subsequently informed the TCB that it tried to
contact Shenzhen, but received no response. See id.
35 See Letter from Raymond LaForge, Chief,
Auditing and Compliance Branch, Office of
Engineering and Technology Laboratory, Federal
Communications Commission, to Junrong Jiang,
General Manager, Shenzhen Tangreat Technology
Co., Inc. (September 9, 2010). The letter was sent
to the e-mail address listed in Shenzhen’s
equipment authorization application,
tangreat@tangreat.com.
36 See Letter from Raymond LaForge, Chief,
Auditing and Compliance Branch, Office of
Engineering and Technology Laboratory, to
Shenzhen Tangreat Technology Co., Inc.
(September 16, 2010). Under section 2.945 of the
Rules, the Commission may require responsible
parties to submit equipment samples in order to
determine the extent to which subsequent
production of such equipment continues to comply
with the data filed by the applicant. 47 CFR 2.945.
37 Field tests indicate that calls are blocked
within a 150-foot radius of the vehicle.
38 See 47 CFR 2.939(b) (‘‘Revocation of an
equipment authorization shall be made in the same
manner as revocation of radio station licenses.’’).
VerDate Mar<15>2010
19:12 Mar 07, 2011
Jkt 223001
with an order to show cause why an
order of revocation should not be issued
and must provide the licensee with an
opportunity for hearing.39
10. Section 2.939(a)(1) of the Rules
authorizes the Commission to revoke
any equipment authorization for ‘‘false
statements or representations made
either in the application or in materials
or response submitted in connection
therewith.’’ 40 Section 2.939(a)(2) of the
Rules, moreover, provides that the
Commission may revoke any equipment
authorization ‘‘[i]f upon subsequent
inspection or operation it is determined
that the equipment does not conform to
the pertinent technical requirements or
to the representations made in the
original application.’’ 41 Section
2.939(a)(3) of the Rules also authorizes
revocation ‘‘[i]f it is determined that
changes have been made in the
equipment other than those authorized
by the rules or otherwise expressly
authorized by the Commission.’’ 42
Furthermore, section 2.939(a)(4) of the
Rules provides that the Commission
may revoke an equipment authorization
upon discovery of conditions which
would warrant its refusal to grant an
original application.43 This Order to
Show Cause is predicated on
Shenzhen’s apparent willful and
repeated violation of the Act and the
Rules, including evidence that the
original application for certification was
tainted by misrepresentations and/or
that unauthorized changes were made to
the TxTStopper TM device postcertification.
11. Grant of an application for
equipment certification is governed by
section 2.915 of the Rules, which
requires that the grant serve the public
interest and that the device comply with
the pertinent technical rules, in this
case, sections 2.803(a), 2.931, and
15.201.44 Section 333 of the Act,
moreover, states that ‘‘[n]o person shall
willfully or maliciously interfere with or
cause interference to any radio
communications of any station licensed
or authorized by or under this Act or
operated by the United States
Government.’’ 45 In addition, 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.’’ 46 Section 2.803(a)(1) of
the Commission’s implementing
regulations provides that:
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 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 section
2.925 and other relevant sections in this
chapter.47
Additionally, section 2.803(g) of the
Rules provides in relevant part that:
radio frequency devices that could not be
authorized or legally operated under the
current rules * * * shall not be operated,
advertised, displayed, offered for sale or
lease, sold or leased, or otherwise marketed
absent a license issued under part 5 of this
chapter or a special temporary authorization
issued by the Commission.48
Pursuant to section 15.201(b) of the
Rules,49 before intentional radiators 50
can be marketed in the United States,
they must be authorized in accordance
with the Commission’s certification
procedures. Radio frequency jammers,
however, are a type of intentional
radiator that cannot be lawfully certified
because the main purpose of a jammer
is to block or interfere with radio
communications in violation of section
333 of the Act.
12. Furthermore, under section
2.907(b) of the Rules, a certification
attaches to all units subsequently
marketed by the grantee which are
identical to the sample tested except for
permissive changes or other variations
authorized by the Commission.51
Section 2.931 of the Rules provides that
‘‘[i]n accepting a grant of equipment
authorization, the grantee warrants 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 * * * filed with the application for
certification continues to be
representative of the equipment being
produced under such grant * * *’’ 52
Accordingly, devices that are not
identical to the sample tested as part of
an application for certification are not
covered by the grant of certification and
46 Id.
39 47
U.S.C. 312(c).
40 47 CFR 2.939(a)(1).
41 Id. sec. 2.939(a)(2).
42 Id. sec. 2.939(a)(3).
43 Id. sec. 2.939(a)(4).
44 Id. sec. 2.803, 2.915, 2.931, 15.201.
45 47 U.S.C. 333.
PO 00000
Frm 00046
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
sec. 302a(b).
CFR 2.803(a)(1).
48 Id. sec. 2.803(g).
49 Id. sec. 15.201(b).
50 See supra note 29 defining ‘‘intentional
radiator.’’
51 47 CFR 2.907(b).
52 Id. sec. 2.931.
47 47
E:\FR\FM\08MRN1.SGM
08MRN1
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 45 / Tuesday, March 8, 2011 / Notices
may not lawfully be marketed in the
United States.
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICES
B. Analysis of Relevant Facts
13. First, revocation is apparently
warranted under section 2.939(a)(4) of
the Rules, based on facts that have come
to light, which had they been known to
the Commission would have precluded
the original grant. As detailed above and
based on the field tests conducted by
Bureau staff, the TxTStopper TM—the
device apparently being marketed under
FCC ID No. XRLTG–VIPJAMM—can
prevent anyone in a vehicle in which it
is installed from making or receiving
cell phone calls or sending or receiving
text messages or e-mails on a cell phone,
and also can block calls made from
outside the vehicle, apparently
including 9–1–1 and other emergency
calls.53 Thus, this device is a radio
frequency jammer, which interferes
with or blocks authorized radio signals
in violation of section 333 of the Act
and cannot be authorized or marketed in
the United States under section 302(b)
of the Act and section 2.803 of the
Rules.54
14. Second, revocation is apparently
warranted under sections 2.939(a)(1)–(3)
of the Rules, given the apparent
misrepresentations in the application
and related materials, the substantial
53 See supra n.37 (noting that calls are blocked
within a 150-foot radius of the vehicle). The
importance of preserving public safety and
emergency communications free of jamming signals
cannot be overstated and is reflected in the
Commission’s investigations and enforcement
actions in this area. See, e.g., Phonejammer.com,
Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture, 25 FCC
Rcd 3827 (Enf. Bur. Apr. 20, 2010) (initiating a
$25,000 forfeiture proceeding against the company
for marketing jammers designed to interfere with
cellular and ‘‘PCS’’ utilized by St. Lucie County,
Florida Sheriff’s Office); Everybuying.com, Citation,
DA 10–2295 (Enf. Bur. Dec. 6, 2010) (citing the
company for marketing both cell phone signal and
Global Positioning System (‘‘GPS’’) signal blocker
devices, and noting that GPS signal blockers operate
within restricted frequency bands listed in Section
15.205(a) of the Rules); Jammerworld.com, Citation,
DA 10–2240, 2010 WL 4808497 (Enf. Bur. Nov. 26,
2010) (citing the company for marketing a device
that jams signals in the Cell Phone Band (845–975
MHz), PCS Band (1800–1996 MHz), and GPS L1
frequency 1575.42 MHz); Victor McCormack,
phonejammer.com, Citation, DA 10–1975 (Enf. Bur.
