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                 )
                                 )
Infinity Broadcasting            )           File No. EB-04-TP-478
Corporation of Florida           )
                                 )      NAL/Acct. No. 200532700005
Licensee of Station WQYK-FM      )
Tampa, Florida                   )                  FRN 0004036711
Facility ID # 28619

                                

           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 Infinity Broadcasting Corporation of 
Florida (``Infinity''), licensee of station WQYK-FM, 99.5 MHz, 
serving St. Petersburg, 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 Infinity is apparently liable 
for forfeiture in the amount of twenty thousand dollars 
($20,000).                         

II.  BACKGROUND

     2.   Infinity, licensee of station WQYK-FM, certified 
compliance with the RFR MPE limits in its renewal application for 
a licensed facility granted January 29, 2004.3  The application 
contained an RFR exhibit for their location at the Park Tower 
Office Building at 400 North Tampa Street, Tampa, Florida.  The 
exhibit stated that areas on the penthouse rooftop where the 
station is located exceed the Commission's MPE limits for 
controlled environments and that the areas are clearly identified 
and marked.  The exhibit also stated that a plan is in effect and 
understood by all licensees at the antenna site to protect 
workers accessing the penthouse roof.  Finally, the exhibit 
stated that access to the transmitting site is restricted and 
properly marked with warning signs and thereby classified as a 
controlled environment. 

     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 agent 
determined that there was a second UHF-TV and two FM radio 
stations, one of which belonged to station WQYK-FM, 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, agents again took measurements on the 
penthouse rooftop of the Park Tower Office Building.  When all 
four stations were on the air, the RFR fields within an 8-10 foot 
radius around station WVEA-LP's tower measured 1,865% of the 
general population limit or 373% of the occupational limit.

     6.   On July 15, 2004, an agent spoke with the engineer for 
station WQYK-FM to set up a meeting to conduct an RFR inspection 
at the transmitter site.  The station engineer stated he knew of 
areas on the penthouse rooftop that exceeded the occupational 
limits and that station WQYK-FM was contributing more than 5% to 
those fields.  

     7.   On July 16, 2004, agents conducted measurements with 
the four licensees located on the penthouse rooftop of the Park 
Tower Office Building.  When all four stations were on the air, 
the average field for the area within an 8-10 foot radius around 
station WVEA-LP's tower was 1,950% of the general population 
limit or 390% of the occupational limit.4  With station WVEA-LP 
off the air, the new baseline measurements were 100% of the 
general population limit or 20% of the occupational limit.5  
After station WQYK-FM was taken off the air, the readings dropped 
from 20% of the occupational limit to 5.76%, which means station 
WQYK-FM was causing 71.2% of the general population limit, 14.24% 
of the occupational limit, or 0.1424 mW/cm2.  Before leaving, the 
agent told the station WQYK-FM engineer of his station's 
contribution.  Although station WVEA-LP had marked the areas on 
the penthouse rooftop that exceeded the occupational limit with 
yellow paint and placed a framed warning signed in the stairwell, 
the engineer for station WQYK-FM was warned that the area was 
still not properly marked.  The agents also suggested that the 
station WQYK-FM engineer speak with the building's chief engineer 
to see what else needed to be done to give the workers knowledge 
and control over their exposure.  The agents again explained to 
the station WQYK-FM engineer the RFR requirements. 

     8.   On July 20, 2004, an agent contacted the station WQYK-
FM engineer to discuss the July 16th inspection.  The station 
engineer had not posted any warning signs on the penthouse 
rooftop and had not contacted the building's engineer.  The agent 
reminded the station engineer of the station's responsibility to 
comply with the Commission's RFR requirements.  

     9.   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 16 and 20.  
The building's chief engineer stated the station WQYK-FM engineer 
spoke to him briefly about the high fields on the penthouse roof, 
but had not discussed any policy to limit rooftop access only to 
those with RFR training.  

     10.  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.  Station WVEA-LP 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.  

     11.  On October 26, 2004, the building's chief engineer 
stated that Infinity 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 limit.  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 limit.

III.                                    DISCUSSION

     12.  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  
Further, the Commission's Rules require that if the MPE limits 
are exceeded in an accessible area due to the emissions of 
multiple transmitters, actions necessary to bring the area into 
compliance ``are the shared responsibility of all licensees whose 
transmitters produce, at the area in question, power density 
levels that exceed 5% of the power density exposure limit 
applicable to their particular transmitter.''7  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.''8  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 30-300 MHz is 0.2 mW/cm2.9  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 30 MHz to 300 MHz is 1 mW/cm2.10  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.11  

     13.  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.12  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.''13  Therefore, even though access was controlled 
by locks, the penthouse rooftop was subject to the Commission's 
general population limits.14  

     14.   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 Infinity's transmitter for station WQYK-FM 
produced power density levels that were as much as 71.2% of its 
general population limit.  Accordingly, Infinity was responsible 
for ensuring compliance with the RFR Rules.  Infinity, 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.  Infinity 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.  Infinity contributed more than 5% to 
areas that exceeded the general population limit and failed to 
provide workers knowledge of and control over their exposure.       

