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

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

This document was converted from Microsoft Word.

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

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

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

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

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



                                   Before the

                       Federal Communications Commission

                             Washington, D.C. 20554

   In the Matter of Kevin W. Bondy Licensee of Station WQGX752 Encino,
   California ) ) ) ) ) ) File No.: EB-09-LA-0026 NAL/Acct. No.: 200932900004
   FRN: 0016490633




                          Memorandum opinion and order

   Adopted: February 14, 2013 Released: February 15, 2013

   By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau:

   I. Introduction

    1. In this Memorandum Opinion and Order (MO&O), issued pursuant to
       Section 405 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (Act),^ we
       dismiss as procedurally defective the petition for reconsideration^
       filed by Kevin W. Bondy (Mr. Bondy), licensee of General Mobile Radio
       Service (GMRS) Station WQGX752, in Encino, California, ^ of the
       Forfeiture Order issued on June 6, 2011.^ The Forfeiture Order imposed
       a monetary forfeiture in the amount of $24,000 for willful and
       repeated violation of Section 301 of the Communications Act of 1934,
       as amended (Act),^ for engaging in unlicensed radio operation; willful
       and repeated violation of Section 333 of the Act^ and Section
       95.183(a)(5) of the Commission's rules (Rules),^ for intentional
       interference to licensed radio operations; and willful violation of
       Section 303(n) of the Act,^ and Section 95.115 of the Rules,^ for
       refusing to allow an inspection of his radio equipment by FCC
       personnel.

   II. Background

    2. This case concerns intentional radio interference aimed at the
       licensed operations of The Oaks Shopping Center (The Oaks) in Thousand
       Oaks, California.^ An investigation of the interference by the
       Enforcement Bureau's Los Angeles Office (Los Angeles Office) on March
       5, 2009, revealed an unlicensed and unauthorized repeater transmitter
       in a secured radio communications facility on Oat Mountain in the
       Santa Susana Mountains. A Los Angeles agent observed pulsating signals
       on frequencies 461.375 MHz and 466.375 MHz emanating from the repeater
       transmitter and also observed a beam antenna pointed in the direction
       of The Oaks. These transmissions effectively "jammed" The Oaks
       operations on these two frequencies. On March 6, 2009, in an effort to
       locate the point of origin of the transmission from the unlicensed and
       unauthorized repeater, the agent again monitored frequencies 461.375
       MHz and 466.375 MHz in the vicinity of The Oaks and observed pulsating
       signals that interfered with the normal transmissions on those
       frequencies.^

    3. Later on March 6, 2009, after consultation with personnel from The
       Oaks and the Ventura County Sheriff's Department, the Los Angeles
       agent used direction-finding techniques to locate the unidentified
       subject, who was communicating with The Oaks personnel on frequencies
       464.7125 MHz and 462.8375 MHz. During the time The Oaks personnel
       engaged in radio communications with the subject, he acknowledged he
       was intentionally interfering with The Oaks's ability to communicate
       on frequencies 461.375 MHz and 466.375 MHz, in order to render The
       Oaks's repeater unusable and to force The Oaks off its licensed
       channels.^ At approximately 7:30 p.m., the Los Angeles agent located
       the source of the voice transmissions on frequencies 464.7125 MHz and
       462.8375 MHz (the frequencies used to communicate by The Oaks and the
       still-unidentified subject) to a vehicle in the National Park Service
       parking structure across the street from The Oaks. The Ventura County
       Sheriff's Department then secured the area and identified the subject
       as Kevin Bondy. The Los Angeles agent identified himself to Mr. Bondy
       and explained that a refusal to allow an inspection could result in a
       fine. Then the agent asked Mr. Bondy if the agent could perform an
       inspection of all radios in his vehicle. Initially, Mr. Bondy refused
       to allow an inspection, then a few minutes later, agreed to allow an
       inspection, then refused again after the Los Angeles agent began
       inspecting all of the radio equipment that Mr. Bondy had in his
       vehicle.^

    4. In the Forfeiture Order, the Enforcement Bureau's Western Region
       (Region) considered Mr. Bondy's arguments that this was simply a case
       of mistaken identity, that Mr. Bondy did not own or operate any
       equipment on Oat Mountain, that he did not commit the violations, that
       he did not refuse to allow the inspection, and that he lacks the
       ability to pay the proposed forfeiture amount.^ The Region found no
       merit in Mr. Bondy's arguments and assessed a forfeiture of $24,000.^
       In his Petition, Mr. Bondy reiterates his arguments that he did not
       commit the violations and that he did not refuse to allow the
       inspection, and he adds that there is no proof that he caused the
       interference or refused to allow the inspection.^ Consequently, Mr.
       Bondy argues, the Forfeiture Order should be reversed.^

