Click here for Adobe Acrobat version
Click here for Microsoft Word version


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 17-1018
Before the
Federal Communications Commission
Washington, DC 20554
In the Matter of
Michael Dudley
Guntersville, AL
File No.:  EB-FIELDSCR-16-00021618
NAL/Acct. No.:  201732480002 
FRN:  0025972464 
Adopted:  October 16, 2017 Released:  October 17, 2017
By the Regional Director, Region Two, Enforcement Bureau:
1. We impose a penalty of $15,000 on Michael Dudley for operating an unlicensed radio 
station on 103.9 MHz in Guntersville, Alabama in violation of Section 301 of the Communications Act of 
1934, as amended (Act).1 Mr. Dudley does not deny that he operated an illegal station, but argues that the 
station did not interfere with any other stations, that no one was harmed by the station’s operation, and 
that he does not have the resources to pay the forfeiture.  After reviewing Mr. Dudley’s response to the 
NAL, we find no reason to cancel, withdraw, or reduce the proposed penalty, and assess the $15,000 
forfeiture the Bureau previously proposed.  
2. On May 3, 2016, in response to a complaint, an Agent from the Atlanta Field Office 
(Atlanta Office) of the Commission’s Enforcement Bureau (Bureau) conducted an investigation and 
determined that Mr. Dudley was operating an unlicensed radio station on 103.9 MHz at his residence in 
Guntersville, Alabama.2 When the Agent determined that Mr. Dudley was not at his residence, he left a 
hand-written Notice of Unauthorized Operation (NOUO). 3 Later, the Agent telephoned Mr. Dudley and 
provided a verbal warning that operation of a broadcast station without authorization is illegal.4 During 
the telephone call, Mr. Dudley promised to turn the transmitter off.5 The Bureau followed up by mailing 
him a NOUO on May 10, 2016.6 On May 11, Mr. Dudley voluntarily surrendered the transmitting 
equipment by mailing it to the Atlanta Office.7  
3. On July 14, 2016, in response to another complaint about an unauthorized station on 
1 47 U.S.C. § 301.
2 Michael Dudley, Guntersville, AL, Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture, 31 FCC Rcd 11736, 11736, para. 2 
(EB 2016) (NAL).  The NAL includes a more complete discussion of the facts and history of this case and is 
incorporated herein by reference. 
3 NAL, 31 FCC Rcd at 11736, para. 2.    
4 NAL, 31 FCC Rcd at 11736, para. 2.
5 When the Agent found that Mr. Dudley was not at home, the Agent telephoned Mr. Dudley.  Mr. Dudley said 
during the telephone call that he was out of town but would turn the transmitter off when he returned the next day.  
NAL, 31 FCC Rcd at 11736, para. 2.   
6 NAL, 31 FCC Rcd at 11736, para. 2. 
7 NAL, 31 FCC Rcd at 11736, para. 2.    
Federal Communications Commission DA 17-1018
107.9 MHz near Mr. Dudley’s residence, an Agent again called Mr. Dudley.8 Mr. Dudley admitted that
he was operating another unauthorized station and refused to turn it off.9 Agents visited Mr. Dudley’s 
residence on July 18, 2016, and confirmed that an unauthorized station was being operated at that 
residence.10 No one responded when the Agents knocked on the door, but Mr. Dudley contacted one of 
the Agents later that day and admitted again that he was operating a station without a license.11
4. On October 20, 2016, the Bureau issued the NAL, proposing a $15,000 forfeiture against 
Mr. Dudley for his apparent willful and repeated violation of Section 301 Act12 by operating an FM radio 
broadcast transmitter without Commission authorization.  That proposed forfeiture amount was 
comprised of a base forfeiture of $10,000, and an upward adjustment of $5,000 due to Mr. Dudley’s  
deliberate disregard for the Commission’s authority and requirements by operating the unauthorized 
station after being put on notice that his actions contravened the Act.13  
5. On October 31, 2016, Mr. Dudley filed a response to the NAL.14 Although he does not 
deny operating the station, Mr. Dudley makes a number of arguments as to why the NAL should be 
cancelled and the forfeiture reduced or rescinded.  Specifically, Mr. Dudley argues that he had ceased 
operating the station, that the station had not caused interference and so had not harmed anyone, and that 
he is unable to pay the forfeiture.    
6. For the reasons discussed below, we reject Mr. Dudley’s arguments and assess a $15,000 
forfeiture against Mr. Dudley for operating an unlicensed radio station in violation of Section 301 of the 
A. Post-Sanction Compliance Does Not Warrant a Reduction in the Proposed Penalty 
7. Mr. Dudley does not deny the facts in the NAL.  Rather, he argues in part that he should 
not be liable for a forfeiture because he ceased operating the station.15  
8. We are unpersuaded.  Mr. Dudley’s one page NAL Response does not indicate whether 
he ceased the illegal operations after the issuance of the Bureau NAL or if instead he is merely referring 
to the interim period between when he ceased operations temporarily between the first set of NOUOs and 
his resumption of illegal broadcasting.  In either event, we decline to reduce or cancel the forfeiture.  The 
Commission has held that remedial action taken in response to Commission enforcement action is not a 
reason to reduce a forfeiture,16 and Mr. Dudley provides no basis for departing from that precedent here.  
Both potential scenarios merely evidence, at best, compliance after an enforcement action was taken.  
