******************************************************** 
                      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 FCC 16-41
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
FORFEITURE ORDER
Adopted:  March 30, 2016 Released:  March 31 2016
By the Commission:
I. INTRODUCTION
1. We impose a penalty of $89,200 against D.T.V., LLC (D.T.V.), licensee of Class A 
Television Station WPHA-CD (Station WPHA or the Station) in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, for failing to 
make the Station available for inspection by FCC agents on multiple occasions, maintain a fully staffed 
main studio for the Station, and operate the Station’s transmitter from its authorized location.  The 
Commission’s ability to conduct unannounced inspections to assess compliance is essential to its 
responsibility to promote safety of life and property.  Failing to make stations available for “on-the-spot” 
inspections frustrates the Commission’s ability to judiciously and efficiently deploy its resources to 
monitor the thousands of broadcasters subject to our oversight.  In addition, requiring broadcasters to 
maintain fully staffed main studios ensures that stations provide adequate service and remain responsive 
to their communities of license.  Finally, unauthorized transmitter operations pose a risk of interference to 
licensed broadcasters and threaten the Commission’s licensing regime.  
2. The key facts of this case are undisputed.  In its July 10, 2014 response to the Notice of 
Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (NAL),
1
D.T.V. does not deny that FCC agents twice attempted to 
inspect the Station without success as a result of absent Station personnel or other delays resulting from 
actions by the Station Manager.  D.T.V. also does not deny that it failed to maintain staff at the Station’s 
main studio during one attempted inspection or that it operated the Station’s transmitter from an 
unauthorized location for approximately eight years.  D.T.V. nevertheless requests forfeiture cancellation 
or reduction for four reasons.  First, D.T.V. contends that its failures to permit inspection of and fully staff 
the Station’s main studio do not merit a forfeiture because they resulted from purported “medical 
considerations” and miscommunications with FCC agents.
2
  Second, D.T.V. challenges the Commission’s 
determination in the NAL that its repeated failure to make the Station available for inspection constituted 
egregious misconduct deserving a significant penalty.
3
  Third, D.T.V. argues that it is not at fault for the 
unauthorized transmitter operations and it should receive a reduced forfeiture because of its corrective 
efforts to come into compliance following the Commission’s investigation and notification to D.T.V. of 
its unauthorized operation.
4
  Finally, D.T.V. states that it does not have sufficient income to pay the 
                                                     
1
See D.T.V., LLC, Response to Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (July 10, 2014) (on file in EB-
FIELDNER-13-00006557) (NAL Response).
2
NAL Response at 5.
3
Id. at 5–7.
4
Id. at 9.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 16-41
2
proposed penalty.
5
  After reviewing D.T.V.’s arguments, we find no reason to cancel, withdraw, or reduce 
the penalty, and we therefore assess the $89,200 forfeiture the Commission previously proposed.
II. BACKGROUND
3. Requiring broadcast licensees to make their stations available for inspection upon request 
by FCC agents represents a “fundamental component of our regulatory scheme.”
6
  As a result, the 
Commission’s rules (Rules) require broadcast licensees to make a station “available for inspection by 
representatives of the FCC during the station’s business hours, or at any time it is in operation.”
7
  The 
Rules further require broadcast licensees to maintain a main studio with a “meaningful management and 
staff presence” during normal business hours.
8
  At a minimum, this main studio rule requires at least one 
person to be on duty at all times at a station’s main studio during normal business hours.
9
  Finally, the 
Commission’s rules require a broadcast licensee to “maintain[] and operat[e] its broadcast station in a 
manner which complies with the technical rules . . . and in accordance with the terms of the station 
authorization.”
10
4. On August 17, 2011, agents from the Enforcement Bureau’s Philadelphia Office 
(Philadelphia Office) attempted to inspect Station WPHA’s main studio.
11
  After observing that the main 
studio was inaccessible due to a locked gate, the agents called the Station Manager on the telephone and 
requested access to the main studio to conduct an inspection.
12
  Instead of providing timely access to the 
Station, the Station Manager instructed the agents to wait for him at the gate, and then emerged ten 
minutes later and informed them that he could not facilitate the inspection because he was leaving for a 
medical appointment and requested that the agents return the next day.
13
  When asked about staffing at the 
main studio, the Station Manager responded that no one else was available at the Station to facilitate the 
inspection.
14
  One of the agents then left a voicemail message for D.T.V.’s sole principal advising him 
that the Station Manager had failed to make the Station available for inspection.  Although the agent left a 
return phone number and asked the principal to call back, he did not do so.
15
  
