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            

                                FORFEITURE ORDER

   Adopted: January 11, 2007  Released: January 16, 2007

   By the Commission:


    1. By this Forfeiture Order ("Order"), we find that San Jose Navigation,
       Inc. ("San Jose") marketed intentional radiating equipment,
       specifically Global Positioning Satellite ("GPS") signal re-radiator
       kits, which are not authorized and not eligible for authorization by
       the Commission because the devices operate in restricted frequency
       bands. We further find that, in marketing these GPS signal re-radiator
       kits, San Jose willfully and repeatedly violated 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"). For San Jose's
       violations, we impose a monetary forfeiture in the amount of
       seventy-five thousand dollars ($75,000).


    2. Section 302(b) of the Act provides that "[n]o person shall
       manufacture, import, sell, offer for sale, or ship devices of home
       electronic equipment and systems, or use devices, which fail to comply
       with regulations promulgated pursuant to this section." Sections
       2.803(a) and 15.201(b) of the Commission's promulgated regulations
       prohibit the marketing of intentional radiators without prior
       Commission certification. "Marketing" includes the sale or lease,
       offer for sale or lease (including advertising for sale or lease),
       importing, shipping, or distribution for the purpose of selling or
       leasing or offering for sale or lease.

    3. A GPS signal re-radiator is designed and configured to take radio
       frequency signals from an outside source, the global positioning
       satellites, and amplify and re-radiate those signals. The Commission
       has determined that this type of configuration constitutes an
       intentional radiator under Section 15.3(o) of the Rules. As
       intentional radiators, GPS signal re-radiators ordinarily would be
       subject to the Commission's equipment certification procedures prior
       to marketing. These devices cannot be certificated or legally
       operated, however, because they operate in the restricted frequency
       bands that are allocated for safety-of-life operations and listed in
       Section 15.205 of the Rules.

    4. In response to complaints from the Department of Transportation, the
       National Telecommunications & Information Administration and other
       federal agencies, which expressed concern that GPS signal re-radiator
       kits could interfere with government GPS operations, the Enforcement
       Bureau launched an investigation of San Jose in 2005. That
       investigation culminated in the issuance of the Notice of Apparent
       Liability for Forfeiture ("NAL") against San Jose for its apparent
       willful and repeated violation of the above equipment marketing
       restrictions. As discussed herein, we find, as the underlying NAL
       found, that San Jose unlawfully marketed GPS signal re-radiator kits
       that were not certificated and not eligible for certification.

    5. Specifically, the NAL found that San Jose manufactured and marketed in
       the United States four models of GPS signal re-radiator kits (the
       RA-45, RA-46, RK-104 and RK-304). The NAL also found that these four
       models are designed to operate at 1575.42 MHz in the GPS L1 frequency
       band, a restricted frequency band under Section 15.205 of the Rules.
       As noted in the NAL, intentional radiating devices are prohibited from
       operating (other than spurious emissions) in the restricted GPS L1
       frequency band. Finally, the NAL found that from March 2002 through
       March 2005, San Jose distributed for sale in the United States 5,000
       units of GPS signal re-radiator kits.

    6. The NAL concluded that San Jose "marketed, imported and distributed
       for sale GPS re-radiator kits that intentionally emit signals in
       restricted frequency bands, potentially interfering with and
       jeopardizing critical authorized safety-of-life operations." The NAL
       further concluded that San Jose's apparent violations of the equipment
       marketing restrictions involved a significant number of unauthorized
       devices and "were continuous in nature, occurring over a three-year
       period" and thus warranted a substantially upward adjusted proposed
       forfeiture amount. Accordingly, the NAL proposed a $75,000 forfeiture.

    7. In its response to the NAL, San Jose does not dispute the violations,
       but seeks cancellation or reduction of the proposed $75,000
       forfeiture. San Jose claims that its violations were not intentional,
       that its corrective measures demonstrate good faith, and that its
       payment of the forfeiture would cause economic hardship.


