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

*****************************************************************




                           Before the
                Federal Communications Commission
                     Washington, D.C. 20554

In the Matter of                 )
                                 )
Entravision Holdings, LLC        )           File No. EB-04-TP-161
                                 )
Licensee of Station WVEA-LP      )      NAL/Acct. No. 200532700004
Tampa, Florida                   )
Facility ID # 3602               )                  FRN 0001529627

                                

           NOTICE OF APPARENT LIABILITY FOR FORFEITURE

                                             Released:  January 
5, 2005
                                             
By the District Director, Tampa Office, South Central Region, 
Enforcement Bureau:

I.   INTRODUCTION

     1.   In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture 
(``NAL''), we find that Entravision Holdings, LLC 
(``Entravision''), licensee of station WVEA-LP, 662-668 MHz, in 
Tampa, Florida, apparently willfully and repeatedly violated 
Section 1.1310 of the Commission's Rules (``Rules'')1 by failing 
to comply with radio frequency radiation (``RFR'') maximum 
permissible exposure (``MPE'') limits applicable to facilities, 
operations, or transmitters.  We conclude, pursuant to Section 
503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (``Act''),2 
that Entravision is apparently liable for forfeiture in the 
amount of twenty-five thousand dollars ($25,000).                

II.  BACKGROUND

     2.   Entravision, licensee of station WVEA-LP, certified 
compliance with the RFR MPE limits in its application for a minor 
change to its licensed facility granted January 20, 2004.3  The 
application contained an exhibit stating that station WVEA-LP 
would create a worst case field of 0.0037 mw/cm2, which is 0.84% 
of the 0.44 mw/cm2 general public limit, at the Park Tower Office 
Building located at 400 North Tampa Street, Tampa, Florida.  An 
exhibit to the application stated that access to the transmitting 
site would be restricted and properly marked with warning signs.  
In addition, the exhibit stated that an agreement between and 
among the other licensees at the Park Tower Office Building 
containing appropriate measures to assure worker safety would be 
in effect in the event that workers or authorized personnel enter 
the restricted area.  

     3.   On May 25, 2004, agents from the Commission's Tampa 
Office of the Enforcement Bureau (``agent'' or ``agents'') 
inspected the rooftop of the Park Tower Office Building.  Access 
to the main rooftop was restricted to individuals with special 
keycards.  Signs on the rooftop access doors stated that areas on 
the rooftop exceed the Commission's public RFR limits.  However, 
the signs did not indicate which areas on the rooftop exceeded 
the public or general population RFR limits.  Using a calibrated 
RFR meter, an agent found areas on the rooftop that exceeded the 
general population limit by 75-200%.  The agents continued to the 
penthouse rooftop, which was restricted by an additional lock 
controlled by the front desk and accessed without passing by the 
warning signs on the main rooftop access doors.  There were no 
RFR warning signs found on the penthouse rooftop, penthouse 
rooftop access door to the stairwell, inside the stairwell, or on 
the hatch itself.  While surveying the penthouse rooftop, an 
agent, using a calibrated RFR meter, found that approximately 75% 
of the penthouse rooftop exceeded the RFR MPE general population 
limit.  The agent also found an unmarked and un-posted area 
exceeding the RFR MPE occupational limit within an 8-10 foot 
radius of a tower containing a UHF TV antenna, later identified 
as belonging to station WVEA-LP.  The average power density level 
for this area measured 1700% of the general population RFR MPE 
limit or 340% of the RFR MPE occupational limit.  The bottom of 
the antenna was approximately three feet above the rooftop.  The 
agent determined that there was a second UHF-TV and two FM radio 
stations all on separate towers located on the penthouse rooftop 
at the time of inspection.  The Park Tower Office Building's 
chief engineer, who accompanied the agents on this inspection, 
stated he and his personnel were not aware of areas exceeding the 
general population and occupational limits on the penthouse 
rooftop pointed out to him by the agent.  The building's chief 
engineer stated that he and his personnel access this rooftop on 
a fairly regular basis to inspect it for maintenance and to 
conduct roofing repairs.  He also stated that neither he nor any 
of his maintenance crew or subcontractors had received any 
training with respect to RFR hazards.      

