Click here for Adobe Acrobat version
Click here for Microsoft Word version


This document was converted from Microsoft Word.

Content from the original version of the document such as
headers, footers, footnotes, endnotes, graphics, and page numbers
will not show up in this text version.

All text attributes such as bold, italic, underlining, etc. from the
original document will not show up in this text version.

Features of the original document layout such as
columns, tables, line and letter spacing, pagination, and margins
will not be preserved in the text version.

If you need the complete document, download the
Microsoft Word or Adobe Acrobat version.


   Before the

   Federal Communications Commission

   Washington, D.C. 20554

                                 )   File No. EB 05-SE-077       
     In the Matter of                                            
                                 )   NAL/Acct. No. 200632100006  
     San Jose Navigation, Inc.                                   
                                 )   FRN # 0010366078            


   Adopted: March 14, 2006  Released: March 14, 2006

   By the Commission:


    1. In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL"), we
       propose a forfeiture amount of seventy five thousand dollars ($75,000)
       against San Jose Navigation, Inc. ("San Jose") for its marketing of
       intentional radiating equipment, Global Positioning Satellite ("GPS")
       signal re-radiator kits, in apparent willful and repeated violation of
       Section 302(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Act")
       and Sections 2.803  and 15.205 of the Commission's Rules ("Rules").
       The GPS re-radiator kits are not Commission authorized and are not
       eligible for such authorization, because they operate in restricted
       frequency bands allocated for authorized safety-of-life operations.


    2. Section 302 of the Act authorizes the Commission to make reasonable
       regulations, consistent with the public interest, governing the
       interference potential of equipment that emits radio frequency energy,
       and prohibits, inter alia, the offering for sale of radio frequency
       devices to the extent such activity does not comply with those
       regulations. The purpose of this section is to ensure that radio
       transmitters and other electronic devices meet certain standards to
       control interference before they reach the market. The Commission
       carries out its responsibilities under Section 302 in two ways. First,
       the Commission establishes technical regulations for transmitters and
       other equipment to minimize their potential for causing interference
       to radio services. Second, the Commission administers an equipment
       authorization program to ensure that equipment reaching the market
       complies with the technical requirements.

    3. The equipment authorization program requires that intentional
       radiators be issued a grant of certification prior to the initiation
       of marketing. "Marketing" includes the sale or lease, offer for sale
       or lease (including advertising for sale or lease), importing,
       shipping, and/or distribution for the purpose of selling or leasing or
       offering for sale or lease. Section 302(b) of the Act provides that
       "[n]o person shall manufacture, import, sell, offer for sale, or ship
       devices or home electronic equipment and systems, or use devices,
       which fail to comply with regulations promulgated pursuant to this
       section." Section 2.803(a)(1) of the Commission's implementing
       regulations provides that:

   Except as provided elsewhere in this section, no person shall sell or
   lease, or offer for sale or lease (including advertising for sale or
   lease), or import, ship, or distribute for the purpose of selling or
   leasing or offering for sale or lease, any radio frequency device unless:
   (1) In 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 labelled as required by Sec. 2.925 and
   other relevant sections in this chapter.

   Under Section 15.201 of the Rules, intentional radiators must ordinarily
   be authorized in accordance with the certification procedure prior to
   marketing. However, under Section 2.803(g) of the Rules, intentional
   radiators and other radio frequency devices that could not be authorized
   or legally operated under the current rules - for example, intentional
   radiators, such as GPS re-radiators, which operate in the restricted
   frequency bands listed in Section 15.205 of the Rules -- may 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."

    4. In early 2005, the Commission received complaints from the Department
       of Transportation, National Telecommunications & Information
       Administration ("NTIA") and other federal government agencies
       ("federal agencies"). The federal agencies expressed concern that GPS
       re-radiator equipment potentially could interfere with federal
       government GPS operations. In response to these complaints, the
       Spectrum Enforcement Division ("Division") of the Commission's
       Enforcement Bureau ("Bureau") initiated investigations into the
       marketing of such equipment in the United States.

