******************************************************** 
                      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.

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



Federal Communications Commission DA 16-1030
Before the
Federal Communications Commission
Washington, D.C. 20554
In the Matter of
Public Safety Technologies, Inc.
Licensee of Station WQJM334
West Covina, California
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
File No.:  EB-FIELDWR-15-00019998
NAL/Acct. No.:  201632900001
FRN:  0014831887
NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE
Adopted:  September 21, 2016 Released: September 22, 2016
By the Regional Director, Region Three, Enforcement Bureau:
I. INTRODUCTION
1. We propose a penalty of $25,000 against Public Safety Technologies, Inc. (PST), licensee 
of private land mobile radio (PLMR) station WQJM334, West Covina, California (Station), for causing 
harmful interference to other licensed stations operating on a shared frequency in the Los Angeles area 
and for other violations of our requirements for PLMR stations.  The Enforcement Bureau previously 
warned PST that its conduct could result in an enforcement action, yet, despite our warnings, PST 
continued to operate in a manner that causes both causes harmful interference to others and hinders the 
ability of the Commission and other licensees to identify the source of the interference.  PST’s disregard 
of the Commission’s prior warnings, coupled with its interference to other licensees operating on shared 
spectrum, warrants a significant penalty.
II. BACKGROUND
2. PST is the licensee of several PLMR stations in the Los Angeles area.
1
  Frequencies 
assigned to PLMR stations are available on a shared basis, unless otherwise specified.
2
  The Station is 
authorized to operate on five frequencies from a fixed location on San Jose Hill in West Covina, 
California, including 451.350 MHz and 451.600 MHz.  In the Station’s license, these frequencies are 
assigned station class code FB7, which designates operation as a Private Carrier (Non-Profit), a general 
station class that does not itself convey any exclusive use rights.
3
  Accordingly, PST must share the 
Station’s frequencies with other co-channel licensees.
                                                     
1
See, e.g., WQJP447, West Covina, California; WQKB675, West Covina, California.
2
47 CFR § 90.173(a) (“Except as otherwise specifically provided in this part, frequencies assigned to land mobile 
stations are available on a shared basis only and will not be assigned for the exclusive use of any licensee.”).
3
Compare 47 CFR §§ 90.7 (defining a private carrier as “[a]n entity licensed in the private services and authorized 
to provide communications service to other private services on a commercial basis”) and 90.403(c) (establishing 
presumption of spectrum sharing for PLMR stations unless otherwise provided in Part 90 of the Rules) to 47 CFR 
§ 90.187(e) (establishing interference protection in an “exclusive service area” for stations, such as FB8 stations, 
that the Commission has “authorized for centralized trunked operation”).
Federal Communications Commission DA 16-1030
2
3. On August 25, 2015, an agent from the Commissions’ Los Angeles Field Office (Los 
Angeles Office) investigated an interference compliant from Mobile Relay Associates (MRA), a co-
channel licensee.
4
  During his investigation, the agent observed PST operating on 451.600 MHz and 
determined that PST was transmitting continuously for long periods of time and was not transmitting its 
call sign as required.  The agent contacted PST and gave a verbal warning of these violations, whereupon, 
the licensee’s representative committed to correct the violations.  
4. On September 3, 2015, the Los Angeles Office received a subsequent complaint from 
MRA.  In its complaint, MRA stated that, although PST was no longer operating the Station on 
451.600 MHz, PST had merely shifted its operations to 451.350 MHz and was causing interference on 
that frequency.  The agent investigated this complaint and, on September 24, 25, and December 7, 2015, 
observed PST operating on 451.350 MHz in the same impermissible manner (i.e., continuously for long 
periods of time and without transmitting the Station’s call sign) as it had on 451.600 MHz.  
5. On December 7, 2015, MRA reported to the Los Angeles Office that the interference 
MRA received from PST was so severe that MRA was forced to move its operations to a different 
frequency.  On December 9, 2015, with MRA’s cooperation, the field agent monitored MRA’s 
transmissions on 451.350 MHz from MRA’s facilities and found that PST’s continuous operation on 
451.350 MHz was almost completely blocking MRA’s ability to use the shared frequency. 
6. On March 22, 2016, the agent from the Los Angeles Office contacted PST’s 
representative to discuss the interference that PST continued to cause to co-channel licensees on 
451.350 MHz.  The next day, PST’s representative claimed to the agent that PST had ceased operating on 
451.350 MHz and that PST would be implementing a new radio system on different frequencies.  
7. On April 7, 2016, the Los Angeles Office issued a Notice of Violation to PST for 
violating the Commission’s rules (Rules).
5
  In the NOV, the Los Angeles Office found that PST (a) was 
operating continuously on the shared frequency 451.350 MHz, and therefore was failing to restrict its 
transmissions to the minimal practical transmission time;
6
(b) was not taking any other reasonable 
precautions to avoid causing harmful interference;
7
and (c) was not transmitting its call sign as required 
by the Rules.
8
8. PST responded to the NOV on April 22, 2016, and stated that it had incorrectly 
understood the meaning of the Station’s FB7 license class.
9
  PST further stated that the users of the 
Station had obtained a new license in the public safety pool and expected to transition to the new facilities 
within 45 days.
10
  Yet, on July 6, 2016, an agent from the Los Angeles Office monitored the frequencies 
authorized under the Station’s license in an area near the Station’s fixed transmitter site.  The agent 
observed that, although PST was no longer transmitting on 451.350 MHz, it had resumed continuous 
                                                     
