Federal Communications Commission
Federal Communications Commission
Washington, D.C. 20554
In the Matter of
File No.: EB-FIELDNER-13-00006557
NAL/Acct. No.: 201432400003
Licensee of Station WPHA-CD
Facility ID No.: 72278
NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE
Adopted: April 25, 2014
Released: April 28, 2014
By the Commission:
This case involves a television broadcast station licensee’s repeated and egregious
disregard for several Commission rules, most significant of which was its refusal, on two separate
occasions, to comply with its obligation to allow FCC agents to inspect its facilities. The Commission’s
ability to conduct unannounced inspections to assess licensees’ compliance with its rules is essential to
our responsibility to promote safety of life and property through the use of wire and radio
communication.1 Nevertheless, despite its clear regulatory duty, D.T.V., LLC (D.T.V.), licensee of Class
A Television Station WPHA-CD (Station WPHA or the Station) in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, twice
refused to permit inspection of its facilities by FCC agents.
In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (NAL), we find that D.T.V.’s actions
constitute apparently willful and repeated violations of Section 73.1225(a) of the Commission’s rules
(Rules).2 We also find that D.T.V. apparently willfully violated Section 73.1125(a) of the Rules by
failing to maintain a fully staffed main studio and apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section
73.1350(a) of the Rules by failing to operate Station WPHA in accordance with the terms of the Station’s
authorization.3 Consequently, we conclude that D.T.V. is apparently liable for a forfeiture in the amount
of eighty-nine thousand two-hundred dollars ($89,200).
On the morning of August 17, 2011, at approximately 11:20 a.m., agents from the
Enforcement Bureau’s Philadelphia Office (Philadelphia Office) attempted to inspect the main studio for
Station WPHA at 4651 Torresdale Avenue in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. When the agents arrived at the
Station, they found that the main studio was inaccessible because there was a locked gate across the
driveway that led to the building. The agents spoke to the Station Manager on the telephone and
requested access to the main studio to conduct an inspection. Instead of providing the agents access to the
main studio, however, the Station Manager asked the agents to wait for him at the gate. After about ten
minutes, the Station Manager appeared at the gate and the agents identified themselves. The Station
Manager told the agents that he was leaving for a doctor’s appointment and asked whether the agents
could come back the following day to conduct the inspection. In response to questions about staffing at
1 47 U.S.C. § 151.
2 47 C.F.R. § 73.1225(a).
3 47 C.F.R. §§ 73.1125(a), 73.1350(a).
Federal Communications Commission
the main studio, the Station Manager reported that there was no one else available at the main studio to
facilitate an inspection. The agents advised the Station Manager that the main studio needed to be
accessible to the general public and must be staffed during normal business hours in accordance with
Commission requirements.4 Nevertheless, the Station Manager refused to permit the inspection, and the
agents left without agreeing to return the next day.
After leaving the main studio location, one of the agents attempted to contact Mr.
Randolph Weigner, who according to Commission records is the sole principal of D.T.V., the Station
licensee.5 The agent left a voicemail message reporting that the main studio was inaccessible to the
public and that the Station Manager had failed to make the Station’s main studio available for inspection.
Although the agent left his telephone number and requested that Mr. Weigner return his call, Mr. Weigner
did not return the agent’s call. The agent also followed up with a call to the Station’s main studio, where
he left a voicemail message and requested a return call. The Station Manager returned the call and
advised the agent that he was still at his doctor’s appointment. The agent noted to the Station Manager
that, based on the caller identification number, the Station Manager appeared to be calling from the main
studio. The Station Manager stated that the Station used his personal cellular number as the Station’s
main studio number.
On the morning of September 30, 2011, again during regular business hours, the agents
returned to the Station and again attempted to inspect the Station’s main studio. The agents observed that
the main studio was still inaccessible because the main access gate was locked. While the agents stood
outside the gate, the Station Manager exited the main studio building and appeared at the gate. The
agents identified themselves and again asked to conduct a main studio inspection, and advised the Station
Manager that the Station’s main access gate must not be locked during normal business hours. Once
again, instead of providing access to conduct the inspection, the Station Manager asked the agents to wait
outside the gate, which remained locked. After waiting more than ten minutes for the Station Manager to
return, the agents left the scene.
