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 )
EB Docket No.: 10-247
Shenzhen Tangreat Technology Co., Ltd. )
File No.: EB-10-SE-164
Grantee of Equipment Authorization, )
FCC ID No. XRLTG-VIPJAMM FRN: 0019109180
)
)
)
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE
AND NOTICE OF OPPORTUNITY FOR HEARING
Adopted: February 9, 2011 Released: February 9, 2011
By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau:
I. INTRODUCTION
1. In this Order to Show Cause, we commence a hearing proceeding pursuant
to sections 1.91 and 2.939 of the Commission's rules ("Rules")
regarding the device manufactured and marketed under FCC ID No.
XRLTG-VIPJAMM with the brand name "TxTStopper(TM)". The
TxTStopper(TM) device was marketed in the United States and apparently
has the capability to block, jam, or otherwise interfere with the
operation of authorized wireless communications, in violation of
sections 302(b) and 333 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended
("Act"). Moreover, based on the evidence, the TxTStopperTM device
marketed under FCC ID No. XRLTG-VIPJAMM is not identical to the device
authorized under that FCC ID, in violation of section 2.931 of the
Rules. We further note that jamming devices pose an unacceptable risk
to public safety and emergency communications, including interfering
with the ability to make 9-1-1 and other emergency calls and hindering
law enforcement communications. We therefore direct Shenzhen Tangreat
Technology Co., Ltd. ("Shenzhen") to show cause why the equipment
authorization it holds under FCC ID No. XRLTG-VIPJAMM should not be
revoked and why a Forfeiture Order in an amount not to exceed one
hundred and twelve thousand five hundred dollars ($112,500) should not
be issued against Shenzhen for willfully and/or repeatedly violating
sections 302(b) and 333 of the Act and sections 2.803, 2.907(b),
2.931, 2.932, 2.936 and 2.946 of the Rules.
II. BACKGROUND
2. In response to complaints regarding the marketing of a radio frequency
device called the TxTStopper(TM) that is advertised as preventing cell
phone use in moving motor vehicles, the Spectrum Enforcement Division
("Division") of the FCC's Enforcement Bureau ("Bureau") launched an
investigation. The Division staff observed that the txtstopper.com
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 in 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.
3. On July 20, 2010, the Division issued a letter of inquiry ("LOI") to
Share Enterprises Unlimited, Inc. ("Share"), the company that operates
the txtstopper.com 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.
4. However, Share did not provide any technical explanation or other
evidence to substantiate its claims that the TxTStopper(TM) device
only affects phones inside the vehicle where the device is installed,
that the device does not create interference beyond the vehicle, and
that while blocking all cell phone communications, the device
nevertheless allows users to make 9-1-1 calls. Instead, Share simply
stated that it was not the manufacturer of the device and that it
obtained the TxTStopper(TM) "beta test units" from a supplier located
in China. 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.
5. At the Bureau's request, OET subsequently reviewed the equipment
certification granted under FCC ID No. XRLTG-VIPJAMM and the
underlying application and supporting documents. OET observed certain
apparent discrepancies between the application, test report, and
equipment certification as to the nature and purpose of the device.
Specifically, the device approved under the certification, which was
issued to Shenzhen by a Telecommunications Certification Body ("TCB")
on October 20, 2009, was purportedly a Part 15, Class B computer
peripheral. The application for the device also listed the equipment
class as "JBP - Part 15 Class B computing peripheral" and included the
following description of the product: "computer peripheral for
preprocessing data." Similarly, the test report and other data
submitted with the application for this device show that the device
was tested when connected to a personal computer and the AC power
line, and that there were no emissions other than those associated
with a digital device. Contrary to this evidence, however, the test
report described the equipment being tested as an "RF Jammer", and
apparently this description was erroneously reproduced in the "Notes"
section of the equipment certification.
6. On September 7, 2010, OET sent a letter to the TCB that issued the
grant of certification under FCC ID No. XRLTG-VIPJAMM, seeking
information as to whether the device was in fact an intentional
radiator and an illegal jammer and requesting an explanation for the
conflicting information on the face of the certification. In its
response, the TCB indicated that the application for the device was
marked as a JBP application, which indicates that the device is
intended to be used as a Part 15 Class B computing device peripheral.