4
Two Part 90 licenses issued to MRA, WPHH451 and WPHH446, are co-channel with PST on 451.350 MHz and 
451.600 MHz.
5
See Public Safety Technologies, Inc., Notice of Violation, V201632900004 (Apr. 7, 2016) (NOV) issued for failing 
to: 1) restrict the Station’s transmissions to the minimum practical transmission time; 2) monitor the transmitting 
frequencies of other licensees or take other reasonable precautions to avoid causing harmful interference; and 3) 
transmit station ID in accordance with the Commission’s rules and the Station’s authorization.
6
NOV, citing 47 CFR § 90.403(c).
7
NOV, citing 47 CFR § 90.403(e).
8
NOV, citing 47 CFR § 90.425(a).
9
Response to Notice of Violation of Public Safety Technologies at 1 (Apr. 22, 2016) (on file in EB-FIELDWR-15-
00019998).
10
Id.  
Federal Communications Commission DA 16-1030
3
operations on 451.600 MHz and did not transmit the Station’s call sign as required under Section 
90.425(a) of the Rules.  
III. DISCUSSION
9. We find that PST apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Sections 90.403(c), 
90.403(e), and 90.425 of the Rules, by operating the Station continuously on a frequency to which PST 
was not granted exclusive use, by failing to take reasonable precautions to avoid causing harmful 
interference to co-channel licensees operating on shared spectrum, and by failing to transmit the Station’s 
call sign at regular intervals.
11
A. PST Apparently Violated Section 90.403(c) of the Rules by Operating the Station 
Continuously on Shared Spectrum 
10. We find that the evidence in this case is sufficient to establish that PST willfully and 
repeatedly violated Section 90.403(c) of the Rules.  Section 90.403(c) states that “[e]xcept for stations 
that have been granted exclusive channels under this part . . ., each licensee must restrict all transmissions 
to the minimum practical transmission time.”
12
  As noted above, the Station’s FB7 license class does not 
convey rights to use 451.350 MHz or 451.600 MHz on an exclusive basis.  Yet, on several different dates, 
an agent from the Los Angeles Office found that PST operated the Station on a continuous basis for 
periods in excess of an hour.  PST was notified of this violation in the NOV and has failed to modify the 
Station’s operations.  Accordingly, we find that PST’s continuous use of 451.350 MHz and 451.600 MHz
appears to violate its obligations to limit the Station’s transmissions “to the minimum practical 
transmission time,” as required under Section 90.403(c) of the Rules.
B. PST Apparently Violated Section 90.403(e) of the Rules by Failing to Take 
Reasonable Precautions to Avoid Harmful Interference to Co-Channel Licensees 
Operating on Shared Spectrum 
11. We find that the evidence in this case is sufficient to establish that PST willfully and 
repeatedly violated Section 90.403(e) of the Rules.  Section 90.403(e) of the Rules states that “[l]icensees 
shall take reasonable precautions to avoid causing harmful interference. This includes monitoring the 
transmitting frequency for communications in progress and such other measures as may be necessary to 
minimize the potential for causing interference.”
13
  As discussed above, an agent from the Los Angeles 
Office determined that PST operated the Station on a continuous basis, thereby depriving co-channel 
users of any opportunity to operate on 451.350 MHz or 451.600 MHz.  
12. Through its monopolization of 451.350 MHz and 451.600 MHz, PST caused harmful 
interference to at least one co-channel licensee: MRA.  For PLMR stations, harmful interference is 
defined as “any emission, radiation, or induction which specifically degrades, obstructs, or interrupts the 
service provided by such stations.”
14
  On December 9, 2015, the agent from the Los Angeles Office 
observed that PST’s continuous operations significantly degraded MRA’s co-channel transmissions.  
Further, investigations following the issuance of the NOV show that PST continued to operate the Station 
in a manner that manner that causes harmful interference to MRA’s co-channel operations on 
451.350 MHz and 451.600 MHz.  As a result, we find that PST apparently willfully and repeatedly 
violated Section 90.403(e) of the Rules by failing to take reasonable precautions to avoid causing harmful 
interference.
                                                     