Moreover, in the latter scenario, his remedial action was only temporary.  Mr. Dudley began broadcasting 
without a Commission license again just a few months after suspending his operations.  That he changed 
transmitting frequencies only shows that he intended to evade Commission detection. Thus, we decline to 
8 NAL, 31 FCC Rcd at 11737, para. 3.
9 NAL, 31 FCC Rcd at 11737, para. 3.
10 NAL, 31 FCC Rcd at 11737, para. 4.
11 NAL, 31 FCC Rcd at 11737, para. 4.
12 47 U.S.C. § 301.
13 NAL, 31 FCC Rcd at 11738-39, para. 7. 
14 Michael Dudley, Response to Notice of Apparent Liability (Oct. 31, 2016) (on file in File No. EB-FIELDSCR-16-
00021618) (NAL Response).    
15 NAL Response at 1.  
16 See Dialing Services, Forfeiture Order, 32 FCC Rcd 6192, para. 32 (2017).
Federal Communications Commission DA 17-1018
reduce or cancel the proposed forfeiture due to actions Mr. Dudley may have taken after we took 
enforcement action.    
B. Mr. Dudley’s Assertion that He Did Not Cause Harmful Interference Is Irrelevant 
to Establishing a Section 301 Violation
9. We are unpersuaded by Mr. Dudley’s argument that the proposed fine should be reduced 
because of his claim that his station did not cause interference and that no one was harmed by his 
unauthorized operation of the station.  First, this claim is inconsistent with two complaints received by the 
Commission regarding Mr. Dudley’s unauthorized operation.17 Second, even if Mr. Dudley’s statements 
were true, the Commission has previously considered and rejected this argument.  Specifically, the 
Commission found that Section 301 does not require a finding of interference before the Commission can 
prohibit unauthorized transmissions, because the Section 301 “licensing scheme is intended to facilitate 
broadcasting by protecting the service areas of those licensed to broadcast.  Otherwise, the potential for 
chaos on the airwaves would severely undermine the ability of others to use the radio spectrum.”18  
Enforcement of Section 301, therefore, is critical to protect the integrity of the licensing system and the 
operations of licensed users, regardless of whether the unauthorized transmission causes harmful 
interference.  Consequently, Mr. Dudley’s assertion that he did not cause interference is neither relevant 
to our finding of a Section 301 violation nor factually supported by the record.  We thus decline to reduce 
or cancel the proposed forfeiture on this basis.  
C. Mr. Dudley Has Provided No Basis to Reduce the Forfeiture for Inability to Pay   
10. We decline to reduce or cancel the forfeiture on the basis of Mr. Dudley’s unsupported 
statement that he has no assets or income, suggesting that the forfeiture amount should be reduced or 
cancelled based on his inability to pay.19 The NAL stated that the Commission will not consider a request 
for a reduction or cancellation of a proposed forfeiture unless the person who is subject to the NAL has 
requested such reduction or cancellation and submitted “a detailed factual statement supported by 
appropriate documentation and affidavits pursuant to Sections 1.16 and 1.80(f)(3) of the rules.”20 The 
NAL also explained that to support a claim of inability to pay, Mr. Dudley would need to submit (1) 
federal tax returns for the most recent three-year period; (2) financial statements prepared according to 
generally accepted accounting practices; or (3) some other reliable and objective documentation that 
accurately reflects the petitioner’s current financial status.21 Mr. Dudley did not submit any of the 
documentation or affidavits required by the Commission’s rules that would enable the Commission to 
evaluate an appropriate forfeiture based on his income.  Accordingly, we find no basis to reduce or cancel 
the forfeiture based on an alleged inability to pay. 
17 See Section II above.   
18 Application for Review of Stephen Paul Dunifer, Memorandum Opinion and Order, 11 FCC Rcd 718, 726-27, 
paras. 21-22 (1995) (subsequent history omitted), citing National Broadcasting Co. v. United States, 319 U.S. 190, 
209-17 (1943). 
19 NAL Response at 1. 
20 NAL, 31 FCC Rcd at 11740, para. 12.
21 NAL, 31 FCC Rcd at 11740, para. 13. 
Federal Communications Commission DA 17-1018
11. Based on the record before us, and in light of the applicable statutory factors,22 we 
conclude that Mr. Dudley willfully and repeatedly violated Section 301 by operating an unauthorized 
radio station, and that the proposed forfeiture of $15,000 properly reflects the seriousness, duration, and 
scope of Mr. Dudley’s violations.  We decline to cancel or reduce the $15,000 forfeiture proposed in the 
12. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 503(b) of the Act,23 and Section 
amount of Fifteen Thousand dollars ($15,000) for willfully and repeatedly violating Section 301 of the 
13. 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.25 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.26  
14. 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.  Michael Dudley 
shall send electronic notification of payment to Janet Moran at and SCR- on the date said payment is made.  Regardless of the form of payment, a completed 
FCC Form 159 (Remittance Advice) must be submitted.27 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, 
22 47 U.S.C. § 503(b)(2)(E); 47 CFR 1.80; 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).   
23 47 U.S.C. § 503(b).
24 47 CFR § 1.80.
25 Id.
26 47 U.S.C. § 504(a).
27 An FCC Form 159 and detailed instructions for completing the form may be obtained at
Federal Communications Commission DA 17-1018
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 
15. 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 20554.28 Questions regarding payment procedures should be 
directed to the Financial Operations Group Help Desk by telephone, 1-877-480-3201, or by e-mail,
16. 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 Michael Dudley at his address of record.  
Ronald Ramage
Regional Director
Region Two
Enforcement Bureau
28 See 47 CFR § 1.1914.