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

******************************************************** 
                      NOTICE
********************************************************

This document was converted from Microsoft Word.

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

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

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

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

*****************************************************************



                                   Before the

                       Federal Communications Commission

                             Washington, D.C. 20554


                                         )                           
                                                                     
     In the Matter of                    )                           
                                                                     
     Share Enterprises Unlimited, Inc.   )   File No.: EB-10-SE-079  
                                                                     
     Atlanta, GA                         )                           
                                                                     
                                         )                           


                                    CITATION

           ILLEGAL MARKETING OF UNAUTHORIZED RADIO FREQUENCY DEVICES;

              PROVISION OF INCORRECT, MATERIAL FACTUAL INFORMATION

   Adopted: February 9, 2011 Released: February 9, 2011

   By the Acting Chief, Spectrum Enforcement Division, Enforcement Bureau:

   I. INTRODUCTION

    1. This is an official CITATION issued pursuant to section 503(b)(5) of
       the Communications Act of 1934, as amended ("Communications Act"), to
       Share Enterprises Unlimited, Inc. ("Share") for marketing unauthorized
       radio frequency devices in the United States in violation of section
       302(b) of the Communications Act, and section 2.803 of the
       Commission's rules ("Rules"), and for providing incorrect, material
       factual information to the Spectrum Enforcement Division ("Division")
       of the Enforcement Bureau ("Bureau") in violation of section
       1.17(a)(2) of the Rules.

    2. Share should take immediate steps to come into compliance and to avoid
       any recurrence of this misconduct. As explained below and as provided
       in the Communications Act, future violations of the Rules in this
       regard may subject your company to substantial monetary penalties,
       seizure of equipment, and criminal sanctions. We also direct Share to
       supplement its response to the Division's letter of inquiry and to
       submit a sample unit of the TxTStopper within thirty (30) days after
       the release of this Citation.

   II. background

    3. 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 Division launched an
       investigation into whether the TxTStopper(TM) violates the
       Commission's rules. The Division staff observed that the
       txtstopper.com website 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." The website indicates
       that the TxTStopper(TM) works with any U.S.-based cell phone; that the
       TxTStopper(TM) prevents anyone within the vehicle from making or
       receiving cell phone calls and sending or receiving text messages or
       emails 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. The website 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.

    4. On July 20, 2010, the Division issued a letter of inquiry ("LOI") to
       Share, the company that operates the txtstopper.com website. 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. Share responded to the LOI on September 6, 2010. In its LOI
       Response, Share stated that it began "market research" of the
       TxTStopper(TM) on July 1, 2010, in 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.
       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." 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. Share further
       asserted that the TxTStopper(TM) does not interfere with the user's
       ability to make 9-1-1 calls at any time.

    5. 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. Contrary to the testimonials on the txtstopper.com website
       from four satisfied users, 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. Share also claimed that the TxTStopper(TM)
       was certified by the FCC under FCC ID No. XRLTG-VIPJAMM. 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.

    6. 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. Contrary to Share's
       assertions, 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, apparently including 9-1-1 and other emergency calls.

   III. applicable law and violations

          A. Illegal Marketing of Unauthorized Radio Frequency Devices

    7. The Communications Act and the Rules prohibit the marketing and
       operation of cell phone jammers in the United States. Section 333 of
       the Communications Act 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." In addition, section
       302(b) of the Communications 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."

    8. The applicable implementing regulations for section 302(b) are set
       forth in sections 2.803, 15.201, and 15.3(o) of the Rules. Section
       2.803(a)(1) of the Rules 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 S: 2.925 and other relevant sections in this
   chapter.

   Additionally, section 2.803(g) of the Rules provides in pertinent part
   that:

   [R]adio 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.

    9. Pursuant to section 15.201(b) of the Rules, before intentional
       radiators like cell phone jammers can be marketed in the United
       States, they must be authorized in accordance with the Commission's
       certification procedures. Section 2.803(e)(4) of the Rules defines
       "marketing" as the "sale or lease, or offering for sale or lease,
       including advertising for sale or lease, or importation, shipment or
       distribution for the purpose of selling or leasing or offering for
       sale or lease."

   10. Jamming devices, however, cannot be certified or authorized because
       the main purpose of a jamming device is to block or interfere with
       radio communications. As noted above, such use is clearly prohibited
       by section 333 of the Communications Act. Thus, cell phone jammers
       cannot comply with the Commission's technical standards and therefore
       cannot be marketed in the United States.