     4.   On June 18, 2004, an agent returned to the penthouse 
rooftop of the Park Tower Office Building, gathered more 
information, and made additional measurements.  The agent found 
power density levels in excess of the RFR MPE general population 
and occupational limits, similar to those detected on May 25, 
2004.  There were no RFR warning signs posted in the stairwell 
that accessed the penthouse rooftop or on the penthouse rooftop 
itself.  

     5.   On July 1, 2004, the WVEA-LP station engineer 
accompanied agents on their inspection of the penthouse rooftop.  
Before conducting any testing, the station engineer stated he 
knew areas near his antenna exceeded the occupational limits and 
that the area should have been posted with warning signs to alert 
those accessing the roof of the hazard.  To determine if 
Entravision was responsible for the high fields in the area 
around station WVEA-LP's antenna, the station engineer was asked 
to take the station off the air.  With station WVEA-LP on the 
air, the fields around the antenna measured 1,865% of the general 
population limit or 373% of the occupational limit.  After 
station WVEA-LP was taken off the air, the fields measured 110% 
of the general population limit or 22% of the occupational limit.  
Therefore, station WVEA-LP was causing 1,755% of the general 
population limit, 351% of the occupational limit, or 7.75 mW/cm2.  
The agents verbally warned the station engineer of this RFR 
violation.  The agent informed the station engineer that to 
comply with the RFR requirements the station should post warning 
signs in the stairwell entrance and the rooftop to identify the 
areas exceeding the RFR limits, especially those exceeding the 
occupational limit.  The agent also suggested that the station 
work with the building's chief engineer to restrict access to the 
specific area exceeding the occupational limits and only allow 
those having RFR training to access the area.  Finally, the agent 
suggested that, in addition to the required RFR training, the 
station could offer building workers, who access the rooftop, 
individual RFR warning devices.  

     6.   On July 16, 2004, agents conducted another inspection 
of the penthouse rooftop.  Entravision placed a small, framed 
caution sign in the stairwell to the penthouse roof hatch that 
listed contact information for the station engineer.  Entravision 
marked with yellow paint the penthouse rooftop area exceeding the 
occupational RFR MPE limit, but did not place warning signs on 
the penthouse rooftop itself.  Agents conducted measurements 
similar to those conducted on July 1 with the four licensees 
located at the site.4  When all four stations were on the air, 
the overall field was 1,950% of the general population limit and 
390% of the occupational limit.  On/off measurements were then 
conducted with each of the four stations, which found that 
station WVEA-LP was solely causing 1850% of the general 
population limit, 370% of the occupational limit, or 8.2 mw/cm2.5  
The station engineer for WVEA-LP was warned that the sign posted 
in the stairwell was inadequate due to its size and its poor 
visibility in the darkened stairwell.  The agents again explained 
to the station engineer the RFR requirements. 

     7.   On July 20, 2004, an agent contacted the WVEA-LP 
station engineer to discuss the July 16th inspection.  The 
station engineer stated he had not yet posted a sign on the 
rooftop or spoken with the building's chief engineer.  The agent 
reminded the station engineer of the station's responsibility to 
comply with the Commission's RFR requirements.

     8.   On August 17, 2004, an agent re-inspected the penthouse 
rooftop of the Park Tower Office Building.  There was no sign 
posted on the penthouse rooftop as requested on July 1, 16, and 
20 or on the tower itself as requested on July 16, and 20.  The 
building's chief engineer stated the WVEA-LP engineer spoke to 
him regarding the yellow lines painted on the roof, but had not 
discussed any policy to limit rooftop access only to those with 
RFR training.  