The TCB noted that after examining the block diagram and schematics
originally submitted with the application, it determined that the
device appeared to have an accompanying receiver. The TCB further
stated that prior to certifying the device, it had sought
clarification about this inconsistency and placed a hold on the
application. The applicant responded by resubmitting the application
with revised exhibits that removed the receiver circuitry from the
application. The TCB then continued its review of the application in
reliance on the applicant's representations, concluding in good faith
that the device was strictly a computer peripheral without any
receiving or transmitting circuitry. The TCB also stated that it
considered the description of the device "RF Jammer" to be a misnomer
and therefore proceeded with grant of the application.
7. On September 9, 2010, OET sent a letter to Shenzhen, the grantee of
the certification at issue in this Order, requesting that it provide
an explanation within 30 days as to why the application was submitted
to the TCB as a JBP application for a Part 15 Class B computing
peripheral device, when it appeared to be an intentional radiator that
could transmit radio signals. On September 16, 2010, OET sent another
letter to Shenzhen directing it to submit a sample of the device
certified under FCC ID No. XRLTG-VIPJAMM to the OET Laboratory for
testing within 30 days. To date, Shenzhen has not responded to the
letters from OET or submitted the requested sample.
8. On November 2, 2010, agents from the Bureau's Atlanta, Georgia Field
Office observed a unit of the TxTStopper(TM) that had been installed
in a vehicle owned by Just Driver Training, a driver's education
training school located in Canton, Georgia. Tests conducted by the
agents indicated that the TxTStopper(TM) is in fact a cellular/PCS
jammer and that when installed in a vehicle the TxTStopper(TM) is
capable of blocking cellular communications initiated from both inside
and outside of the vehicle, apparently including 9-1-1 and other
emergency calls.
III. DISCUSSION
A. Applicable Legal Standard
9. The Commission follows the same procedures in revoking an equipment
authorization as it does when revoking a radio station license.
Pursuant to section 312(c) of the Act, before revoking a radio station
license, the Commission must serve the licensee with an order to show
cause why an order of revocation should not be issued and must provide
the licensee with an opportunity for hearing.
10. Section 2.939(a)(1) of the Rules authorizes the Commission to revoke
any equipment authorization for "false statements or representations
made either in the application or in materials or response submitted
in connection therewith." Section 2.939(a)(2) of the Rules, moreover,
provides that the Commission may revoke any equipment authorization
"[i]f upon subsequent inspection or operation it is determined that
the equipment does not conform to the pertinent technical requirements
or to the representations made in the original application." Section
2.939(a)(3) of the Rules also authorizes revocation "[i]f it is
determined that changes have been made in the equipment other than
those authorized by the rules or otherwise expressly authorized by the
Commission." Furthermore, section 2.939(a)(4) of the Rules provides
that the Commission may revoke an equipment authorization upon
discovery of conditions which would warrant its refusal to grant an
original application. This Order to Show Cause is predicated on
Shenzhen's apparent willful and repeated violation of the Act and the
Rules, including evidence that the original application for
certification was tainted by misrepresentations and/or that
unauthorized changes were made to the TxTStopperTM device
post-certification.
11. Grant of an application for equipment certification is governed by
section 2.915 of the Rules, which requires that the grant serve the
public interest and that the device comply with the pertinent
technical rules, in this case, sections 2.803(a), 2.931, and 15.201.
Section 333 of the Act, moreover, states that "[n]o person shall
willfully or maliciously interfere with or cause interference to any
radio communications of any station licensed or authorized by or under
this Act or operated by the United States Government." In addition,
section 302(b) of the Act provides that "[n]o person shall
manufacture, import, sell, offer for sale, or ship devices or home
electronic equipment and systems, or use devices, which fail to comply
with regulations promulgated pursuant to this section." Section
2.803(a)(1) of the Commission's implementing regulations provides
that:
no person shall sell or lease, or offer for sale or lease (including
advertising for sale or lease), or import, ship, or distribute for the
purpose of selling or leasing or offering for sale or lease, any radio
frequency device unless ... [i]n the case of a device subject to
certification, such device has been authorized by the Commission in
accordance with the rules in this chapter and is properly identified and
labeled as required by S: 2.925 and other relevant sections in this
chapter.
Additionally, section 2.803(g) of the Rules provides in relevant part
that:
radio frequency devices that could not be authorized or legally operated
under the current rules ... shall not be operated, advertised, displayed,
offered for sale or lease, sold or leased, or otherwise marketed absent a
license issued under part 5 of this chapter or a special temporary
authorization issued by the Commission.
