[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 45 (Tuesday, March 8, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 12733-12738]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-5221]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

[EB Docket No. 10-247; DA 11-246]


Shenzhen Tangreat Technology Co., Ltd., Grantee of Equipment 
Authorization FCC ID No. XRLTG-VIPJAMM

AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.

ACTION: Notice.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: This document commences a hearing proceeding by directing 
Shenzhen Tangreat Technology Co., Ltd. (``Shenzhen''), Grantee of 
Equipment Authorization FCC ID No. XRLTG-VIPJAMM, to show cause why the 
equipment authorization 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 apparent false

[[Page 12734]]

statements or representations made in either its application for this 
equipment authorization or in materials or responses submitted 
therewith; the manufacture and marketing of equipment that does not 
conform to the pertinent technical requirements or representations made 
in its application for authorization; and/or changes made in such 
equipment that are not authorized by the Commission.

DATES: Petitions by parties desiring to participate as a party in the 
hearing, pursuant to 47 CFR 1.223, may be filed on or before April 7, 
2011. See SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section for dates when named 
parties should file appearances.

ADDRESSES: Please file documents with the Office of the Secretary, 
Federal Communications Commission, 445 12th Street, SW., Washington, DC 
20554. Each document that is filed in this proceeding must display the 
document number of this hearing, EB Docket No. 10-247, on the front 
page.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kevin Pittman, Spectrum Enforcement 
Division, Enforcement Bureau, Federal Communications Commission at 
(202) 418-1160.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is the full text of the Order to Show 
Cause and Notice of Opportunity for Hearing (``Order to Show Cause''), 
DA 11-246, released February 9, 2011. The full text of the Order to 
Show Cause is also available for inspection and copying from 8 a.m. 
until 4:30 p.m., Monday through Thursday or from 8 a.m. until 11:30 
a.m. on Friday at the FCC Reference Information Center, Portals II, 
Room CY-A257, 445 12th Street, SW., Washington, DC 20554. The complete 
text may be purchased from the Commission's copy contractor, Best Copy 
and Printing, Inc. (BCPI), Portals II, 445 12th Street, SW., Room CY-
B402, Washington, DC 20554, telephone (800) 378-3160, facsimile (202) 
488-5563, e-mail FCC@BCPIWEB.com, or you may contact BCPI via its Web 
site, http://www.bcpiweb.com. When ordering documents from BCPI, please 
provide the appropriate FCC document number, DA 11-246. The Order to 
Show Cause is also available on the Internet at the Commission's Web 
site through its Electronic Document Management System (EDOCS): http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/. Alternative formats are available to 
persons with disabilities (Braille, large print, electronic files, 
audio format); to obtain, please send an e-mail to fcc504@fcc.gov or 
call the Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau at (202) 418-0530 
(voice), (202) 418-0432 (TTY).

Order To Show Cause

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'') \1\ regarding the device manufactured and marketed under 
FCC ID No. XRLTG-VIPJAMM with the brand name ``TxTStopper 
TM''.\2\ 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'').\3\ Moreover, based on 
the evidence, the TxTStopper TM 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.\4\ 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.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 47 CFR 1.91, 2.939.
    \2\ 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.
    \3\ 47 U.S.C. 302a(b), 333.
    \4\ 47 CFR 2.931.
    \5\ 47 U.S.C. 302a(b), 333; 47 CFR 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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 Web site 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.'' 
\6\ The Web site 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 e-mails 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.\7\ The Web site 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.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ TxTStopper TM Web site, 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.
    \7\ See id. at http://www.txtstopper.com/cms/content/faqs 
(visited June 29, 2010 and October 18, 2010).
    \8\ 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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 Web site.\9\ 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.\10\ Share 
responded to the LOI on September 6, 2010.\11\ In its LOI Response, 
Share stated that it began ``market research'' of the TxTStopper \TM\ 
on July 1, 2010, in

[[Page 12735]]

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.\12\ 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.'' \13\ 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.\14\ Share further asserted that the TxTStopper \TM\ does 
not interfere with the user's ability to make 9-1-1 calls at any 
time.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ 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).
    \10\ See id.
    \11\ 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.
    \12\ Id. at 1.
    \13\ Id. at 2.
    \14\ See id.
    \15\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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.\16\ 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.\17\ Share also claimed that the TxTStopper \TM\ was 
certified by the FCC under FCC ID No. XRLTG-VIPJAMM.\18\ 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.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ 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.
    \17\ See id. at 2.
    \18\ See id.
    \19\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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.\20\ 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 \21\ by a Telecommunications Certification Body (``TCB'') \22\ 
on October 20, 2009, was purportedly a Part 15, Class B computer 
peripheral.\23\ The application for the device also listed the 
equipment class as ``JBP--Part 15 Class B computing peripheral'' \24\ 
and included the following description of the product: ``computer 
peripheral for preprocessing data.'' \25\ Similarly, the test report 
\26\ 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.\27\ 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.\28\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ 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.
    \21\ 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 CFR 
2.909(a).
    \22\ 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 CFR 2.960, 2.962.
    \23\ 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 CFR 15.3(r).
    \24\ ``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.
    \25\ Shenzhen Tangreat Technology Co., Ltd., Application for 
Equipment Authorization FCC Form 731 TCB Version.
    \26\ Shenzhen BST Technology Co., Ltd., a test laboratory 
authorized to perform certification testing pursuant to section 
2.948 of the Rules, 47 CFR 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'.
    \27\ See id.
    \28\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 \29\ and an illegal jammer and requesting an explanation for 
the conflicting information on the face of the certification.\30\ 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.\31\ 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.\32\ 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.\33\ 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.\34\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \29\ An intentional radiator is a ``device that intentionally 
generates and emits radio frequency energy by radiation or 
induction.'' 47 CFR 15.3(o).
    \30\ 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).
    \31\ 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).
    \32\ See id.
    \33\ See id.
    \34\ 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.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 12736]]