Oct. 14, 2010) (citing the company for
misrepresentations made during the course of an
investigation of Phonejammer.com’s sale of jammer
devices); Anoy Wray, Notice of Unlicensed
Operation, Document Number W201032380068
(Enf. Bur., May 18, 2010) (citing Mr. Wray for using
radio transmitting device designed to jam GPS
transmissions); Gene Stinson d.b.a. D&G Food Mart,
Notice of Unauthorized Operation and Interference
to Licensed Radio Stations, Document Number
W200932500003 (Enf. Bur. Aug. 13, 2009) (citing
the company for use of two radio transmitting
devices designed to jam licensed radio
communications transmission in the 850–894 MHz
and other licensed frequency bands used by City of
Oklahoma City Radio System).
54 47 U.S.C. 302a(b), 333; 47 CFR 2.803.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
19:12 Mar 07, 2011
Jkt 223001
differences between the device that was
approved under FCC ID No. XRLTG–
VIPJAMM and the device that has been
marketed as the TxTStopper TM under
this FCC ID, and the unauthorized
changes that apparently were made to
the device.55 The evidence indicates
that the device marketed under FCC ID
No. XRLTG–VIPJAMM is an intentional
radiator with a transmitter circuit
designed to block, jam, or otherwise
interfere with radio communications. In
addition, the information submitted by
the grantee in the application for the
device certified under FCC ID No.
XRLTG–VIPJAMM misled the
certification body and caused them to
conclude the opposite—that the device
is an unintentional radiator, a Part 15
Class B computer peripheral.56
Specifically, the Commission’s review
of the test report and other data
submitted with the application indicates
that the device approved under FCC ID
No. XRLTG–VIPJAMM was tested when
connected to a personal computer and
the AC power line (rather than in a
motor vehicle) and that it did not have
any circuitry for receiving or
transmitting radio signals. By contrast,
the TxTStopper TM device that is being
marketed by Share Enterprises under
FCC ID No. XRLTG–VIPJAMM is clearly
intended for use in a motor vehicle and
is apparently powered by the car
battery.57 Accordingly, it appears that
the device marketed under FCC ID No.
XRLTG–VIPJAMM is not identical to the
sample tested as part of the application
for certification, nor does it conform to
the representations made in the original
applications. Therefore, it cannot legally
be marketed under section 302(b) of the
Act and sections 2.803, 2.907(b) and
2.931 of the Rules.58
15. Based on the foregoing, it appears
(a) that the Commission would be
warranted in refusing to grant an
original application for equipment
authorization for the device certified
under FCC ID No. XRLTG–VIPJAMM; 59
(b) that false statements or
representations may have been made
either in the application or supporting
materials for the device certified under
FCC ID No. XRLTG–VIPJAMM; 60 (c)
that the device marketed under FCC ID
55 47
CFR 2.939(a)(1)–(3).
id. sec. 15.101–15.124.
57 According to the txtstopper.com Web site,
TxTStopper TM is ‘‘a simple 12v device and is easily
installed in less than 1 hour by your local
professional car stereo/auto alarm technician.’’
https://www.txtstopper.com/cms/content/faqs
(visited June 29, 2010 and October 18, 2010).
58 47 U.S.C. 302a(b); 47 CFR 2.803, 2.907(b),
2.931.
59 See 47 CFR 2.939(a)(4).
60 See id. sec. 2.939(a)(1).
56 See
PO 00000
Frm 00047
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
12737
No. XRLTG–VIPJAMM does not
conform to the pertinent technical
requirements or to the representations
made in the original application; 61 and/
or (d) that changes have been made to
the device other than those authorized
by the rules or otherwise expressly
authorized by the Commission.62 In
sum, a substantial and material question
of fact exists as to whether the device in
question should have been certified.
16. The Commission has repeatedly
sought from the manufacturer additional
information that would counter or
explain the evidence. Shenzhen has not
responded, as the Act and our Rules
require,63 to any of the Commission’s
requests. Shenzhen’s failure to respond
to the initial OET letter directing the
company to provide information
regarding the device constitutes an
apparent violation of a Commission
order.64 Numerous Commission
decisions have reaffirmed the
Commission’s authority to investigate
potential misconduct and punish those
that disregard FCC inquiries.65
Likewise, Shenzhen’s failure to comply
with OET’s directive to provide a
sample of the device being marketed
under FCC ID No. XRLTG–VIPJAMM
apparently violates sections 2.936 and
2.946 of the Rules.66 Pursuant to section
2.936 of the Rules, a responsible party
must, upon reasonable request from the
Commission, submit a sample unit of
the equipment covered under an
authorization.67 Similarly, pursuant to
61 See
id. sec. 2.939(a)(2).
id. sec. 2.939(a)(3).
63 The Commission has broad investigatory
authority under Sections 4(i), 4(j), and 403 of the
Act, its rules, and relevant precedent. Section 4(i)
authorizes the Commission to ‘‘issue such orders,
not inconsistent with this Act, as may be necessary
in the execution of its functions.’’ 47 U.S.C. 154(i).
Section 4(j) states that ‘‘the Commission may
conduct its proceedings in such manner as will best
conduce to the proper dispatch of business and to
the ends of justice.’’ Id. sec. 154(j). Section 403
grants the Commission ‘‘full authority and power at
any time to institute an inquiry, on its own motion,
in any case and as to any matter * * * relating to
the enforcement of any of the provisions of this
Act.’’ Id. sec. 403.
64 See id. sec. 503(b)(1)(B).
65 See, e.g., SBC Communications Inc., Forfeiture
Order, 17 FCC Rcd 7589, 7599–7600 (2002)
(ordering $100,000 forfeiture for egregious and
intentional failure to certify the response to a
Bureau inquiry); Fox Television Stations, Notice of
Apparent Liability for Forfeiture, 25 FCC Rcd 7074
(Enf. Bur. 2010) (proposing a $25,000 forfeiture for
failure to respond to a Bureau letter of inquiry);
BigZoo.Com Corporation, Forfeiture Order, 20 FCC
Rcd 3954 (Enf. Bur. 2005) (ordering $20,000
forfeiture for failure to respond to a letter of
inquiry); Digital Antenna, Inc., Notice of Apparent
Liability for Forfeiture and Order, 23 FCC Rcd 7600,
7602 (Spec. Enf. Div., Enf. Bur. 2008) (proposing
$11,000 forfeiture for failure to provide a complete
response to a letter of inquiry).
66 47 CFR 2.936, 2.946.
67 Id. sec. 2.936.
62 See
E:\FR\FM\08MRN1.SGM
08MRN1
12738
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 45 / Tuesday, March 8, 2011 / Notices
section 2.945 of the Rules, the
Commission may request a responsible
party such as Shenzhen to submit
equipment ‘‘to determine the extent to
which subsequent production of such
equipment continues to comply with
the data filed by the applicant.’’ 68 Under
section 2.946 of the Rules, ‘‘[a]ny
responsible party * * * shall provide
test sample(s) or data upon request by
the Commission’’ and ‘‘[f]ailure to
comply with such a request within 14
days may be cause for forfeiture.’’ 69
Shenzhen’s silence serves only to
reinforce the substantial questions that
have been raised regarding whether the
TxTStopper TM device marketed under
FCC ID No. XRLTG–VIPJAMM is
identical to the device actually
approved under that FCC ID.
17. Accordingly, we are designating
this matter for hearing before an
Administrative Law Judge to determine
whether the equipment authorization
held by Shenzhen under FCC ID No.