Pursuant to section 15.201(b) of the Rules, before intentional radiators
can be marketed in the United States, they must be authorized in
accordance with the Commission's certification procedures. Radio frequency
jammers, however, are a type of intentional radiator that cannot be
lawfully certified because the main purpose of a jammer is to block or
interfere with radio communications in violation of section 333 of the
Act.
12. Furthermore, under section 2.907(b) of the Rules, a certification
attaches to all units subsequently marketed by the grantee which are
identical to the sample tested except for permissive changes or other
variations authorized by the Commission. Section 2.931 of the Rules
provides that "[i]n accepting a grant of equipment authorization, the
grantee warrants that each unit of equipment marketed under such grant
and bearing the identification specified in the grant will conform to
the unit that was measured and that the data . . . filed with the
application for certification continues to be representative of the
equipment being produced under such grant . . . ." Accordingly,
devices that are not identical to the sample tested as part of an
application for certification are not covered by the grant of
certification and may not lawfully be marketed in the United States.
B. Analysis of Relevant Facts
13. First, revocation is apparently warranted under section 2.939(a)(4) of
the Rules, based on facts that have come to light, which had they been
known to the Commission would have precluded the original grant. As
detailed above and based on the field tests conducted by Bureau staff,
the TxTStopper(TM) - the device apparently being marketed under FCC ID
No. XRLTG-VIPJAMM - can prevent anyone in a vehicle in which it is
installed from making or receiving cell phone calls or sending or
receiving text messages or emails on a cell phone, and also can block
calls made from outside the vehicle, apparently including 9-1-1 and
other emergency calls. Thus, this device is a radio frequency jammer,
which interferes with or blocks authorized radio signals in violation
of section 333 of the Act and cannot be authorized or marketed in the
United States under section 302(b) of the Act and section 2.803 of the
Rules.
14. Second, revocation is apparently warranted under sections
2.939(a)(1)-(3) of the Rules, given the apparent misrepresentations in
the application and related materials, the substantial differences
between the device that was approved under FCC ID No. XRLTG-VIPJAMM
and the device that has been marketed as the TxTStopper(TM) under this
FCC ID, and the unauthorized changes that apparently were made to the
device. The evidence indicates that the device marketed under FCC ID
No. XRLTG-VIPJAMM is an intentional radiator with a transmitter
circuit designed to block, jam, or otherwise interfere with radio
communications. In addition, the information submitted by the grantee
in the application for the device certified under FCC ID No.
XRLTG-VIPJAMM misled the certification body and caused them to
conclude the opposite - that the device is an unintentional radiator,
a Part 15 Class B computer peripheral. Specifically, the Commission's
review of the test report and other data submitted with the
application indicates that the device approved under FCC ID No.
XRLTG-VIPJAMM was tested when connected to a personal computer and the
AC power line (rather than in a motor vehicle) and that it did not
have any circuitry for receiving or transmitting radio signals. By
contrast, the TxTStopper(TM) device that is being marketed by Share
Enterprises under FCC ID No. XRLTG-VIPJAMM is clearly intended for use
in a motor vehicle and is apparently powered by the car battery.
Accordingly, it appears that the device marketed under FCC ID No.
XRLTG-VIPJAMM is not identical to the sample tested as part of the
application for certification, nor does it conform to the
representations made in the original applications. Therefore, it
cannot legally be marketed under section 302(b) of the Act and
sections 2.803, 2.907(b) and 2.931 of the Rules.
15. Based on the foregoing, it appears (a) that the Commission would be
warranted in refusing to grant an original application for equipment
authorization for the device certified under FCC ID No. XRLTG-VIPJAMM;
(b) that false statements or representations may have been made either
in the application or supporting materials for the device certified
under FCC ID No. XRLTG-VIPJAMM; (c) that the device marketed under FCC
ID No. XRLTG-VIPJAMM does not conform to the pertinent technical
requirements or to the representations made in the original
application; and/or (d) that changes have been made to the device
other than those authorized by the rules or otherwise expressly
authorized by the Commission. In sum, a substantial and material
question of fact exists as to whether the device in question should
have been certified.
16. The Commission has repeatedly sought from the manufacturer additional
information that would counter or explain the evidence. Shenzhen has
not responded, as the Act and our Rules require, to any of the
Commission's requests. Shenzhen's failure to respond to the initial
OET letter directing the company to provide information regarding the
device constitutes an apparent violation of a Commission order.