    5. During the course of the Division's investigations, retail companies
       found to be marketing the subject GPS re-radiator kits in the United
       States, identified San Jose as the manufacturer of such kits. The
       Division staff subsequently found that San Jose was marketing four
       models of GPS re-radiator kits, Models RA-45, RA-46, RK-104 and
       RK-304, on its website. These models consist of a receive antenna, an
       amplifier to boost the signal level, and a radiating antenna. A GPS
       re-radiator does not internally generate a radio frequency signal.
       Rather, a GPS re-radiator is designed and configured to take radio
       frequency signals from an outside source, the global positioning
       satellites, amplify those signals, and radiate those signals through
       its antenna. The Commission has determined that this type of
       configuration constitutes intentional radiating devices under Section
       15.3(o) of the Rules.

    6. On May 4, 2005, the Division issued a letter of inquiry ("LOI") to San
       Jose. In its response to the LOI, San Jose admitted that it
       manufactures the four models of GPS re-radiator kits, Models RA-45,
       RA-46, RK-104 and RK-304. San Jose stated that it manufactured
       approximately 5,000 units of these devices for sale in the United
       States between August 2001 and May 20, 2005, and distributed these
       5,000 units to distributors in the United States between March 15,
       2002 and March 15, 2005. According to San Jose, it did not realize
       that the devices violate the Rules prior to receiving the letter of
       inquiry. San Jose submitted two "FCC Class B Declaration Reports
       (DOCs)" for the Models RA-45 and RA-46, issued by the SGS Taiwan Ltd.
       test laboratory on April 15, 2005.


    7. Under Section 503(b)(1)(b) of the Act, any person who is determined by
       the Commission to have willfully or repeatedly failed to comply with
       any provision of the Act or any rule, regulation, or order issued by
       the Commission shall be liable to the United States for a forfeiture
       penalty. To impose such a forfeiture penalty, the Commission must
       issue a notice of apparent liability and the person against whom such
       notice has been issued must have an opportunity to show, in writing,
       why no such forfeiture penalty should be imposed. The Commission will
       then issue a forfeiture if it finds by a preponderance of the evidence
       that the person has violated the Act or a Commission rule. Under this
       standard, we issue this NAL.

   A. Marketing unlawful equipment.

    8. As detailed below, we find that San Jose apparently willfully and
       repeatedly violated Section 302(b) of the Act and Sections 2.803 and
       15.205 of the Rules by marketing four models of GPS re-radiator kits,
       which by their nature are ineligible for equipment certification.

    9. We find that San Jose manufactured and distributed for sale the four
       models of GPS re-radiator kits from at least March 2002 to March 2005.
       We further find that these kits are intentional radiators. Intentional
       radiators, as previously stated, ordinarily must be certificated prior
       to marketing in the United States. According to San Jose's
       specifications, its four models of GPS re-radiator kits operate in the
       GPS L1 band, at 1575.42 MHz. Because the GPS L1 band is shared
       co-equally between the federal government and non-government
       operations, and is within the restricted frequency bands listed in
       Section 15.205 of the Rules, intentional radiating equipment is
       prohibited from emitting signals other than spurious emissions  in
       that band. Indeed, the Commission recently denied a petition for
       rulemaking requesting amendment of the rules to permit marketing of
       GPS re-radiator kits, noting that the restricted bands in which these
       devices operate are allocated for authorized radio services that
       concern safety-of-life operations or that require the reception of
       extremely low signal levels due to the nature of their operation.
       Accordingly, we find that San Jose's four models of GPS re-radiator
       kits, which operate in the restricted frequency bands, are not
       eligible for Commission equipment certification.

   10. Additionally, we find that the documents San Jose submitted "FCC Class
       B Declaration Reports (DOCs)" for Models RA-45 and RA-46, which
       purport to demonstrate that models comply with Part 15 technical
       requirements, do not demonstrate compliance. As explained above, the
       Models simply cannot comply with Part 15 technical requirements
       because the equipment operates within the restricted frequency bands
       and thus cannot be authorized.

