******************************************************** 
                      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 16-923
Before the
Federal Communications Commission
Washington, DC 20554
In the Matter of
D.T.V., LLC
Licensee of Station WPHA-CD
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
)
)
)
)
)
)
File No.:  EB-FIELDNER-13-00006557
NAL/Acct. No.:  201432400003
FRN:  0013224662
Facility ID No.:  72278
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Adopted:  August 16, 2016 Released:  August 16, 2016
By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: 
I. INTRODUCTION
1. We dismiss the Petition for Reconsideration filed by D.T.V., LLC (D.T.V.), licensee of 
Class A Television Station WPHA-CD (Station WPHA or the Station) in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, 
seeking reconsideration of the Forfeiture Order issued by the Commission.
1
Among other things, the 
Commission concluded in the Forfeiture Order that D.T.V. did not provide adequate justification that a 
downward adjustment to the forfeiture amount was warranted based on an inability to pay.
2
  The 
Commission also found that, even if D.T.V. had demonstrated its inability to pay the forfeiture amount, 
the gravity of D.T.V.’s violations would militate against any reduction of the forfeiture.
3
D.T.V. now 
seeks reconsideration of the decision in the Forfeiture Order not to reduce the forfeiture amount. 
II. BACKGROUND
2. In April 2014, the Commission issued the Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture in 
this proceeding, proposing an $89,200 forfeiture against D.T.V. for apparently failing to make the Station 
available for inspection by Commission agents on multiple occasions, maintain a fully staffed main studio 
for the Station, and operate the Station’s transmitter from its authorized location.
4
On August 17, 2011, 
and again on 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 to conduct an inspection.
5
3. The Commission noted in the Forfeiture Order that “D.T.V.’s repeated refusals to make 
the Station available for inspection ‘threaten[ed] to compromise the Commission’s ability to fully 
investigate potential violations of its rules . . . . [and] prevented the agents from conducting a 
                                                     
1
D.T.V., LLC, Forfeiture Order, 31 FCC Rcd 2650 (2016) (Forfeiture Order). 
2
Forfeiture Order, 31 FCC Rcd at 2657-58, paras. 19-21.
3
Forfeiture Order, 31 FCC Rcd at 2658-59, para. 22.
4
D.T.V., LLC, Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture, 29 FCC Rcd 5483 (2014)(NAL).
5
NAL, 29 FCC Rcd at 5486, para. 11.
Federal Communications Commission DA 16-923
comprehensive inspection of the Station’s facilities and filings.’”
6
  The agents could not assess whether 
D.T.V. had met its obligations as a broadcast licensee, including its compliance with Rules aimed at 
protecting public safety like the Emergency Alert System, because they were denied access to the 
Station.
7
The Commission noted that D.T.V. “’exhibited a blatant disregard of, and contempt for, the 
Commission’s authority.’”
8
The Commission concluded further that D.T.V.’s repeated failure to allow 
inspection, after being reminded of that obligation by the agents, was egregious.
9
4. In March 2016, the Commission adopted the Forfeiture Order, finding that the full 
forfeiture amount of $89,200 proposed in the NAL against D.T.V. is warranted.
10
Specifically, the 
Commission considered and rejected D.T.V.’s argument that the forfeiture amount should be adjusted 
downward based on its claims of its inability to pay.
11
Moreover, the Commission also concluded that,
even if D.T.V. had adequately demonstrated an inability to pay the forfeiture amount, the repeated and 
egregious nature of D.T.V.’s rule violations would weigh against any downward adjustment, including an 
adjustment based on a claim of inability to pay.
12
   
5. On April 28, 2016, D.T.V. filed a Petition for Reconsideration of the Forfeiture Order.
13
  
For purposes of its Petition, D.T.V. does not contest the conclusions in the Forfeiture Order that it 
violated the Commission’s rules, and that those violations were egregious.
14
  Rather, D.T.V. argues that 
the penalty assessed in the Forfeiture Order should be reduced based on its inability to pay.  For reasons 
discussed below, we dismiss D.T.V.’s Petition.
III. DISCUSSION  
6. Section 1.106(p) of the Commission’s rules delegates authority to the Bureaus to act on 
petitions for reconsideration that “plainly do not warrant consideration by the Commission.”
15
  In 
particular, Section 1.106(p)(1) authorizes the Enforcement Bureau (Bureau) to dismiss petitions for 
reconsideration that “[f]ail to identify any material error, omission, or reason warranting 
reconsideration.”
16
  
