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.
Federal Communications Commission
Washington, D.C. 20554
In the Matter of Gary P. Bojczak Whitehouse Station, New Jersey ) ) ) ) )
File No.: EB-FIELDNER-12-00003665 NAL/Acct. No.: 201332380001 FRN:
NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE
Adopted: August 1, 2013 Released: August 2, 2013
By the Commission:
1. In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (NAL), we find
that Gary P. Bojczak apparently willfully and repeatedly violated
Sections 301, 302(b), and 333 of the Communications Act of 1934, as
amended (Act),^ and Sections 2.803(g) and 15.1(c) of the Commission's
rules (Rules)^ by operating a Global Positioning System (GPS) jamming
device (signal jammer or jammer). This unlawful operation caused
harmful interference to a ground-based augmentation system operated by
the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey and designed to increase
the precision of GPS-based navigation at Newark Liberty International
Airport, one of the busiest airports in the country.^ We conclude that
Mr. Bojczak is apparently liable for a forfeiture in the amount of
thirty-one thousand eight hundred seventy-five dollars ($31,875).
2. Signal jammers operate by transmitting radio signals that overpower,
jam, or interfere with authorized communications. While these devices
have been marketed with increasing frequency over the Internet, with
limited exception, they have no lawful use in the United States.^
Jammers are not only designed to impede authorized communications and
thereby interfere with the rights of legitimate spectrum users and the
general public, they are also inherently unsafe. For example, jammers
can be used to disrupt critical public safety communications, placing
first responders like law enforcement and fire fighting personnel--as
well as the public they are charged with protecting--at great risk.
Similarly, jammers can endanger life and property by preventing
individuals from making 9-1-1 or other emergency calls. GPS jammers
block navigation signals used by ships, aircraft, ground
transportation, and others, and in some circumstances could have a
significant negative impact on systems that depend on GPS for
position, navigation, and timing. In order to protect the public and
preserve unfettered access to emergency and other communications
services, the Act and the Rules broadly prohibit the importation, use,
marketing, manufacture, and sale of jammers.^ Consequently, the
Commission has issued several enforcement advisories and consumer
alerts emphasizing the importance of strict compliance in this area
and encouraging public participation through the Commission's jammer
tip line.^ We expect individuals and businesses to take immediate
steps to ensure compliance and to avoid any recurrence of this type of
misconduct, including ceasing operation of any signal jamming devices
that may be in their possession, custody, or control. We also strongly
encourage all users of these devices to voluntarily relinquish them to
3. On August 3, 2012, the Enforcement Bureau (Bureau) received a
complaint from the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) reporting
that the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey (Port Authority)
had been experiencing interference during pre-deployment testing of a
ground-based augmentation system (GBAS) at Newark Liberty
International Airport (Newark Airport).^ The GBAS provides enhanced
navigation signals to aircraft in the vicinity of an airport for
precision approach, departure procedures, and terminal area
4. An agent from the Bureau's New York Office investigated the matter at
Newark Airport on August 4, 2012. While driving toward the Guard Post
India Gate at the Newark Airport, the agent determined, using
direction finding techniques, that a red Ford F-150 pickup truck with
New Jersey license plates (Red Ford) was emanating radio signals
within the restricted 1559 to 1610 MHz band allocated to the
Radionavigation-Satellite service and used by the GPS satellite
navigation system.^ The signals emanating from the vehicle were
blocking the reception of GPS signals by the GPS receivers used in the
GBAS. Port Authority police and security personnel, working closely
with the FCC agent, stopped the Red Ford at the gate. Using handheld
direction finding equipment, the FCC agent confirmed that strong
wide-band emissions in the restricted 1559 to 1610 MHz band were
emanating from the Red Ford. The FCC agent interviewed the driver, who
identified himself as Gary Bojczak and admitted that he owned and
operated the radio transmitting device that was jamming GPS
transmissions. Mr. Bojczak claimed that he installed and operated the
jamming device in his company-supplied vehicle to block the GPS-based
vehicle tracking system that his employer installed in the vehicle.
Mr. Bojczak voluntarily surrendered the jammer to the FCC agent. After
the jammer was removed from the Red Ford and turned off, the agent
confirmed that the unauthorized signals had ceased.
A. Applicable Law
5. Federal law prohibits the operation of jamming devices in the United
States and its territories. The Act and FCC regulations govern the use
of radio frequency devices in the United States and its territories.