XRLTG–VIPJAMM should be revoked
on some or all of the bases outlined
herein and whether a Forfeiture Order
in an amount not to exceed one hundred
and twelve thousand five hundred
dollars ($112,500) should be issued.
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICES
IV. Ordering Clauses
18. Accordingly, it is ordered that,
pursuant to sections 312(a) and (c) of
the Act,70 and authority delegated
pursuant to sections 0.111, 0.311,
1.91(a) and 2.939(b) of the Rules,71
Shenzhen Tangreat Technology Co., Ltd.
is hereby ordered to show cause why its
equipment authorization, FCC ID No.
XRLTG–VIPJAMM, should not be
revoked. Shenzhen shall appear before
an Administrative Law Judge at a time
and place to be specified in a
subsequent order and give evidence
upon the following issues:
(a) To determine whether the device
marketed under FCC ID No. XRLTG–
VIPJAMM is capable of interfering with
or blocking authorized radio signals in
violation of section 333 of the Act and
therefore cannot legally be authorized or
marketed under section 302(b) of the
Act and section 2.803 of the Rules;
(b) To determine whether the device
marketed under FCC ID No. XRLTG–
VIPJAMM is not identical to the device
authorized under FCC ID No. XRLTG–
VIPJAMM and therefore cannot legally
be marketed under section 302(b) of the
Act and sections 2.803, 2.907(b), and
2.931 of the Rules;
sec. 2.945.
sec. 2.946.
70 47 U.S.C. 312(a), (c).
71 47 CFR 0.111, 0.311, 1.91(a), 2.939(b).
(c) To determine whether the device
marketed under FCC ID No. XRLTG–
VIPJAMM does not conform to the
pertinent technical requirements or to
the representations made in the original
application (see section 2.939(a)(2));
(d) To determine whether changes
were made to the device certified under
equipment authorization FCC ID No.
XRLTG–VIPJAMM other than those
authorized by the rules or otherwise
expressly authorized by the Commission
(see section 2.939(a)(3));
(e) To determine whether Shenzhen
made false statements or representations
either in the application or in materials
submitted in connection therewith (see
section 2.939(a)(1));
(f) To determine whether the
Commission would be warranted in
refusing to grant an original application
for equipment authorization for the
device certified under FCC ID No.
XRLTG–VIPJAMM (see section
2.939(a)(4));
(g) To determine whether Shenzhen
willfully violated sections 2.936 and
2.946 of the Rules by failing to provide
a test sample of the device being
marketed under FCC ID No. XRLTG–
VIPJAMM upon request by the
Commission, and otherwise willfully
failed to respond to a Commission
request for information regarding the
device; and
(h) To determine, in light of the
evidence adduced pursuant to the
foregoing issues, whether the equipment
authorization held by Shenzhen under
FCC ID No. XRLTG–VIPJAMM should
be revoked.
19. It is further ordered that,
irrespective of the resolution of the
foregoing issues, it shall be determined,
pursuant to section 503(b)(3)(A) of the
Act, 47 U.S.C. 503(b)(3)(A), and section
1.80 of the Rules, 47 CFR 1.80, whether
a Forfeiture Order in an amount not to
exceed one hundred and twelve
thousand five hundred dollars
($112,500) shall be issued against
Shenzhen Tangreat Technology Co., Ltd.
for willfully and/or repeatedly violating
sections 302(b) and 333 of the Act and
sections 2.803, 2.907(b), 2.931, 2.932,
2.936 and 2.946 of the Rules.72
20. It is further ordered that, in
connection with the possible forfeiture
liability noted above, this document
constitutes notice of an opportunity for
hearing, pursuant to section 503(b)(3)(A)
of the Act and section 1.80 of the Rules.
21. It is further ordered that, pursuant
to section 312(c) of the Act and sections
1.91(c) and 2.939(b) of the Rules,73 to
avail itself of the opportunity to be
heard and to present evidence at a
hearing in this proceeding, Shenzhen, in
person or by an attorney, shall file with
the Commission, within thirty (30) days
of the release of this Order to Show
Cause, a written appearance stating that
it will appear at the hearing and present
evidence on the issues specified above.
22. It is further ordered that, pursuant
to section 312(c) of the Act and sections
1.92(c) and 2.939(b) of the Rules,74 if
Shenzhen fails to file a timely notice of
appearance within the thirty (30) day
period, or has not filed a petition to
accept, for good cause shown, a written
appearance beyond the expiration of the
thirty (30)-day period, its right to a
hearing shall be deemed to be waived.
In the event that Shenzhen waives its
right to a hearing, the presiding
Administrative Law Judge shall, at the
earliest practicable date, issue an order
reciting the events or circumstances
constituting a waiver of hearing,
terminating the hearing proceeding, and
certifying the case to the Commission.
23. It is further ordered that the Chief,
Enforcement Bureau, shall be made a
party to this proceeding without the
need to file a written appearance.75
24. It is further ordered that, pursuant
to section 312(d) of the Act and sections
1.91(d) and 2.939(b) of the Rules,76 the
burden of proceeding with the
introduction of evidence and the burden
of proof with respect to the issues
specified above shall be on the Chief,
Enforcement Bureau.
25. It is further ordered that a copy of
this Order to Show Cause shall be sent
by first class mail, overnight mail,
facsimile and e-mail, to Junrong Jiang,
General Manager, Shenzhen Tangreat
Technology Co., Ltd., 4th Floor, R&D
Building, Dacheng Industry, Jihua Road,
Bantian, Shenzhen, 518129, China, 86–
755–82527821 (facsimile),
tangreat@tangreat.com (e-mail).
26. It is further ordered that a copy of
this Order to Show Cause, or a summary
thereof, shall be published in the
Federal Register.
Federal Communications Commission.
P. Michele Ellison,
Chief, Enforcement Bureau.
[FR Doc. 2011–5221 Filed 3–7–11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712–01–P
68 Id.
69 Id.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
19:12 Mar 07, 2011
Jkt 223001
72 47 U.S.C. 302a(b), 333; 47 CFR 2.803, 2.907(b),
2.931, 2.932, 2.936, 2.946.
73 47 U.S.C. 312(c); 47 CFR 1.91(c), 2.939(b).
PO 00000
Frm 00048
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 9990
74 47
U.S.C. 312(c); 47 CFR 1.92(c), 2.939(b).
47 CFR 0.111(b).
76 See 47 U.S.C. 312(d); 47 CFR 1.91(d), 2.939(b).
75 See
E:\FR\FM\08MRN1.SGM
08MRN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 45 (Tuesday, March 8, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 12733-12738]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-5221]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
[EB Docket No. 10-247; DA 11-246]
Shenzhen Tangreat Technology Co., Ltd., Grantee of Equipment
Authorization FCC ID No. XRLTG-VIPJAMM
AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.
ACTION: Notice.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This document commences a hearing proceeding by directing
Shenzhen Tangreat Technology Co., Ltd. (``Shenzhen''), Grantee of
Equipment Authorization FCC ID No. XRLTG-VIPJAMM, to show cause why the
equipment authorization FCC ID No. XRLTG-VIPJAMM should not be revoked
and why a Forfeiture Order in an amount not to exceed one hundred and
twelve thousand five hundred dollars ($112,500) should not be issued
against Shenzhen for apparent false
[[Page 12734]]
statements or representations made in either its application for this
equipment authorization or in materials or responses submitted
therewith; the manufacture and marketing of equipment that does not
conform to the pertinent technical requirements or representations made
in its application for authorization; and/or changes made in such
equipment that are not authorized by the Commission.