   11. As detailed above and based on the field tests conducted by Bureau
       staff, the TxTStopper(TM) prevents anyone in a vehicle in which it is
       installed from making or receiving cell phone calls and sending or
       receiving text messages or emails on their cell phones, and also can
       block calls made from outside the vehicle, apparently including 9-1-1
       and other emergency calls. Accordingly, the TxTStopper(TM) is a radio
       frequency jammer that blocks or interferes with radio communications,
       in violation of section 333 of the Communications Act. Cell phone
       jammers, such as the TxTStopper(TM), cannot comply with the FCC's
       technical standards and therefore cannot be marketed in the United
       States.

   12. Share stated in its LOI Response that the TxTStopper(TM) is certified
       under FCC ID No. XRLTG-VIPJAMM. It appears, however, that there are
       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. As noted, the evidence indicates
       that the device marketed under FCC ID No. XRLTG-VIPJAMM is an
       intentional radiator with a transmitter designed to block, jam, or
       otherwise interfere with radio communications. The information
       submitted by the grantee in the application for the device certified
       under FCC ID No. XRLTG-VIPJAMM apparently misled the TCB and caused it
       to conclude the opposite - that the device is an unintentional
       radiator, a Part 15 Class B computer peripheral. Because it appears
       that the TxTStopper(TM) is not identical to the sample tested as part
       of the application for certification for the device certified under
       FCC ID No. XRLTG-VIPJAMM, the certification granted under FCC ID No.
       XRLTG-VIPJAMM does not attach to the TxTStopper(TM). Therefore, it
       cannot legally be marketed by Share under section 302(b) of the
       Communications Act and section 2.803 of the Rules.

   13. Accordingly, we find that Share has violated section 302(b) of the
       Communications Act and section 2.803(a)(1) of the Rules by marketing
       in the United States radio frequency devices that are not eligible for
       certification. We therefore issue this Citation to Share for violating
       the Communications Act and the Rules as discussed above. Share should
       take immediate steps to ensure that these violations do not continue.

     A. Provision of Incorrect, Material Factual Information

   14. In addition, the Commission's rules require truthfulness and candor in
       all written or oral statements submitted to the agency and its staff.
       Section 1.17 of the Rules provides, in pertinent part, that in any
       investigation, no person shall:

   (1) In any written or oral statement of fact, intentionally provide
   material factual information that is incorrect or intentionally omit
   material information that is necessary to prevent any material factual
   statement that is made from being incorrect or misleading; and

   (2) In any written statement of fact, provide material factual information
   that is incorrect or omit material information that is necessary to
   prevent any material factual statement that is made from being incorrect
   or misleading without a reasonable basis for believing that any such
   material factual statement is correct and not misleading.

   Any person who has received a letter of inquiry from the Commission or its
   staff or is otherwise the subject of a Commission investigation must
   comply with section 1.17 of the Rules. In expanding the scope of section
   1.17 in 2003 to include written statements that are made without a
   reasonable basis for believing the statement is correct and not
   misleading, the Commission explained that this requirement was intended to
   more clearly articulate the obligations of persons dealing with the
   Commission, ensure that they exercise due diligence in preparing written
   submissions, and enhance the effectiveness of the Commission's enforcement
   efforts. Thus, even in the absence of an intent to deceive, a false
   statement provided without a reasonable basis for believing that the
   statement is correct and not misleading constitutes an actionable
   violation of section 1.17 of the Rules. As the Commission has stated:

   in preparing written statements in fact-based adjudications and
   investigations, regulatees are on heightened notice that they must have a
   reasonable basis to believe that what they say is correct and not
   misleading. In these circumstances, we consider it justified to require
   that parties use due diligence in providing information that is correct
   and not misleading to the Commission, including taking appropriate
   affirmative steps to determine the truthfulness of what is being
   submitted. A failure to exercise such reasonable diligence would mean that
   the party did not have a reasonable basis for believing in the
   truthfulness of the information.

   15. Notwithstanding Share's claim in its LOI Response that only phones
       inside the vehicle where the TxTStopper(TM) is installed are affected
       and that the TxTStopper(TM) creates no outside interference, the field
       tests conducted by Bureau staff indicate that the TxTStopper(TM)
       blocks calls made from outside the vehicle. Moreover, while Share
       claimed in its LOI Response that it had offered only three units of
       the TxTStopper(TM), the txtstopper.com website included testimonials
       from four users located in the United States who appear to have
       purchased units of the TxTStopper(TM).