And, relevant provisions of the Act and the regulations bar the use of
jammers by consumers and other non-federal government operators.
Section 301 of the Act prohibits the use or operation of "any
apparatus for the transmission of energy or communications or signals
by radio" within the United States unless such use is licensed or
authorized.^ Jamming devices, however, cannot be licensed or
authorized under the Commission's rules because their sole use and
purpose is to block or interfere with authorized communications, and
Section 333 of the Act expressly states that "no 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."^
6. Moreover, 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."^ In relevant
part, the applicable implementing regulations for Section 302(b) of
the Act are set forth in Sections 2.803, 15.201, and 15.3(o) of the
Rules.^ Section 2.803(g) of the Rules provides in pertinent 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.^
In addition, and pursuant to Sections 15.1(c) and 15.201(b) of the Rules,^
intentional radiators^ cannot be operated in the United States or its
territories unless they have first been authorized in accordance with the
Commission's certification procedures.^
7. Jamming devices, however, cannot be certified or authorized because
their primary purpose is to block or interfere with authorized radio
communications. Thus, jamming devices such as the one used by Mr.
Bojczak cannot comply with the FCC's technical standards and therefore
lawfully cannot be operated in or imported into the United States or
its territories. We emphasize that under the Act, signal jamming
devices are per se illegal; they are specifically designed to block
lawful radio transmissions and therefore compromise the integrity of
the nation's communications infrastructure.
B. Illegal Operation of GPS Jamming Device
8. As discussed above, an agent from the New York Office observed an
illegal GPS jamming device in use in the Red Ford operated by Mr.
Bojczak. Mr. Bojczak admitted to the agent that he used the device to
block the GPS-based tracking system installed in the vehicle by his
employer and that he did so intentionally.^ As reported by the FAA,
Mr. Bojczak's operation of the GPS jammer repeatedly caused harmful
interference to the Newark Airport's GBAS, a system that leverages GPS
positioning accuracy to improve aircraft approach, departure, and
terminal area operation. Thus, based on the evidence before us, we
find that Mr. Bojczak apparently willfully and repeatedly violated
Sections 301, 302(b), and 333 of the Act, and Sections 2.803(g) and
15.1(c) of the Rules by operating a GPS jammer. ^ ^
C. Proposed Forfeiture
9. Section 503(b) of the Act provides that any person who willfully or
repeatedly fails to comply substantially with the terms and conditions
of any license, or willfully or repeatedly fails to comply with any of
the provisions of the Act or of any rule, regulation, or order issued
by the Commission thereunder, shall be liable for a forfeiture
penalty.^ Pursuant to the Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and
Section 1.80 of the Rules, the base forfeiture amount for (1)
operation without an instrument of authorization is $10,000; (2) use
of unauthorized or illegal equipment is $5,000; and (3) interference
to authorized communications is $7,000.^ The Commission retains the
discretion, however, to issue a higher or lower forfeiture than
provided in the Forfeiture Policy Statement or to apply alternative or
additional sanctions as permitted by the statute, subject to the
statutory cap.^ For violations of the signal jamming prohibition by
individuals, the Communications Act authorizes monetary forfeitures of
up to $16,000 for each violation or, in the case of a continuing
violation, the Commission may impose monetary forfeitures of up to
$16,000 for each day of such continuing violation up to a maximum
forfeiture of $112,500 for any single act or failure to act.^
10. In assessing the appropriate monetary penalty for the misconduct at
issue, we must take into account the statutory factors set forth in
Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act, which include the nature,
circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violations, and with respect
to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior
offenses, ability to pay, and other such matters as justice may
require.^ As explained above, Mr. Bojczak operated a GPS jamming
device, which is inherently illegal and designed for the express
purpose of interfering with authorized communications in contravention
of U.S. law. While jammer operation violations are therefore egregious
per se, we note that Mr. Bojczak's conduct was particularly troubling.
It caused harmful interference to the GBAS installation being tested
at Newark Airport, compromising technical precision and accuracy and
interrupting the pre-deployment testing and calibration of this
critical air navigation system.