DATES: Petitions by parties desiring to participate as a party in the
hearing, pursuant to 47 CFR 1.223, may be filed on or before April 7,
2011. See SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section for dates when named
parties should file appearances.
ADDRESSES: Please file documents with the Office of the Secretary,
Federal Communications Commission, 445 12th Street, SW., Washington, DC
20554. Each document that is filed in this proceeding must display the
document number of this hearing, EB Docket No. 10-247, on the front
page.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kevin Pittman, Spectrum Enforcement
Division, Enforcement Bureau, Federal Communications Commission at
(202) 418-1160.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is the full text of the Order to Show
Cause and Notice of Opportunity for Hearing (``Order to Show Cause''),
DA 11-246, released February 9, 2011. The full text of the Order to
Show Cause is also available for inspection and copying from 8 a.m.
until 4:30 p.m., Monday through Thursday or from 8 a.m. until 11:30
a.m. on Friday at the FCC Reference Information Center, Portals II,
Room CY-A257, 445 12th Street, SW., Washington, DC 20554. The complete
text may be purchased from the Commission's copy contractor, Best Copy
and Printing, Inc. (BCPI), Portals II, 445 12th Street, SW., Room CY-
B402, Washington, DC 20554, telephone (800) 378-3160, facsimile (202)
488-5563, e-mail FCC@BCPIWEB.com, or you may contact BCPI via its Web
site, https://www.bcpiweb.com. When ordering documents from BCPI, please
provide the appropriate FCC document number, DA 11-246. The Order to
Show Cause is also available on the Internet at the Commission's Web
site through its Electronic Document Management System (EDOCS): https://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/. Alternative formats are available to
persons with disabilities (Braille, large print, electronic files,
audio format); to obtain, please send an e-mail to fcc504@fcc.gov or
call the Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau at (202) 418-0530
(voice), (202) 418-0432 (TTY).
Order To Show Cause
I. Introduction
1. In this Order to Show Cause, we commence a hearing proceeding
pursuant to sections 1.91 and 2.939 of the Commission's rules
(``Rules'') \1\ regarding the device manufactured and marketed under
FCC ID No. XRLTG-VIPJAMM with the brand name ``TxTStopper
TM''.\2\ The TxTStopper TM device was marketed in
the United States and apparently has the capability to block, jam, or
otherwise interfere with the operation of authorized wireless
communications, in violation of sections 302(b) and 333 of the
Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act'').\3\ Moreover, based on
the evidence, the TxTStopper TM device marketed under FCC ID
No. XRLTG-VIPJAMM is not identical to the device authorized under that
FCC ID, in violation of section 2.931 of the Rules.\4\ We further note
that jamming devices pose an unacceptable risk to public safety and
emergency communications, including interfering with the ability to
make 9-1-1 and other emergency calls and hindering law enforcement
communications. We therefore direct Shenzhen Tangreat Technology Co.,
Ltd. (``Shenzhen'') to show cause why the equipment authorization it
holds under FCC ID No. XRLTG-VIPJAMM should not be revoked and why a
Forfeiture Order in an amount not to exceed one hundred and twelve
thousand five hundred dollars ($112,500) should not be issued against
Shenzhen for willfully and/or repeatedly violating sections 302(b) and
333 of the Act and sections 2.803, 2.907(b), 2.931, 2.932, 2.936 and
2.946 of the Rules.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ 47 CFR 1.91, 2.939.
\2\ Consistent with the Commission's rules and procedures, the
portion of the FCC ID describing the relevant product or device (in
this case, ``TG-VIPJAMM'') is assigned by the grantee or applicant.
\3\ 47 U.S.C. 302a(b), 333.
\4\ 47 CFR 2.931.
\5\ 47 U.S.C. 302a(b), 333; 47 CFR 2.803, 2.907(b), 2.931,
2.932, 2.936, 2.946. We are simultaneously issuing a citation to
Share Enterprises, the company that marketed the TxTStopper
TM device in the United States, for violations of
sections 302(b) of the Act and sections 1.17 and 2.803 of the Rules.
See Share Enterprises Unlimited, Inc., Citation, DA 11-247, February
9, 2011.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
II. Background
2. In response to complaints regarding the marketing of a radio
frequency device called the TxTStopper TM that is advertised
as preventing cell phone use in moving motor vehicles, the Spectrum
Enforcement Division (``Division'') of the FCC's Enforcement Bureau
(``Bureau'') launched an investigation. The Division staff observed
that the txtstopper.com Web site describes the TxTStopper TM
as a ``state of the art, hard wired mobile electronic device that
totally prevents cell phone use while the vehicle is in drive mode.''
\6\ The Web site indicates that the TxTStopper TM works with
any U.S.-based cell phone; that the TxTStopper TM prevents
anyone in the vehicle from making or receiving cell phone calls and
sending or receiving text messages or e-mails on their cell phones
within the ``TXTSafe Zone TM''; and that once installed, the
TxTStopper TM cannot be intentionally or accidentally
disabled by the driver.\7\ The Web site also includes testimonials from
four individuals located in the United States who apparently purchased
the TxTStopper TM and had the device installed in their
motor vehicles.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ TxTStopper TM Web site, at https://www.txtstopper.com/cms (visited June 29, 2010 and October 18, 2010);
see also TxTStopper on CNN at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=io8AtlGRjpQ.
\7\ See id. at https://www.txtstopper.com/cms/content/faqs
(visited June 29, 2010 and October 18, 2010).
\8\ See id. at https://www.txtstopper.com/cms/ (Testimonials from
Tina S., Atlanta, GA (``With TxTStopper TM I can rest
easy knowing that [my daughter] won't be distracted by her cell
phone while she's behind the wheel.''); Tony W., Canton, GA
(``TxTStopper TM is the only product in the market that
totally restricts cell phone use in my son's car * * * and it works
like a charm!''); Earnest M., Chicago, IL (``[W]ith the TxTStopper
TM in place, I know [my daughter] is a safer driver.'');
Bebe C., Cincinnati, OH (``Thank you TxTStopper TM. I
just purchased a unit for my granddaughter's vehicle and it works
great!'')) (visited June 30, 2010 and September 8, 2010).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. On July 20, 2010, the Division issued a letter of inquiry
(``LOI'') to Share Enterprises Unlimited, Inc. (``Share''), the company
that operates the txtstopper.com Web site.\9\ The LOI directed Share to
respond to certain inquiries within 30 days and to ship a sample of the
TxTStopper \TM\ device to the FCC's Office of Engineering and
Technology (``OET'') Laboratory for testing within 14 days.\10\ Share
responded to the LOI on September 6, 2010.\11\ In its LOI Response,
Share stated that it began ``market research'' of the TxTStopper \TM\
on July 1, 2010, in
[[Page 12735]]
response to a new Georgia law that bans texting while driving as well
as to other global initiatives intended to eliminate cell phone use
while operating a motor vehicle.\12\ Share stated that the TxTStopper
\TM\ ``by design and function (unidirectional signal) is to be a custom
designed in-vehicle accident avoidance/occupant safety system designed
to operate in a strictly limited area--ONLY inside an owner's personal
vehicle and only when the vehicle is in drive mode.'' \13\ According to
Share, only phones inside the vehicle in which the TxTStopper \TM\ is
installed are affected and the TxTStopper \TM\ creates no outside
interference.\14\ Share further asserted that the TxTStopper \TM\ does
not interfere with the user's ability to make 9-1-1 calls at any
time.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ See Letter from Kathryn S. Berthot, Chief, Spectrum
Enforcement Division, Enforcement Bureau, Federal Communications
Commission, to Terrence Williams, CFO, Share Enterprises Unlimited,
Inc. (July 20, 2010).