5. On the morning of September 30, 2011, the Philadelphia Office agents returned to the 
Station and again attempted to inspect its main studio.
16
  The Station Manager appeared at the gate and 
the agents requested entry to conduct an inspection.
17
  Instead of providing timely access to the Station, 
the Station Manager again asked the agents to wait outside the gate, which remained locked, and returned 
                                                     
5
Id. at 9–10.
6
D.T.V., LLC, Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture, 29 FCC Rcd 5483, 5486, para. 10 (2014).  The NAL
includes a more complete discussion of the facts and history of this case and is incorporated herein by reference.
7
47 C.F.R. § 73.1225(a).
8
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 not at issue here).
9
NAL, 29 FCC Rcd at 5486, para. 12.
10
47 C.F.R. § 73.1350(a).
11
NAL, 29 FCC Rcd at 5483–84, para. 3.
12
Id.
13
Id.
14
Id. at 5483–84, para. 3.
15
Id. at 5484, para. 4
16
Id. at 5484, para. 5.
17
Id.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 16-41
3
inside the building.
18
  After waiting over ten minutes for the Station Manager to return, the agents left the 
scene.
19
  The agents returned that afternoon and observed that the main studio remained inaccessible 
because the Station’s main access gate was still locked.
20
  One of the agents called the main studio 
number and spoke again to the Station Manager, who claimed that the main access gate must remain 
locked for security reasons and that the public must contact the station to obtain access.
21
  The agents 
noted that no information was posted at the gate to inform the public how to obtain access to the Station.
22
  
One of the agents again attempted to contact D.T.V.’s sole principal regarding the failed inspection.  He 
left a voicemail message, advising that the agents had again been unable to conduct an inspection because
the Station gate was locked.  Although he requested that the owner return his call, the principal again 
failed to do so.
23
6. On March 6, 2012, a Philadelphia Office agent used direction-finding equipment to locate 
the source of Station WPHA’s transmissions to an antenna structure located more than 0.2 miles from the 
one listed in Station WPHA’s license.
24
  Agents subsequently determined that D.T.V. had operated the 
Station’s transmitter from the unauthorized location for approximately eight years.
25
7. On April 28, 2014, the Commission issued the NAL proposing an $89,200 forfeiture 
against D.T.V. for its apparent willful and repeated violations of Sections 73.1225(a) and 73.1350(a) of 
the Rules by twice failing to make the Station available for inspection, and by operating the Station’s 
transmitter from an unauthorized location, and its willful violation of Section 73.1125(a) of the Rules by 
failing to adequately staff the Station’s main studio.
26
  As noted above, in its NAL Response, D.T.V. 
states that its failures to make the Station available for inspection and fully staff its main studio were not 
willful, but rather the result of medical problems and purported miscommunications with the FCC 
agents.
27
  D.T.V. further argues that, even if its failures to permit inspection violated the Rules, the 
Commission incorrectly determined that its actions constituted egregious misconduct warranting the 
application of the statutory maximum forfeiture.
28
  D.T.V. also claims that its unauthorized operation of 
the Station’s transmitter constituted a “minor mislocation” caused by its reliance on the tower site’s 
owner that it immediately took action to correct following the investigation.
29
  Finally, D.T.V. asserts that 
it does not have sufficient income to pay the penalty proposed in the NAL.
30
  
                                                     
18
Id.
19
Id.
20
Id. at 5484, para. 6.
21
Id.
22
Id.
23
Id. at 5484, para. 7.  Later that day, counsel for D.T.V. e-mailed the agent, “offering to respond to any questions 
the agent might have about the station.”  NAL Response at 4.
24
NAL, 29 FCC Rcd at 5484–85, para. 8.
25
Id. 
26
Id. at 5489, para. 20.
27
NAL Response at 3–5, 7–8.
28
Id. at 5–7.
29
Id. at 8–9.
30
Id. at 9–10, Attachment.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 16-41
4
III. DISCUSSION
8. The Commission proposed a forfeiture in this case in accordance with Section 503(b) of 
the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (Act),
31
Section 1.80 of the Rules,
32
and the Commission’s 
Forfeiture Policy Statement.
33
  When we assess forfeitures, Section 503(b)(2)(E) of the Act 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.”
34
  As discussed below, we have fully considered D.T.V.’s NAL Response but find 
none of its arguments persuasive.  We therefore affirm the $89,200 forfeiture proposed in the NAL.  
A. D.T.V.’s Failures to Make the Station Available for Inspection and Fully Staff the 
Station’s Main Studio Warrant Forfeitures
9. D.T.V. argues that it did not willfully refuse access to the Station or fail to fully staff its 
main studio and that its Station Manager acted reasonably and in compliance with the Rules during both 
attempted inspections.
35
  While D.T.V. concedes that “access to the station was not immediately 
accorded,” it contends that the delay was “in one case, attributable to medical considerations and, in the 
other, the earliness of the agents’ arrival.”
36
  According to D.T.V., due to these “unusual circumstances 
coupled with unfortunate misunderstanding” between its Station Manager and the agents, no violations 
occurred and no forfeiture should be imposed.
37
  