Numerous Commission decisions have reaffirmed the Commission's
authority to investigate potential misconduct and punish those that
disregard FCC inquiries. Likewise, Shenzhen's failure to comply with
OET's directive to provide a sample of the device being marketed under
FCC ID No. XRLTG-VIPJAMM apparently violates sections 2.936 and 2.946
of the Rules. Pursuant to section 2.936 of the Rules, a responsible
party must, upon reasonable request from the Commission, submit a
sample unit of the equipment covered under an authorization.
Similarly, pursuant to section 2.945 of the Rules, the Commission may
request a responsible party such as Shenzhen to submit equipment "to
determine the extent to which subsequent production of such equipment
continues to comply with the data filed by the applicant." Under
section 2.946 of the Rules, "[a]ny responsible party ... shall provide
test sample(s) or data upon request by the Commission" and "[f]ailure
to comply with such a request within 14 days may be cause for
forfeiture." Shenzhen's silence serves only to reinforce the
substantial questions that have been raised regarding whether the
TxTStopper(TM) device marketed under FCC ID No. XRLTG-VIPJAMM is
identical to the device actually approved under that FCC ID.
17. Accordingly, we are designating this matter for hearing before an
Administrative Law Judge to determine whether the equipment
authorization held by Shenzhen under FCC ID No. XRLTG-VIPJAMM should
be revoked on some or all of the bases outlined herein and whether a
Forfeiture Order in an amount not to exceed one hundred and twelve
thousand five hundred dollars ($112,500) should be issued.
IV. ORDERING CLAUSES
18. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to sections 312(a) and (c)
of the Act, and authority delegated pursuant to sections 0.111, 0.311,
1.91(a) and 2.939(b) of the Rules, Shenzhen Tangreat Technology Co.,
Ltd. is hereby ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE why its equipment authorization,
FCC ID No. XRLTG-VIPJAMM, SHOULD NOT BE REVOKED. Shenzhen SHALL APPEAR
before an Administrative Law Judge at a time and place to be specified
in a subsequent order and give evidence upon the following issues:
a. To determine whether the device marketed under FCC ID No.
XRLTG-VIPJAMM is capable of interfering with or blocking authorized
radio signals in violation of section 333 of the Act and therefore
cannot legally be authorized or marketed under section 302(b) of the
Act and section 2.803 of the Rules;
b. To determine whether the device marketed under FCC ID No.
XRLTG-VIPJAMM is not identical to the device authorized under FCC ID
No. XRLTG-VIPJAMM and therefore cannot legally be marketed under
section 302(b) of the Act and sections 2.803, 2.907(b), and 2.931 of
the Rules;
c. To determine whether the device marketed under FCC ID No.
XRLTG-VIPJAMM does not conform to the pertinent technical requirements
or to the representations made in the original application (see
section 2.939(a)(2));
d. To determine whether changes were made to the device certified under
equipment authorization FCC ID No. XRLTG-VIPJAMM other than those
authorized by the rules or otherwise expressly authorized by the
Commission (see section 2.939(a)(3));
e. To determine whether Shenzhen made false statements or representations
either in the application or in materials submitted in connection
therewith (see section 2.939(a)(1));
f. To determine whether the Commission would be warranted in refusing to
grant an original application for equipment authorization for the
device certified under FCC ID No. XRLTG-VIPJAMM (see section
2.939(a)(4));
g. To determine whether Shenzhen willfully violated sections 2.936 and
2.946 of the Rules by failing to provide a test sample of the device
being marketed under FCC ID No. XRLTG-VIPJAMM upon request by the
Commission, and otherwise willfully failed to respond to a Commission
request for information regarding the device; and
h. To determine, in light of the evidence adduced pursuant to the
foregoing issues, whether the equipment authorization held by Shenzhen
under FCC ID No. XRLTG-VIPJAMM should be revoked.
19. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, irrespective of the resolution of the
foregoing issues, it shall be determined, pursuant to section
503(b)(3)(A) of the Act, 47 U.S.C. S: 503(b)(3)(A), and section 1.80
of the Rules, 47 C.F.R. S: 1.80, whether a Forfeiture Order in an
amount not to exceed one hundred and twelve thousand five hundred
dollars ($112,500) shall be issued against Shenzhen Tangreat
Technology Co., Ltd. for willfully and/or repeatedly violating
sections 302(b) and 333 of the Act and sections 2.803, 2.907(b),
2.931, 2.932, 2.936 and 2.946 of the Rules.
20. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, in connection with the possible forfeiture
liability noted above, this document constitutes notice of an
opportunity for hearing, pursuant to section 503(b)(3)(A) of the Act
and section 1.80 of the Rules.
21. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, pursuant to section 312(c) of the Act and
sections 1.91(c) and 2.939(b) of the Rules, to avail itself of the
opportunity to be heard and to present evidence at a hearing in this
proceeding, Shenzhen, in person or by an attorney, SHALL FILE with the
Commission, within thirty (30) days of the release of this Order to
Show Cause, a written appearance stating that it will appear at the
hearing and present evidence on the issues specified above.
22. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, pursuant to section 312(c) of the Act and
sections 1.92(c) and 2.939(b) of the Rules, if Shenzhen fails to file
a timely notice of appearance within the thirty (30) day period, or
has not filed a petition to accept, for good cause shown, a written
appearance beyond the expiration of the thirty (30)-day period, its
right to a hearing SHALL BE DEEMED TO BE WAIVED. In the event that
Shenzhen waives its right to a hearing, the presiding Administrative
Law Judge SHALL, at the earliest practicable date, ISSUE an order
reciting the events or circumstances constituting a waiver of hearing,
terminating the hearing proceeding, and certifying the case to the
Commission.
23. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Chief, Enforcement Bureau, shall be
made a party to this proceeding without the need to file a written
appearance.
24. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, pursuant to section 312(d) of the Act and
sections 1.91(d) and 2.939(b) of the Rules, the burden of proceeding
with the introduction of evidence and the burden of proof with respect
to the issues specified above shall be on the Chief, Enforcement
Bureau.
25. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this Order to Show Cause shall be
sent by first class mail, overnight mail, facsimile and email, to
Junrong Jiang, General Manager, Shenzhen Tangreat Technology Co.,
Ltd., 4th Floor, R&D Building, Dacheng Industry, Jihua Road, Bantian,
Shenzhen, 518129, China, 86-755-82527821 (facsimile),
tangreat@tangreat.com (email).
26. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this Order to Show Cause, or a
summary thereof, shall be published in the Federal Register.
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
P. Michele Ellison
Chief, Enforcement Bureau
47 C.F.R. S:S: 1.91, 2.939.
Consistent with the Commission's rules and procedures, the portion of the
FCC ID describing the relevant product or device (in this case,
"TG-VIPJAMM") is assigned by the grantee or applicant.
47 U.S.C. S:S: 302a(b), 333.
47 C.F.R. S: 2.931.
47 U.S.C. S:S: 302a(b), 333; 47 C.F.R. S:S: 2.803, 2.907(b), 2.931, 2.932,
2.936, 2.946. We are simultaneously issuing a citation to Share
Enterprises, the company that marketed the TxTStopper(TM) device in the
United States, for violations of sections 302(b) of the Act and sections
1.17 and 2.803 of the Rules. See Share Enterprises Unlimited, Inc.,
Citation, DA 11-247, February 9, 2011.
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. It is unclear what relationship exists between
Chinazrh and Shenzhen.
See id. at 2.
See id.
See id.
The equipment certification under FCC ID No. XRLTG-VIPJAMM was granted to
Shenzhen on October 20, 2009. See
https://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/oetcf/eas/reports/GenericSearch.cfm.
As the grantee of the certification issued under FCC ID No. XRLTG-VIPJAMM,
Shenzhen is the party responsible for ensuring that the device complies
with all applicable regulations. See 47 C.F.R. S: 2.909(a).
A Telecommunications Certification Body ("TCB") is a private entity
designated by the Commission to approve equipment subject to
certification. TCBs, which are accredited by the National Institute of
Standards and Technology, process equipment certification applications to
determine whether the product meets the Commission's requirements and, if
so, issue a written grant of equipment authorization. See 47 C.F.R. S:S:
2.960, 2.962.
A peripheral device is
[a]n input/output unit of a system that feeds data into and/or receives
data from the central processing unit of a digital device. Peripherals to
a digital device include any device that is connected external to the
digital device, any device internal to the digital device that connects
the digital device to an external device by wire or cable, and any circuit
board designed for interchangeable mounting, internally or externally,
that increases the operating or processing speed of a digital device,
e.g., `turbo' cards and `enhancement' boards. Examples of peripheral
devices include terminals, printers, external floppy disk drives and other
data storage devices, video monitors, keyboards, interface boards,
external memory expansion cards, and other input/output devices that may
or may not contain digital circuitry.