   III. Discussion

    5. Section 405(a) of the Act^ and Section 1.106(f) of the Rules^ require
       the filing of a petition for reconsideration with the Commission's
       Secretary in Washington, D.C. within thirty days from the date of
       public notice of the final action.^ In this case, public notice of the
       Forfeiture Order occurred upon release on June 6, 2011.^ The thirtieth
       day after June 6, 2011, was July 6, 2011. Thus, Mr. Bondy should have
       filed his request for reconsideration with the Commission's Secretary
       in Washington, D.C. no later than July 6, 2011.^ While Mr. Bondy
       emailed a copy of his Petition  to the Region on July 6, 2011, there
       is no evidence that a copy was ever received by the Secretary of the
       Commission. As Section 1.106(i) of the Rules explicitly states,
       "[p]etitions submitted only by electronic mail and petitions submitted
       directly to staff without submission to the Secretary shall not be
       considered to have been properly filed."^ Accordingly, because Mr.
       Bondy failed to timely file his Petition, we dismiss the Petition  on
       procedural grounds.^

    6. We further find that even if Mr. Bondy's Petition  was not
       procedurally defective, the Petition would fail on the merits.
       Reconsideration is appropriate only where the petitioner either
       demonstrates a material error or omission in the underlying order or
       raises additional facts not known or not existing until after the
       petitioner's last opportunity to present such matters.^ A petition for
       reconsideration that reiterates arguments that were previously
       considered and rejected will be denied.^

    7. Mr. Bondy raises no new issues that require discussion here.^ He
       simply reiterates his claims that there is no evidence that he was
       responsible for the violations with which he was charged.^ We
       disagree. As explained in the Forfeiture Order,^ a Los Angeles agent,
       using direction-finding techniques, located Mr. Bondy as he
       transmitted on frequencies 464.7125 MHz and 462.8375 MHz on March 6,
       2009. The agent successfully located the initiating transmissions to a
       vehicle located at the parking structure near The Oaks in which Mr.
       Bondy was operating. Mr. Bondy was then identified by a Ventura County
       police officer, a fact that Mr. Bondy does not dispute. While the Los
       Angeles agent was attempting to locate Mr. Bondy, The Oaks personnel
       recorded their transmissions with Mr. Bondy in which Mr. Bondy ordered
       them to vacate frequencies 461.375 MHz and 466.375 MHz while he was
       transmitting on frequencies 464.7125 MHz and 462.8375 MHz. Mr. Bondy
       stated in his transmissions to The Oaks personnel, that he had been
       jamming the frequencies 461.375 MHz and 466.375 MHz, and that The Oaks
       had to stop using those frequencies. Thus, the Forfeiture Order is
       supported by evidence that Mr. Bondy transmitted on frequencies that
       he had no authorization for and announced, and engaged in, intentional
       interference to The Oaks' operations on frequencies 461.375 MHz and
       466.375 MHz. Consequently, we find there is sufficient evidence that
       Mr. Bondy willfully and repeatedly violated Sections 301 and 333 of
       the Act and Section 95.183(a)(5) of the Rules.

    8. We also find that there is sufficient evidence that Mr. Bondy
       willfully violated Section 303(n) of the Act, and Section 95.115 of
       the Rules, by refusing to allow an inspection of his radio equipment
       by FCC personnel. After the Los Angeles agent requested an inspection
       of Mr. Bondy's radio equipment on March 6, 2009, Mr. Bondy initially
       refused an inspection, then agreed, then refused a full inspection.
       Mr. Bondy believed that the agent was specifically focused on one of
       Mr. Bondy's handheld radios to determine which frequencies were
       programmed into the device, which was not readily apparent given that
       Mr. Bondy had programmed channel names, rather than frequencies, into
       the handheld. The agent reported that there were other radios in the
       car that he was unable to inspect, including a console mount radio, a
       handheld radio, and a mobile radio unit in the back seat.^ The agent's
       attempt to determine the actual frequency programmed into the handheld
       device was thwarted by Mr. Bondy, and Mr. Bondy indicated to the agent
       that he could not conduct a full and complete inspection of all of the
       radio equipment in the vehicle. Because of Mr. Bondy's refusal, the
       agent did not inspect those radios.^

    9. Therefore, we find that the Petition provides no basis for further
       reduction or cancellation of the monetary forfeiture assessed against
       Mr. Bondy, even if his Petition had been timely filed, and affirm the
       Forfeiture Order.

   IV. ordering clauses

   10. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 405 of the
       Communications Act of 1934, as amended,^ and Section 1.106 of the
       Rules,^ that the Petition for Reconsideration filed by Kevin W. Bondy
       IS DISMISSED and the Forfeiture Order IS AFFIRMED.