10. We disagree.  D.T.V. acknowledges that “it is undisputed that the station’s manager was 
unavailable” on August 17, 2011, and that no other personnel were present to make the Station available 
for inspection when the FCC agents visited the Station that day.
38
  Without the ability to conduct 
unannounced inspections, “[t]he Commission has no means of determining whether a station is being 
operated as licensed.”
39
  Although D.T.V. claims that the Station Manager asked the agents to come back 
the next day to conduct the inspection, the Commission has repeatedly warned broadcasters that its 
inspection authority does not depend on the convenience of the licensee or the availability of station 
personnel.
40
  
11. In any event, the main studio rules require a licensee to maintain a “meaningful 
management and staff presence” at its main studio during normal business hours.
41
  As we stated in the 
                                                     
31
47 U.S.C. § 503(b).
32
47 C.F.R. § 1.80.
33
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). 
34
47 U.S.C. § 503(b)(2)(E).
35
NAL Response at 4.
36
Id. at 4–5.
37
Id. at 4.
38
Id.
39
FCC Inspection Fact Sheet (Mar. 2005), available at http://www.fcc.gov/guides/inspection-fact-sheet (Inspection 
Fact Sheet) (last visited Dec. 10, 2015).
40
See, e.g., NAL, 29 FCC Rcd at 5488, para. 18 (citing Allen’s TV Cable Serv., Inc., Notice of Apparent Liability for 
Forfeiture, 27 FCC Rcd 1438, 1439, para. 4 (Enf. Bur. 2012); Christopher H. Bennett Broad. of Wash., Inc., 
Forfeiture Order, 23 FCC Rcd 11285, 11288, para. 16 (Enf. Bur. 2008); Gaston Coll., Notice of Apparent Liability 
for Forfeiture, 22 FCC Rcd 4556 (Enf. Bur. 2007); FCC Inspection Fact Sheet).
41
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, 3 FCC Rcd at 5026, para. 24.  See Jones Eastern of 
(continued….)
Federal Communications Commission FCC 16-41
5
NAL, this means “that at least one person must be on duty at all times at the main studio during normal 
business hours.”
42
  But far from providing the meaningful management and staff presence required, 
D.T.V. undeniably failed to provide any staff presence at the Station’s main studio during normal 
business hours on August 17, 2011:  its Station Manager advised the agents that he was leaving for a 
doctor’s appointment and there was no one left at the Station to allow the agents to conduct their 
inspection.
43
  Although D.T.V. may have believed that “the station did not and does not need full-time 
human attention at the studio,” our Rules require otherwise.
44
  As a result, we find that D.T.V. willfully 
violated Sections 73.1225(a) and 73.1125(a) of the Rules by failing to make the Station available for 
inspection and failing to fully staff its main studio on August 17, 2011.
12. We also find that D.T.V. again violated Section 73.1225(a) of the Rules by failing to 
make the Station available for inspection on September 30, 2011.  D.T.V. suggests that its failure to 
permit the inspection is somehow excused by “the earliness of the agents’ arrival,” claiming that the 
agents arrived at 8:50 a.m., ten minutes before the Station’s normal business hours began.
45
  D.T.V.’s 
account contradicts the agents’ contemporaneous notes and digital records showing that, in fact, the 
inspection occurred during normal business hours at 11:35 a.m.  Even assuming, arguendo, that the 
inspection occurred earlier, as D.T.V. claims, Section 73.1225(a) of the Rules requires that broadcast 
licensees must make a station available for inspection “during the station’s business hours, or at any time 
it is in operation.”
46
  D.T.V. provided no evidence that the Station was not in operation when the agents 
arrived on September 30, 2011.  Indeed, D.T.V.’s NAL Response indicates that the Station “operates 24 
hours a day, seven days per week.”
47
  As we stated in the NAL, effective enforcement of the Rules 
“requires licensees to provide FCC agents with timely access to their facilities.”
48
  “[I]t is the FCC’s 
policy to conduct immediate on-the-spot inspections without any delay.”
49
  Here, even in response to a 
face-to-face request from identified FCC agents, the Station Manager again failed to make the Station 
available for inspection and instead left the agents waiting outside the main studio gate, which remained 