\10\ See id.
\11\ See Letter from Terrence Williams, Principal, Share
Enterprises Unlimited, Inc., to Samantha Peoples, Spectrum
Enforcement Division, Enforcement Bureau, Federal Communications
Commission (September 6, 2010) (``LOI Response''). On August 18,
2010, the Enforcement Bureau granted Share's request for an
extension of time to respond to the LOI, setting a new response date
of September 7, 2010.
\12\ Id. at 1.
\13\ Id. at 2.
\14\ See id.
\15\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. However, Share did not provide any technical explanation or
other evidence to substantiate its claims that the TxTStopper \TM\
device only affects phones inside the vehicle where the device is
installed, that the device does not create interference beyond the
vehicle, and that while blocking all cell phone communications, the
device nevertheless allows users to make 9-1-1 calls. Instead, Share
simply stated that it was not the manufacturer of the device and that
it obtained the TxTStopper \TM\ ``beta test units'' from a supplier
located in China.\16\ Share indicated that it had offered only three
units of the TxTStopper \TM\ during its market research efforts and
that those three units were shipped directly from the overseas supplier
to the end user.\17\ Share also claimed that the TxTStopper \TM\ was
certified by the FCC under FCC ID No. XRLTG-VIPJAMM.\18\ Finally, Share
maintained that it was unable to provide the requested sample of the
TxTStopper \TM\ because research and development and beta testing of
the device were ongoing by various manufacturer engineers and a
prototype was pending.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ Id. at 1. Share identified its supplier as Chinazrh
International Co., Ltd. (``Chinazrh''). See id. It is unclear what
relationship exists between Chinazrh and Shenzhen.
\17\ See id. at 2.
\18\ See id.
\19\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
5. At the Bureau's request, OET subsequently reviewed the equipment
certification granted under FCC ID No. XRLTG-VIPJAMM and the underlying
application and supporting documents.\20\ OET observed certain apparent
discrepancies between the application, test report, and equipment
certification as to the nature and purpose of the device. Specifically,
the device approved under the certification, which was issued to
Shenzhen \21\ by a Telecommunications Certification Body (``TCB'') \22\
on October 20, 2009, was purportedly a Part 15, Class B computer
peripheral.\23\ The application for the device also listed the
equipment class as ``JBP--Part 15 Class B computing peripheral'' \24\
and included the following description of the product: ``computer
peripheral for preprocessing data.'' \25\ Similarly, the test report
\26\ and other data submitted with the application for this device show
that the device was tested when connected to a personal computer and
the AC power line, and that there were no emissions other than those
associated with a digital device.\27\ Contrary to this evidence,
however, the test report described the equipment being tested as an
``RF Jammer'', and apparently this description was erroneously
reproduced in the ``Notes'' section of the equipment certification.\28\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\20\ The equipment certification under FCC ID No. XRLTG-VIPJAMM
was granted to Shenzhen on October 20, 2009. See https://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/oetcf/eas/reports/GenericSearch.cfm.
\21\ As the grantee of the certification issued under FCC ID No.
XRLTG-VIPJAMM, Shenzhen is the party responsible for ensuring that
the device complies with all applicable regulations. See 47 CFR
2.909(a).
\22\ A Telecommunications Certification Body (``TCB'') is a
private entity designated by the Commission to approve equipment
subject to certification. TCBs, which are accredited by the National
Institute of Standards and Technology, process equipment
certification applications to determine whether the product meets
the Commission's requirements and, if so, issue a written grant of
equipment authorization. See 47 CFR 2.960, 2.962.
\23\ A peripheral device is [a]n input/output unit of a system
that feeds data into and/or receives data from the central
processing unit of a digital device. Peripherals to a digital device
include any device that is connected external to the digital device,
any device internal to the digital device that connects the digital
device to an external device by wire or cable, and any circuit board
designed for interchangeable mounting, internally or externally,
that increases the operating or processing speed of a digital
device, e.g., `turbo' cards and `enhancement' boards. Examples of
peripheral devices include terminals, printers, external floppy disk
drives and other data storage devices, video monitors, keyboards,
interface boards, external memory expansion cards, and other input/
output devices that may or may not contain digital circuitry.
47 CFR 15.3(r).
\24\ ``JBP'' is the equipment class code assigned by the
Commission to designate Part 15 Class B Computing Device Peripherals
on FCC Form 731, Application for Equipment Authorization. See
https://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/oetcf/eas/index.cfm.
\25\ Shenzhen Tangreat Technology Co., Ltd., Application for
Equipment Authorization FCC Form 731 TCB Version.
\26\ Shenzhen BST Technology Co., Ltd., a test laboratory
authorized to perform certification testing pursuant to section
2.948 of the Rules, 47 CFR 2.948, conducted the test and prepared
the test report. See https://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/oetcf/eas/reports/ViewExhibitReport.cfm?mode=Exhibits&RequestTimeout=500&calledFromFrame=N&application_id=754164&fcc_id='XRLTG-VIPJAMM'.
\27\ See id.
\28\ See FCC ID No. XRL-TGVIPJAMM, at https://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/oetcf/eas/reports/GenericSearch.cfm. On September 30, 2010, OET
conformed the certification issued under FCC ID No. XRLTG-VIPJAMM to
reflect the actual device that was submitted for testing,
substituting ``Computer peripheral for preprocessing data'' for ``RF
Jammer'' under the ``Notes'' section of the certification.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
6. On September 7, 2010, OET sent a letter to the TCB that issued
the grant of certification under FCC ID No. XRLTG-VIPJAMM, seeking
information as to whether the device was in fact an intentional
radiator \29\ and an illegal jammer and requesting an explanation for
the conflicting information on the face of the certification.\30\ In
its response, the TCB indicated that the application for the device was
marked as a JBP application, which indicates that the device is
intended to be used as a Part 15 Class B computing device
peripheral.\31\ The TCB noted that after examining the block diagram
and schematics originally submitted with the application, it determined
that the device appeared to have an accompanying receiver. The TCB
further stated that prior to certifying the device, it had sought
clarification about this inconsistency and placed a hold on the
application.\32\ The applicant responded by resubmitting the
application with revised exhibits that removed the receiver circuitry
from the application. The TCB then continued its review of the
application in reliance on the applicant's representations, concluding
in good faith that the device was strictly a computer peripheral
without any receiving or transmitting circuitry.\33\ The TCB also
stated that it considered the description of the device ``RF Jammer''
to be a misnomer and therefore proceeded with grant of the
application.\34\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\29\ An intentional radiator is a ``device that intentionally
generates and emits radio frequency energy by radiation or
induction.'' 47 CFR 15.3(o).
\30\ See Letter from Raymond LaForge, Chief, Auditing and
Compliance Branch, Office of Engineering and Technology Laboratory,
Federal Communications Commission, to Timco Engineering, Inc.
(September 7, 2010).
\31\ See E-mail from Gretchen Greene, Timco Engineering, Inc.,
to Raymond LaForge, Chief, Auditing and Compliance Branch, Office of
Engineering and Technology Laboratory, Federal Communications
Commission (September 17, 2010).