   11. We also find the reports irrelevant and flawed. The reports appear to
       be Declaration of Conformity ("DOC")  test reports. Intentional
       radiating equipment, however, is subject to the Commission's
       certification, not DOC, equipment authorization procedures. Further,
       the reports indicate that the models were tested for compliance with
       Part 15 emission limits in the 30 MHz to 1000 MHz frequency range, but
       the models, in fact, operate in the GPS L1 band at 1575.42 MHz, which
       is above the frequency range tested by SGS Taiwan. The reports also
       indicate that the models were connected to a computer during testing,
       even though these devices are not designed to be connected to a
       computer during operation. Finally, we note that San Jose's testing
       appears to have been initiated only after the Division initiated its
       investigation in early 2005, and the test reports were issued more
       than three years after San Jose began distributing its GPS signal
       re-radiator kits in the United States.

   B. Proposed Forfeiture Amount.

   12. Section 503(b)(6) of the Act bars the Commission from proposing a
       forfeiture for apparent violations that occurred more than one year
       prior to the date of this NAL, but does not prohibit us from assessing
       whether San Jose's conduct prior to that time period apparently
       violated the provisions of the Act and Rules and from considering such
       conduct in determining the appropriate forfeiture amount for
       violations that occurred within the one-year statutory period.
       Therefore, the forfeiture amount proposed herein takes into account
       the continuing nature San Jose's apparent violations, but relates to
       the company's marketing of Models RA-45, RA-46, RK-104 and RK-304
       within the last year.

   13. Section 1.80 of the Rules establishes a base forfeiture amount of
       $7,000 for the marketing of unauthorized equipment. Section
       503(b)(2)(C) of the Act, however, authorizes the Commission to assess
       a maximum forfeiture of $11,000 for each violation, or each day of a
       continuing violation, up to a statutory maximum forfeiture of $97,500
       for any single continuing violation. In determining the appropriate
       forfeiture amount, Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act directs the
       Commission to consider factors, such as "the nature, circumstances,
       extent and gravity of the violation, and, with respect to the
       violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses,
       ability to pay, and such other matters as justice may require."

   14. Consistent with precedent, we find that San Jose's marketing of four
       distinct models of intentional radiators constitutes separate and
       continuing violations, warranting the assessment of separate base
       forfeiture amounts. Having weighed the statutory factors enumerated
       above, we find that circumstances presented warrant a substantial
       upward adjustment of the aggregate base forfeiture amount of $28,000
       ($7,000 for each of the four unlawfully marketed models).

   15. Specifically, the record establishes that San Jose marketed, imported
       and distributed for sale GPS re-radiator kits that by design
       intentionally emit signals in restricted frequency bands, potentially
       interfering with and jeopardizing critical authorized safety-of-life
       operations. The record further establishes that San Jose imported and
       distributed for sale a significant number (5,000) of its kits.
       Additionally, San Jose's apparent violations were continuous in
       nature, occurring over a three-year period. Given the critical safety
       concerns, the volume of unauthorized devices distributed, the
       continuous nature of the violations, and the fact that the devices are
       not capable of being certified in any event, we conclude that a
       significant upward adjustment is warranted. Accordingly, we propose an
       aggregate forfeiture in the amount of $75,000 for San Jose's willful
       and repeated violations of Section 302(b) of the Act and Sections
       2.803 and 15.205 of the Rules.

   16. Finally, we do not find San Jose's claim -- that it was unaware that
       its GPS re-radiator devices violated the rules until it received the
       Division's letter of inquiry -- warrants a downward adjustment of the
       proposed aggregate forfeiture amount. It is a well established and
       long-standing principle that ignorance of the law is not a mitigating
       factor and does not warrant a downward adjustment of an assessed


   17. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Act
       and Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80 of the Rules, San Jose Navigation,
       the amount of seventy five thousand dollars ($75,000) for willfully
       and repeatedly violating Section 302(b) of the Act and Sections
       2.803(a) and 15.205 of the Rules.