     9.   On September 30, 2004, agents re-inspected the 
penthouse rooftop.  The agents found power density levels in 
excess of the RFR MPE general population and occupational limits, 
similar to those previously detected.  Entravision had placed a 
sign on its tower that cautioned workers that the yellow striped 
area exceeds safe occupational levels.  The sign, however, did 
not list any station contact information.  

     10.  On October 26, 2004, the building's chief engineer 
stated that Entravision had not yet contacted him to restrict 
access to the penthouse rooftop only to workers who had received 
RFR training.  On November 5, 2004, the building's chief engineer 
contacted the Tampa office and stated that station WVEA-LP told 
him that the transmitter power had been reduced and the penthouse 
rooftop was now well below the occupational limits.  Agents made 
measurements the same day and confirmed there were no areas on 
the penthouse rooftop that exceeded the occupational/controlled 
RFR MPE limit.  There were areas, however, that were still well 
above the general population/uncontrolled limits.

III.       DISCUSSION

     11.  Section 1.1310 of the Rules requires licensees to 
comply with occupational and general population MPE limits for 
electric and magnetic field strength and power density for 
transmitters operating at frequencies from 300 kHz to 100 GHz.6  
The MPE limits specified in Table 1 of Section 1.1310 are used to 
evaluate the environmental impact of human exposure to RFR and 
apply to ``...all facilities, operations and transmitters 
regulated by the Commission.''7  Table 1 in Section 1.1310 of the 
Rules provides that the general population/uncontrolled RFR 
maximum permissible exposure limit given in terms of mw/cm2 for a 
station operating in the frequency range of 300 MHz to 1500 MHz 
is determined by the calculation of f/1500 where f is the 
frequency in MHz.8  Because station WVEA-LP is licensed to 
operate on 662-668 MHz, its general population limit is 0.44 
mW/cm2.  Table 1 in Section 1.1310 of the Rules provides that the 
occupational/controlled RFR maximum permissible exposure limit 
given in terms of mw/cm2 for a station operating in the frequency 
range of 300 MHz to 1500 MHz is determined by the calculation of 
f/300 where f is the frequency in MHz. 9  Because station WVEA-LP 
is licensed to operate on 662-668 MHz, its occupational limit is 
2.2 mW/cm2.  Licensees bear the responsibility to restrict access 
to areas that exceed the RFR MPE limits or to modify the facility 
and operation so as to bring the station's operation into 
compliance with the RFR exposure limits prior to worker or public 
access to the impacted area.10  

     12.  According to the building's chief engineer, none of his 
workers, who accessed the penthouse rooftop on a fairly regular 
basis in the course of their duties, were aware of the areas that 
exceeded the general population RFR MPE limit on the penthouse 
rooftop.  In addition, the building's chief engineer stated none 
of these workers received any RFR training.  Moreover, the areas 
on the penthouse rooftop that exceeded the general population RFR 
MPE limit were not marked in any way.  Although a generic warning 
sign was placed by the entrance to the main rooftop, this sign 
could not be seen by workers approaching the penthouse rooftop 
and was insufficient to warn workers of the hazards on the 
penthouse rooftop.11  Thus, these workers were ``exposed as a 
consequence of their employment, [were not] fully aware of the 
potential for exposure, and [could] not exercise control over 
their exposure.''12  Therefore, even though access was controlled 
by locks, the penthouse rooftop was subject to the Commission's 
general population limits.13  