11
47 CFR §§ 90.403(c), (e), 90.425(a).
12
47 CFR § 90.403(c).
13
47 CFR § 90.403(e).
14
47 CFR § 90.7.
Federal Communications Commission DA 16-1030
4
C. PST Apparently Violated Section 90.425(a) of the Rules by Failing to Transmit the 
Station’s Call Sign 
13. We find that the evidence in this case is sufficient to establish that PST willfully and 
repeatedly violated Section 90.425(a) of the Rules.  Section 90.425(a) of the Rules states that each land 
mobile station authorized under Part 90 of the Rules “shall be identified by the transmission of the 
assigned call sign during each transmission or exchange of transmissions, or once each 15 minutes (30 
minutes in the Public Safety Pool) during periods of continuous operation.”
15
  Section 90.425(a) further 
states that the call sign must be “transmitted by voice in the English language or by International Morse 
Code.”
16
  On September 24, 2015; September 25, 2015; and December 7, 2015, an agent from the Los 
Angeles Office observed the Station’s operations and found that the Station was not transmitting its call 
sign as required under Section 90.425(a) of the Rules.  In addition, on July 6, 2016, three months 
following the issuance of the NOV, an agent observed that the Station was still failing to transmit its call 
sign.  As a result, we find that PST apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 90.425(a) of the 
Rules by failing to transmit the Station’s call sign.  
D. Proposed Forfeiture
14. Section 503(b) of the Act authorizes the Commission to impose a forfeiture against any 
entity that “willfully or repeatedly fail[s] to comply with any of the provisions of [the Act] or of any rule, 
regulation, or order issued by the Commission.”
17
  Here, Section 503(b)(2)(D) of the Act authorizes us to 
assess a forfeiture against PST of up to $18,936  for each day of a continuing violation, up to a statutory 
maximum of $142,021 for a single act or failure to act.
18
  In exercising our forfeiture authority, we must 
consider the “nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation and, with respect to the violator,
the degree of culpability, any history of prior offenses, ability to pay, and such other matters as justice 
may require.”
19
  In addition, the Commission has established forfeiture guidelines; they establish base 
penalties for certain violations and identify criteria that we consider when determining the appropriate 
penalty in any given case.
20
  Under these guidelines, we may adjust a forfeiture upward for violations that 
                                                     