That afternoon, the agents returned and conducted an exterior visual inspection of the
Station’s main studio facility. The agents observed that the main studio remained inaccessible because
the Station’s main access gate was still locked. One of the agents therefore called the main studio number
and spoke again to the Station Manager. The agent advised the Station Manager that the Station’s main
studio must be made available for inspection by FCC agents, and that the locked gate prevented access to
the main studio. In response, the Station Manager reported that the main access gate must remain locked
for security reasons and that the public must contact the station to obtain access. The agents noted that no
information was posted at the gate to inform the public how to obtain access to the Station.
Later that day, one of the agents again attempted to contact Mr. Weigner and left a
voicemail message advising him that FCC agents again were unable to gain access to the main studio to
conduct an inspection and that the main studio remained inaccessible to the public because of the locked
gate. Although the agent requested that Mr. Weigner return his call, Mr. Weigner again did not do so.
On March 6, 2012, an agent monitored Station WPHA on Television Channel 38 (614-
620 MHz) and used direction-finding equipment to locate the source of the transmissions to antenna
structure number 1231524, which, according to Commission records, is owned by American Towers LLC
(American Towers).6 An American Towers employee assisted the agent in identifying WPHA’s
transmitting equipment, which was located in a room of a building next to the base of the antenna
4 Those staffing requirements are discussed at infra
D.T.V., LLC, FCC Form 323 Ownership Report, File No. BOA-20111027AFV (D.T.V., LLC Ownership
6 Antenna structure number 1231524 is located at 400-405 Domino Lane, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania at the
coordinates 40º 02’ 30.1” North Latitude 075º 14’ 10.1” West Longitude. ASB File No. A0842106.
Federal Communications Commission
structure. The agent spoke to American Towers’ FCC Compliance Manager, who confirmed that Station
WPHA had operated from antenna structure number 1231524 since 2004. According to Station WPHA’s
license, however, the Station has been authorized to operate only from antenna structure number
1026755, which is also owned by American Towers, and is located 0.203 miles from antenna structure
number 1231524.7 That day, the agent conducted an inspection at antenna structure number 1026755
with the field operations technician for American Towers and confirmed that Station WPHA did not have
any transmitting equipment at its authorized location.8
Section 503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (Act), provides that any
person who willfully or repeatedly fails to comply substantially with the terms and conditions of any
license, or willfully or repeatedly fails to comply with any of the provisions of the Act or of any rule,
regulation, or order issued by the Commission thereunder, shall be liable for a forfeiture penalty.9 Section
312(f)(1) of the Act defines “willful” as the “conscious and deliberate commission or omission of [any]
act, irrespective of any intent to violate” the law.10 The legislative history to Section 312(f)(1) of the Act
clarifies that this definition of willful applies to both Sections 312 and 503(b) of the Act,11 and the
Commission has so interpreted the term in the Section 503(b) context.12 The Commission may also
assess a forfeiture for violations that are merely repeated, and not willful.13 The term “repeated” means
the commission or omission of such act more than once or for more than one day.14
File No. BLDTA-20101118AIV. Antenna structure number 1026755 is located at 216 Paoli Avenue,
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania at the coordinates 40º 02’ 19.7” North Latitude 075º 14’ 12.8” West Longitude. ASB
File No. A0806073.
8 A search of the FCC database at the time of the agent’s visit to the transmitter site revealed that the Station had
never filed for a special temporary authorization to operate from antenna structure number 1231524. Following the
agent’s inspection of the transmission facility, D.T.V. filed a modification application to change the transmitter
coordinates for antenna structure number 1231524. See
D.T.V., LLC, Application for Authority to Construct or
Make Changes in a Class A Television Broadcast Station, File No. BPDTA-20120307AAR (filed Mar. 8, 2012).
The application was subsequently granted and a license was issued to D.T.V. to cover the modified transmission
9 47 U.S.C. § 503(b).
10 47 U.S.C. § 312(f)(1).
11 H.R. Rep. No. 97-765, 97th Cong. 2d Sess. 51 (1982) (“This provision [inserted in Section 312] defines the terms
‘willful’ and ‘repeated’ for purposes of section 312, and for any other relevant section of the act (e.g., Section 503)
. . . . As defined[,] . . . ‘willful’ means that the licensee knew that he was doing the act in question, regardless of
whether there was an intent to violate the law. ‘Repeated’ means more than once, or where the act is continuous, for
more than one day. Whether an act is considered to be ‘continuous’ would depend upon the circumstances in each
case. The definitions are intended primarily to clarify the language in Sections 312 and 503, and are consistent with
the Commission’s application of those terms . . . .”).