\32\ See id.
\33\ See id.
\34\ See id. In addition, the TCB noted that it requested a
surveillance sample of the device from the test lab on July 6, 2010,
but did not receive a sample in response to its request. Further,
the TCB stated that upon receiving the letter from OET, it advised
the test lab of OET's request for further information regarding the
device and that the test lab subsequently informed the TCB that it
tried to contact Shenzhen, but received no response. See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 12736]]
7. On September 9, 2010, OET sent a letter to Shenzhen, the grantee
of the certification at issue in this Order, requesting that it provide
an explanation within 30 days as to why the application was submitted
to the TCB as a JBP application for a Part 15 Class B computing
peripheral device, when it appeared to be an intentional radiator that
could transmit radio signals.\35\ On September 16, 2010, OET sent
another letter to Shenzhen directing it to submit a sample of the
device certified under FCC ID No. XRLTG-VIPJAMM to the OET Laboratory
for testing within 30 days.\36\ To date, Shenzhen has not responded to
the letters from OET or submitted the requested sample.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\35\ See Letter from Raymond LaForge, Chief, Auditing and
Compliance Branch, Office of Engineering and Technology Laboratory,
Federal Communications Commission, to Junrong Jiang, General
Manager, Shenzhen Tangreat Technology Co., Inc. (September 9, 2010).
The letter was sent to the e-mail address listed in Shenzhen's
equipment authorization application, tangreat@tangreat.com.
\36\ See Letter from Raymond LaForge, Chief, Auditing and
Compliance Branch, Office of Engineering and Technology Laboratory,
to Shenzhen Tangreat Technology Co., Inc. (September 16, 2010).
Under section 2.945 of the Rules, the Commission may require
responsible parties to submit equipment samples in order to
determine the extent to which subsequent production of such
equipment continues to comply with the data filed by the applicant.
47 CFR 2.945.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
8. On November 2, 2010, agents from the Bureau's Atlanta, Georgia
Field Office observed a unit of the TxTStopper \TM\ that had been
installed in a vehicle owned by Just Driver Training, a driver's
education training school located in Canton, Georgia. Tests conducted
by the agents indicated that the TxTStopper \TM\ is in fact a cellular/
PCS jammer and that when installed in a vehicle the TxTStopper \TM\ is
capable of blocking cellular communications initiated from both inside
and outside of the vehicle,\37\ apparently including 9-1-1 and other
emergency calls.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\37\ Field tests indicate that calls are blocked within a 150-
foot radius of the vehicle.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
III. Discussion
A. Applicable Legal Standard
9. The Commission follows the same procedures in revoking an
equipment authorization as it does when revoking a radio station
license.\38\ Pursuant to section 312(c) of the Act, before revoking a
radio station license, the Commission must serve the licensee with an
order to show cause why an order of revocation should not be issued and
must provide the licensee with an opportunity for hearing.\39\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\38\ See 47 CFR 2.939(b) (``Revocation of an equipment
authorization shall be made in the same manner as revocation of
radio station licenses.'').
\39\ 47 U.S.C. 312(c).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. Section 2.939(a)(1) of the Rules authorizes the Commission to
revoke any equipment authorization for ``false statements or
representations made either in the application or in materials or
response submitted in connection therewith.'' \40\ Section 2.939(a)(2)
of the Rules, moreover, provides that the Commission may revoke any
equipment authorization ``[i]f upon subsequent inspection or operation
it is determined that the equipment does not conform to the pertinent
technical requirements or to the representations made in the original
application.'' \41\ Section 2.939(a)(3) of the Rules also authorizes
revocation ``[i]f it is determined that changes have been made in the
equipment other than those authorized by the rules or otherwise
expressly authorized by the Commission.'' \42\ Furthermore, section
2.939(a)(4) of the Rules provides that the Commission may revoke an
equipment authorization upon discovery of conditions which would
warrant its refusal to grant an original application.\43\ This Order to
Show Cause is predicated on Shenzhen's apparent willful and repeated
violation of the Act and the Rules, including evidence that the
original application for certification was tainted by
misrepresentations and/or that unauthorized changes were made to the
TxTStopper TM device post-certification.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\40\ 47 CFR 2.939(a)(1).
\41\ Id. sec. 2.939(a)(2).
\42\ Id. sec. 2.939(a)(3).
\43\ Id. sec. 2.939(a)(4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. Grant of an application for equipment certification is governed
by section 2.915 of the Rules, which requires that the grant serve the
public interest and that the device comply with the pertinent technical
rules, in this case, sections 2.803(a), 2.931, and 15.201.\44\ Section
333 of the Act, moreover, states that ``[n]o person shall willfully or
maliciously interfere with or cause interference to any radio
communications of any station licensed or authorized by or under this
Act or operated by the United States Government.'' \45\ In addition,
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.'' \46\ Section
2.803(a)(1) of the Commission's implementing regulations provides that:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\44\ Id. sec. 2.803, 2.915, 2.931, 15.201.
\45\ 47 U.S.C. 333.
\46\ Id. sec. 302a(b).
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
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 section 2.925 and
other relevant sections in this chapter.\47\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\47\ 47 CFR 2.803(a)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Additionally, section 2.803(g) of the Rules provides in relevant
part that:
radio frequency devices that could not be authorized or legally
operated under the current rules * * * shall not be operated,
advertised, displayed, offered for sale or lease, sold or leased, or
otherwise marketed absent a license issued under part 5 of this
chapter or a special temporary authorization issued by the
Commission.\48\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\48\ Id. sec. 2.803(g).
Pursuant to section 15.201(b) of the Rules,\49\ before intentional
radiators \50\ can be marketed in the United States, they must be
authorized in accordance with the Commission's certification
procedures. Radio frequency jammers, however, are a type of intentional
radiator that cannot be lawfully certified because the main purpose of
a jammer is to block or interfere with radio communications in
violation of section 333 of the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\49\ Id. sec. 15.201(b).
\50\ See supra note 29 defining ``intentional radiator.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. Furthermore, under section 2.907(b) of the Rules, a
certification attaches to all units subsequently marketed by the
grantee which are identical to the sample tested except for permissive
changes or other variations authorized by the Commission.\51\ Section
2.931 of the Rules provides that ``[i]n accepting a grant of equipment
authorization, the grantee warrants 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
* * * filed with the application for certification continues to be
representative of the equipment being produced under such grant * * *''
\52\ Accordingly, devices that are not identical to the sample tested
as part of an application for certification are not covered by the
grant of certification and
[[Page 12737]]
may not lawfully be marketed in the United States.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\51\ 47 CFR 2.907(b).
\52\ Id. sec. 2.931.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
B. Analysis of Relevant Facts
13. First, revocation is apparently warranted under section
2.939(a)(4) of the Rules, based on facts that have come to light, which
had they been known to the Commission would have precluded the original
grant. As detailed above and based on the field tests conducted by
Bureau staff, the TxTStopper TM--the device apparently being
marketed under FCC ID No. XRLTG-VIPJAMM--can prevent anyone in a
vehicle in which it is installed from making or receiving cell phone
calls or sending or receiving text messages or e-mails on a cell phone,
and also can block calls made from outside the vehicle, apparently
including 9-1-1 and other emergency calls.\53\ Thus, this device is a
radio frequency jammer, which interferes with or blocks authorized
radio signals in violation of section 333 of the Act and cannot be
authorized or marketed in the United States under section 302(b) of the
Act and section 2.803 of the Rules.\54\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\53\ See supra n.37 (noting that calls are blocked within a 150-
foot radius of the vehicle). The importance of preserving public
safety and emergency communications free of jamming signals cannot
be overstated and is reflected in the Commission's investigations
and enforcement actions in this area. See, e.g., Phonejammer.com,
Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture, 25 FCC Rcd 3827 (Enf.