   11. IT IS ALSO ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Act, and
       Sections 0.111, 0.311 and 1.80(f)(4) of the Rules, Kevin W. Bondy IS
       LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of FORFEITURE in the
       amount of $24,000 for willfully and repeatedly violating sections 301
       and 333 of the Act, and section 95.183(a)(5) of the Rules, and for
       willfully violating section 303(n) of the Act and section 95.115 of
       the Rules.^

   12. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in
       Section 1.80 of the Rules immediately and no later than thirty (30)
       calendar days after the release date of this Order on Review.^  If the
       forfeiture is not paid within the period specified, the case may be
       referred to the U.S. Department of Justice for enforcement of the
       forfeiture pursuant to Section 504(a) of the Act.^  Kevin W. Bondy
       shall send electronic notification of payment to WR-Response@fcc.gov
       on the date said payment is made.

   13. The payment must be made by check or similar instrument, wire
       transfer, or credit card, and must include the NAL/Account number and
       FRN referenced above. Regardless of the form of payment, a completed
       FCC Form 159 (Remittance Advice) must be submitted.^ When completing
       the FCC Form 159, enter the Account Number in block number 23A (call
       sign/other ID) and enter the letters "FORF" in block number 24A
       (payment type code).   Below are additional instructions you should
       follow based on the form of payment you select:

     * Payment by check or money order must be made payable to the order of
       the Federal Communications Commission.  Such payments (along with the
       completed Form 159) must be mailed to Federal Communications
       Commission, P.O. Box 979088, St. Louis, MO 63197-9000, or sent
       via overnight mail to U.S. Bank - Government Lockbox #979088,
       SL-MO-C2-GL, 1005 Convention Plaza, St. Louis, MO 63101.

     * Payment by wire transfer must be made to ABA Number 021030004,
       receiving bank TREAS/NYC, and Account Number 27000001.  To complete
       the wire transfer and ensure appropriate crediting of the wired funds,
       a completed Form 159 must be faxed to U.S. Bank at (314) 418-4232 on
       the same business day the wire transfer is initiated.

     * Payment by credit card must be made by providing the required credit
       card information on FCC Form 159 and signing and dating the Form 159
       to authorize the credit card payment. The completed Form 159 must then
       be mailed to Federal Communications Commission, P.O. Box 979088, St.
       Louis, MO 63197-9000, or sent via overnight mail to U.S. Bank -
       Government Lockbox #979088, SL-MO-C2-GL, 1005 Convention Plaza, St.
       Louis, MO 63101.

   14. Any request for full payment under an installment plan should be sent
       to:  Chief Financial Officer--Financial Operations, Federal
       Communications Commission, 445 12th Street, S.W., Room 1-A625,
       Washington, D.C.  20554.^  If you have questions regarding payment
       procedures, please contact the Financial Operations Group Help Desk by
       phone, 1-877-480-3201, or by e-mail, ARINQUIRIES@fcc.gov.

   15. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this Memorandum Opinion and Order shall be
       sent by both regular mail and by certified mail, return receipt
       requested, to Kevin W. Bondy, at his address of record.

   FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

   P. Michele Ellison

   Chief, Enforcement Bureau

   ^ See 47 U.S.C. S 405.

   ^ See Kevin W. Bondy, Petition for Reconsideration (filed July 5, 2011)
   (Petition).

   ^ Kevin W. Bondy,  Forfeiture Order, 26 FCC Rcd 7840 (Enf. Bur. Western
   Region 2011) (Forfeiture Order), aff'g Notice of Apparent Liability for
   Forfeiture, NAL/Acct. No. 200932900004 (Enf. Bur. Western Region, Los
   Angeles Office, rel. May 14, 2009) (NAL).

   ^ 47 U.S.C. S 301.

   ^ 47 U.S.C. S 333.

   ^ 47 C.F.R. S 95.183(a)(5).

   ^ 47 U.S.C. S 303(n).

   ^ 47 C.F.R. S 95.115.

   ^ The Oaks is the licensee of land mobile radio Station KOA995, with
   authority to operate on frequencies 461.375 MHz, 462.525 MHz, and 467.525
   MHz. The Oaks is also the licensee of land mobile radio Station KG9712,
   with authority to operate on frequency 466.375 MHz. As a GMRS licensee
   under Part 95 of the Rules, Mr. Bondy has no authorization to operate on
   frequencies 461.375 MHz and 466.375 MHz, the frequencies licensed to The
   Oaks, or frequencies 464.7125 MHz and 462.8375 MHz, the frequencies that
   the Los Angeles agent located Mr. Bondy transmitting on during the
   investigation on March 6, 2009. See 47 C.F.R. S 95.29 (Channels
   available).