12 See, e.g.
, Southern California Broadcasting Co.
, Memorandum Opinion and Order, 6 FCC Rcd 4387, 4388, para.
5 (1991), recon. denied
, 7 FCC Rcd 3454 (1992).
13 See, e.g.
, Callais Cablevision, Inc.
, Notice of Apparent Liability for Monetary Forfeiture, 16 FCC Rcd 1359,
1362, para. 10 (2001) (Callais Cablevision, Inc.
) (proposing a forfeiture for, inter alia
, a cable television operator’s
repeated signal leakage).
14 Section 312(f)(2) of the Act, 47 U.S.C. § 312(f)(2), which also applies to violations for which forfeitures are
assessed under Section 503(b) of the Act, provides that “[t]he term ‘repeated’, when used with reference to the
commission or omission of any act, means the commission or omission of such act more than once or, if such
commission or omission is continuous, for more than one day.” See Callais Cablevision, Inc.
, 16 FCC Rcd at 1362,
Federal Communications Commission
This case involves a fundamental component of our regulatory scheme – our ability to
obtain accurate information from our licensees. The Commission must judiciously employ its resources
in monitoring compliance with FCC rules by each of the thousands of entities subject to our oversight.
Accordingly, the agency relies on periodic inspections by its field agents to verify regulatee compliance
with numerous critical rules, including those governing the Emergency Alert System (EAS), power levels,
and tower painting and lighting. D.T.V. failed to meet its responsibility to have someone present at the
station during business hours, thereby preventing the public from accessing the station. D.T.V. then
substantially compounded its misconduct by repeatedly refusing to permit inspection by an FCC agent.
Such actions not only undermine the Commission’s ability to ensure proper operation, but reflect
indifference toward the licensee’s obligation to serve the public trust.
Refusal to Make Station Available for Inspection
Section 73.1225(a) of the Rules requires that the “licensee of a broadcast station shall
make the station available for inspection by representatives of the FCC during the station’s business
hours, or at any time it is in operation.”15 On August 17, 2011, and September 30, 2011, agents from the
Philadelphia Office attempted to inspect the Station during normal business hours. Despite repeated
contacts with the Station Manager as well as multiple attempts to contact D.T.V.’s sole principal for
assistance in obtaining access to his Station’s main studio, the agents were refused entry to the main
studio on two separate occasions to conduct an inspection. Accordingly, based on the evidence before us,
we find that D.T.V. apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section 73.1225(a) of the Rules by refusing
to make the Station available for inspection by an FCC agent.
Main Studio Violation
Section 73.1125(a) of the Rules requires broadcast stations to maintain a main studio.16
The Commission has interpreted Section 73.1125 (also known as the “Main Studio Rule”) to require,
among other things, that a licensee maintain a “meaningful management and staff presence” at its main
studio.17 Specifically, the Commission has found that a main studio “must, at a minimum, maintain full-
time managerial and full-time staff personnel.”18 Although management personnel need not be “chained
to their desks” during normal business hours, they must “report to work at the main studio on a daily
basis, spend a substantial amount of time there and . . . use the studio as a ‘home base.’”19 Moreover,
while the Commission has stated that the staff person may “take on responsibilities for another business”
to the extent consistent with full performance of that person’s station duties, he or she may do so “as long
as the main studio remains attended during normal business hours.”20 At a minimum, “attended during
normal business hours” requires that at least one person must be on duty at all times at the main studio
during normal business hours.
15 47 C.F.R. § 73.1225(a).
16 47 C.F.R. § 73.1125(a).
17 Amendment of Sections 73.1125 and 73.1130 of the Commission’s Rules, the Main Studio and Program
Origination Rules for Radio and Television Broadcast Stations
, Memorandum Opinion and Order, 3 FCC Rcd 5024,
5026, para. 24 (1988), erratum issued
, 3 FCC Rcd 5717 (1988) (correcting language in n.29).
18 See Jones Eastern of the Outer Banks, Inc.
, Memorandum Opinion and Order, 6 FCC Rcd 3615, 3616 & n.2, para.
9 (1991) (noting that, “[t]his is not to say that the same staff person and manager must be assigned full-time to the
main studio. Rather, there must be management and staff presence on a full-time basis during normal business
hours to be considered ‘meaningful’”), clarified by
, 7 FCC Rcd 6800 (1992) (Jones Eastern II
); see also Birach
, Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture, 25 FCC Rcd 2635 (Enf. Bur. 2010).