Bur. Apr. 20, 2010) (initiating a $25,000 forfeiture proceeding
against the company for marketing jammers designed to interfere with
cellular and ``PCS'' utilized by St. Lucie County, Florida Sheriff's
Office); Everybuying.com, Citation, DA 10-2295 (Enf. Bur. Dec. 6,
2010) (citing the company for marketing both cell phone signal and
Global Positioning System (``GPS'') signal blocker devices, and
noting that GPS signal blockers operate within restricted frequency
bands listed in Section 15.205(a) of the Rules); Jammerworld.com,
Citation, DA 10-2240, 2010 WL 4808497 (Enf. Bur. Nov. 26, 2010)
(citing the company for marketing a device that jams signals in the
Cell Phone Band (845-975 MHz), PCS Band (1800-1996 MHz), and GPS L1
frequency 1575.42 MHz); Victor McCormack, phonejammer.com, Citation,
DA 10-1975 (Enf. Bur. Oct. 14, 2010) (citing the company for
misrepresentations made during the course of an investigation of
Phonejammer.com's sale of jammer devices); Anoy Wray, Notice of
Unlicensed Operation, Document Number W201032380068 (Enf. Bur., May
18, 2010) (citing Mr. Wray for using radio transmitting device
designed to jam GPS transmissions); Gene Stinson d.b.a. D&G Food
Mart, Notice of Unauthorized Operation and Interference to Licensed
Radio Stations, Document Number W200932500003 (Enf. Bur. Aug. 13,
2009) (citing the company for use of two radio transmitting devices
designed to jam licensed radio communications transmission in the
850-894 MHz and other licensed frequency bands used by City of
Oklahoma City Radio System).
\54\ 47 U.S.C. 302a(b), 333; 47 CFR 2.803.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. Second, revocation is apparently warranted under sections
2.939(a)(1)-(3) of the Rules, given the apparent misrepresentations in
the application and related materials, the substantial differences
between the device that was approved under FCC ID No. XRLTG-VIPJAMM and
the device that has been marketed as the TxTStopper TM under
this FCC ID, and the unauthorized changes that apparently were made to
the device.\55\ The evidence indicates that the device marketed under
FCC ID No. XRLTG-VIPJAMM is an intentional radiator with a transmitter
circuit designed to block, jam, or otherwise interfere with radio
communications. In addition, the information submitted by the grantee
in the application for the device certified under FCC ID No. XRLTG-
VIPJAMM misled the certification body and caused them to conclude the
opposite--that the device is an unintentional radiator, a Part 15 Class
B computer peripheral.\56\ Specifically, the Commission's review of the
test report and other data submitted with the application indicates
that the device approved under FCC ID No. XRLTG-VIPJAMM was tested when
connected to a personal computer and the AC power line (rather than in
a motor vehicle) and that it did not have any circuitry for receiving
or transmitting radio signals. By contrast, the TxTStopper
TM device that is being marketed by Share Enterprises under
FCC ID No. XRLTG-VIPJAMM is clearly intended for use in a motor vehicle
and is apparently powered by the car battery.\57\ Accordingly, it
appears that the device marketed under FCC ID No. XRLTG-VIPJAMM is not
identical to the sample tested as part of the application for
certification, nor does it conform to the representations made in the
original applications. Therefore, it cannot legally be marketed under
section 302(b) of the Act and sections 2.803, 2.907(b) and 2.931 of the
Rules.\58\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\55\ 47 CFR 2.939(a)(1)-(3).
\56\ See id. sec. 15.101-15.124.
\57\ According to the txtstopper.com Web site, TxTStopper
TM is ``a simple 12v device and is easily installed in
less than 1 hour by your local professional car stereo/auto alarm
technician.'' https://www.txtstopper.com/cms/content/faqs (visited
June 29, 2010 and October 18, 2010).
\58\ 47 U.S.C. 302a(b); 47 CFR 2.803, 2.907(b), 2.931.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. Based on the foregoing, it appears (a) that the Commission
would be warranted in refusing to grant an original application for
equipment authorization for the device certified under FCC ID No.
XRLTG-VIPJAMM; \59\ (b) that false statements or representations may
have been made either in the application or supporting materials for
the device certified under FCC ID No. XRLTG-VIPJAMM; \60\ (c) that the
device marketed under FCC ID No. XRLTG-VIPJAMM does not conform to the
pertinent technical requirements or to the representations made in the
original application; \61\ and/or (d) that changes have been made to
the device other than those authorized by the rules or otherwise
expressly authorized by the Commission.\62\ In sum, a substantial and
material question of fact exists as to whether the device in question
should have been certified.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\59\ See 47 CFR 2.939(a)(4).
\60\ See id. sec. 2.939(a)(1).
\61\ See id. sec. 2.939(a)(2).
\62\ See id. sec. 2.939(a)(3).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. The Commission has repeatedly sought from the manufacturer
additional information that would counter or explain the evidence.
Shenzhen has not responded, as the Act and our Rules require,\63\ to
any of the Commission's requests. Shenzhen's failure to respond to the
initial OET letter directing the company to provide information
regarding the device constitutes an apparent violation of a Commission
order.\64\ Numerous Commission decisions have reaffirmed the
Commission's authority to investigate potential misconduct and punish
those that disregard FCC inquiries.\65\ Likewise, Shenzhen's failure to
comply with OET's directive to provide a sample of the device being
marketed under FCC ID No. XRLTG-VIPJAMM apparently violates sections
2.936 and 2.946 of the Rules.\66\ Pursuant to section 2.936 of the
Rules, a responsible party must, upon reasonable request from the
Commission, submit a sample unit of the equipment covered under an
authorization.\67\ Similarly, pursuant to
[[Page 12738]]
section 2.945 of the Rules, the Commission may request a responsible
party such as Shenzhen to submit equipment ``to determine the extent to
which subsequent production of such equipment continues to comply with
the data filed by the applicant.'' \68\ Under section 2.946 of the
Rules, ``[a]ny responsible party * * * shall provide test sample(s) or
data upon request by the Commission'' and ``[f]ailure to comply with
such a request within 14 days may be cause for forfeiture.'' \69\
Shenzhen's silence serves only to reinforce the substantial questions
that have been raised regarding whether the TxTStopper TM
device marketed under FCC ID No. XRLTG-VIPJAMM is identical to the
device actually approved under that FCC ID.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\63\ The Commission has broad investigatory authority under
Sections 4(i), 4(j), and 403 of the Act, its rules, and relevant
precedent. Section 4(i) authorizes the Commission to ``issue such
orders, not inconsistent with this Act, as may be necessary in the
execution of its functions.'' 47 U.S.C. 154(i). Section 4(j) states
that ``the Commission may conduct its proceedings in such manner as
will best conduce to the proper dispatch of business and to the ends
of justice.'' Id. sec. 154(j). Section 403 grants the Commission
``full authority and power at any time to institute an inquiry, on
its own motion, in any case and as to any matter * * * relating to
the enforcement of any of the provisions of this Act.'' Id. sec.
403.
\64\ See id. sec. 503(b)(1)(B).