locked, and returned inside the building.
50
  The agents had no idea when the Station would be made 
(Continued from previous page)                                                            
the Outer Banks, Inc., Memorandum Opinion and Order, 6 FCC Rcd 3615, 3616 & n.2, para. 9 (1991), clarified by,
7 FCC Rcd 6800 (1992); Birach Broad. Corp., Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture, 25 FCC Rcd 2635 (Enf. 
Bur. 2010).
42
NAL, 29 FCC Rcd at 5486, para. 12.
43
Id. at 5483–84, para. 3.
44
NAL Response at 8.
45
Id. at 3, 5.  
46
47 C.F.R. § 73.1225(a) (emphasis added).
47
NAL Response at 2.
48
NAL, 29 FCC Rcd at 5488, para. 18 (emphasis added).  See, e.g., William L. Leavell, Forfeiture Order, 15 FCC 
Rcd 2718, 2719, para. 5 (Enf. Bur. 2000) (“A refusal to allow or a significant delay in inspection can often shelter 
egregious violations and . . . can frustrate enforcement efforts.”); Q.M. Tomlinson, Inc., Order, 12 FCC Rcd 2981, 
2982, para. 6 (Compliance & Info. Bur. 1997) (“A refusal to allow inspection or a significant delay in allowing the 
inspection can often shelter egregious violation and is thus a serious violation.”); Norfolk S. Ry. Co., Order, 11 FCC 
Rcd 519, 519, para. 3 (Compliance & Info. Bur. 1996) (same); Jan Mar Courier, Inc., Order, 8 FCC Rcd 7570, 
7570, para. 7 (Field Ops. Bur. 1993) (“[I]mmediate on-the-spot inspections are necessary.”) (internal quotations 
omitted); see also Greenwood Acres Baptist Church, Memorandum Opinion and Order, 22 FCC Rcd 1442, 1444, 
para. 8 (Enf. Bur. 2007) (“[N]o advance notice or appointment is necessary for the Commission to conduct an 
inspection.”). It is for this reason that the offer by D.T.V.’s counsel following the Station Manager’s refusal to 
provide the agents access that he would answer any questions the agent had about the Station was inadequate.  The 
availability of counsel to answer questions is not a substitute for providing FCC agents with access to the station.
49
Jan Mar Courier, Inc., 8 FCC Rcd at 7571, para. 10 (emphasis added).
50
NAL, 29 FCC Rcd at 5484, paras. 5–6.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 16-41
6
available for inspection, if at all, or whether a delayed inspection would accurately assess the Station’s 
compliance.
51
  Consequently, we affirm our findings that D.T.V. willfully violated Section 73.1225(a) of 
the Rules by failing to make the Station available for inspection on September 30, 2011, and that D.T.V.’s 
inspection and main studio violations warrant monetary forfeitures.  
B. D.T.V.’s Repeated Failure to Make the Station Available for Inspection Constituted 
Egregious Misconduct Warranting a Significant Upward Forfeiture Adjustment
13. D.T.V. challenges the Commission’s determination that its repeated failure to make the 
Station available for inspection constituted egregious misconduct warranting application of the statutory 
maximum forfeiture for these violations.
52
  Specifically, D.T.V. contends that the situation is just the 
result of a misunderstanding between its Station Manager and the FCC agents and that its “conduct is far 
less problematic than conduct which, in other cases, has resulted in far smaller forfeitures,” particularly 
considering that D.T.V. has undergone multiple prior FCC inspections with no violations identified.
53
14.   We disagree.  D.T.V.’s repeated failure to make the Station available for inspection 
warrants imposition of the statutory maximum forfeiture.
54
  The Act, the Rules, and the Forfeiture Policy 
Statement afford the Commission considerable flexibility in determining the appropriate forfeiture based 
on a case’s particular circumstances.
55
  In particular, the Commission may upwardly adjust the base 
forfeiture for a particular violation if the violator’s actions constitute egregious misconduct.
56
  Here, 
notwithstanding multiple visits to the Station and unanswered phone calls to D.T.V.’s sole principal, the 
agents were never allowed access to the Station to inspect its facilities.
57
  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 
comprehensive inspection of the Station’s facilities and filings.”
58
  Denied access to the Station, the 
agents could not assess whether D.T.V. had met its obligations as a broadcast licensee, including its 
                                                     