19 Jones Eastern II
, 7 FCC Rcd at 6802, para. 11.
Federal Communications Commission
On August 17, 2011, agents from the Philadelphia Office attempted to conduct an
inspection at the Station’s main studio during business hours. When agents contacted the Station
Manager, he stated he was not available to conduct the inspection and there was no one else available at
the main studio to facilitate the inspection because he was leaving the facility for a doctor’s appointment.
Based on the evidence before us, we find that D.T.V. apparently willfully violated Section 73.1125(a) of the
Rules by failing to maintain a full-time management and staff presence at the Station’s main studio during
regular business hours.
Failure to Operate in Accordance with Station Authorization
Section 73.1350(a) of the Rules states that “[e]ach licensee is responsible for maintaining
and operating its broadcast station in a manner which complies with the technical rules . . . and in
accordance with the terms of the station authorization.”21 On March 6, 2012, an agent of the Philadelphia
Office inspected the transmission facility for the Station and determined that the Station was operating
from an unauthorized location. An employee from American Towers, the antenna structure owner,
confirmed that D.T.V. had operated the Station from the unauthorized location since 2004. Accordingly,
based on the evidence before us, we find that D.T.V. apparently willfully and repeatedly violated Section
73.1350(a) of the Rules by failing to operate the Station in accordance with the terms of the Station’s
Proposed Forfeiture Amount
Pursuant to the Commission’s Forfeiture Policy Statement
and Section 1.80 of the Rules,
the base forfeiture amount for violations of the Main Studio Rule is $7,000, the base forfeiture amount for
construction or operation at an unauthorized location is $4,000, and the base forfeiture for failing to make
a station available for inspection is $7,000.22 The Commission also retains the discretion, however, to
issue a higher or lower forfeiture than provided in the Forfeiture Policy Statement
based on the statutory
factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act, which include the nature, circumstances, extent, and
gravity of the violations, and with respect to the violator, the degree of culpability, any history of prior
offenses, ability to pay, and other such matters as justice may require.23 For violations by broadcast
licensees, the Communications Act authorizes monetary forfeitures of up to $37,500 for each
in the case of a continuing violation, the Commission may impose monetary forfeitures of up to $37,500
for each day
of such continuing violation up to a maximum forfeiture of $375,000 for any single act or
failure to act.24
21 47 C.F.R. § 73.1350(a).
22 The Commission’s Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80 of the Rules to Incorporate the
, Report and Order, 12 FCC Rcd 17087 (1997) (Forfeiture Policy Statement
), recon. denied
15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999); 47 C.F.R. § 1.80.
47 U.S.C. § 503(b)(2)(E); 47 C.F.R. § 1.80(b)(8).
47 U.S.C. § 503(b)(2)(A); 47 C.F.R. § 1.80(b)(1) (2011). These amounts reflect inflation adjustments to the
forfeitures specified in Section 503(b)(2)(A). 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), requires the Commission to adjust its forfeiture penalties periodically for
28 U.S.C. § 2461 note (4). The Commission most recently adjusted its penalties to account for
inflation in 2013. See Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Commission’s Rules, Adjustment of Civil Monetary
Penalties to Reflect Inflation
, Order, 28 FCC Rcd 10785 (Enf. Bur. 2013); see also
Inflation Adjustment of
Monetary Penalties, 78 Fed. Reg. 49,370-01 (Aug. 14, 2013) (setting Sept. 13, 2013, as the effective date for the
increases). Because the DCIA specifies that any inflationary adjustment “shall apply only to violations that occur
after the date the increase takes effect,” however, we apply the forfeiture penalties in effect at the time the apparent
violation took place. 28 U.S.C. § 2461 note (6). Here, because the apparent violations at issue occurred in 2011, the
applicable maximum penalties are based on the Commission’s previous inflation adjustment that became effective
on September 2, 2008. See
Inflation Adjustment of Maximum Forfeiture Penalties, 73 Fed. Reg. 44,663, 44,664
(July 31, 2008).
