******************************************************** 
                      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 17-977
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
FORFEITURE ORDER
Adopted:  October 10, 2017 Released: October 11, 2017
By the Regional Director, Region Three, Enforcement Bureau:
I. INTRODUCTION
1. We impose 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 the Federal Communications Commission’s requirements for PLMR stations.  
In response to an earlier Notice of Violation,
1
PST acknowledged that it operated the Station in a manner 
that violated the Commission’s service rules for PLMR stations.
2
Yet, despite this acknowledgment and 
an assertion that it would remedy its conduct, PST continued to operate the Station in a manner that 
caused interference to other PLMR licensees and violated the law.  Accordingly, on September 22, 2016,
the Commission’s Enforcement Bureau issued a Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (NAL), 
proposing a penalty of $25,000 against PST.
3
2. In response to the NAL, PST asserts that the Enforcement Bureau should cancel the 
proposed forfeiture on the grounds that PST played virtually no role in the configuration or operation of 
the Station and that it acted at the direction of a third-party, Motorola Solutions, Inc., who should be the 
responsible party instead of PST.
4
  We reject PST’s argument.  As the licensee of the Station, PST is 
responsible for complying with the Commission’s rules pertaining to the operation of the Station.  If PST 
was unable or unwilling to exert sufficient control over the Station to ensure compliance with applicable 
Commission rules, it could have surrendered its license or sought the Commission’s approval to assign 
the license to a third party.  But, PST did not do so.  After reviewing PST’s response to the NAL, we find 
no basis to cancel, withdraw, or reduce the proposed penalty, and we therefore assess the $25,000 
forfeiture proposed in the NAL. 
                                                     
1
Public Safety Technologies, Inc., Notice of Violation, V201632900004 (Apr. 7, 2016) (NOV), at 
https://apps.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-338813A1.pdf.
2
Public Safety Technologies, Inc., Response to Notice of Violation (filed Apr. 22, 2016) (on file in EB-FIELDWR-
15-00019998) (NOV Response).
3
Public Safety Technologies, Inc., Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture, 31 FCC Rcd 10477 (EB 2016).
4
Public Safety Technologies, Inc., Response to Notice of Apparent Liability (Oct. 24, 2016) (on file in EB-
FIELDWR-15-00019998) (NAL Response).
Federal Communications Commission DA 17-977
2
II. BACKGROUND
3. PST is the licensee of several PLMR stations in the Los Angeles area.
5
  Frequencies 
assigned to PLMR stations are available on a shared basis, unless otherwise specified.
6
  PST is authorized 
to operate the Station on five frequencies from a fixed location on San Jose Hill in West Covina, 
California, including on frequencies 451.350 MHz and 451.600 MHz.  In the Station’s license, these two 
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.
7
  Accordingly, PST 
must share the Station’s frequencies with other co-channel licensees.
4. As discussed in greater detail in the NAL, on several occasions in 2015 and 2016, agents 
from the Bureau’s Los Angeles Field Office (Los Angeles Office) investigated interference complaints 
filed against PST by a co-channel licensee.
8
  During the investigations, agents observed PST transmitting 
continuously on 451.350 MHz and 451.600 MHz, thereby depriving nearby co-channel licensees of any 
opportunity to operate on those frequencies.  Agents also observed that PST caused harmful interference 
to another licensee and that PST failed to transmit the Station’s call sign as required by Section 90.425(a)
of the Commission’s rules.
9
  PST was given both verbal warnings and a written Notice of Violation
describing these violations of the Commission’s rules, yet, despite its assurances that it was working to 
move its clients to a system licensed to a different entity, PST continued to make exclusive use of 
frequencies that it was only authorized to use on a shared basis.
10
  
5. On September 22, 2016, the Bureau issued the PST NAL proposing a $25,000 forfeiture 
against PST for its apparent willful and repeated violation of Sections 90.403(c), 90.403(e), and 90.425(a)
of the Commission’s rules by operating continuously on a frequency to which PST was not granted 
exclusive use (and thereby not sharing the frequency), 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
6. On October 24, 2016, PST submitted a timely response to the NAL.  In the NAL 
Response, PST recounts many details surrounding the construction and operation of the Station.  In 
particular, PST asserts that it is merely a small radio communications repair shop that served as a 
subcontractor to build out a radio network, called COM-Net, for use by public safety agencies in six 
member communities in southern California.
12
  According to the NAL Response, PST acquired the 
license for the Station, which is authorized to operate in the business/industrial pool, as an 
accommodation for Motorola Solutions, Inc. (Motorola), the prime contractor, and for the COM-Net 
                                                     