51
See supra note 48 (finding delay in inspection can shelter egregious violations).
52
NAL Response at 5–7.
53
Id. at 5, 7 (emphasis omitted) (citing Brian R. Ragan, Forfeiture Order, 29 FCC Rcd 2613 (Enf. Bur. 2014); 
Nathaniel Johnson, Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture and Order, 28 FCC Rcd 7034 (Enf. Bur. 2013);
Taylor Broad. Co., Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture and Order, 27 FCC Rcd 1536 (Enf. Bur. 2012); Ira 
Jones, Forfeiture Order, 27 FCC Rcd 8317 (Enf. Bur. 2012); Christopher H. Bennett Broad. of Wash., Inc., 
Forfeiture Order, 23 FCC Rcd 11285).
54
NAL, 29 FCC Rcd at 5489, para. 19.
55
See 47 U.S.C. § 503(b)(2)(E); 47 C.F.R. § 1.80(b)(8); Forfeiture Policy Statement, 12 FCC Rcd at 17100–01, 
para. 27.
56
See, e.g., M.C. Dean, Inc., Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture, FCC 15-146, 2015 WL 6735577, paras. 
38–42 (Nov. 2, 2015) (proposing upward forfeiture adjustment for apparent indiscriminate Wi-Fi blocking at 
convention center); AT&T Inc., Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture, 30 FCC Rcd 856, 861, para. 12 (2015) 
(proposing upward forfeiture adjustment for numerous unauthorized operation and notice violations as well as
inexcusable delay in reporting and correcting such violations); 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 impacting public safety). 
57
In its NAL Response, D.T.V. states that, on August 17, “upon arriving at the station the Commission’s agents 
spoke with the station’s on-site manager, who was just then leaving to attend to a medical situation that had arisen.”  
NAL Response at 3.  In fact, faced with the locked gate upon the agents’ arrival, when one agent called the Station 
Manager to gain access to conduct an inspection of the Station, the Station Manager made no mention of his 
supposedly imminent departure for a medical appointment; instead, he asked the agents to wait by the gate.  The 
Station Manager first advised the agents of the appointment only when he came out ten minutes later, denied them 
access, and then drove away.  See NAL, 29 FCC Rcd at 5483, para. 2.  
58
Id. at 5488, para. 17.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 16-41
7
compliance with Rules aimed at protecting public safety like the Emergency Alert System.  D.T.V. failed 
to make the Station available for inspection on September 30 even after the agents, having been rebuffed 
on August 17, had advised the Station Manager and D.T.V.’s sole principal of the Station’s obligation to 
provide timely access and had warned them both that further failures to permit inspection could result in 
enforcement action.
59
  As we stated in the NAL, such conduct is “simply unacceptable” and “exhibited a 
blatant disregard of and contempt for the Commission’s authority.”
60
  Moreover, “[t]he licensee and its 
sole principal are experienced broadcasters and own numerous broadcast stations, including multiple 
Class A Television facilities across the country.  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.”
61
  Their repeated failure to meet that obligation here, 
even after being reminded of it by the agents, was, in fact, egregious. 
15. D.T.V.’s reference to prior Enforcement Bureau inspection cases where the statutory 
maximum forfeiture was not applied does not change our determination that this case “involved repeated, 
direct, in-person refusals of access by the highest levels of a broadcast station’s management,” warranting 
a significant upward forfeiture adjustment.
62
We stated that “a broadcast licensee’s continued refusal to 
allow FCC agents to inspect its station . . . is an egregious violation.”
63
  We see no reason to depart from 
this finding and affirm the application of the statutory maximum forfeiture to each of D.T.V.’s egregious 
failures to make the Station available for inspection.
C. D.T.V.’s Reliance on the Tower Site’s Owner and Post-Investigation Corrective 
Efforts Regarding its Unauthorized Operations Do Not Warrant a Forfeiture 
Reduction
16. D.T.V. states that it was “surprised” to learn from the Philadelphia Office that D.T.V. had 
operated the Station’s transmitter from an unauthorized location for approximately eight years.
64
  D.T.V. 
contends that it relied upon representatives of the tower site’s owner to ensure its transmitter operated in 
accordance with its authorization and maintains that it should “not be penalized for relying on that 
direction.”
65
  D.T.V. further states that it never received any interference complaints resulting from its 
unauthorized operations.
66
  In addition, D.T.V. notes that it immediately applied for modification of its 
license to bring the transmitter into compliance after learning of the violation from the Philadelphia 
Office.
67
   
