Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 45 / Tuesday, March 8, 2011 / Notices 12733 

DATES: A public teleconference will be 

held on Tuesday, March 29, 2011 from 

1 p.m. to 3 p.m. (Eastern Time). 

ADDRESSES: The public teleconference 

will be conducted by telephone only. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Any 

member of the public wishing further 

information regarding this Notice and 

public teleconference may contact 

Mr. Edward Hanlon, Designated 

Federal Officer (DFO), SAB Staff Office, 

by telephone/voice mail at (202) 564– 

2134; by fax at (202) 565–2098 or via email at hanlon.edward@epa.gov. 

General information concerning the EPA 

CASAC can be found at the EPA CASAC 

Web site at http://www.epa.gov/casac. 

Any inquiry regarding EPA’s draft 

monitoring documents for NOX and SOX

should be directed to Dr. Richard 

Scheffe, EPA Office of Air Quality 

Planning and Standards (OAQPS), at 

scheffe.rich@epa.gov or 919–541–4650. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background: The CASAC was 

established pursuant to the under the 

Clean Air Act (CAA) Amendments of 

1977, codified at 42 U.S.C. 7409D(d)(2), 

to provide advice, information, and 

recommendations to the Administrator 

on the scientific and technical aspects of 

issues related to the criteria for air 

quality standards, research related to air 

quality, sources of air pollution, and the 

strategies to attain and maintain air 

quality standards and to prevent 

significant deterioration of air quality. 

The CASAC is a Federal Advisory 

Committee chartered under the Federal 

Advisory Committee Act (FACA), 5 

U.S.C., App. 2. Pursuant to FACA and 

EPA policy, notice is hereby given that 

the CASAC AMMS CASAC AMMS will 

hold a public teleconference to discuss 

the Subcommittee’s draft peer review 

report of the EPA’s draft monitoring 

documents for NOX and SOX. 

The AMMS met on February 16, 2011 

to review EPA’s draft monitoring 

documents for NOX and SOX and 

proposed methods for assessing levels of 

nitrogen and sulfur deposition. [Federal 

Register Notice dated January 25, 2011 

(76 FR 4346)]. Materials from the 

February 2011 meeting are posted on 

the SAB Web site at http:// 

yosemite.epa.gov/sab/sabproduct.nsf/

bf498bd32a1c7fdf85257242006dd6cb/ 

eea38cc34cc1f86f8525781d005

866e6!OpenDocument&Date=2011-02- 

16. The purpose of the March 29, 2011 

teleconference call is for the AMMS to 

discuss its draft peer review report. 

Availability of Meeting Materials: The 

agenda and materials in support of this 

teleconference call will be placed on the 

EPA CASAC Web site at http:// 

www.epa.gov/casac in advance of the 

teleconference call. 

Procedures for Providing Public Input: 

Interested members of the public may 

submit relevant written or oral 

information on the topic of this advisory 

activity for the CASAC to consider 

during the advisory process. Oral 

Statements: In general, individuals or 

groups requesting an oral presentation 

at this public teleconference will be 

limited to three minutes per speaker. 

Interested parties should contact Mr. 

Edward Hanlon, DFO, in writing 

(preferably via e-mail), at the contact 

information noted above, by March 22, 

2011 to be placed on the list of public 

speakers for the teleconference. Written 

Statements: Written statements should 

be received in the SAB Staff Office by 

March 22, 2011 so that the information 

may be made available to the CASAC 

AMMS for their consideration. Written 

statements should be supplied to the 

DFO in the following formats: one hard 

copy with original signature, and one 

electronic copy via e-mail (acceptable 

file format: Adobe Acrobat PDF, 

WordPerfect, MS Word, MS PowerPoint, 

or Rich Text files in IBM–PC/Windows 

98/2000/XP format). Submitters are 

requested to provide two versions of 

each document submitted with and 

without signatures, because the SAB 

Staff Office does not publish documents 

with signatures on its Web sites. 

Accessibility: For information on 

access or services for individuals with 

disabilities, please contact Mr. Edward 

Hanlon at the phone number or e-mail 

address noted above, preferably at least 

ten days prior to the meeting, to give 

EPA as much time as possible to process 

your request. 

Dated: March 2, 2011. 

Anthony F. Maciorowski, 

Deputy Director, EPA Science Advisory Board 

Staff Office. 

[FR Doc. 2011–5202 Filed 3–7–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY 

COMMISSION 

Sunshine Act Notice 

AGENCY HOLDING THE MEETING: Equal 

Employment Opportunity Commission. 

DATE AND TIME: Tuesday, March 15, 

2011, 1 p.m. Eastern Time. 