5
See, e.g., WQJP447, West Covina, California; WQKB675, West Covina, California.
6
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.”).
7
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”).
8
The NAL includes a more complete discussion of the facts and history of this case and is incorporated in its entirety 
herein by reference.  See NAL, 31 FCC Rcd at 10477-79, paras. 2-8. 
9
47 CFR § 90.425(a).
10
See NOV; NOV Response.
11
See NAL, 31 FCC Rcd at 10479-80, paras. 9-13; 47 CFR §§ 90.403(c), 90.403(e), and 90.425(a).
12
NAL Response at 1.
Federal Communications Commission DA 17-977
3
participants as a hedge against the possible unavailability of usable channels in the public safety pool.
13
  
According to PST, when Motorola determined that usable public safety pool channels were not available, 
it decided to build COM-Net around PST’s license for the Station.
14
  PST then claims that, after one of the 
participants in the radio network was apprised of complaints filed against PST by other Part 90 licensees, 
Motorola stripped PST of its access to the Station’s transmitter, thereby preventing PST from taking any 
corrective action.
15
  On these grounds, PST seeks a cancellation of the NAL or a reduction of the proposed 
forfeiture.
16
III. DISCUSSION
7. The Bureau proposed a forfeiture in this case in accordance with Section 503(b) of the 
Act,
17
Section 1.80 of the Commission’s rules,
18
and the Commission’s Forfeiture Policy Statement.
19
  
When we assess forfeitures, Section 503(b)(2)(E) requires that we take into account 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.”
20
  
As discussed below, we have fully considered PST’s response to the NAL, which includes a variety of 
factual arguments, but we find none of them persuasive.  We therefore affirm the $25,000 forfeiture 
proposed in the NAL.
A. PST Does Not Contest the Documented Violations of the Commission’s Rules
8. First, PST does not contest any of the factual or legal discussion in the NAL that 
supported the Bureau’s finding that PST apparently violated the Commission’s Part 90 rules.  In the NAL, 
the Bureau concluded that PST apparently violated the Commission’s rules by operating “the Station on a 
continuous basis for periods in excess of an hour” on frequencies designated for shared use.
21
  PST does 
not contest this in the NAL Response.  Instead, PST stated that it relied on the advice from Motorola that 
the “FB7 classification was appropriate for the type of use by COM-Net.”
22
  Similarly, PST made no 
attempt to rebut the Bureau’s conclusion that, in causing interference to a co-channel licensee, PST failed 
to “take reasonable precautions to avoid causing harmful interference.”
23
  Instead, PST stated that it 
“merely followed the lead” of Motorola, “was never allowed to carry out deployment matters on its own,” 
and relied on Motorola’s assertion that the Station was properly configured and coordinated to avoid 
                                                     