\65\ See, e.g., SBC Communications Inc., Forfeiture Order, 17
FCC Rcd 7589, 7599-7600 (2002) (ordering $100,000 forfeiture for
egregious and intentional failure to certify the response to a
Bureau inquiry); Fox Television Stations, Notice of Apparent
Liability for Forfeiture, 25 FCC Rcd 7074 (Enf. Bur. 2010)
(proposing a $25,000 forfeiture for failure to respond to a Bureau
letter of inquiry); BigZoo.Com Corporation, Forfeiture Order, 20 FCC
Rcd 3954 (Enf. Bur. 2005) (ordering $20,000 forfeiture for failure
to respond to a letter of inquiry); Digital Antenna, Inc., Notice of
Apparent Liability for Forfeiture and Order, 23 FCC Rcd 7600, 7602
(Spec. Enf. Div., Enf. Bur. 2008) (proposing $11,000 forfeiture for
failure to provide a complete response to a letter of inquiry).
\66\ 47 CFR 2.936, 2.946.
\67\ Id. sec. 2.936.
\68\ Id. sec. 2.945.
\69\ Id. sec. 2.946.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
17. Accordingly, we are designating this matter for hearing before
an Administrative Law Judge to determine whether the equipment
authorization held by Shenzhen under FCC ID No. XRLTG-VIPJAMM should be
revoked on some or all of the bases outlined herein and whether a
Forfeiture Order in an amount not to exceed one hundred and twelve
thousand five hundred dollars ($112,500) should be issued.
IV. Ordering Clauses
18. Accordingly, it is ordered that, pursuant to sections 312(a)
and (c) of the Act,\70\ and authority delegated pursuant to sections
0.111, 0.311, 1.91(a) and 2.939(b) of the Rules,\71\ Shenzhen Tangreat
Technology Co., Ltd. is hereby ordered to show cause why its equipment
authorization, FCC ID No. XRLTG-VIPJAMM, should not be revoked.
Shenzhen shall appear before an Administrative Law Judge at a time and
place to be specified in a subsequent order and give evidence upon the
following issues:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\70\ 47 U.S.C. 312(a), (c).
\71\ 47 CFR 0.111, 0.311, 1.91(a), 2.939(b).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(a) To determine whether the device marketed under FCC ID No.
XRLTG-VIPJAMM is capable of interfering with or blocking authorized
radio signals in violation of section 333 of the Act and therefore
cannot legally be authorized or marketed under section 302(b) of the
Act and section 2.803 of the Rules;
(b) To determine whether the device marketed under FCC ID No.
XRLTG-VIPJAMM is not identical to the device authorized under FCC ID
No. XRLTG-VIPJAMM and therefore cannot legally be marketed under
section 302(b) of the Act and sections 2.803, 2.907(b), and 2.931 of
the Rules;
(c) To determine whether the device marketed under FCC ID No.
XRLTG-VIPJAMM does not conform to the pertinent technical requirements
or to the representations made in the original application (see section
2.939(a)(2));
(d) To determine whether changes were made to the device certified
under equipment authorization FCC ID No. XRLTG-VIPJAMM other than those
authorized by the rules or otherwise expressly authorized by the
Commission (see section 2.939(a)(3));
(e) To determine whether Shenzhen made false statements or
representations either in the application or in materials submitted in
connection therewith (see section 2.939(a)(1));
(f) To determine whether the Commission would be warranted in
refusing to grant an original application for equipment authorization
for the device certified under FCC ID No. XRLTG-VIPJAMM (see section
2.939(a)(4));
(g) To determine whether Shenzhen willfully violated sections 2.936
and 2.946 of the Rules by failing to provide a test sample of the
device being marketed under FCC ID No. XRLTG-VIPJAMM upon request by
the Commission, and otherwise willfully failed to respond to a
Commission request for information regarding the device; and
(h) To determine, in light of the evidence adduced pursuant to the
foregoing issues, whether the equipment authorization held by Shenzhen
under FCC ID No. XRLTG-VIPJAMM should be revoked.
19. It is further ordered that, irrespective of the resolution of
the foregoing issues, it shall be determined, pursuant to section
503(b)(3)(A) of the Act, 47 U.S.C. 503(b)(3)(A), and section 1.80 of
the Rules, 47 CFR 1.80, whether a Forfeiture Order in an amount not to
exceed one hundred and twelve thousand five hundred dollars ($112,500)
shall be issued against Shenzhen Tangreat Technology Co., Ltd. for
willfully and/or repeatedly violating sections 302(b) and 333 of the
Act and sections 2.803, 2.907(b), 2.931, 2.932, 2.936 and 2.946 of the
Rules.\72\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\72\ 47 U.S.C. 302a(b), 333; 47 CFR 2.803, 2.907(b), 2.931,
2.932, 2.936, 2.946.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. It is further ordered that, in connection with the possible
forfeiture liability noted above, this document constitutes notice of
an opportunity for hearing, pursuant to section 503(b)(3)(A) of the Act
and section 1.80 of the Rules.
21. It is further ordered that, pursuant to section 312(c) of the
Act and sections 1.91(c) and 2.939(b) of the Rules,\73\ to avail itself
of the opportunity to be heard and to present evidence at a hearing in
this proceeding, Shenzhen, in person or by an attorney, shall file with
the Commission, within thirty (30) days of the release of this Order to
Show Cause, a written appearance stating that it will appear at the
hearing and present evidence on the issues specified above.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\73\ 47 U.S.C. 312(c); 47 CFR 1.91(c), 2.939(b).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
22. It is further ordered that, pursuant to section 312(c) of the
Act and sections 1.92(c) and 2.939(b) of the Rules,\74\ if Shenzhen
fails to file a timely notice of appearance within the thirty (30) day
period, or has not filed a petition to accept, for good cause shown, a
written appearance beyond the expiration of the thirty (30)-day period,
its right to a hearing shall be deemed to be waived. In the event that
Shenzhen waives its right to a hearing, the presiding Administrative
Law Judge shall, at the earliest practicable date, issue an order
reciting the events or circumstances constituting a waiver of hearing,
terminating the hearing proceeding, and certifying the case to the
Commission.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\74\ 47 U.S.C. 312(c); 47 CFR 1.92(c), 2.939(b).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
23. It is further ordered that the Chief, Enforcement Bureau, shall
be made a party to this proceeding without the need to file a written
appearance.\75\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\75\ See 47 CFR 0.111(b).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
24. It is further ordered that, pursuant to section 312(d) of the
Act and sections 1.91(d) and 2.939(b) of the Rules,\76\ the burden of
proceeding with the introduction of evidence and the burden of proof
with respect to the issues specified above shall be on the Chief,
Enforcement Bureau.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\76\ See 47 U.S.C. 312(d); 47 CFR 1.91(d), 2.939(b).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
25. It is further ordered that a copy of this Order to Show Cause
shall be sent by first class mail, overnight mail, facsimile and e-
mail, to Junrong Jiang, General Manager, Shenzhen Tangreat Technology
Co., Ltd., 4th Floor, R&D Building, Dacheng Industry, Jihua Road,
Bantian, Shenzhen, 518129, China, 86-755-82527821 (facsimile),
tangreat@tangreat.com (e-mail).
26. It is further ordered that a copy of this Order to Show Cause,
or a summary thereof, shall be published in the Federal Register.
Federal Communications Commission.
P. Michele Ellison,
Chief, Enforcement Bureau.
[FR Doc. 2011-5221 Filed 3-7-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-P