    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.\35\ 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.\36\ To date, Shenzhen has not responded to 
the letters from OET or submitted the requested sample.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \35\ 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 e-mail address listed in Shenzhen's 
equipment authorization application, tangreat@tangreat.com.
    \36\ 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 CFR 2.945.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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,\37\ apparently including 9-1-1 and other 
emergency calls.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \37\ Field tests indicate that calls are blocked within a 150-
foot radius of the vehicle.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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.\38\ 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.\39\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \38\ See 47 CFR 2.939(b) (``Revocation of an equipment 
authorization shall be made in the same manner as revocation of 
radio station licenses.'').
    \39\ 47 U.S.C. 312(c).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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.'' \40\ 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.'' \41\ 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.'' \42\ 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.\43\ 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 
TxTStopper TM device post-certification.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \40\ 47 CFR 2.939(a)(1).
    \41\ Id. sec. 2.939(a)(2).
    \42\ Id. sec. 2.939(a)(3).
    \43\ Id. sec. 2.939(a)(4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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.\44\ 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.'' \45\ 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.'' \46\ Section 
2.803(a)(1) of the Commission's implementing regulations provides that:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \44\ Id. sec. 2.803, 2.915, 2.931, 15.201.
    \45\ 47 U.S.C. 333.
    \46\ Id. sec. 302a(b).

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 section 2.925 and 
other relevant sections in this chapter.\47\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \47\ 47 CFR 2.803(a)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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.\48\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \48\ Id. sec. 2.803(g).

    Pursuant to section 15.201(b) of the Rules,\49\ before intentional 
radiators \50\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \49\ Id. sec. 15.201(b).
    \50\ See supra note 29 defining ``intentional radiator.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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.\51\ 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 * * *'' 
\52\ 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

[[Page 12737]]

may not lawfully be marketed in the United States.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \51\ 47 CFR 2.907(b).
    \52\ Id. sec. 2.931.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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 e-mails on a cell phone, 
and also can block calls made from outside the vehicle, apparently 
including 9-1-1 and other emergency calls.\53\ 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.\54\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \53\ 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).
    \54\ 47 U.S.C. 302a(b), 333; 47 CFR 2.803.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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.\55\ 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.\56\ 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.\57\ 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.\58\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \55\ 47 CFR 2.939(a)(1)-(3).
    \56\ See id. sec. 15.101-15.124.
    \57\ According to the txtstopper.com Web site, 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).
    \58\ 47 U.S.C. 302a(b); 47 CFR 2.803, 2.907(b), 2.931.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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; \59\ (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; \60\ (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; \61\ 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.\62\ In sum, a substantial and 
material question of fact exists as to whether the device in question 
should have been certified.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \59\ See 47 CFR 2.939(a)(4).
    \60\ See id. sec. 2.939(a)(1).
    \61\ See id. sec. 2.939(a)(2).
    \62\ See id. sec. 2.939(a)(3).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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,\63\ 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.\64\ Numerous Commission decisions have reaffirmed the 
Commission's authority to investigate potential misconduct and punish 
those that disregard FCC inquiries.\65\ 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.\66\ 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.\67\ Similarly, pursuant to

[[Page 12738]]

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.'' \68\ 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.'' \69\ 
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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \63\ 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. 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. sec. 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. sec. 
403.
    \64\ See id. sec. 503(b)(1)(B).
    \65\ 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).
    \66\ 47 CFR 2.936, 2.946.
    \67\ Id. sec. 2.936.
    \68\ Id. sec. 2.945.
    \69\ Id. sec. 2.946.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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,\70\ and authority delegated pursuant to sections 
0.111, 0.311, 1.91(a) and 2.939(b) of the Rules,\71\ 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:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \70\ 47 U.S.C. 312(a), (c).
    \71\ 47 CFR 0.111, 0.311, 1.91(a), 2.939(b).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (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. 503(b)(3)(A), and section 1.80 of 
the Rules, 47 CFR 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.\72\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \72\ 47 U.S.C. 302a(b), 333; 47 CFR 2.803, 2.907(b), 2.931, 
2.932, 2.936, 2.946.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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,\73\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \73\ 47 U.S.C. 312(c); 47 CFR 1.91(c), 2.939(b).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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,\74\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \74\ 47 U.S.C. 312(c); 47 CFR 1.92(c), 2.939(b).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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.\75\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \75\ See 47 CFR 0.111(b).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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,\76\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \76\ See 47 U.S.C. 312(d); 47 CFR 1.91(d), 2.939(b).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 e-
mail, 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 (e-mail).
    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.
[FR Doc. 2011-5221 Filed 3-7-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-P