PLACE: Commission Meeting Room on 

the First Floor of the EEOC Office 

Building, 131 ‘‘M’’ Street, NE., 

Washington, DC 20507. 

STATUS: The meeting will be open to the 

public. 

MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED: 

Open Session 

1. Announcement of Notation Votes, 

and 

2. Employment of People with Mental 

Disabilities. 

Note: In accordance with the Sunshine Act, 

the meeting will be open to public 

observation of the Commission’s 

deliberations and voting. Seating is limited 

and it is suggested that visitors arrive 30 

minutes before the meeting in order to be 

processed through security and escorted to 

the meeting room. (In addition to publishing 

notices on EEOC Commission meetings in the 

Federal Register, the Commission also 

provides information about Commission 

meetings on its Web site, http:// 

www.eeoc.gov., and provides a recorded 

announcement a week in advance on future 

Commission sessions.) 

Please telephone (202) 663–7100 

(voice) and (202) 663–4074 (TTY) at any 

time for information on these meetings. 

The EEOC provides sign language 

interpretation and Communication 

Access Realtime Translation (CART) 

services at Commission meetings for 

individuals who are deaf or hard of 

hearing. Requests for other reasonable 

accommodations may be made by using 

the voice and TTY numbers listed 

above. 

CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION: 

Stephen Llewellyn, Executive Officer on 

(202) 663–4070. 

Dated: March 4, 2011. 

Stephen Llewellyn, 

Executive Officer, Executive Secretariat. 

[FR Doc. 2011–5361 Filed 3–4–11; 4:15 pm] 

BILLING CODE 6570–01–P 

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 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICES
12734 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 45 / Tuesday, March 8, 2011 / Notices 

1 47 CFR 1.91, 2.939. 

2Consistent 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. 

6TxTStopper 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. 

7See id. at http://www.txtstopper.com/cms/ 

content/faqs (visited June 29, 2010 and October 18, 

2010). 

8See 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). 

9See 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). 

10See id. 

11See 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. 

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, email 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

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

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 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 45 / Tuesday, March 8, 2011 / Notices 12735 

12 Id. at 1. 

13 Id. at 2. 

14See id. 

15See id. 

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. 

17See id. at 2. 

18See id. 

19See id. 

20The 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. 

21As 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). 

22A 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. 

23A 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. 

25Shenzhen Tangreat Technology Co., Ltd., 

Application for Equipment Authorization FCC 

Form 731 TCB Version. 

26Shenzhen 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’. 

27See id. 

28See FCC ID No. XRL–TGVIPJAMM, at https:// 

fjallfoss.fcc.gov/oetcf/eas/reports/Generic

Search.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. 

29An intentional radiator is a ‘‘device that 

intentionally generates and emits radio frequency 

energy by radiation or induction.’’ 47 CFR 15.3(o). 

30See 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). 

31See 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). 

32See id. 

33See id. 

34See 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 

Continued 

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

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

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

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


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICES
12736 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 45 / Tuesday, March 8, 2011 / Notices 

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. 35See 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. 

36See 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. 

37Field tests indicate that calls are blocked 

within a 150-foot radius of the vehicle. 

38See 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). 

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). 

44 Id. sec. 2.803, 2.915, 2.931, 15.201. 

45 47 U.S.C. 333. 

46 Id. sec. 302a(b). 

47 47 CFR 2.803(a)(1). 

48 Id. sec. 2.803(g). 

49 Id. sec. 15.201(b). 

50See supra note 29 defining ‘‘intentional 

radiator.’’ 

51 47 CFR 2.907(b). 

52 Id. sec. 2.931. 

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. 

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. 

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

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 postcertification. 

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: 

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

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

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. 

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 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 45 / Tuesday, March 8, 2011 / Notices 12737 

53See 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. 

55 47 CFR 2.939(a)(1)–(3). 

56See id. sec. 15.101–15.124. 

57According 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. 

59See 47 CFR 2.939(a)(4). 

60See id. sec. 2.939(a)(1). 

61See id. sec. 2.939(a)(2). 

62See id. sec. 2.939(a)(3). 

63The 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. 

64See id. sec. 503(b)(1)(B). 

65See, 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. 

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 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

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

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. 

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 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICES
12738 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 45 / Tuesday, March 8, 2011 / Notices 

68 Id. sec. 2.945. 

69 Id. sec. 2.946. 

70 47 U.S.C. 312(a), (c). 

71 47 CFR 0.111, 0.311, 1.91(a), 2.939(b). 

72 47 U.S.C. 302a(b), 333; 47 CFR 2.803, 2.907(b), 

2.931, 2.932, 2.936, 2.946. 

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

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

75See 47 CFR 0.111(b). 

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

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. 

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: 

(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

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. 

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. 

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

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. 

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 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with NOTICES