     13.  On May 25, June 18, July 1, July 16, and September 30, 
2004, agents determined that approximately 75% of the penthouse 
rooftop exceeded the general population RFR MPE limit.  The 
agents also found that Entravision's transmitter for station 
WVEA-LP produced power density levels that were as much as 1850% 
of its general population limit.  Accordingly, Entravision was 
responsible for ensuring compliance with the RFR Rules.  
Entravision, however, failed to limit worker access to the areas 
on the penthouse rooftop that exceeded the general population 
limit.  Workers were able to gain entrance to the penthouse 
rooftop on a fairly regular basis and had complete access to all 
areas on the penthouse rooftop, including the area that was 
1,950% of the general population limit.  Entravision also did not 
post any RFR warning signs on the penthouse rooftop or its 
entrance and did not contact the building's chief engineer about 
the hazard prior to the agents' inspection.  Thus, Entravision 
failed to provide workers knowledge of and control over their 
exposure.  Based on the evidence, we find that Entravision 
produced power density levels in excess of the general population 
RFR MPE limit and failed to warn adequately workers of the areas 
that exceeded the general population RFR MPE limit in apparent 
willful14 and repeated15 violation of Section 1.1310 of the 
Rules. 

     14.  On May 25, June 18, July 1, July 16, and September 30, 
2004, agents determined that certain areas of the penthouse 
rooftop exceeded both the general population and 
occupational/controlled RFR MPE limits.  Specifically, the area 
within an 8-10 foot radius around station WVEA-LP's tower 
measured 390% of the occupational/controlled RFR MPE limit.  
Agents determined that Entravision's transmitter produced power 
density levels that were 370% of its occupational limit in this 
area.  However, Entravision did not in any way highlight, mark, 
or limit access to the areas on the penthouse rooftop that 
exceeded the occupational limit or alert the building engineer of 
the RF levels, prior to the Commission's July 1st inspection and 
warning.  Because the workers had no knowledge of the RFR levels 
on the penthouse rooftop, they did not have the ability to 
control or limit their exposure.  Although Entravision 
highlighted in yellow the affected areas by July 16, it did not 
post an obvious RFR warning sign on the penthouse rooftop until 
after August 17, 2004, more than a month after their first oral 
warning.  Thus, we find that Entravision also apparently 
willfully and repeatedly violated Section 1.1310 of the Rules by 
producing power density levels in excess of its occupational 
limit and failing to warn adequately workers of the RFR hazard.  

     15.   The Commission's Forfeiture Policy Statement and 
Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of the Rules to Incorporate the 
Forfeiture Guidelines (``Forfeiture Policy Statement'')16 does 
not specify a base forfeiture for violation of the RFR maximum 
permissible exposure limits in Section 1.1310.17  However, the 
Commission has determined that an appropriate base forfeiture 
amount for violation of the RFR MPE limits is $10,000, reflecting 
the public safety nature of the rules.18  In assessing the 
proposed monetary forfeiture amount, we must also take into 
account the statutory factors set forth in Section 503(b)(2)(D) 
of the Act, which include 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 other such matters as justice may require.19  

     16.  We are troubled with Entravision's apparent disregard 
for the Commission's RFR requirements. Areas on the penthouse 
rooftop exceeded the general population/uncontrolled limit by 
over 1,850 percent and the occupational/controlled RFR MPE limit 
by over 290 percent.  Entravision's station engineer admitted 
that he was aware that areas exceeded the occupational limits and 
should have been marked with warning signs, but he did not inform 
the building's engineer or workers of this safety hazard and did 
not in any way highlight, mark, or limit access to the areas 
prior to the agents' inspection.  Even though it painted the 
areas exceeding the occupational level with yellow lines by July 
16, 2004, Entravision waited more than 30 days after receiving an 
oral warning on July 1, 2004 before alerting the building's chief 
engineer of the affected areas and posting an obvious RFR warning 
sign on its tower.  Entravision failed to correct these 
violations even though it was aware of the RFR requirements.  In 
its application granted January 20, 2004, Entravision certified 
that it was compliant with the RFR Rules.  Moreover, it 
specifically asserted in an exhibit to its application that the 
transmitting site would be ``appropriately marked with warning 
signs'' and that an agreement would be in effect to ensure worker 
safety with respect to RFR exposure.  Accordingly, we believe a 
significant upward adjustment of the base forfeiture amount is 
warranted, even though Entravision has since come into 
compliance.20  Applying the Forfeiture Policy Statement, Section 
1.80, and statutory factors to the instant case, we conclude that 
it is appropriate to increase the base forfeiture amount for 
Entravision's apparent violations.  Therefore, we find 
Entravision apparently liable for a forfeiture in the amount of 
$25,000.  