15
47 CFR § 90.425(a).
16
Id.
17
47 U.S.C. § 503(b).
18
See 47 U.S.C. § 503(b)(2)(D); 47 CFR §§ 1.80(b)(7), (9).  These amounts reflect inflation adjustments to the 
forfeitures specified in Section 503(b)(2)(D) ($10,000 per violation or per day of a continuing violation and $75,000 
per any single act or failure to act).  The Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act of 1990, Pub. L. No. 101-
410, 104 Stat. 890, as amended by the Debt Collection Improvement Act of 1996, Pub. L. No. 104-134, Sec. 31001, 
110 Stat. 1321 (DCIA), as further amended by the Federal Reports Elimination Act of 1998, Pub. L. No. 105-362, 
Sec. 1301, 112 Stat. 3280, and as further amended by the Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act 
Improvements Act of 2015, Sec. 701, Pub. L. No. 114-74, 129 Stat. 599 (codified as amended 28 U.S.C. § 2461 
note) (the 2015 Inflation Adjustment Act), requires the Commission to adjust its penalties for inflation and publish 
interim final rules with the initial penalty adjustment amounts by July 1, 2016 and new penalty levels must take 
effect no later than August 1, 2016.  See 28 U.S.C. § 2461 note.  The Commission published those interim final rules 
on June 30, 2016.  See Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission’s Rules, Adjustment of Civil Monetary 
Penalties to Reflect Inflation, Order, DA 16-644 (EB 2016); see also Adjustment of Civil Monetary Penalties to 
Reflect Inflation, 81 Fed. Reg. 42554 (June 30, 2016) (setting August 1, 2016, as the effective date for the 
increases).  The adjustments to the civil monetary penalties adopted by the Bureau pursuant to 2015 Inflation 
Adjustment Act will apply only to such penalties assessed after the effective date of the amendments to Section 
1.80(b).  See 28 U.S.C. § 2461 note (6).   
19
47 U.S.C. § 503(b)(2)(E).
20
47 CFR § 1.80(b)(8), Note to paragraph (b)(8).
Federal Communications Commission DA 16-1030
5
are egregious, intentional, or repeated, or that cause substantial harm or generate substantial economic 
gain for the violator.
21
  
15. Section 1.80(b) of the Rules sets a base forfeiture of $7,000 for interference for each 
violation or each day of a continuing violation.
22
  The Los Angeles Office found evidence that PST 
caused harmful interference to a co-channel licensee in violation of Section 90.403(e) on one occasion, 
December 9, 2015.  Accordingly, we propose a base forfeiture amount of $7,000 for this violation.    
16. For a failure to transmit a call sign, Section 1.80(b) of the Rules sets a base forfeiture 
amount of $1,000 for each violation or each day of a continuing violation.
23
  The Los Angeles Office 
determined that the Station failed to transmit its call sign, as required under Section 90.425(a) of the 
Rules, on four occasions: September 24, 2015; September 25, 2015; December 7, 2015; and July 6, 2016.  
For PST’s four apparent violations of Section 90.425(a) of the Rules, we collectively propose a base 
forfeiture amount of $4,000.  
17. Neither the Commission’s forfeiture guidelines nor its case law establishes a base 
forfeiture for violations of PST’s obligation to restrict transmissions to “the minimum practical 
transmission time and to employ efficient operating procedure designed to maximize utilization of the 
spectrum” in accordance with Section 90.403(c) of the Rules.
24
  Thus, we look to the base forfeitures 
established or issued in analogous cases for guidance.
25
  In this regard, we note that the Commission has 
established a base forfeiture amount of $4,000 for “unauthorized emissions,” a category that we have 
applied to violations of temporal operating restrictions, such as operating an AM broadcast station at 
times other than those specified on its license.
26
  While neither the Station’s license nor Section 90.403(c) 
establish specific times during which the station is permitted to operate, the requirement to minimize 
transmission times is expressly temporal in nature, and, as such, is analogous to prior cases.  We therefore 
conclude that it is appropriate to propose a base forfeiture amount of $4,000 for PST’s apparent violation 
of Section 90.403(c) of the Rules.    
18. Accordingly, we propose a total base forfeiture of $15,000.  We have discretion, 
however, to depart from the guidelines discussed above, taking into account the particular facts of each 
individual case.
27
  Given the totality of the circumstances, and consistent with the Forfeiture Policy 
Statement, we conclude that a significant upward adjustment is warranted.  Because PST continued to 
operate the Station in this manner for at least 90 days following the issuance of the NOV notifying it that 
its actions violated the Rules, we find that a significant upward forfeiture adjustment is warranted.  
Therefore, after applying the Forfeiture Policy Statement, Section 1.80 of the Rules, and the statutory 
factors, we propose a total forfeiture of $25,000 for which PST is apparently liable.  
                                                     