     15.  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 8-10 
foot area around station WVEA-LP's tower measured 390% of the 
occupational/controlled RFR MPE limit.  Agents determined that 
Infinity's transmitter produced power density levels that were 
14.24% of its occupational/controlled RFR MPE limit in this area.  
As detailed above, however, Infinity did not post any warning 
signs regarding the occupational limits on the penthouse rooftop 
and did not provide any RF training to the building's workers.  
Infinity contributed more than 5% to an area that exceeded the 
occupational limit and failed to provide workers knowledge of and 
control over their exposure.    

     16.  It is the unique intention of Section 1.1310 of the 
Rules that the contribution of one station alone may not violate 
the rule, while that station, when joined by the RF contribution 
of other stations whose total RFR contributions exceed the MPE 
limits, may find itself in violation.  Consequently, we require 
licensees to work together to ensure compliance.  As Infinity 
contributed over 5% of the total RFR exceeding the general 
population and occupational MPE limits, it is equally responsible 
for bringing the area into compliance, according to Section 
1.1307 of our Rules.15  Based on the evidence, we find that 
Infinity produced power density levels more than 5% of its 
general population and occupational limits and failed to bring 
the areas into compliance in apparent willful and repeated 
violation of Section 1.1310 of the Rules.

     17.   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  

     18.  We are troubled with Infinity'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.  Infinity's station engineer admitted that 
he was aware that areas exceeded the general population and 
occupational limits and that station WQYK-FM was a contributor in 
these areas, 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.  Even though another licensee 
painted the areas exceeding the occupational level with yellow 
lines, Infinity did not post an obvious warning sign in the 
affected areas or warn the building's chief engineer in a timely 
manner after receiving oral warnings on July 16 and July 20, 
2004.  Infinity failed to correct these violations even though it 
was aware of the RFR requirements.  In its application granted 
January 29, 2004, Infinity certified that it was compliant with 
the RFR Rules.  Moreover, it specifically asserted in an exhibit 
to its application that the transmitting site was ``clearly 
identified and marked'' and that a plan was in effect and 
understood by all licensees at the site to protect workers on the 
penthouse roof.  We also note that a company affiliated with 
Infinity recently violated Section 1.1310 of the Rules.20  
Accordingly, we believe a significant upward adjustment of the 
base forfeiture amount is warranted, even though Infinity has 
since come into compliance.21  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 Infinity's apparent violations.  Therefore, 
we find Infinity apparently liable for a forfeiture in the amount 
of $20,000.  

IV.        ORDERING CLAUSES

     19.  Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Section 
503(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended,22 and 
Sections 0.111, 0.311, and 1.80 of the Commission's Rules,23 
Infinity Broadcasting of Florida, licensee of station WQYK-FM, is 
hereby NOTIFIED of this APPARENT LIABILITY FOR A FORFEITURE in 
the amount of twenty thousand dollars ($20,000) 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.

     20.  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, Infinity 
Broadcasting of Florida SHALL PAY the full amount of the proposed 
forfeiture or SHALL FILE a written statement seeking reduction or 
cancellation of the proposed forfeiture.

     21.  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. 200532700005, and FRN 0004036711.  
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. 
20554.24

     22.  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.  

     23.  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.

     24.  IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this NAL shall be 
sent by Certified Mail, Return Receipt Requested, and regular 
mail, to Infinity Broadcasting Corporation of Florida, Suite 725, 
2000 K Street, NW, Washington, DC 20006-1809.



                                FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS 
COMMISSION




                                Ralph Barlow
                                District Director
                                Tampa Office           
                                Enforcement Bureau


cc:  WQYK-FM

_________________________

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).
4Although 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.

5On July 16, Station WVEA-LP solely caused 1,850% of the general 
population limit, 370% of the occupational limit, or 8.2 mw/cm2.  
Station WVEA-LP is also responsible for ensuring the penthouse 
rooftop's compliance with the RFR limits.  See 47 C.F.R.  
1.1307(b)(3), 1.1310. 

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

7Guidelines, Second Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of 
Proposed Rulemaking, 12 FCC Rcd at 13520-21, 13524; 47 C.F.R.  
1.1307(b)(3).  Power density is equal to the square of the 
electric field strength divided by the characteristic impedance 
of free space (377 ohms).  Similarly, power density is equal to 
the square of the magnetic field strength times the 
characteristic impedance of free space.  The power density is 
expressed in milliwatts per square centimeter.  Guidelines, 
Second Memorandum Opinion and Order and Notice of Proposed 
Rulemaking, 12 FCC Rcd at n.74.  See also Radio One Licenses, 
LLC, Licensee of FM Radio Station KKBT et al, Forfeiture Order, 
FCC 04-281 (rel. Dec. 10, 2004).

8See 47 C.F.R.  1.1307(b), 1.1307(b)(1), 1.1310.

9The 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.

10The 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.

1147 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'').

12See Americom Las Vegas Limited Partnership, 19 FCC Rcd 9643 
(Enf. Bur. 2004).

1347 C.F.R.  1.1310, Note 2 to Table 1.

14See id.  See also A-O Broadcasting Corporation, 17 FCC Rcd 
24184 (2002). 

15See 47 C.F.R.  1.1307(b)(3).

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 Radio One Licenses, LLC, Licensee of FM Radio Station KKBT 
et al, Forfeiture Order, FCC 04-281 (rel. Dec. 10, 2004).

21See, 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).

2247 U.S.C.  503(b).

2347 C.F.R.  0.111, 0.311, 1.80 and 1.1310.

24See 47 C.F.R.  1.1914.