17. We are unpersuaded by D.T.V.’s arguments.  As noted above, D.T.V. and its sole 
principal are experienced broadcasters, and its principal, through D.T.V. and other companies, owns 
                                                     
59
See supra paras. 4–5.
60
NAL, 29 FCC Rcd at 5488, para. 18.  See Fox Television Stations, Inc., Notice of Apparent Liability for 
Forfeiture, 25 FCC Rcd 7074, 7081, para. 15 (Enf. Bur. 2010) (“Misconduct of this type exhibits contempt for the 
Commission’s authority and threatens to compromise the Commission’s ability to adequately investigate violations 
of its rules.”).
61
NAL, 29 FCC Rcd at 5488, para. 18.  Similarly, the mere fact that D.T.V. previously had passed previous FCC 
inspections does not affect whether its actions in this case represented egregious misconduct.  In fact, these 
inspections further demonstrate that D.T.V. was well aware of its obligations as a licensee.  
62
Id.  See NAL Response at 5–7.
63
NAL, 29 FCC Rcd at 5488–89, para. 18.
64
NAL Response at 9.
65
Id.
66
Id.
67
Id.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 16-41
8
multiple broadcast stations.
68
  Licensees are charged with full knowledge of the Rules, including the 
obligation to operate transmission facilities in accordance with licensed parameters.
69
  Licensees are also 
responsible for violations committed by third parties and agents acting on their behalf to comply with the 
Rules.
70
  D.T.V. therefore cannot pass on its responsibility as a broadcast licensee to operate within 
licensed parameters to the tower site’s owner.  D.T.V. also cannot escape liability for its violations simply 
because it never received any complaints, as Section 73.1350(a) of the Rules does not require a showing 
that its unauthorized operations caused harmful interference; the Rule unconditionally requires that 
licensees operate in accordance with their station authorizations.
71
  
18. In addition, D.T.V.’s post-investigation corrective efforts to modify its facilities do not 
warrant a forfeiture reduction.  While the Commission will generally reduce a proposed forfeiture based 
on the good faith corrective efforts of a violator, those corrective efforts must be taken prior to 
notification of the violation.
72
  As the Commission has repeatedly stated, “corrective action taken to come 
into compliance with Commission rules or policy is expected, and does not nullify or mitigate any prior 
forfeitures or violations.”
73
  D.T.V. acknowledges that it did not undertake corrective efforts to resolve its 
unauthorized operations until after the Philadelphia Office had informed it of its violations, including its 
unauthorized operation.
74
  We therefore decline to reduce the proposed forfeiture on this basis.
D. No Forfeiture Reduction Is Appropriate 
19. D.T.V. asserts that it lacks sufficient income to pay the forfeiture proposed in the NAL.
75
  
In support of this claim, D.T.V. submits documents reflecting its financial status as well as information 
regarding two other companies owned by its sole principal.
76
    
20. With regard to an entity’s inability to pay claim, the Commission has determined that, in 
general, gross income or revenues are the best indicator of an ability to pay a forfeiture.
77
  Although the 
                                                     