   16. Share apparently had no reasonable basis for believing that the
       information it provided in its LOI Response regarding the
       TxTStopper(TM) was correct and not misleading. Based on the evidence
       in the record, we believe that, had Share exercised a minimum of
       diligence prior to the submission of its LOI Response, it presumably
       would not have submitted incorrect or misleading material factual
       information. We therefore find that Share violated section 1.17(a)(2)
       of the Rules by providing material factual information that is
       incorrect without a reasonable basis for believing that the material
       factual information was correct.

   17. Finally, we direct Share to supplement and, if necessary, correct its
       LOI Response to ensure that it is accurate and complete within thirty
       (30) days after the release of this Citation. We also again direct
       Share to submit a sample unit of the TxTStopper(TM) as previously
       requested in the LOI within thirty (30) days after the release of this
       Citation.

   IV. FUTURE COMPLIANCE

   18. If, after receipt of this Citation, Share violates the Communications
       Act or the Rules by engaging in conduct of the type described herein,
       the Commission may impose monetary forfeitures of up to $16,000 for
       each such violation or each day of a continuing violation and up to
       $112,500 for any single act or failure to act. In addition, violations
       of the Communications Act or the Rules can result in seizure of
       equipment through in rem forfeiture actions, as well as criminal
       sanctions, including imprisonment.

   19. Share may respond to this Citation within thirty (30) days after the
       release date of this Citation either through (1) a personal interview
       at the closest FCC office, or (2) a written statement. Any written
       statements should specify what actions have been taken by Share to
       ensure that it does not violate the Rules governing the marketing of
       unauthorized radio frequency devices in the future. Please reference
       file number EB-10-SE-079 when corresponding with the Commission.

   20. Under the Privacy Act of 1974, any statement or information provided
       by you may be used by the Commission to determine if further
       enforcement action is required. Any knowingly or willfully false
       statement, or concealment of any material fact, made in reply to this
       Citation is punishable by fine or imprisonment. Please also note that
       section 1.17 of the Rules requires that you provide truthful and
       accurate statements to the Commission.

   V. CONTACT INFORMATION

   21. The closest FCC Office is the Atlanta Office in Duluth, Georgia. You
       may contact Kevin Pittman by telephone, 202-418-1160, to schedule a
       personal interview, which must take place within thirty (30) days
       after the release date of this Citation. You should send any written
       statement within thirty (30) days after the release date of this
       Citation to:

   Ricardo M. Durham

   Acting Chief, Spectrum Enforcement Division

   Enforcement Bureau

   Federal Communications Commission

   445 12th Street, S.W., Rm. 3-C366

   Washington, D.C. 20554

   Re: EB File No. EB-10-SE-079

   22. Reasonable accommodations for people with disabilities are available
       upon request. Include a description of the accommodation you will need
       including as much detail as you can. Also include a way we can contact
       you if we need more information. Please allow at least five (5) days
       advance notice; last minute requests will be accepted, but may be
       impossible to fill. Send an e-mail to fcc504@fcc.gov or call the
       Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau:

   For sign language interpreters, CART, and other reasonable accommodations:

   202-418-0530 (voice), 202-418-0432 (tty);

   For accessible format materials (braille, large print, electronic files,
   and audio format):

   202-418-0531 (voice), 202-418-7365 (tty).

   VI. ORDERING CLAUSE

   23. IT IS ORDERED that a copy of this Citation shall be sent both by First
       Class U.S. Mail and Certified Mail, Return Receipt Requested to Mr.
       Terrence Williams, Principal, Share Enterprises Unlimited, Inc., 1266
       W Paces Ferry Rd., NW #128, Atlanta, GA 30327-2306.

   FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

   Ricardo M. Durham

   Acting Chief

   Spectrum Enforcement Division

   Enforcement Bureau

   47 U.S.C. S: 503(b)(5).

   Id. S: 302a(b).

   47 C.F.R. S: 2.803.

   Id. S: 1.17(a)(2).

   TxTStopper(TM) website, at  http://www.txtstopper.com/cms (visited June
   29, 2010 and October 18, 2010); see also TxTStopper on CNN at
   http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=io8AtlGRjpQ.

   See id. at  http://www.txtstopper.com/cms/content/faqs (visited June 29,
   2010 and October 18, 2010).

   See id. at http://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).

   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).

   See id.

   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.

   Id. at 1.

   Id. at 2.

   See id.

   See id.

   Id. at 1. Share identified its supplier as Chinazrh International Co.,
   Ltd. ("Chinazrh"). See id.

   See n.7 supra.