   ^ Forfeiture Order, 26 FCC Rcd at 7840-7841.

   ^ Specifically, the subject told The Oaks personnel that they had "plenty
   of warning." The subject then effectively shut down all operations on The
   Oaks frequencies by transmitting NOAA weather radio over every channel,
   and told The Oaks personnel that he had been "jamming" the frequencies
   461.375 MHz and 466.375 frequencies by "pulsing" them to shut down the
   repeater. The subject also said that The Oaks now had no repeaters, that
   The Oaks had to stop using the frequencies 461.375 MHz and 466.375 MHz
   repeater pair, and that The Oaks had to apply to the FCC to cancel the
   frequencies 461.375 MHz and 466.375 MHz repeater pair and request a new
   frequency pair. The subject said to The Oaks personnel that he gave The
   Oaks three weeks to vacate the frequencies but The Oaks did not do so, so
   "this is what [it has] come to." The subject then explained in detail to
   The Oaks personnel how to work with the FCC and frequency coordinators to
   apply for a new frequency for its license. See id., 26 FCC Rcd at 7841.

   ^ Id.

   ^ Id., 26 FCC Rcd at 7842-7845.

   ^ Id.

   ^ Petition at 1-2.

   ^ Id. at 2.

   ^ 47 U.S.C. S 405(a).

   ^ 47 C.F.R. S 1.106(f).

   ^ See also 47 C.F.R. S 1.106(i).

   ^ See 47 C.F.R. S 1.4(b).

   ^ See 47 C.F.R. SS 1.106(f), 1.4(j).

   ^ 47 C.F.R. S 1.106(i).

   ^ See Washington Broadcast Management Co., Inc., Memorandum Opinion and
   Order, 15 FCC Rcd 6607 (2000); Bay Broadcasting Corporation, Memorandum
   Opinion and Order, 15 FCC Rcd 23449 (Enf. Bur. 2000).

   ^ See 47 C.F.R. S 1.106(c); EZ Sacramento, Inc., Memorandum Opinion and
   Order, 15 FCC Rcd 18257 (Enf. Bur. 2000), citing WWIZ, Inc., Memorandum
   Opinion and Order, 37 FCC 685, 686 (1964), aff'd sub. nom. Lorain Journal
   Co. v. FCC, 351 F.2d 824 (D.C. Cir. 1965), cert. denied, 383 U.S. 967
   (1966).

   ^ EZ Sacramento, Inc., 15 FCC Rcd at 18257.

   ^ Mr. Bondy argues that enforcement action should be taken against The
   Oaks for operating on certain frequencies without an authorization.
   Petition at 1. This fact was noted in the Forfeiture Order, along with the
   explanation for the usage. Forfeiture Order, 26 FCC Rcd at 7841 n.5. ("The
   Oaks had no authorization to operate on 464.7125 MHz and 462.8375 MHz.
   However, they used those frequencies in this limited instance to
   communicate with the subject, and other personnel, because of the
   continual jamming of their authorized frequencies, and to allow the Los
   Angeles agent to track the transmissions and locate them to the source of
   the subject who was communicating with The Oaks. The agent ultimately
   located the transmissions to Bondy's vehicle.")

   ^ We find irrelevant Mr. Bondy's claim that he did not own or lease
   property on Oat Mountain. Petition at 2. As explained in the Forfeiture
   Order, the Los Angeles Office determined that while the transmissions
   emanating from Oat Mountain were causing the intentional interference, Mr.
   Bondy was sitting in his car, as located by the Los Angeles Office,
   explaining to The Oaks personnel why he was jamming them and why they had
   to leave the frequencies being interfered with from Oat Mountain.
   Forfeiture Order, 26 FCC Rcd at 7841.

   ^ Id., 26 FCC Rcd at 7842-7844.

   ^ Id., 26 FCC Rcd at 7841 n.6.

   ^ Id., 26 FCC Rcd at 7844.

   ^ 47 U.S.C. S 405.

   ^ 47 C.F.R. S 1.106.

   ^ 47 U.S.C. SS 301, 303(n), 333, 503(b); 47 C.F.R. SS 0.111, 0.204, 0.311,
   1.80(f)(4), 95.115, 95.183(a)(5).

   ^ 47 C.F.R. S 1.80.

   ^ 47 U.S.C. S 504(a).

   ^ An FCC Form 159 and detailed instructions for completing the form may be
   obtained at http://www.fcc.gov/Forms/Form159/159.pdf.

   ^ See 47 C.F.R. S 1.1914.

   (Continued from previous page)

   (continued....)

   Federal Communications Commission DA 13-199

   6

   Federal Communications Commission DA 13-199