13
NAL Response at 1-2.  Under Part 90 of the Commission’s rules, the public safety pool “covers the licensing of 
the radio communications of governmental entities and the following category of activities: Medical services, rescue 
organizations, veterinarians, persons with disabilities, disaster relief organizations, school buses, beach patrols, 
establishments in isolated places, communications standby facilities and emergency repair of public communications 
facilities.”  47 CFR § 90.15.  
14
Id. at 2.
15
Id. at 3. 
16
Id. at 4.
17
47 U.S.C. § 503(b).
18
47 CFR § 1.80.
19
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 (1997) (Forfeiture Policy Statement), recons. denied, 
Memorandum Opinion and Order, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999). 
20
47 U.S.C. § 503(b)(2)(E).
21
NAL, 31 FCC Rcd at 10479, para. 10.
22
NAL Response at 2.
23
NAL, 31 FCC Rcd at 10479, para. 12.
Federal Communications Commission DA 17-977
4
interference to other licensees.
24
  Finally, in response to the Bureau’s finding that the Station failed to 
transmit its call sign in apparent violation of Section 90.425(a) of the Commission’s rules, PST merely 
stated that it “did not have any knowledge that the call signs were not being properly transmitted.”
25
With 
the NAL’s factual findings uncontested, we affirm them here.
26
B. PST Provides No Basis to Cancel the NAL or Reduce the Forfeiture
9. Turning to PST’s implicit arguments in the NAL Response, PST suggested that Motorola 
convinced it to obtain the license for the Station on their mutual clients’ behalf, used PST to construct the 
Station, and then prevented PST from exercising even a scintilla of control over the Station.
27
  Yet, at no 
time did PST assert that it had conveyed the Station’s license to Motorola, nor does it indicate that it 
attempted to seek the Commission’s consent to such an assignment of the Station’s license.  Licensees are 
charged with full knowledge of, and compliance with, the Commission’s rules.
28
  We cannot countenance 
the cancellation of the NAL or a reduction of the proposed forfeiture merely on PST’s assertions that the 
violation of the Commission’s rules stemmed from the abdication of its responsibility for operation of the 
Station to Motorola.  Accordingly, we find no basis to cancel the NAL or to reduce the forfeiture.
IV. CONCLUSION
10. Based on the record and in light of the applicable statutory factors, we conclude that PST 
willfully and repeatedly violated Sections 90.403(c), 90.403(e), and 90.425(a) of the Commission’s rules 
by operating 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.
29
  We decline to cancel or 
reduce the $25,000 forfeiture proposed in the NAL.   
V. ORDERING CLAUSES
11. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Act,
30
and Section 
1.80 of the Commission’s rules,
31
Public Safety Technologies, Inc., IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY 
FORFEITURE in the amount of Twenty-Five Thousand Dollars ($25,000) for willfully and repeatedly 
violating Sections 90.403(c), 90.403(e), and 90.425 of the Commission’s rules.
32
12. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the 
Commission’s rules within thirty (30) calendar days after the release of this Forfeiture Order.
33
  If the 
                                                     
24
NAL Response at 2.
25
NAL, 31 FCC Rcd at 10480, para. 13; NAL Response at 2.
26
See, e.g., Telseven, LLC & Patrick Hines, Forfeiture Order, 31 FCC Rcd 1629, 1631, para. 7 (2016) (finding 
violations of the Act and the Commission’s rules “[b]ased on the uncontested record of violations documented in the 
NAL”).
27
NAL Response at 2–3.
28
See, e.g., D.T.V., LLC, Forfeiture Order, 31 FCC Rcd 2650, 2657 (2016) (finding that a licensee “cannot pass on 
its responsibility as a licensee to operate within licensed parameters” to third parties acting on the licensee’s behalf); 
Indus. Broad. Co., Memorandum Opinion and Order, 34 FCC 2d 950, 954 (1971) (stating that licensees are charged 
with knowledge of the rules governing the stations for which they are licensed); Willapa Broad. Co., Inc., 
Memorandum Opinion and Order, 17 FCC 2d 110, 111 (1969) (stating that licensees are expected to be aware of and 
comply with the requirements of the Commission's rules).
29
47 CFR §§ 90.403(c), 90.403(e), and 90.425(a).
30
47 U.S.C. § 503(b).
31
47 CFR § 1.80.
32
47 CFR §§ 90.403(c), 90.403(e), and 90.425(a).
33
47 CFR § 1.80.
Federal Communications Commission DA 17-977
5
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.
34
  
13. 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 Matthew L. Gibson at 
matthew.gibson@fcc.gov, with a copy to field@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.
35
  When 
completing the 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 completed Form 159) must be 
mailed to the 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 From 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 making full payment over time under an installment plan should be sent 
to: Chief Financial Officer – Financial Operations, Federal Communications Commission, 445 12th 
Street, SW, Room 1-A625, Washington, DC 20554.
36
  Questions regarding payment procedures should be 
directed to the Financial Operations Group Help Desk by telephone, 1-877-480-3201, or by e-mail, 
ARINQUIRIES@fcc.gov.
15. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this Forfeiture Order 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
                                                     
34
47 U.S.C. § 504(a).
35
An FCC Form 159 and detailed instructions for completing the form may be obtained at 
http://www.fcc.gov/Forms/Form159/159.pdf.
36
See 47 CFR § 1.1914.