47 C.F.R. S: 15.3(r).
"JBP" is the equipment class code assigned by the Commission to designate
Part 15 Class B Computing Device Peripherals on FCC Form 731, Application
for Equipment Authorization. See
https://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/oetcf/eas/index.cfm.
Shenzhen Tangreat Technology Co., Ltd., Application for Equipment
Authorization FCC Form 731 TCB Version.
Shenzhen BST Technology Co., Ltd., a test laboratory authorized to perform
certification testing pursuant to section 2.948 of the Rules, 47 C.F.R. S:
2.948, conducted the test and prepared the test report. See
https://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/oetcf/eas/reports/ViewExhibitReport.cfm?mode=Exhibits&RequestTimeout=500&calledFromFrame=N&application_id=754164&fcc_id='XRLTG-VIPJAMM'.
See id.
See FCC ID No. XRL-TGVIPJAMM, at
https://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/oetcf/eas/reports/GenericSearch.cfm. On
September 30, 2010, OET conformed the certification issued under FCC ID
No. XRLTG-VIPJAMM to reflect the actual device that was submitted for
testing, substituting "Computer peripheral for preprocessing data" for "RF
Jammer" under the "Notes" section of the certification.
An intentional radiator is a "device that intentionally generates and
emits radio frequency energy by radiation or induction." 47 C.F.R. S:
15.3(o).
See Letter from Raymond LaForge, Chief, Auditing and Compliance Branch,
Office of Engineering and Technology Laboratory, Federal Communications
Commission, to Timco Engineering, Inc. (September 7, 2010).
See E-mail from Gretchen Greene, Timco Engineering, Inc., to Raymond
LaForge, Chief, Auditing and Compliance Branch, Office of Engineering and
Technology Laboratory, Federal Communications Commission (September 17,
2010).
See id.
See id.
See id. In addition, the TCB noted that it requested a surveillance sample
of the device from the test lab on July 6, 2010, but did not receive a
sample in response to its request. Further, the TCB stated that upon
receiving the letter from OET, it advised the test lab of OET's request
for further information regarding the device and that the test lab
subsequently informed the TCB that it tried to contact Shenzhen, but
received no response. See id.
See Letter from Raymond LaForge, Chief, Auditing and Compliance Branch,
Office of Engineering and Technology Laboratory, Federal Communications
Commission, to Junrong Jiang, General Manager, Shenzhen Tangreat
Technology Co., Inc. (September 9, 2010). The letter was sent to the email
address listed in Shenzhen's equipment authorization application,
tangreat@tangreat.com.
See Letter from Raymond LaForge, Chief, Auditing and Compliance Branch,
Office of Engineering and Technology Laboratory, to Shenzhen Tangreat
Technology Co., Inc. (September 16, 2010). Under section 2.945 of the
Rules, the Commission may require responsible parties to submit equipment
samples in order to determine the extent to which subsequent production of
such equipment continues to comply with the data filed by the applicant.
47 C.F.R. S: 2.945.
Field tests indicate that calls are blocked within a 150-foot radius of
the vehicle.
See 47 C.F.R. S: 2.939(b) ("Revocation of an equipment authorization shall
be made in the same manner as revocation of radio station licenses.").
47 U.S.C. S: 312(c).
47 C.F.R. S: 2.939(a)(1).
Id. S: 2.939(a)(2).
Id. S: 2.939(a)(3).
Id. S: 2.939(a)(4).
Id. S:S: 2.803, 2.915, 2.931, 15.201.
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).
See supra note 29 defining "intentional radiator."
47 C.F.R. S: 2.907(b).
Id. S: 2.931.