IV.        ORDERING CLAUSES

     17.  Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 
503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended,21 and 
Sections 0.111, 0.311, and 1.80 of the Commission's Rules,22 
Entravision Holdings, LLC, licensee of station WVEA-LP, is hereby 
NOTIFIED of this APPARENT LIABILITY FOR A FORFEITURE in the 
amount of twenty-five thousand dollars ($25,000) for willful and 
repeated violation of Section 1.1310 of the Rules by failing to 
comply with general population and occupational radio frequency 
radiation maximum permissible exposure limits.

     18.  IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 1.80 of 
the Commission's Rules, within thirty days of the release date of 
this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture, Entravision 
Holdings, LLC SHALL PAY the full amount of the proposed 
forfeiture or SHALL FILE a written statement seeking reduction or 
cancellation of the proposed forfeiture.

     19.  Payment of the forfeiture must be made by check or 
similar instrument, payable to the order of the Federal 
Communications Commission.  Payment by check or money order may 
be mailed to Forfeiture Collection Section, Finance Branch, 
Federal Communications Commission, P.O. Box 73482, Chicago, IL 
60673-7482.  Payment by overnight mail may be sent to Bank One/LB 
73482, 525 West Monroe, 8th Floor Mailroom, Chicago, IL 60661.   
Payment by wire transfer may be made to ABA Number 071000013, 
receiving bank Bank One, and account number 1165259.  The payment 
should note NAL/Acct. No. 200532700004, and FRN 0001529627.  
Requests for payment of the full amount of this NAL under an 
installment plan should be sent to: Chief, Revenue and Receivable 
Operations Group, 445 12th Street, S.W., Washington, D.C. 
20554.23

     20.  The response, if any, must be mailed to Federal 
Communications Commission, Enforcement Bureau, South Central 
Region, Tampa Office, Suite 1215, 2203 North Lois Avenue, Tampa, 
FL  33607-2356 within thirty days of the release date of this 
NAL, and must include the NAL/Acct. No. referenced in the 
caption.  

     21.  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 practices (``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.

     22.  IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this NAL shall be 
sent by Certified Mail, Return Receipt Requested, and regular 
mail, to Entravision Holdings, LLC, Suite 6000 West, 2425 Olympic 
Boulevard, Santa Monica, CA 90404.



                                FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS 
COMMISSION




                                Ralph Barlow
                                District Director
                                Tampa Office
                                Enforcement Bureau


cc:  WVEA-LP

_________________________

147 C.F.R.  1.1310.  See also Guidelines for Evaluating the 
Environmental Effects of Radiofrequency Radiation, Report and 
Order, ET Docket No. 93-62, 11 FCC Rcd 15123 (1996), recon. 
granted in part, First Memorandum Opinion and Order, 11 FCC Rcd 
17512 (1996), recon. granted in part, Second Memorandum Opinion 
and Order and Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 12 FCC Rcd 13494 
(1997) (``Guidelines'').

247 U.S.C.  503(b).

3All broadcast licensees were required to come into compliance 
with RFR MPE limits as of September 1, 2000 or file an 
Environmental Assessment.  See Guidelines, Second Memorandum 
Opinion and Order and Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 12 FCC Rcd 
at 13540; 47 C.F.R.  1.1307(b)(5).  In addition, all broadcast 
licensees must demonstrate compliance with the RFR MPE limits, or 
file an Environmental Assessment and undergo environmental review 
by Commission staff, when filing for an initial construction 
permit, license, renewal or modification of an existing license.  
See Guidelines, Second Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of 
Proposed Rulemaking, 12 FCC Rcd at 13538; 47 C.F.R.  1.1307(b).
4Another station's transmitter was found to produce power density 
levels that exceeded 5% of the power density exposure limit 
applicable to its particular transmitter.  This station is also 
responsible for ensuring the penthouse rooftop's compliance with 
the RFR limits.  See 47 C.F.R.  1.1307(b)(3).