   18. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 1.80 of the Rules,
       within thirty days of the release date of this Notice of Apparent
       Liability for Forfeiture, San Jose Navigation, Inc. SHALL PAY the full
       amount of the proposed forfeiture or SHALL FILE a written statement
       seeking reduction or cancellation of the proposed forfeiture.

   19. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in
       Section 1.80 of the Rules within 30 days of the release of this Order.
       If the forfeiture is not paid within the period specified, the case
       may be referred to the Department of Justice for collection pursuant
       to Section 504(a) of the Act. Payment of the forfeiture must be made
       by check or similar instrument, payable to the order of the Federal
       Communications Commission. The payment must include the NAL/Acct. No.
       and FRN No. referenced above. Payment by check or money order may be
       mailed to Federal Communications Commission, P.O. Box 358340,
       Pittsburgh, PA 15251-8340. Payment by overnight mail may be sent to
       Mellon Bank/LB 358340, 500 Ross Street, Room 1540670, Pittsburgh, PA
       15251. Payment by wire transfer may be made to ABA Number 043000261,
       receiving bank Mellon Bank, and account number 911-6106. Requests for
       payment of the full amount of the NAL under an installment plan should
       be sent to: Associate Managing Director - Financial Operations, 445
       12^th Street, S.W., Room 1A625, Washington, D.C. 20554.

   20. The response, if any, must be mailed to the Office of the Secretary,
       Federal Communications Commission, 445 12th Street, S.W., Washington,
       D.C. 20554, ATTN: Enforcement Bureau - Spectrum Enforcement Division,
       and must include the NAL/Acct. No. referenced in the caption.

   21. The Commission will not consider reducing or canceling a forfeiture in
       response to a claim of inability to pay unless the petitioner submits:
       (1) federal tax returns for the most recent three-year period; (2)
       financial statements prepared according to generally accepted
       accounting; or (3) some other reliable and objective documentation
       that accurately reflects the petitioner's current financial status.
       Any claim of inability to pay must specifically identify the basis for
       the claim by reference to the financial documentation submitted.

   22. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this Notice of Apparent Liability
       for Forfeiture shall be sent by first class mail and certified mail
       return receipt requested to San Jose Navigation, Inc., 9F, No. 105,
       Shi-Cheng Road, Pan-Chiao City, Taipei, Taiwan, R.O.C.


   Marlene H. Dortch


   Section 15.3(o) of the Rules, 47 C.F.R. S 15.3(o), defines an intentional
   radiator as a "device that intentionally generates and emits radio
   frequency energy by radiation or induction."

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

   47 C.F.R. SS 2.803 and 15.205.

   See 47 C.F.R. Part 2, Subpart J.

   Certification is an equipment authorization issued by the Commission or
   one of its designated Telecommunications Certification Bodies, based on
   representations and test data submitted by the applicant. 47 C.F.R. S

   47 C.F.R. S 2.803(e)(4).

   47 C.F.R. S 15.101.

   The retailers received Citations for marketing the unauthorized GPS
   re-radiator devices. See Gilsson Technologies, 20 FCC Rcd 8241 (Enf. Bur.
   Spectrum Enf. Div., 2005); Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 20 FCC Rcd 7618 (Enf.
   Bur. Spectrum Enf. Div., 2005).

   San Jose is a manufacturer headquartered in Taipei, Taiwan, and the
   grantee of two unrelated Commission equipment certifications. See FCC
   Identifier RUU-G19041000 (granted November 19, 2004); FCC Identifier
   RUU-G00548213 (granted March 17, 2004).

   See [1]

   See Rocky Mountain Radar, 12 FCC Rcd 22453 (1997).

   See Letter from Kathryn S. Berthot, Deputy Chief, Spectrum Enforcement
   Division, Enforcement Bureau, Federal Communications Commission to San
   Jose Navigation, Inc. (May 4, 2004).