    8. The forfeiture amount proposed in this case was assessed in accordance
       with Section 503(b) of the Act, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and the
       Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement guidelines. In assessing
       forfeitures, the Commission is required to take into account the
       nature, circumstances, extent and gravity of the violation(s); the
       violator's degree of culpability, history or prior offenses and
       ability to pay; and such other matters as justice may require. We have
       considered San Jose's claims in light of the above factors and
       Commission precedent, and, as explained below, have determined that
       there is no basis for cancellation or reduction of the proposed

    9. In its response, San Jose claims that it did not knowingly, and did
       not intend to, violate the Commission's equipment marketing
       restrictions. As the NAL correctly noted, lack of knowledge regarding,
       or intent to violate, the Commission's requirements does not
       exonerate, excuse or mitigate past violations and is not a defense to
       forfeiture penalties. Section 503(b)(1)(B) of the Act subjects persons
       found by the Commission to have willfully or repeatedly violated the
       Commission's requirements to forfeiture penalties. The term willful is
       defined as "conscious and deliberate commission or omission of [any]
       act, irrespective of any intent to violate the law." Consistent with
       Section 503(b)(1)(B), we find that San Jose consciously and
       deliberately marketed unauthorized devices, and thus that its
       violations of the Act and Rules were willful and properly subject to
       forfeiture penalty. Additionally, we find, as the NAL found, that San
       Jose's violations were repeated, having continued over a three-year

   10. In addition, San Jose claims that it demonstrated good faith by
       promptly instituting corrective measures after the Enforcement Bureau
       launched its investigation. Specifically, San Jose asserts that after
       receiving the Enforcement Bureau's letter of inquiry, the company
       ceased shipping kits to the United States, contacted its distributors,
       and authorized the return and refund of approximately 2,500 GPS signal
       re-radiator kits. The Commission expects the implementation of
       corrective measures to bring past violations into compliance. It is
       the Commission's long-standing policy, however, that corrective
       measures implemented after Commission inquiry or enforcement action do
       not nullify past violations and thus do not warrant reduction or
       cancellation of forfeiture liability. We also note that although San
       Jose did not indicate it was working with its distributors with
       respect to the 2,500 re-radiator kits already sold to retail outlets
       and customers, we encourage San Jose to make reasonable efforts with
       its distributors to make sure that retail customers are aware of the
       potential interference these kits pose to government GPS operations
       and that as many of these kits as possible are returned to San Jose.

   11. San Jose also claims that it is a small firm, with "capital of less
       than USD 600,000," and that it has sustained substantial economic
       losses in its efforts to remedy its prior marketing of GPS signal
       re-radiator kits. In assessing an inability to pay claim, the
       Commission requires the claimant to provide reliable and objective
       documentation that reflects its current overall financial status.
       (e.g., a balance sheet or a profit and loss statement certified by the
       claimant). The fact that a claimant is a small entity or has sustained
       economic losses, in itself, does not entitle it to a reduction in or
       cancellation of a forfeiture. San Jose did not provide supporting
       financial documentation, and thus we have no basis by which to assess
       its inability to pay claim.


   12. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Act
       and Section 1.80 of the Rules, San Jose Navigation, Inc. IS LIABLE FOR
       A MONETARY FORFEITURE in 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.

   13. 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.

   14. Requests for payment of the full amount of the NAL under an
       installment plan should be sent to: 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.

   15.  IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this Forfeiture Order shall be
       sent by first class mail and certified mail return receipt requested
       to Jerry Huang, Sales and Marketing Manager, San Jose Navigation,
       Inc., 9F, No. 105, Shi-Cheng Road, Pan-Chiao City, Taipei, Taiwan,


   Marlene H. Dortch


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

   47 C.F.R. SS 2.803 and 15.201(b).

   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 C.F.R. SS 2.803(a) and 15.201(b).

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

   47 C.F.R. S 15.3(o). See Rocky Mountain Radar, 12 FCC Rcd 22453 (1997).

   See 47 C.F.R. S 2.803(g). Section 2.803(g) provides, in pertinent part,
   that the equipment marketing provisions of Section 2.803:

   [D]o not apply to radio frequency devices that could not be authorized or
   legally operated under the current rules. Such devices 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.

   San Jose did not market its GPS signal re-radiator kits under a Part 5
   license or a special temporary authorization granted by the Commission.

   San Jose Navigation, Inc., 21 FCC Rcd 2873 (2006) ("NAL").

   NAL at PP 5-6, 15.

   Id. at P 9.

   Id. at PP 6, 15.

   Id. at  P 15.


   See Response to the NAL (filed April 14, 2006) ("Response").

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

   47 C.F.R. S 1.80.

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

   See 47 U.S.C. S 503(b)(2)(D); see also 47 C.F.R. S 1.80(b)(4).

   See Response at 1.

   See NAL at P 16.