See supra n.37 (noting that calls are blocked within a 150-foot radius of
the vehicle). The importance of preserving public safety and emergency
communications free of jamming signals cannot be overstated and is
reflected in the Commission's investigations and enforcement actions in
this area. See, e.g., Phonejammer.com, Notice of Apparent Liability for
Forfeiture, 25 FCC Rcd 3827 (Enf. Bur. Apr. 20, 2010) (initiating a
$25,000 forfeiture proceeding against the company for marketing jammers
designed to interfere with cellular and "PCS" utilized by St. Lucie
County, Florida Sheriff's Office); Everybuying.com, Citation, DA 10-2295
(Enf. Bur. Dec. 6, 2010) (citing the company for marketing both cell phone
signal and Global Positioning System ("GPS") signal blocker devices, and
noting that GPS signal blockers operate within restricted frequency bands
listed in Section 15.205(a) of the Rules); Jammerworld.com, Citation, DA
10-2240, 2010 WL 4808497 (Enf. Bur. Nov. 26, 2010) (citing the company
for marketing a device that jams signals in the Cell Phone Band (845-975
MHz), PCS Band (1800-1996 MHz), and GPS L1 frequency 1575.42 MHz); Victor
McCormack, phonejammer.com, Citation, DA 10-1975 (Enf. Bur. Oct. 14, 2010)
(citing the company for misrepresentations made during the course of an
investigation of Phonejammer.com's sale of jammer devices); Anoy Wray,
Notice of Unlicensed Operation, Document Number W201032380068 (Enf. Bur.,
May 18, 2010) (citing Mr. Wray for using radio transmitting device
designed to jam GPS transmissions); Gene Stinson d.b.a. D&G Food Mart,
Notice of Unauthorized Operation and Interference to Licensed Radio
Stations, Document Number W200932500003 (Enf. Bur. Aug. 13, 2009) (citing
the company for use of two radio transmitting devices designed to jam
licensed radio communications transmission in the 850-894 MHz and other
licensed frequency bands used by City of Oklahoma City Radio System).
47 U.S.C. S:S: 302a(b), 333; 47 C.F.R. S: 2.803.
47 C.F.R. S: 2.939(a)(1)-(3).
See id. S: 15.101-15.124.
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."
http://www.txtstopper.com/cms/content/faqs (visited June 29, 2010 and
October 18, 2010).
47 U.S.C. S: 302a(b); 47 C.F.R. S:S: 2.803, 2.907(b), 2.931.
See 47 C.F.R. S: 2.939(a)(4).
See id. S: 2.939(a)(1).
See id. S: 2.939(a)(2).
See id. S: 2.939(a)(3).
The Commission has broad investigatory authority under Sections 4(i),
4(j), and 403 of the Act, its rules, and relevant precedent. Section 4(i)
authorizes the Commission to "issue such orders, not inconsistent with
this Act, as may be necessary in the execution of its functions." 47
U.S.C. S: 154(i). Section 4(j) states that "the Commission may conduct its
proceedings in such manner as will best conduce to the proper dispatch of
business and to the ends of justice." Id. S: 154(j). Section 403 grants
the Commission "full authority and power at any time to institute an
inquiry, on its own motion, in any case and as to any matter . . .
relating to the enforcement of any of the provisions of this Act." Id. S:
403.
See id. S: 503(b)(1)(B).
See, e.g., SBC Communications Inc., Forfeiture Order, 17 FCC Rcd 7589,
7599-7600 (2002) (ordering $100,000 forfeiture for egregious and
intentional failure to certify the response to a Bureau inquiry); Fox
Television Stations, Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture, 25 FCC
Rcd 7074 (Enf. Bur. 2010) (proposing a $25,000 forfeiture for failure to
respond to a Bureau letter of inquiry); BigZoo.Com Corporation, Forfeiture
Order, 20 FCC Rcd 3954 (Enf. Bur. 2005) (ordering $20,000 forfeiture for
failure to respond to a letter of inquiry); Digital Antenna, Inc., Notice
of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture and Order, 23 FCC Rcd 7600, 7602
(Spec. Enf. Div., Enf. Bur. 2008) (proposing $11,000 forfeiture for
failure to provide a complete response to a letter of inquiry).
47 C.F.R. S:S: 2.936, 2.946.
Id. S: 2.936.
Id. S: 2.945.
Id. S: 2.946.
47 U.S.C. S: 312(a), (c).
47 C.F.R. S:S: 0.111, 0.311, 1.91(a), 2.939(b).
47 U.S.C. S: 302a(b), 333; 47 C.F.R. S:S: 2.803, 2.907(b), 2.931, 2.932,
2.936, 2.946.
47 U.S.C. S: 312(c); 47 C.F.R. S:S: 1.91(c), 2.939(b).
47 U.S.C. S: 312(c); 47 C.F.R. S:S: 1.92(c), 2.939(b).
See 47 C.F.R. S: 0.111(b).
See 47 U.S.C. S: 312(d); 47 C.F.R. S:S: 1.91(d), 2.939(b).
Federal Communications Commission DA 11-246
7
2
Federal Communications Commission DA 11-246