21
Id.
22
47 CFR § 1.80(b).
23
47 CFR § 1.80(b).
24
47 CFR § 90.403(c).
25
See, e.g., Terracom, Inc. and YourTel America, Inc., Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture, 29 FCC Rcd 
13325, 13342, para 47 (2014).  
26
See JHT Ventures, Inc., Licensee of Station KULF, Bellville, Texas, Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture, 27 
FCC Rcd 2072, 2073, paras. 4-5 (EB 2012).
27
The Commission’s Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the 
Forfeiture Guidelines, Report and Order, 12 FCC Rcd 17087, 17098-99, para. 22 (1997) (noting that “[a]lthough we 
have adopted the base forfeiture amounts as guidelines to provide a measure of predictability to the forfeiture 
process, we retain our discretion to depart from the guidelines and issue forfeitures on a case-by-case basis, under 
our general forfeiture authority contained in Section 503 of the Act”) (Forfeiture Policy Statement), recons. denied, 
Memorandum Opinion and Order, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999).
Federal Communications Commission DA 16-1030
6
IV. CONCLUSION
19. We have determined that PST apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Sections 
90.403(c), 90.403(e), and 90.425(a) of the Rules.  As such, PST is apparently liable for a forfeiture of 
$25,000.
V. ORDERING CLAUSES
20. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Act
28
  and 
Sections 1.80 of the Rules,
29
Public Safety Technologies, Inc. is hereby NOTIFIED of this APPARENT
LIABILITY FOR A FORFEITURE in the amount of Twenty-Five Thousand Dollars ($25,000) for 
willful and repeated violations of Sections 90.403(c), 90.403(e), and 90.425 of the Rules.
30
  
21. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 1.80 of the Rules,
31
within thirty 
(30) calendar days of the release date of this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture, Public Safety 
Technologies, Inc. SHALL PAY the full amount of the proposed forfeiture or SHALL FILE a written 
statement seeking reduction or cancellation of the proposed forfeiture consistent with paragraph 24 below.
22. Payment of the forfeiture must be made by check or similar instrument, wire transfer, or 
credit card, and must include the NAL/Account Number and FRN referenced above.  Public Safety 
Technologies, Inc. shall send electronic notification of payment to WR-Response@fcc.gov and 
Matthew.Gibson@fcc.gov on the date said payment is made.  Regardless of the form of payment, a 
completed FCC Form 159 (Remittance Advice) must be submitted.
32
  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 that should be followed based 
on the form of payment selected:
? 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.
23. Any request for making full payment over time under an installment plan should be sent 
to:  Chief Financial Officer—Financial Operations, Federal Communications Commission, 445 12th 
                                                     
28
47 U.S.C. § 503(b).
29
47 CFR § 1.80.
30
47 CFR §§ 90.403(c), 90.403(e), 90.425.
31
47 CFR § 1.80.
32
An FCC Form 159 and detailed instructions for completing the form may be obtained at 
http://www.fcc.gov/Forms/Form159/159.pdf.
Federal Communications Commission DA 16-1030
7
Street, SW, Room 1-A625, Washington, DC 20554.
33
  Questions regarding payment procedures should be 
directed to the Financial Operations Group Help Desk by phone, 1-877-480-3201, or by e-mail, 
ARINQUIRIES@fcc.gov.
24. The written statement seeking reduction or cancellation of the proposed forfeiture, if any, 
must include a detailed factual statement supported by appropriate documentation and affidavits pursuant 
to Sections 1.16 and 1.80(f)(3) of the Rules.
34
  The written statement must be mailed to the Office of the 
Secretary, Federal Communications Commission, 445 12th Street, SW, Washington, DC 20554, ATTN:  
Enforcement Bureau – Field Division, ATTN: Matthew L. Gibson, Field Counsel, Room 4-A337, and 
must include the NAL/Account Number referenced in the caption.  The statement must also be e-mailed 
to WR-Response@fcc.gov and Matthew.Gibson@fcc.gov.  
25. The Commission will not consider reducing or canceling a forfeiture in response to a 
claim of inability to pay unless the petitioner submits:  (1) federal tax returns for the most recent three-
year period; (2) financial statements prepared according to generally accepted accounting practices; or (3) 
some other reliable and objective documentation that accurately reflects the petitioner’s current financial 
status.  Any claim of inability to pay must specifically identify the basis for the claim by reference to the 
financial documentation.
26. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this Notice of Apparent Liability for 
Forfeiture shall be sent by first class mail and certified mail, return receipt requested, to Richard Young, 
President, Public Safety Technologies, Inc., 719 Arrow Grand Circle, Covina, California 91722.
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
Lark Hadley
Regional Director, Region Three
Enforcement Bureau
                                                     
33
See 47 CFR § 1.1914.
34
47 CFR §§ 1.16, 1.80(f)(3).