   See Letter from San Jose Navigation, Inc. to Jennifer Burton, Spectrum
   Enforcement Division, Enforcement Bureau, Federal Communications
   Commission (June 20, 2005) ("Response").

   Id. at 2.


   Id. at 3. San Jose's statements are inconsistent in this regard.
   Specifically, although San Jose stated that it began distributing these
   devices in the United States in March 2002, it also stated that it
   distributed approximately 4,000 devices to one U.S. distributor between
   July 2001 and December 2004, and approximately 1,000 devices to another
   U.S. distributor between March 2002 and March 2005. Id. Thus, it is not
   clear whether San Jose actually began distributing these devices in March
   2002 or July 2001. For purposes of this NAL, however, we will consider
   that San Jose has been distributing the devices since at least March 2002.

   See Response at 4.

   47 U.S.C. S 503(b)(1)(B); 47 C.F.R. S 1.80(a)(1). Section 312(f)(1) and
   (2) of the Act defines "willful" as "the conscious and deliberate
   commission or omission of [any] act, irrespective of any intent to
   violate" the law, and defines "repeated" as "the commission or omission of
   such act more than once" and if continuous "more than one day." 47 U.S.C.
   S 312(f)(1) and (2). The legislative history of Section 312(f)(1) and (2)
   clarifies that the definitions of willful and repeated applies to both
   Sections 312 and 503(b) of the Act. See H.R. Rep. No. 97-765, 97^th Cong.
   2d Sess. 51 (1982). Consistent with the legislative history, the
   Commission has so interpreted the terms in the Section 503(b) context.
   See, e.g., Southern California Broadcasting Co., 6 FCC Rcd 4387, 4388 P 5
   (1991); Callais Cablevision, Inc., 16 FCC Rcd 1359, 1362 P 9 (2001).

   See 47 U.S.C. S 503(b); 47 C.F.R. S 1.80(f).

   See, e.g., SBC Communications, Inc., 17 FCC Rcd 7589, 7591 P 4 (2002).

   See supra note 11 and accompanying text.

   47 C.F.R. S 2.1 defines "spurious emissions" as "[e]missions on a
   frequency or frequencies which are outside the necessary bandwidth and the
   level of which may be reduced without affecting the corresponding
   transmission of information. Spurious emissions include harmonic
   emissions, parasitic emissions, intermodulation products and frequency
   conversion products, but exclude out-of-band emissions."

   See GPS Networking, Inc., RM-11002, 20 FCC Rcd 12256, 12258 (2005). It
   should be noted that one commenter in that proceeding expressed concern
   that GPS re-radiator devices could interfere with accurate E911 location
   reporting. Id. at note 4.

   A DOC is a procedure where the responsible party - the manufacturer, or in
   the case of imported equipment, the importer - has measurements taken to
   ensure that the equipment complies with the appropriate technical
   standards. See 47 C.F.R. S 2.906(a). Under the DOC procedure, the
   measurements must be made by an FCC-accredited laboratory. See 47 C.F.R. S
   2.948(a)(3). In addition, a copy of the DOC listing the party responsible
   for compliance must be included in the literature supplied with the
   product. See 47 C.F.R. S 2.1077.

   The DOC procedure may be used only for certain types of unintentional
   radiators. See 47 C.F.R. S 15.101.