68
See supra para. 14.
69
See, e.g., 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).
70
See, e.g., Eure Family Ltd. P’ship, Memorandum Opinion and Order, 17 FCC Rcd 21861 (2002) (reliance on a 
third-party contractor to monitor tower lights did not relieve a licensee of its responsibility for compliance with the
Commission’s rules).
71
47 C.F.R. § 73.1350(a).
72
See, e.g., Sutro Corp., Memorandum Opinion and Order, 19 FCC Rcd 15274, 15277, para. 10 (2004) (stating that 
the Commission will generally reduce a forfeiture “based on the good faith corrective efforts of a violator when 
those corrective efforts were taken prior to Commission notification of the violation”); Catholic Radio Network of 
Loveland, Inc., Forfeiture Order, 29 FCC Rcd 121, 122–23, para. 5 (Enf. Bur. 2014) (“The Commission will 
generally reduce an assessed forfeiture based on the good faith corrective efforts of a violator when those corrective 
efforts were taken prior to Commission notification of the violation.”) (emphasis in original); Argos Net, Inc., 
Forfeiture Order, 28 FCC Rcd 1126, 1127, para. 4 (Enf. Bur. 2013) (“[C]orrective action taken after notification or 
inspection by the Commission does not mitigate the violation . . . .”).  
73
See, e.g., Seawest Yacht Brokers, Notice of Forfeiture, 9 FCC Rcd 6099, 6099, para. 7 (1994) (citations omitted); 
Exec. Broad. Corp., Memorandum Opinion and Order, 3 FCC 2d 699, 700, para. 6 (1966) (“The fact that prompt 
corrective action was taken . . . does not excuse the prior violations.”).
74
NAL Response at 9.
75
Id.  
76
NAL Response at 9–10, Attachment.
77
See, e.g., Local Long Distance, Inc., Order of Forfeiture, 15 FCC Rcd 24385 (2000) (forfeiture not deemed 
excessive where it represented approximately 7.9 percent of the violator’s gross revenues).
Federal Communications Commission FCC 16-41
9
financial information provided by D.T.V. indicates that the company lacks sufficient gross income to pay 
the proposed forfeiture, the Commission’s inability to pay analysis is not a strict mathematical exercise.  The 
Forfeiture Policy Statement provides that “we must look to the totality of the circumstances surrounding
the individual case”
78
when an entity asserts it cannot pay a forfeiture and “review[] all responses to 
NALs that claim inability to pay a forfeiture on a case-by-case basis.”
79
  
21. In this regard, the Commission looks to all potential sources of income available to the 
entity, such as a parent company or owner-operator.
80
  Despite repeated requests, D.T.V. refused to provide 
tax returns or other financial information regarding its sole principal, who has exclusive ownership of 
D.T.V.’s multiple stations as well as other Class A and TV translator stations.  Thus, we do not have 
sufficient financial information to conclude that DTV and its sole principal lack the ability to pay the 
forfeiture.  D.T.V. also failed to mention its pending sale of the Station, which will yield it $6,400,000 in 
a transaction that has already been approved by the Media Bureau.
81
  Under these circumstances, D.T.V.’s 
claim of its inability to pay the subject forfeiture is disingenuous. 
22. Moreover, an entity’s inability to pay is only one factor in our forfeiture calculation 
analysis, and is not dispositive.
82
  We have previously rejected inability to pay claims in cases of repeated 
or otherwise egregious violations.
83
  Here, we find that the gravity of D.T.V.’s egregious failures to 
repeatedly make the Station available for inspection, coupled with its eight years of unauthorized 
                                                     