11. We find that Mr. Bojczak apparently committed three separate
violations in connection with the illegal GPS jammer operated near
Newark Airport--unlawful operation, use of illegal equipment, and
interference to authorized communications. Applying recent Commission
precedent adjusting forfeitures for certain signal jamming violations
to the statutory maximum,^ we start our forfeiture calculation at
$39,000,^ but conclude that both upward and downward adjustments are
warranted. In this regard, we must balance the fact that Mr. Bojczak
deployed a single jamming device apparently for his own limited and
personal use, with the reality that even a single jammer, regardless
of the intent with which it is used, can pose significant public
12. In light of the disruption caused to sensitive aeronautical navigation
equipment designed to protect public safety, we apply a 50 percent
upward adjustment to the base forfeiture amount for interference,
resulting in a proposed forfeiture of $42,500.^ We note that the
roving nature of the operation--i.e., operating a GPS jammer in a
vehicle--could have caused disruptions to GPS signals in use
throughout the area. We have often found that jammers designed to
block communications in one band may emit interfering signals in other
bands, resulting in even greater and more far reaching effects. To
reflect the fact that Mr. Bojczak's actions caused harmful
interference to public safety operations and to deter similar
violations in the future, we assess a significant upward adjustment.
13. We are also mindful, however, of the benefits of voluntary
relinquishment when illegal devices are involved and will downwardly
adjust the proposed forfeiture to reflect this aspect of Mr. Bojczak's
conduct. We note that the Commission, in coordination with the U.S.
Department of Justice, can seize an illegal jamming device, and we
will continue to do so in appropriate cases.^ Voluntary
relinquishment, however, expedites the removal of these illegal
devices from the stream of commerce. It also immediately curtails the
misconduct, precluding further illegal operation (in the critical
infrastructure/aviation context, in this case) and preventing any
unlawful advertising or sales in the secondary market. As a result, we
reduce the proposed forfeiture of $42,500 by 25 percent to provide
appropriate incentives in this regard.^
14. Thus, consistent with the Forfeiture Policy Statement, Section 1.80 of
the Rules, and the statutory factors discussed above, we conclude that
Mr. Bojczak is apparently liable for a total forfeiture in the amount
of $31,875.^ We caution Mr. Bojczak and other potential violators that
we will continually reevaluate this approach and may pursue
alternative or more aggressive sanctions should the approach prove
ineffective in deterring the unlawful operation of signal jammers. For
example, as a companion to a proposed monetary forfeiture, we could
also refer such matters to the U.S. Department of Justice for further
consideration under the criminal statutes, including Title 18 U.S.C. S
IV. ORDERING CLAUSES
15. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the
Communications Act of 1934, as amended, and Section 1.80 of the
Commission's rules, Mr. Bojczak is hereby NOTIFIED of this APPARENT
LIABILITY FOR A FORFEITURE in the amount thirty-one thousand eight
hundred seventy-five dollars ($31,875) for violations of Sections 301,
302(b), and 333 of the Act and Sections 2.803(g) and 15.1(c) of the
16. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 1.80 of the
Commission's rules, within thirty (30) calendar days after the release
date of this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture, Mr. Bojczak
SHALL PAY the full amount of the proposed forfeiture or SHALL FILE a
written statement seeking reduction or cancellation of the proposed
17. Payment of the forfeiture must be made by check or similar instrument,
wire transfer, or credit card, and must include the NAL/Account number
and FRN referenced above. Mr. Bojczak will also send electronic
notification on the date said payment is made to NER-Response@fcc.gov.
Regardless of the form of payment, a completed FCC Form 159
(Remittance Advice) must be submitted.^ When completing the FCC Form
159, enter the Account Number in block number 23A (call sign/other ID)
and enter the letters "FORF" in block number 24A (payment type code).
Below are additional instructions you should follow based on the form
of payment you select:
* Payment by check or money order must be made payable to the order of
the Federal Communications Commission. Such payments (along with the
completed Form 159) must be mailed to Federal Communications
Commission, P.O. Box 979088, St. Louis, MO 63197-9000, or sent via
overnight mail to U.S. Bank - Government Lockbox #979088, SL-MO-C2-GL,
1005 Convention Plaza, St. Louis, MO 63101.
* Payment by wire transfer must be made to ABA Number 021030004,
receiving bank TREAS/NYC, and Account Number 27000001. To complete the
wire transfer and ensure appropriate crediting of the wired funds, a
completed Form 159 must be faxed to U.S. Bank at (314) 418-4232 on the
same business day the wire transfer is initiated.
* Payment by credit card must be made by providing the required credit
card information on FCC Form 159 and signing and dating the Form 159
to authorize the credit card payment. The completed Form 159 must then
be mailed to Federal Communications Commission, P.O. Box 979088, St.