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

   See, e.g., Globcom, Inc. d/b/a Globcom Global Communications, 18 FCC Rcd
   19893, 19903 P 23 (2003), rev. pending; Roadrunner Transportation, Inc.,
   15 FCC Rcd 9669, 9671-71 P 8 (2000); Cate Communications Corp., 60 RR 2d
   1386, 1388 P 7 (1986); Eastern Broadcasting Corp., 10 FCC 2d 37, 37-38 P 3
   (1967); Bureau D'Electronique Appliquee, Inc., 20 FCC Rcd 3445, 3447-48 PP
   8-9 (Enf. Bur., Spectrum Enf. Div., 2005), forfeiture ordered, DA 05-2928
   (Enf. Bur., Spectrum Enf. Div., November 8, 2005) ("Bureau D'Electronique

   47 C.F.R. S 1.80.

   47 U.S.C. S 503(b)(2)(C). The Commission twice amended Section 1.80(b)(3)
   of the Rules, 47 C.F.R. S 1.80(b)(3), to increase the maxima forfeiture
   amounts, in accordance with the inflation adjustment requirements
   contained in the Debt Collection Improvement Act of 1996, 28 U.S.C. S
   2461. See Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules and
   Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, 15 FCC Rcd 18221
   (2000) (adjusting the maximum statutory amounts from $10,000/$75,000 to
   $11,000/$87,500); Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Commission's Rules and
   Adjustment of Forfeiture Maxima to Reflect Inflation, 19 FCC Rcd 10945
   (2004) (adjusting the maximum statutory amounts from $11,000/$87,500 to
   $11,000/$97,500); see also 47 C.F.R. S 1.80(c).

   47 U.S.C. S 503(b)(2)(D). See also 47 C.F.R. S 1.80(b)(4), Note to
   paragraph (b)(4): Section II. Adjustment Criteria for Section 503

   See e.g., Samson Technologies, Inc., 19 FCC Rcd 4221, 4225 P 9 (2004),
   consent decree ordered, 19 FCC Rcd 24509 (2004) (finding that the
   marketing of each model of unauthorized equipment constitutes separate

   See The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section
   1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd
   17087, 17112 (1997), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999) (noting that the
   we "retain the discretion to issue a higher or lower forfeiture" than the
   base forfeiture amounts set forth in our Rules and our Forfeiture

   Cf. Pilot Travel Centers, LLC, 19 FCC Rcd 23113, 23117 P 16 (2004)
   (upwardly adjusting a proposed forfeiture based on a finding that the
   marketing and distribution of unauthorized radio transmitters, inter alia,
   potentially interferes with transmitters and other devices authorized to
   operate in such frequency ranges); Callais Cablevision, Inc., 17 FCC Rcd
   22626, 22630-32 PP 20-23 (2002) (upwardly adjusting a forfeiture based on
   a finding that a cable system's signal leakage violations increased the
   likelihood of interference with aeronautical frequencies and potentially
   jeopardized air safety); Centel Cellular of North Carolina Limited
   Partnership, 10 FCC Rcd 915 (1994), modified, 11 FCC Rcd 10800, 10804-05
   PP 6-7 (1996) (upwardly adjusting a forfeiture based on a finding that a
   wireless carrier constructed a tower that directly penetrated an air
   safety zone and interfered with airline flight paths, threatening and
   potentially jeopardizing air safety).

   See, e.g., Bureau D'Electronique Applique, 20 FCC Rcd at 3448 P 9
   (upwardly adjusting a proposed aggregate forfeiture based on the volume of
   unauthorized devices distributed, and the five-year span in which such
   devices were marketed).

   See supra note 27 and accompanying text.

   See supra note 18 and accompanying text.

   See Profit Enterprises, Inc., 8 FCC Rcd 2846, 2846 P 5 (1993) (denying the
   mitigation claim of a manufacturer/distributor who thought that the
   equipment certification and marketing requirements were inapplicable,
   stating that its "prior knowledge or understanding of the law is
   unnecessary to a determination of whether a violation existed ...
   ignorance of the law is [not] a mitigating factor"); see also Southern
   California Broadcasting Co., 6 FCC Rcd at 3448 P 3; Lakewood Broadcasting
   Service, Inc., 37 FCC 2d 437, 438 P 6 (1972).

   47 C.F.R. SS 0.111, 0.311, 1.80.

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

   See 47 C.F.R. S 1.1914.


   Federal Communications Commission FCC 06-30


   Federal Communications Commission FCC 06-30


   Visible links