78
Forfeiture Policy Statement, 12 FCC Rcd at 17158, para. 113.
79
Id. at 17107, para. 43.
80
Id. at 17158, para. 113.  See e.g., A-O Broad. Corp., Memorandum Opinion and Order, 20 FCC Rcd 756 (2005) 
(violator’s whole financial picture is needed to fully assess its inability to pay claim); SM Radio, Inc., Order on 
Review, 23 FCC Rcd 2429 (2008) (licensee must provide financial data concerning all potential sources of income 
available to it); KASA Radio Hogar, Memorandum Opinion and Order, 17 FCC Rcd 6256, 6258, para. 4 (2002) 
(“[I]t is the Commission’s general policy to consider the financial condition of a licensee’s consolidated operations, 
not just the financial condition of an individual station or a limited portion of its operations.”); Emery Tel., 
Memorandum Opinion and Order, 13 FCC Rcd 23854, 23859–60, para. 13 (1998) (“[I]ncome from other affiliated 
operations, as well as the financial status of the station(s) in question, can be taken into account” in evaluating an 
inability to pay claim), recon. denied, 15 FCC Rcd 7181 (1999).
81
By Asset Purchase Agreement dated October 26, 2012, D.T.V. agreed to sell the Station to LocusPoint WPHA 
Licensee, LLC, in an assignment approved by the Media Bureau (File No. BALDTA-2012102AEU).  The 
Agreement indicated that D.T.V. was to receive $6,400,000 for the Station.  By letter dated April 30, 2014, from 
Ravi Potharlanka, President and CFO, LocusPoint Networks, LLC to William Lake, Chief, Media Bureau, FCC, 
LocusPoint noted that the Media Bureau had delayed action on the then-pending assignment application and an 
application to renew the Station license pending resolution of this enforcement matter, and claimed that D.T.V. 
delayed resolving the matter “all in the hope that it could attempt to terminate the Agreement in favor of pursuing 
another transaction.”  On August 11, 2015, D.T.V. amended the assignment application to state that it “has given 
notice to [LocusPoint] of termination of the Purchase Agreement.  While the assignee has filed a civil lawsuit 
seeking specific performance, the assignor adheres to its position that the termination notice is valid.”  By an August 
15, 2015 Order Re: Motions for Summary Judgment in that proceeding (Case No. 14-cv-01278-JSC) before the 
United States District Court, Northern District of California, the court granted LocusPoint summary judgment and 
ordered specific performance, directing D.T.V. to proceed with the sale of the Station to LocusPoint pursuant to that 
Agreement.  On September 3, 2015, D.T.V. appealed and sought a stay of the court’s ruling.  The United States 
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit subsequently granted LocusPoint’s motion to dismiss D.T.V.’s appeal.  
82
47 U.S.C. § 503(b)(2)(E).
83
See, e.g., 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).
Federal Communications Commission FCC 16-41
10
operation, would militate against any reduction of the forfeiture even if the licensee had a substantiated 
inability to pay.
84
  Nothing in the record in this case, including the incomplete financial information 
provided by D.T.V., warrants any leniency or mitigation of the penalty amount and we therefore decline to 
reduce the forfeiture based on D.T.V.’s purported inability to pay.
85
IV. CONCLUSION
23. Based on the record before us and in light of the applicable statutory factors, we conclude 
that D.T.V. willfully and repeatedly violated Sections 73.1225(a) and 73.1350(a) of the Rules by failing 
to make the Station available for inspection by FCC agents on multiple occasions and operate the 
Station’s transmitter from an authorized location, and willfully violated Section 73.1125(a) by failing to 
maintain a fully staffed main studio for the Station.
86
  After weighing the entire record, including D.T.V.’s 
NAL Response, we decline to cancel or reduce the $89,200 forfeiture proposed in the NAL.  
V. ORDERING CLAUSES
24. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Act
87
and Section 
1.80 of the Rules,
88
D.T.V., LLC IS LIABLE FOR A MONETARY FORFEITURE in the amount of 
eighty-nine thousand two hundred dollars ($89,200) for willfully or repeatedly violating Sections 
73.1125(a), 73.1225(a), and 73.1350(a) of the Rules.
89
25. Payment of the forfeiture shall be made in the manner provided for in Section 1.80 of the 
Rules within thirty (30) calendar days after the release of this Forfeiture Order.
90
  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.
91
  
26. 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 NER-Response@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.
92
  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:
                                                     
84
See supra paras. 13–15; NAL, 29 FCC Rcd at 5488–89, paras. 18–19; Michael Guernsey, Forfeiture Order, 30 
FCC Rcd 7354 (Enf. Bur. 2015) (egregiousness of licensee’s repeated willful acts warranted assessment of the full 
forfeiture amount despite violator’s financial condition); Whisler Fleurinor, Forfeiture Order, 28 FCC Rcd 1087 
(Enf. Bur. 2013) (rejecting inability to pay claim because violator’s demonstrated inability to pay was outweighed 
by the gravity of repeated operation of an unlicensed radio station); Hodson Broad., Forfeiture Order, 24 FCC Rcd 
13699 (Enf. Bur. 2009) (holding that permittee’s continued unauthorized operation outweighed its inability to pay 
claim).
85
If D.T.V. cannot make full payment of the forfeiture imposed within 30 days, it can request an installment plan as 
described in paragraph 27 of this Forfeiture Order 
86
47 C.F.R. §§ 73.1125(a), 73.1225(a), 73.1350(a).
87
47 U.S.C. § 503(b).
88
47 C.F.R. § 1.80.
89
47 C.F.R. §§ 73.1125(a). 73.1225(a). 73.1350(a).
90
47 C.F.R. § 1.80.
91
47 U.S.C. § 504(a).
92
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 FCC 16-41
11
? 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.
27. 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.
93
  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.
28. 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 D.T.V., LLC, 1903 South Greeley Highway 
#127, Cheyenne, Wyoming 82007, and to Peter Tannenwald, counsel for D.T.V., LLC, Fletcher, Heald, 
& Hildreth, P.L.C., 1300 North 17
th
Street, 11
th
Floor, Arlington, Virginia 22209.
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
Marlene H. Dortch
Secretary
                                                     
93
See 47 C.F.R. § 1.1914.