5Although the agents stood in the same general area on the 
penthouse rooftop, the measurements taken on May 25, June 18, 
July 1 and July 16 differed slightly because the measuring spots 
were not exactly identical. 

6See 47 C.F.R.  1.1310, Table 1.

7See 47 C.F.R.  1.1307(b), 1.1307(b)(1), 1.1310.

8The general population or public exposure limits apply in 
situations in which the general public may be exposed, or in 
which persons that are exposed as a consequence of their 
employment may not be fully aware of the potential for exposure 
or cannot exercise control over their exposure.  See 47 C.F.R.  
1.1310, Note 2 to Table 1.

9The occupational exposure limits apply in situations in which 
persons are exposed as a consequence of their employment provided 
those persons are fully aware of the potential for exposure and 
can exercise control over their exposure.  The limits of 
occupational exposure also apply in situations where an 
individual is transient through a location where the occupational 
limits apply, provided that he or she is made aware of the 
potential for exposure.  See 47 C.F.R.  1.1310, Note 1 to Table 
1.

1047 C.F.R.  1.1307(b)(1), 1.1307(b)(5), 1.1310.  Additional 
guidance is provided in Office of Engineering and Technology, 
Evaluating Compliance with FCC Guidelines for Human Exposure to 
Radiofrequency Electromagnetic Fields (1997) (``OET Bulletin 
65'').

11See Americom Las Vegas Limited Partnership, 19 FCC Rcd 9643 
(Enf. Bur. 2004).

1247 C.F.R.  1.1310, Note 2 to Table 1.

13See id.  See also A-O Broadcasting Corporation, 17 FCC Rcd 
24184 (2002). 

14Section 312(f)(1) of the Act, 47 U.S.C.  312(f)(1), which 
applies to violations for which forfeitures are assessed under 
Section 503(b) of the Act, provides that ``[t]he term `willful', 
when used with reference to the commission or omission of any 
act, means the conscious and deliberate commission or omission of 
such act, irrespective of any intent to violate any provision of 
this Act . . . .''  See Southern California Broadcasting Co., 6 
FCC Rcd 4387-88 (1991).

15The 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.''  47 U.S.C.  
312(f)(2).

16Forfeiture Policy Statement and Amendment of Section 1.80(b) of 
the Rules to Incorporate the Forfeiture Guidelines, 12 FCC Rcd 
17087 (1997), recon denied, 15 FCC Rcd 303 (1999).

17The fact that the Forfeiture Policy Statement does not specify 
a base amount does not indicate that no forfeiture should be 
imposed.  The Forfeiture Policy Statement states that ``... any 
omission of a specific rule violation from the ... [forfeiture 
guidelines] ... should not signal that the Commission considers 
any unlisted violation as nonexistent or unimportant.  Forfeiture 
Policy Statement, 12 FCC Rcd at 17099.  The Commission retains 
the discretion, moreover, to depart from the Forfeiture Policy 
Statement and issue forfeitures on a case?by?case basis, under 
its general forfeiture authority contained in Section 503 of the 
Act.  Id.

18A-O Broadcasting Corporation, 17 FCC Rcd 24184 (2002).

1947 U.S.C.  503(b)(2)(D).

20See, e.g., AT&T Wireless Services, Inc., 17 FCC Rcd 21866 
(2002) (base forfeiture amount tripled); American Tower 
Corporation, 16 FCC Rcd 1282 (2002) (base forfeiture amount 
doubled).
2147 U.S.C.  503(b).

2247 C.F.R.  0.111, 0.311, 1.80 and 1.1310.

23See 47 C.F.R.  1.1914.