                                                     
6
Forfeiture Order, 31 FCC Rcd at 2655, para. 14.
7
Forfeiture Order, 31 FCC Rcd at 2655-2656, para. 14.
8
Forfeiture Order, 31 FCC Rcd at 2656, para. 14, quoting NAL at 29 FCC Rcd at 5488, para. 18. 
9
Forfeiture Order, 31 FCC Rcd at 2656, para. 14.   
10
Forfeiture Order, 31 FCC Rcd at 2659, para. 23.  
11
Forfeiture Order, 31 FCC Rcd at 2657-58, paras. 19-21. In the Forfeiture Policy Statement, the Commission set 
forth guidelines for forfeiture amounts in enforcement proceedings.  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). The Commission retains the discretion 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. 47 C.F.R. § 
1.80; Forfeiture Policy Statement, 12 FCC Rcd at 17100-01, para. 27.
12
Forfeiture Order, 31 FCC Rcd at 2658-59, para. 22.   
13
D.T.V., LLC, Petition for Reconsideration (April 28, 2016) (on file in EB- FIELDNER-13-00006557 (Petition)).    
14
Petition at 1.
15
47 C.F.R. § 1.106(p).  
16
47 C.F.R. § 1.106(p)(1).  
Federal Communications Commission DA 16-923
7. We dismiss D.T.V.’s Petition pursuant to Section 1.106(p)(1) of the Commission’s 
rules.
17
  The Forfeiture Order noted the extensive precedent in which it had rejected claims of inability to 
pay in cases of repeated or otherwise egregious violations.
18
  The Commission also emphasized in the 
Forfeiture Order that D.T.V.’s violations were repeated and egregious, and that nothing in the record in 
that proceeding warranted any leniency or mitigation of the forfeiture amount.
19
  
8. Thus, regardless of whether D.T.V. has shown that the Commission erred in the inability-
to-pay determination in the Forfeiture Order, D.T.V. has not shown that correcting any such error would 
affect the forfeiture amount adopted in that Order.  Consequently, D.T.V. has not shown that any such 
error is “material” within the meaning of Section 1.106(p)(1).  
IV. ORDERING CLAUSES 
9. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 405 of the Communications Act
of 1934, as amended (Act) and Section 1.106(p)(1) of the Commission’s rules, the Petition for 
Reconsideration filed by D.T.V., LLC is hereby DISMISSED.
20
10. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Act and Sections 
1.80 of the Commission’s rules,
21
D.T.V., LLC IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE of 
$89,200 for willfully and repeatedly violating Section 73.1225(a) and 73.1350(a) of the Commission’s 
rules and willfully violating Sections 73.1125(a) of the Commission’s rules.
22
11. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the 
Commission’s rules within fifteen (15) calendar days after the release date of this Memorandum Opinion 
and Order.
23
This matter has been referred to the U.S. Department of Justice for enforcement of the
forfeiture pursuant to Section 504(a) of the Act.
24
  D.T.V., LLC shall send electronic notification of 
payment to NER-Response@fcc.gov on the date said payment is made. 
12. 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 
send electronic notification of payment to Janet.Moran@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.
25
When completing the FCC Form 159, enter the Account Number in block number 23A (call 
                                                     
17
47 C.F.R. § 1.106(p)(1).  
18
Forfeiture Order, 31 FCC Rcd at 2658, para. 22, citing TV Max, Inc., et al., Forfeiture Order, 29 FCC Rcd 8648, 
8661, para. 25 (2014) (noting that the Commission “has previously rejected inability to pay claims in cases of 
repeated or otherwise egregious violations”); Kevin W. Bondy, Forfeiture Order, 26 FCC Rcd 7840 (Enf. Bur. 2011) 
(holding that violator’s repeated acts of malicious and intentional interference outweighed evidence concerning his 
ability to pay), aff’d, Memorandum Opinion and Order, 28 FCC Rcd 1170 (Enf. Bur. 2013), aff’d, Memorandum 
Opinion and Order, 28 FCC Rcd 16815 (Enf. Bur. 2013).  
19
Forfeiture Order, 31 FCC Rcd at 2658-59, para. 22.
20
47 U.S.C. § 405; 47 C.F.R. § 1.106(p)(1).   
21
47 U.S.C. § 503(b); 47 C.F.R. § 1.80.
22
47 C.F.R. §§ 73.1125(a), 73.1225(a), 73.1350(a).
23
47 C.F.R. § 1.80.
24
47 U.S.C. § 504(a).
25
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 16-923
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.
13. 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.
26
  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.
14. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this Memorandum Opinion and Order shall 
be sent by first class mail and certified mail, return receipt requested, to D.T.V., LLC, 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, Virginia 22209.
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
Travis LeBlanc
Chief 
Enforcement Bureau
                                                     
26
See 47 CFR § 1.1914.