   See Profit Enterprises, Inc., 8 FCC Rcd 2846, 2846 P 5 (1993), cancelled
   on other grounds, 12 FCC Rcd 14999 (1997) (dismissing a manufacturer's
   claim that it lacked knowledge of the Commission's equipment certification
   requirements, finding that forfeiture liability does not rest upon "prior
   knowledge or understanding of the law" and is not mitigated by "ignorance
   of the law"); see also Emery Telephone, 13 FCC Rcd 23854, 23859 P 12
   (1998), recon. dismissed in part and denied in part, 15 FCC Rcd 7181
   (1999); Florida Cellular Mobile Communications Corporation, 7 FCC Rcd
   78956, 7857 P 7 (1992), aff'd sub nom, Florida Cellular Mobile
   Communications Corporation v FCC, 28 F. 3d 191 (D.C. Cir. 1995), cert.
   denied, 514 U.S. 1016 (1995); Southern California Broadcasting Co., 6 FCC
   Rcd 4387, 4388 PP 3-4 (1991); Lakewood Broadcasting Service, Inc., 37 FCC
   2d 437 P 6 (1972); Bureau D'Electronique Appliquee, Inc., DA 05-2928 P 11
   (Enf. Bur., Spectrum Enf. Div., November 8, 2005).

   47 U.S.C. S 503(b)(1)(B).

   The definition of willful is set forth in Section 312(f)(1) of the Act, 47
   U.S.C. S 312(f)(1). The legislative history of Section 312(f) establishes
   that this definition applies to the forfeiture provisions of Section 503
   of the Act. See H.R. Rep. No. 97-765, 97^th Cong. Sess. 51 (1982); see
   also Southern California Broadcasting Co., 6 FCC Rcd 4387, 4388 (1991).

   Section 312(f)(2) of the Act, 47 U.S.C. S 312(f)(2), defines "repeated" as
   the commission or omission of any act that occurs "more than once," and if
   continuous, occurs "for more than one day." As with the term willful, the
   definition of repeated set forth in Section 312(f) applies to the
   forfeiture provisions of Section 503 of the Act. See supra n. 23.

   See Response at 1.


   See Behringer USA, Inc., 21 FCC Rcd 1820 P 24 (2006); ACR Electronics,
   Inc., 19 FCC Rcd 22293, 22304 P 25 (2004), forfeiture ordered, 21 FCC Rcd
   3698 (2006); AT&T Wireless Services, Inc., 17 FCC Rcd 7891 (2002),
   forfeiture ordered, 17 FCC RCd 21866, 21875-76 PP 26-28 (2002); Seawest
   Yacht Brokers, 9 FCC Rcd 6099, 6099 P 7 (1994); see also TCI Cablevision
   of Maryland, Inc., 7 FCC Rcd 6013, 6014 P 8 (1992) (rejecting a claim that
   subsequent corrective actions mitigate past violations because it "would
   tend to encourage remedial rather preventative action").



   See Forfeiture Policy Statement, 12 FCC Rcd at 17107 P 44.

   Id. at 17158 P 113  (recognizing that a small entity may not have the
   resources to submit financial documentation corroborating its inability to
   pay and that the Commission has the flexibility to consider profit and
   loss statements or balance sheets certified by the entity). See also Alpha
   Ambulance, Inc., 19 FCC Rcd 2547, 2548 PP 3, 5 (2004) (rejecting an
   economic hardship claim based, inter alia, on small entity status) ("Alpha
   Ambulance"); Brown Broadcasting System, Inc., DA 05-1708 P 4 (Enf. Bur.
   June 24, 2005) (noting that a company's status as a small entity, alone,
   will not suffice; the company must provide objective financial
   documentation that demonstrates its inability to pay).

   See PBJ Communications of Virginia, Inc., 7 FCC Rcd 2088, 2089 P 8 (1992)
   (noting that information about net losses may be relevant in assessing an
   inability to pay claim, but where "gross revenues are sufficiently great
   ... the mere fact that a business is operating at a loss does not itself
   mean that it cannot afford to pay a forfeiture); see also Alpha Ambulance,
   19 FCC Rcd at 2548 P 5; Independent Communications, Inc., 15 FCC Rcd
   16060, 16061 P 4 (2000); Forfeiture Policy Statement, 12 FCC Rcd at 17106
   P 43.

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

   See 47 C.F.R. S 1.1914.

   Federal Communications Commission FCC 07-3


   Federal Communications Commission FCC 07-3