Louis, MO 63197-9000, or sent via overnight mail to U.S. Bank -
Government Lockbox #979088, SL-MO-C2-GL, 1005 Convention Plaza, St.
Louis, MO 63101.
18. Any request for making full payment over time under an installment
plan should be sent to: Chief Financial Officer--Financial
Operations, Federal Communications Commission, 445 12th Street, S.W.,
Room 1-A625, Washington, D.C. 20554.^ If you have questions
regarding payment procedures, please contact the Financial Operations
Group Help Desk by phone, 1-877-480-3201, or by e-mail,
19. The written statement seeking reduction or cancellation of the
proposed forfeiture, if any, must include a detailed factual statement
supported by appropriate documentation and affidavits pursuant to
Sections 1.16 and 1.80(f)(3) of the Rules.^ Mail the written statement
to Federal Communications Commission, Enforcement Bureau, Northeast
Region, New York Office, 201 Varick Street, Suite 1151, New York, New
York 10014, and include the NAL/Acct. No. referenced in the caption.
Mr. Bojczak also shall e-mail the written response to:
20. 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 practices (GAAP); 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
21. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this Notice of Apparent Liability
for Forfeiture shall be sent by both First Class Mail and Certified
Mail, Return Receipt Requested, to Mr. Bojczak at his address of
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
Marlene H. Dortch
^ 47 U.S.C. SS 301, 302a(b), 333.
^ 47 C.F.R. SS 2.803(g), 15.1(c).
^ The Port Authority of New York and New Jersey is a bi-state agency that
operates and maintains infrastructure critical to the New York/New Jersey
region's trade and transportation network, including the Newark Liberty
International Airport. See
^ In very limited circumstances and consistent with applicable procurement
requirements, individuals and/or entities may market jamming devices to
the U.S. federal government for authorized, official use. See 47 U.S.C. S
302a(c); 47 C.F.R. S 2.807(d).
^ 47 U.S.C. SS 301, 302a, 333; 47 C.F.R. SS 2.803, 15.1, 15.3, and 15.201.
^ See Cell Jammers, GPS Jammers and Other Jamming Devices, FCC Enforcement
Advisory, 27 FCC Rcd 2309 (2012); Cell Jammers, GPS Jammers and Other
Jamming Devices, FCC Enforcement Advisory, 26 FCC Rcd 1327 (2011). These
advisories, along with frequently asked questions related to the jamming
prohibition, are available at http://www.fcc.gov/jammers. On October 15,
2012, the Enforcement Bureau also launched a dedicated jammer tip
line--1-855-55-NOJAM (or 1-855-556-6526)--to make it easier for the public
to report the use or sale of illegal cell phone, GPS, or other signal
^ The GBAS installation at Newark Airport was fully deployed and put into
service on September 28, 2012.
^ Specifically, the signal emanating from the Red Ford occupied the
spectrum from 1568 to 1595 MHz.
^ 47 U.S.C. S 301.
^ Id. S 333.
^ Id. S 302a(b).
^ 47 C.F.R. SS 2.803, 15.201, 15.3(o).
^ Id. S 2.803(g) (emphasis added).
^ Id. SS 15.1(c), 15.201(b).
^ An "intentional radiator" is a "device that intentionally generates and
emits radio frequency energy by radiation or induction." Id. S 15.3(o).
Under this definition, signal jamming devices are intentional radiators.
^ See, e.g., 47 C.F.R. SS 22.377, 24.51, 27.51, 90.203 (requiring
certification of transmitters that operate in the public mobile service,
personal communications service, miscellaneous wireless service, and
private land mobile radio services).
^ See 47 U.S.C. S 333.
^ See 47 U.S.C. SS 301, 302(b), 333; 47 C.F.R. SS 2.803(g), 15.1(c).