Federal Communications Commission
With respect to D.T.V.’s apparent violation of the Main Studio Rule, we propose the base
forfeiture – $7,000. Regarding D.T.V.’s operation of WPHA from an unauthorized location, we propose
a forfeiture in the amount of $7,200, which reflects an upward adjustment of $3,200 to the base forfeiture
amount due to the duration of the apparent violation.25
D.T.V.’s apparent willful and repeated failure to allow the FCC agents to inspect Station
WPHA during normal business hours,26 however, raises more serious concerns. D.T.V.’s actions threaten
to compromise the Commission’s ability to fully investigate potential violations of its rules. By refusing
to allow access to its main studio, D.T.V. prevented the agents from conducting a comprehensive
inspection of the Station’s facilities and filings, including the Station’s Public Inspection File.
This is simply unacceptable. The licensee and its sole principal are experienced
broadcasters and own numerous broadcast stations, including multiple Class A Television facilities across
the country.27 Consequently, D.T.V. and its sole principal are well aware of the Commission’s rules
requiring licensees to make their broadcast stations available for “on-the-spot” inspections at the request
of FCC agents. Indeed, D.T.V. concedes that FCC agents have inspected Station WPHA “multiple times,
including both the studio and transmitter facilities.”28 As we have previously noted, FCC agents do not
need to make an appointment to inspect a broadcast licensee’s main studio and records, and such
inspection is not subject to the convenience of the licensee.29 Although earlier cases where FCC agents
were unable to conduct inspections of main studios or the public inspection file may have resulted in
smaller forfeitures, none of those cases involved repeated, direct, in-person refusals of access by the
highest levels of a broadcast station’s management, as well as multiple failures by the licensee’s sole
principal to return FCC agent calls concerning the refusals. Here, by contrast, D.T.V.’s actions exhibited
a blatant disregard of and contempt for the Commission’s authority. Ensuring the expeditious and
effective enforcement of the Commission’s rules is critically important and that objective requires
licensees to provide FCC agents with timely access to their facilities. Accordingly, a broadcast licensee’s
25 See e.g.
, Mt. Rushmore Broadcasting, Inc.
, 27 FCC Rcd 8263 (Enf. Bur. 2012) (proposing upward adjustment in
base forfeiture amount from $4,000 to $8,000 for operating a Studio to Transmitter Link at an unauthorized location
for ten years).
26 While the agents attempted to inspect the Station during normal business hours, we note that Section 73.1225(a) of
the Rules requires broadcast licensees to make a station available for inspection by FCC agents “at any time it is in
operation.” 47 C.F.R. § 73.1225(a).
27 According to its most recent ownership report, D.T.V. holds licenses for the following Class A and TV translator
stations: WPHA-CD, WIRE-CD, KSEX-CA, WRAP-LP, KBOP-LD, and W21CQ. See
D.T.V., LLC Ownership
Report. According to that report and the current Ownership Report of Sunshine Broadcasting Company, Inc., File
No. BOA-20111024ANL, of which Mr. Weigner is also the sole principal, Sunshine is the licensee of Class A
Television Stations WIMP-CD and WARP-CD. On June 19, 2013, the Media Bureau granted an application for
authority to assign WARP-CD. See
File No. BALDTA-20121102AET.
28 Memorandum from Peter Tannenwald, Counsel for D.T.V., LLC, to Sharon Webber, Regional Counsel, Northeast
Region, Enforcement Bureau, at 1 (Aug. 15, 2013).
29 See, e.g.
, Allen’s TV Cable Service, Inc.
, Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture, 27 FCC Rcd 1438, 1439,
para. 4 (Enf. Bur. 2012) (proposing forfeiture for failure to make public inspection file available until next day when
manager would be available); Christopher H. Bennett Broadcasting of Washington, Inc.
, Forfeiture Order, 23 FCC
Rcd 11285, 11288, para. 16 (Enf. Bur. 2008) (observing that failure to make station available for inspection was
“particularly troubl[ing]” and that a main studio “must be made available to Commission agents during the station’s
business hours, or at any time it is in operation.”); see also
FCC, Inspection Fact Sheet (Mar. 2005), available at https://www.fcc.gov/guides/inspection-fact-sheet
(stating that FCC agents do not need to make an appointment to
access a main studio because “[t]he Commission has no means of determining whether a station is being operated as
licensed except through immediate on-the-spot inspection”); Gaston Coll.
, Notice of Apparent Liability for
Forfeiture, 22 FCC Rcd 4556 (Enf. Bur. 2007) (proposing forfeiture for failure to make public inspection records
available upon request by private citizen and advising individual to make appointment with licensee’s attorney).