   See LOI Response at 2.

   Id. The equipment certification under FCC ID No. XRLTG-VIPJAMM was granted
   to Shenzhen Tangreat Technology Co., Ltd. ("Shenzhen") on October 20,
   2009. See https://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/oetcf/eas/reports/GenericSearch.cfm.
   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. 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 this certification, which was issued to Shenzhen
   by a Telecommunications Certification Body ("TCB") - a private entity
   designated by the Commission to approve equipment subject to certification
   - was purportedly a Part 15, Class B computer peripheral not a jamming
   device. Therefore, in a companion decision issued concurrently with this
   Citation, the Enforcement Bureau commences a hearing proceeding to revoke
   the equipment certification held by Shenzhen, that is apparently connected
   to the TxTStopper device, under FCC ID No. XRLTG-VIPJAMM. See Shenzhen
   Tangreat Technology Co., Ltd., Order to Show Cause and Notice of
   Opportunity for Hearing, DA 11-246 (Enf. Bur. Feb. 9, 2011).

   See LOI Response at 2.

   Field tests indicate that calls are blocked within a 150-foot radius of
   the vehicle.

   47 U.S.C. S: 333.

   Id. S: 302a(b).

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

   Id. S: 2.803(g).

   Id. S: 15.201(b).

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

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

   See supra para. 7 and n.29 (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).

   See 47 C.F.R. S: 15.101-15.124. 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 under FCC ID No. XRLTG-VIPJAMM is clearly intended
   for use in a motor vehicle and is apparently powered by the car battery.
   According to the txtstopper.com website, 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." TxTStopper(TM) website, at
   http://www.txtstopper.com/cms/content/faqs (visited June 29, 2010 and
   October 18, 2010). 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. Under section 2.907(b)
   of the Rules, 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. 47 C.F.R. S:
   2.907(b). See also 47 C.F.R. S: 2.931.

   See 47 C.F.R. S: 2.907(b).

   47 C.F.R. S: 1.17.

   Id. S: 1.17(b)(4).

   See Amendment of Section 1.17 of the Commission's Rules Concerning
   Truthful Statements to the Commission, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 4016,
   4021 (2003), recon. denied, Memorandum Opinion and Order, 19 FCC Rcd 5790,
   further recon. denied, Memorandum Opinion and Order, 20 FCC Rcd 1250
   (2004).

   See id. at 4017 (stating that the revision to section 1.17 of the Rules is
   intended to "prohibit incorrect statements of omissions that are the
   results of negligence, as well as an intent to deceive").

   See id. at 4021.

   See, e.g., Syntax-Brillian Corporation, Forfeiture Order and Notice of
   Apparent Liability for Forfeiture, 23 FCC Rcd 6323, 6342 (2008) (finding
   that a television manufacturer apparently provided incorrect material
   information concerning its importation and interstate shipment of
   non-DTV-compliant televisions without a reasonable basis for believing
   that the information was correct and not misleading, in violation of
   section 1.17(a)(2) of the Rules); Citicasters License, L.P., Memorandum
   Opinion and Order and Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture, 22 FCC
   Rcd 19324, 19338 (2007) (forfeiture paid) (finding that a licensee's false
   certification that it had not violated the Communication's Act or any
   Commission rules during the preceding license term, although not made with
   the intent to deceive the Commission, had no reasonable basis and
   therefore, apparently violated section 1.17(a)(2) of the Rules).

   The LOI issued to Share explicitly stated that the inquiries made therein
   are continuing in nature and that Share must supplement its responses if
   it learns that, in some material respect, the documents and information
   initially disclosed were incomplete or incorrect, or if additional
   responsive documents or information are acquired by or become known to
   Share after the initial production.

   Share claimed in its LOI Response 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. See LOI Response at 2. We note,
   however, that Just Driver Training indicated to Bureau staff that it
   recently returned the unit of the TxTStopper(TM) it had installed to
   Share.

   See 47 U.S.C. S:S: 401, 501, 503; 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80(b)(3). This amount is
   subject to further adjustment for inflation and the forfeiture amount
   applicable to any violation will be determined based on the statutory
   amount designated at the time of the violation. See 47 C.F.R. S:
   1.80(b)(5).

   See 47 U.S.C. S: 510.

   See Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. S: 552a(e)(3).

   See 18 U.S.C. S: 1001 et seq.

   47 C.F.R. S: 1.17.

                                                              (continued....)

   Federal Communications Commission DA 11-247

                                       7

   Federal Communications Commission DA 11-247