^ 47 U.S.C. S 503(b). Section 503(b) of the Act provides that any person
who willfully or repeatedly fails to comply substantially with the terms
and conditions of any license, or willfully or repeatedly fails to comply
with any of the provisions of the Act or any rule, regulation, or order
issued by the Commission thereunder shall be liable for a forfeiture
penalty. 47 U.S.C. S 503(b). Section 312(f)(1) of the Act defines
"willful" as the "conscious and deliberate commission or omission of [any]
act, irrespective of any intent to violate" the law, and defines the term
"repeated" as the "commission or omission of such act more than once or
for more than one day." 47 U.S.C. S 312(f)(1). The legislative history to
Section 312(f)(1) of the Act clarifies that the definitions of "willful"
and "repeated" apply to both Sections 312 and 503(b) of the Act, and the
Commission has so interpreted the terms in the Section 503(b) context. See
H.R. Rep. No. 97-765, 97^th Cong. 2d Sess. 51 (1982) ("This provision
[inserted in Section 312] defines the terms `willful' and `repeated' for
purposes of section 312, and for any other relevant section of the act
(e.g., Section 503) . . . . As defined[,] . . . `willful' means that the
licensee knew that he was doing the act in question, regardless of whether
there was an intent to violate the law. `Repeated' means more than once,
or where the act is continuous, for more than one day. Whether an act is
considered to be `continuous' would depend upon the circumstances in each
case. The definitions are intended primarily to clarify the language in
Sections 312 and 503, and are consistent with the Commission's application
of those terms . . . ."); see, e.g., S. Cal. Broad.Co., Memorandum Opinion
and Order, 6 FCC Rcd 4387, 4388 (1991), recons. denied, 7 FCC Rcd 3454
^ The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section
1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, Report and
Order, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997) (Forfeiture Policy Statement), recons.
denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999); 47 C.F.R. S 1.80.
^ See 47 C.F.R. S 1.80(b)(8), Note ("The Commission and its staff retain
the discretion to issue a higher or lower forfeiture than provided in the
guidelines, to issue no forfeiture at all, or to apply alternative or
additional sanctions as permitted by the statute . . . .").
^ See 47 U.S.C. S 503(b)(2)(D); 47 C.F.R. S 1.80(b)(7). Pursuant to the
Debt Collection Improvement Act, these amounts reflect inflation
adjustments from the amounts specified in Section 503(b)(2)(D) ($10,000
per violation or per day of a continuing violation and $75,000 per any
single act or failure to act). These amounts are subject to further
adjustment for inflation and the forfeiture amount applicable to any
future 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)(9).
^ 47 U.S.C. S 503(b)(2)(E).
^ See Taylor Oilfield Mfg., Inc., Notice of Apparent Liability for
Forfeiture and Order, FCC 13-46 (April 9, 2013) (consistent with framework
adopted in Supply Room NAL, proposing $126,000 forfeiture for operating
four jamming devices); see also The Supply Room, Inc., Notice of Apparent
Liability for Forfeiture and Order, FCC 13-47 (April 9, 2013) (proposing,
for each jamming device, maximum statutory forfeitures of $16,000 for
unauthorized operation and use of illegal equipment) (Supply Room NAL).
^ See supra note 24. The initial figure of $39,000 reflects proposed
forfeitures of $16,000 for unlawful operation, $16,000 for use of illegal
equipment, and $7,000 for interference to authorized communications.
^ As noted above, the base forfeiture amount for interference to
authorized communications is $7,000. We adjust this upward to $10,500. We
have not proposed any upward adjustment to the forfeiture amounts for
unlawful operation or use of illegal equipment because those amounts were
set at the statutory maximum as set forth above.
^ See 47 U.S.C. S 510.
^ The amount of any reduction for voluntary relinquishment in a particular
case will be based on our assessment of the facts and circumstances in
^ While we understand the amount of the forfeiture proposed herein may be
sizable for an individual, we find it appropriate given the significant
safety concerns raised by the violations at issue. Consistent with Section
503 of the Act, we note that in response to this NAL Mr. Bojczak can
provide information about his financial condition and ability to pay which
could result in a reduced forfeiture based on Mr. Bojczak's particular
financial circumstances. See, e.g., Geneva Walker, File No.
EB-FIELDSCR-12-00003, Forfeiture Order, DA 13-972, 2013 WL 1855936, at *2,
para. 5 (Enf. Bur. May 2, 2013).
^ 18 U.S.C. S 1367(a).
^ 47 U.S.C. SS 301, 302a(b), 333, 503(b); 47 C.F.R. SS 1.80, 2.803(g),
^ An FCC Form 159 and detailed instructions for completing the form may be
obtained at http://www.fcc.gov/Forms/Form159/159.pdf.
^ See 47 C.F.R. S 1.1914.
^ 47 C.F.R. SS 1.16, 1.80(f)(3).
(...continued from previous page)
Federal Communications Commission FCC 13-106
Federal Communications Commission FCC 13-106