Federal Communications Commission
continued refusal to allow FCC agents to inspect its station in accordance with Section 73.1225(a) is an
egregious violation of the Commission’s rules warranting stringent enforcement action.
Given the gravity and repeated and willful nature of these apparent violations, we
conclude that a total proposed forfeiture of $75,000 is fully justified for D.T.V.’s failures to allow
inspection (the statutory maximum of $37,500 for each failure to allow an inspection).30 We also caution
D.T.V. that any future failure to allow an inspection of Station WPHA, or any other stations licensed to
D.T.V. or its affiliated companies, may result in the imposition of additional (and potentially higher)
forfeitures, as well as other enforcement actions, as appropriate.31 Applying the Forfeiture Policy
, Section 1.80, and the statutory factors to the instant case, we conclude that D.T.V. is
apparently liable for a total forfeiture in the amount of $89,200 – $75,000 for failure to allow FCC agents
to conduct a station inspection on two occasions, $7,000 for violation of the Main Studio Rule, and
$7,200 for operating Station WPHA from an unauthorized location.
Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED
that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Communications
Act of 1934, as amended, and Sections 0.111 and 1.80 of the Commission’s rules, D.T.V., LLC is hereby
APPARENT LIABILITY FOR A FORFEITURE
in the amount of eighty-nine
thousand two-hundred dollars ($89,200) for violations of Sections 73.1125(a), 73.1225(a), and 73.1350(a)
of the Commission’s rules.32
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED
that, pursuant to Section 1.80 of the Commission’s rules,
within thirty (30) days of the release date of this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture, D.T.V., LLC
the full amount of the proposed forfeiture or
a written statement seeking
reduction or cancellation of the proposed forfeiture.
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. D.T.V., LLC shall
also send electronic notification on the date said payment is made to NER-Response@fcc.gov
Regardless of the form of payment, a completed FCC Form 159 (Remittance Advice) must be
submitted.33 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.
30 This forfeiture amount reflects recent actions taken by the full Commission regarding similarly egregious
violations of FCC rules. Towerstream Corp.
, Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture, 28 FCC Rcd 11604,
11614, paras. 29–30 (2013) (proposing the statutory maximum of $192,000, or $16,000 per unlawful operation and
interference violation); Richard Jackowitz It Connect, Inc.
, Forfeiture Order, 28 FCC Rcd 6692, 6695, para. 7 (2013)
(imposing the statutory maximum of $240,000, or $16,000 per violation, for willful and repeated violation of the
Commission’s toll free numbering rules).
47 U.S.C. §§ 312, 401, 501, 503. We note that continued failure to comply with the rules applicable to Class
A television broadcast stations, particularly egregious violations such as the inspection refusals at issue here, could
result in Commission action to remove Station WPHA’s Class A status. See
47 U.S.C. § 336(f)(2)(A)(ii); 47 C.F.R.
32 47 U.S.C. § 503(b), 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.111, 1.80, 73.1125(a), 73.1225(a), 73.1350(a).
33 An FCC Form 159 and detailed instructions for completing the form may be obtained at https://www.fcc.gov/Forms/Form159/159.pdf
Federal Communications Commission
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.
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, S.W., Room 1-A625, Washington, D.C. 20554.34 If you have questions regarding payment
procedures, please contact the Financial Operations Group Help Desk by phone, 1-877-480-3201, or by
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.35 Mail the written statement to Federal Communications
Commission, Enforcement Bureau, Northeast Region, Philadelphia Office, One Oxford Valley Building,
Suite 404, 2300 East Lincoln Highway, Langhorne, Pennsylvania 19047 and include the NAL/Account
Number referenced in the caption. D.T.V., LLC also shall e-mail the written response to NER-Response@fcc.gov
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 principles
(GAAP); 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 submitted.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED
that copies of this Notice of Apparent Liability for
Forfeiture shall be sent by Certified Mail, Return Receipt Requested, and first class mail, to D.T.V., LLC
at 1903 South Greeley Highway # 127, Cheyenne, Wyoming 82007, and to Peter Tannenwald, counsel
for D.T.V., LLC, at Fletcher, Heald, & Hildreth, P.L.C., 1300 North 17th Street, 11th Floor, Arlington,
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
Marlene H. Dortch
47 C.F.R. § 1.1914.
35 47 C.F.R. §§ 1.16, 1.80(f)(3).